CC 2005 01 10
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 10,2005
Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. The meeting was opened
with the Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilman Peterson,
Councilman Lundquist, Councilwoman Tjornhom, and Councilman Labatt
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Roger Knutson, Justin Miller, Kate Aanenson, Paul
Oehme, Todd Hoffman, Lori Haak, Matt Saam, and Kelley Janes
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
Janet Paulsen
Debbie Lloyd
Nick Wynn
Michelle Perks
Danielle Buker
Brenda Haggerty
Melissa Gilman
VIi Sacchet
7305 Laredo Drive
7302 Laredo Drive
8780 C.R. 10E, Waconia
1019 Sugarbush Lane, Waconia
514 Laredo Lane
6980 Redwing Lane
Chanhassen Villager
Planning Commission
OA THS OF OFFICE: Roger Knutson administered the Oaths of Office to Mayor Tom
Furlong, Councilman Craig Peterson and Councilwoman Bethany Tjornhom.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you everyone. Councilwoman Tjornhom, Councilman Peterson,
any quick comments? No?
Councilman Peterson: You can make comments for us Mayor.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Well, I will do that then. I'd like to thank the residents of
Chanhassen for their support for all 5 of us that are up here today, giving us the
opportunity to represent them and to make the best decisions we can for the City of
Chanhassen. This is an honor. It's a privilege to sit in one of these chairs, and I know I
speak for the rest of the council that we're very grateful for that opportunity and will
continue to look to serve your interests, so we appreciate your support. Always
appreciate your thoughts and comments on what's best for our city because what we're
trying to do is represent all of you as best we can. So we thank you sincerely for the
opportunity to serve. I'd like to move on with our agenda this evening. I believe we
have copies for the agendas, of the agendas at the table there. People in attendance are
interested in seeing those. So if they see when their item is coming forward.
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
ORGANIZA TIONAL ITEMS:
Mayor Furlong: As this is the first meeting of this council we have some organizational
issues that we need to attend to. The first of which is designating an official newspaper.
Information was provided in the council packets with regard to the requirements for
designation of the official newspaper as well as the newspapers that submitted
applications for that position. Is there a motion? Or discussion.
Councilman Lundquist: Motion to approve Chanhassen Villager.
Councilman Peterson: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Is there any discussion on that motion?
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to designate the
Chanhassen Villager as the official newspaper for the City of Chanhassen. All voted
in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to O.
Mayor Furlong: Next item is designating an acting mayor. This is the member that will
serve, stand in at ceremonies and execute the official duties of the mayor ifI'm unable to
do so. Is there a nomination for acting mayor.
Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Mayor I'd like to nominate Craig Peterson.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion?
Councilman Peterson: You going to plan on leaving this year at all or not so I could
maybe run a meeting.
Mayor Furlong: I make no promises. You didn't get to run one meeting did you? Last 2
years. Very good. Is there any other nominations or discussion?
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to appoint
Councilman Peterson as Acting Mayor. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously with a vote of 5 to O.
Mayor Furlong: Motion prevails. Congratulations. Maybe I'll give you an item on one
meeting sometime.
Councilman Peterson: I'll look forward to that.
2
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Fire Chief. Typically we appoint a fire chief. Chief Geske was
nominated for a 2 year term and so that is not necessary at this time, is that correct? As
we appointed him, we don't have to do that.
Todd Gerhardt: No action is required.
Mayor Furlong: No action's required, thank you. Appointment to the Southwest Metro
Transit Commission. This a City of Chanhassen along with the cities of Chaska and
Eden Prairie serve, have representatives on this commission. Typically there's one
council member as well as a resident. That's the practice that the City of Chanhassen has
followed. Councilman Craig Peterson's term, 3 year term has expired. Recently expired
and so we need to appoint a new member. We do have in Vicky Ernst a resident that's
already serving on that commission for our city. So at this point I would ask if there is a
motion to nominate someone. Mr. Peterson, are you interested in continuing to serve?
Councilman Peterson: Yeah, I'd be happy to.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Councilman Labatt: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any other discussion?
Mayor Furlong moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to appoint Councilman
Peterson as the Chanhassen council member to the Southwest Metro Transit
Commission. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of
5 to O.
Mayor Furlong: That motion also prevails. New appointment this year. District 276,
Minnetonka High School's Community Education Board has requested that the City
designate a representative to the advisory council, which is a council that will advise the
superintendent and the school board on matters relating to the community education for
District 276. At this point I'd entertain a motion for that representative.
Councilman Lundquist: Does anybody live in 276?
Mayor Furlong: Councilman Labatt, are you interested?
Councilman Labatt: Yeah.
Mayor Furlong: Are you interested in fulfilling that Councilman Labatt?
Councilman Labatt: Sure.
Mayor Furlong: Is there a motion?
3
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
Councilman Lundquist: I would nominate Councilman Labatt.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilman Peterson: Second.
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to appoint
Councilman Labatt as the representative from Chanhassen to School District 276
Community Education Board. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously with a vote of 5 to O.
Mayor Furlong: I believe that completes our organizational items. Is that correct?
Todd Gerhardt: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: Very good. Thank you everyone.
Councilman Labatt: No more weed inspector duty for you?
Mayor Furlong: You know that comes with the title so I believe something tomorrow
designating that.
Councilman Lundquist: It's inherent in the oath of office.
Mayor Furlong: You didn't hear that part.
Councilman Labatt: I just want to make sure you're still on that Tom.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Lundquist
seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City
Manager's recommendations:
a. Approval of Minutes:
-City Council Work Session Minutes dated December 13, 2004
-City Council Summary & Verbatim Minutes dated December 13, 2004
Receive Commission Minutes:
-Planning Commission Summary & Verbatim Minutes dated December 7,2004
b. Approval of Ordinance Amendment Regarding Sewer & Water Fees.
c. Approval of Temporary On-Sale Liquor License, February Festival, Chanhassen
Lions Club.
d. Resolution #2005-01: Accept Utility Improvements in Highlands at Bluff Creek,
Project 04-12.
4
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
e. Resolution #2005-02: Accept Utility Improvements in Stone Creek Town
Offices, Project 04-11.
f. Resolution #2005-03: Accept Utility Improvements in Arboretum Shopping
Center, Project 03-06.
g. Resolution #2005-04: Authorize Preparation of Plans & Specifications for 2005
Sealcoat, Project 05-02.
h. Resolution #2005-05: Authorize Preparation of Feasibility Report for Trunk
Watermain Connection from West 86th Street to Lakeview Drive East, Project 04-
18.
1. Resolution #2005-06: Final Plat Approval, Lotus View Addition, Planning Case
04-23.
J. Resolution #2005-07: Accept Quote from Traut Wells for Well #10 Test Well in
Conjunction with the Water Treatment Plant.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to O.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None.
PUBLIC HEARING: PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDER PREP ARA TION OF
PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS FOR 2005 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
05-01.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Patrick Johnson
Phil Thiesse
Al Finstad
Mike Wannar
Scott Eiman
Elizabeth Glaccum
Bob Kendall
Mark Williams
Elry & Bill Cleary
John 1.
1730 Lake Lucy Lane
1675 Steller Court
1701 Steller Court
1180 Lake Lucy Road
1206 Lake Lucy Road
1510 Lake Lucy Road
1645 Lake Lucy Road
1655 Lake Lucy Road
1670 Lake Lucy Road
1050 Homestead Lane
Paul Oehme: Thank you Mayor, city council members. Tonight I bring before you for
your consideration the 2005 street improvement project. The action requested tonight is
to hold a public hearing, approve the feasibility study and order the preparation of the
5
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
plans and the specs for this project. This year 12 streets have been selected for
improvements. The streets selected were identified through the pavement management
program or visually inspected as well. These streets are located in three main areas of the
city as shown on this drawing. The three main areas again are the Lake Lucy Road area,
Chan View area and Pioneer Trail area. I'd like to talk about each of those areas in more
specifically but a little background. A public informational meeting was held at City Hall
on November 1 ih for residents in the Lake Lucy utility improvement areas and on
December 1 st for all property owners in the improvement areas. These meetings gave the
residents an opportunity to discuss with staff the proposed street improvements... as well.
Ballots were also sent out for property owners on the Lake Lucy Road and Steller Court
area to identify the interest level of proposed utility improvements and rezoning of large
lot properties to low density residential. In all there were approximately 142 notices that
were sent out for tonight's public hearing. The Pioneer Trail area, I'd like to talk about
that just a little bit. It's shown on here on this drawing and again it's, most all the
property, or all the improvements are along Pioneer Trail. 101 currently sits at this
location for frame of reference. The homes proposed for, or the roads proposed for
improvements are along Homestead Lane, which is located here. Flintlock Trail,
Pineview Court, Foxford Road, Eastwood Court, Meadowlark Lane and Deerbrook
Drive. Pavement rehabilitation proposed is to include a inch and a half mill, just for the
edges, and repair the stress pavement areas as well. 2 inch deep or thick overlay's
proposed for the roadways to re-establishment the crown of the roadway as well. This
will allow the water to flow off the roadway better and into the existing ditch systems.
An alternate bid for re-grading and paving the roadway will also be included in this
project and that's for a mill, mill the pavement. Let's see, however due to the severity of
the stresses in the Deerbrook Drive area, we're not proposed to have an alternate bid for
the Deerbrook Drive area. We're proposing to have a full depth mill for that area and
then pave that specific roadway back 3 1Iz inches. The assessments for this area and
funding are proposed, are shown on this sheet, consistent with the past practices of the
city we're assessing 40 percent of the improvements back to the property owners.
Homestead Lane, Flintlock Trail area is proposed at a rate of$2,433.99. Pineview Court,
Foxford Road, Eastwood Court, $2,404.03. Deerbrook Drive area, $1,902.53.
Meadowlark area, $1,838.20, and that is per parcel or per property and that assessment
would be over an 8 year period at 6% interest. The improvements on, in the Chan View
area are shown here and specifically the improvements on Chan View from Market
Boulevard to Laredo Drive and on Market Boulevard from West 78th Street to Chan
View. These improvements are, would be consist of repairing the concrete curb and
gutter that has damaged that's out there. Pavement rehabilitation would include a inch
and a half mill of existing bituminous on the edges and repairing the stress pavement
areas. A 2 inch deep overlay of the entire roadway will be performed to provide a more
defined crown again for the roadway. In addition the storm sewer is proposed to be
extended on Market Boulevard to service, to drain a portion of the City Hall northeast
parking lot as well. Assessments again are consistent with what the City has proposed in
the past. On Chan View, under this project we are proposing an assessment of a front
footage basis just based upon the size and the shapes of the property owner's properties
that are out here and that assessment rate is at $16.45 per linear foot, and that assessment
again is over an 8 year period at 6% interest. The Lake Lucy Road area is also proposed
6
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
for rehabilitation. That's shown on this sheet. Those improvements are, and Lake Lucy
Road specifically is from Galpin Boulevard to Powers Boulevard. Steller Court is also
proposed for improvements at this time and Charing Bend as well. Lake Lucy Road is
currently a 36 foot wide roadway collector street with bituminous curb and on street bike
lanes. Proposed street improvements include narrowing the roadway down to 32 feet,
replacing the bituminous curb with concrete and gutter. The narrowing of the roadway is
anticipated to cause a traffic calming effect. Safety, also safety improvements will, were
included on Lake Lucy Road. We're anticipating where we would like to put a right turn
lane in on Lake Lucy Road. On Powers Boulevard as well so the pavement rehabilitation
will include an inch and a half deep mill, edge mill again, consistent with the other
projects and replacement of distressed pavement areas. The overlay of the roadway
would be performed to, would be re-graded again to establish a crown in the roadway.
These improvements will increase the overall pavement strength of the roadway. The
roadway will be narrowed on the north side of the road. Again we're narrowing it down
from 36 to 32 and just taking the north half of the roadway thus requiring new catch
basins on the north side and adding new storm sewer crossings and basins as well. A 10
foot wide bituminous trail is also included in this project along the corridor. This will
help alleviate safety concerns with traffic and pedestrian conflicts in this area. The
bituminous trail is proposed to be constructed on the north side of the roadway, since
we're narrowing the roadway down on the north side. The trail is proposed on the north
side just because of the demographics. There's more properties on the north side. We
would anticipate to use that trail. We also identified some steep grades on the south side
of the roadway that would impact the trail. Some of the driveways on the south side are
extremely steep as well. Not to say that there's driveways on the north side that aren't
steep, but we think we can mitigate those issues. And then also there's some wetlands
here that we'll anticipate being in conflict with the trail as well, so. There's an existing
limestone retaining wall just west of Yosemite that we are not anticipating needing to be
reconstructed or removed in conjunction with this project. The trail would basically
facilitate or be built adjacent to that wall. Steller Court, talk about that a little bit. Has
deteriorated, the bituminous curb and surfaces in need of an overlay at this time. Charing
Bend is recommended also for a mill and overlay and that is a 2 inch overlay on Charing
Bend. Staff has also looked at extending sewer and water to the properties in this area.
They currently do not have service septic systems in this area are aging and some septic
systems are in need of replacement now. To get a better understanding of the residents
along Lake Lucy Road, we're interested in the utility extension and subdividing, staff met
with the property owners on November 1 ih and a ballot was sent out to these property
owners. The survey results were as follows. 20, excuse me. Property owners were
balloted for subdividing or rezoning and we received 19 ballots back. The results of the
ballots were 8 in favor and 12 against and we did count the one ballot that we did not
receive as a no vote. The number of residents that were balloted for sewer improvements
was 18 and we received 9 votes in favor and 8 votes against. The number of residents
balloted for water were 14 and the property owners that were in favor of that were 4 and
10 were against that as well. Only the properties that abutted the improvement area were
balloted for sewer and water, and based on the fact that now is the best time to extend
utilities in this area, in conjunction with the roadway projects, staff is proposing that
sewer and water be extended at this time. With the extension of the sewer and water the
7
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
city will be better prepared for in the inevitable time that the septic systems fail. Ballots
summaries include also the Steller Court properties as well. Steller Court is proposed to
be serviced with both sewer and water that do not already have the sewer and water.
Utility project is only proposed to be stubbed to the property lines as well so the property
owner would be responsible for a hook-up charges yet and the service extension to their
house. The proposed improvements for water extension are shown in this drawing here.
3 on Lake Lucy Road and then 4 on Steller Court. The sewer extension is virtually
everybody in the project area that does not have sewer and water. The cost for narrowing
the roadway on Lake Lucy Drive and the over sizing of the street basically from a
collector roadway to, down to a residential roadway, the storm sewer improvements, the
bituminous trail, these all are proposed to be funded at 100 percent by the city and not by
the property owners. Lake Lucy Road and Steller Court assessments will be made, or
proposed to be made to only the properties that have direct access to either Steller Court
or Lake Lucy Road. Charing Bend is a cul-de-sac and already has concrete curb and
gutter, so assessments have been adjusted appropriately for those residents. All the other
street improvements assessment cost to Charing Bend are the same for Lake Lucy Road
and Steller Court. These assessments are proposed to be assessed over an 8 year period
again at 6% interest. The cost associated with the utility improvements are proposed to
be assessed at 100 percent to the benefiting property owners. The utility assessments are
proposed to be assessed over a 15 year period and again at 6% interest. For the property
owners that do not want sanitary sewer or water extension at this time, their assessments
are proposed to be deferred for a period of 10 years with an interest rate of 6% or until
their septic's fail, whichever comes first. The assessments methodology used is a per lot
basis and is consistent with past practices for other residential streets. Even though Lake
Lucy Road is a collector roadway, the assessment rates are based on the cost consistent
with other residential street improvements. The City will be paying again for the over
sizing of collector roadway and the paving section. So the assessments proposed for
Lake Lucy Road are for Lake Lucy Road street improvements and the Steller Court are
estimated right now at $2,892.42. For Charing Bend assessments, the cul-de-sac is
$1,627.42. Sewer stub assessments for all the property owners on Steller Court and Lake
Lucy Road are estimated right now at $28,111. 61. Water stub on Steller Court, those
assessments are estimated $8,694 and water stub assessments to Lake Lucy Road are
estimated at $3,779.53. Staff has also included in the project, pavement improvements
the City Hall parking lot. The east parking lot are recommended for rehabilitation at this
time. The condition of the existing pavement located on the northeast parking lot, that's
the upper parking lot, has a significant amount of black cracking surface. Black cracking
pavement distress in the north lot is due primarily to the fact that there is no storm sewer
system in the lot itself right now. The water drains across the lot through a swale located
in the center of the lot. The watershed from the elementary school on top of the hill drains
onto the north parking lot, into the swale. The drainage pattern has caused significant
amount of ice during the wintertime and that forms on the lot and has become a hazard at
times to the city employees and to the public. There are also areas of crack and settled
concrete curb and gutter on the north lot that should be replaced. The south parking lot
has a significant amount of construction, or had a significant amount of construction
traffic from the recent park improvements and the library project. This has caused some
additional pavement distresses that we would like to take care of as well. The proposed
8
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
improvements will include a inch and a half deep mill and overlay of the pavement on the
south and the north parking lots. The storm sewer will be extended to the playfields to
minimize runoff onto the parking lot. Catch the water before it enters, gets onto the
parking lot, and catch basins will be added to capture the water that would otherwise flow
onto the pavement and onto, into Market Boulevard right now. Curb and gutter will also
be replaced at this time. Also the condition of the existing pavement located on the fire
station, just over here on Chan View parking lot is experiencing a significant amount of
black cracking, alligator cracking or rutting over the driveway on the east garage portion
of the parking lot. Most of the pavement failures are due to the extreme loading of the
fire trucks on the pavement. The concrete driveway apron right by the garage too is also
cracking and has settled. The proposed improvements include replacing approximately
1,000 square feet of bituminous pavement with concrete, basically a concrete apron in the
area for the fire trucks to drive on. Facing the alligator pavement areas and the driveway
apron and then also an inch and a half overlay over the parking lot itself. Also, as part of
the project staff has proposed to include $50,000 worth of spot trail overlays in this
project. Staff has also included $15,000 worth of additional spot curb and gutter repairs
throughout the city basically on our city streets. These are costs that typically we have
quoted out in the past separately. As separate projects. Not in larger projects. By adding
these items into larger projects it is anticipated the City will obtain better prices than just
quoting the projects out by themselves. So the funding for the projects are proposed from
several sources, and as shown here on this sheet. And as allocated in the 2005 Capital
Improvement Program. Again we're anticipating, our proposal is to assess 100 percent of
the sewer costs to the Lake Lucy benefiting properties and that amount is $506,011. The
water main assessment for the Steller Court and the Lake Lucy areas is $46,115. Street
assessments for the entire project areas, assessment back to the benefiting property
owners is $402,788. The ad velorem debt is... and bonding for it is $395,930. We are
also anticipating using some our state aid. Municipal state aid funds. Basically our gas
tax money that we receive every year in the amount of $644,535 for this project. Storm
sewer utility funds would also be used in the amount of $50,365. Capital improvement
fund, and that's for the parking lots at City Hall here and at the fire station, that's in the
amount of$130,725. And the pavement management fund, which is, we're looking at
using $65,000 from that fund and that's again for the trail improvements and the spot
curb and gutter replacement that we like to use throughout the city. Again the
assessments proposed is consistent with the past projects and council direction and are
consistent with past assessment methodologies. Total amount for this project, as
discussed, is estimated at $2,241,469. If this project moves forward, the proposed
schedule is shown here. Where we would order the project in January. Anticipate
opening the bids in March or April. And assessment hearing in May. Starting
construction in Mayas well, and then substantial completion by September. Staff
recommends that a public hearing be open at this time for the 2005 street improvement
project and I stand for questions.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any questions for staff at this time? No? Okay.
Thank you. We will open the public hearing. What I'd like to do, since we have
different projects, different parts of the city and the scopes of those projects are different,
from an organization standpoint take them by project area, one at a time and as we get
9
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
into it, ask people to come up by their street address just to make sure that everybody gets
a chance to be heard and we're getting information consistent at the same time.
Depending on the nature of the public hearing, we may ask staff to provide comments at
this time or respond to those questions as well. At this point, unless there's any
objection, we'll go ahead and start with the Lake Lucy Road area projects. This would be
for the project that includes residents on Lake Lucy Road, Steller Court and Charing
Bend. So at this time I'll open up the public hearing and ask anyone with a Charing Bend
street address, if they'd like to come forward now and speak on the proposed project and
assessment. And again, just to back up. What we're being asked to do tonight as a
council is to say are these projects that we want to do. Is there justification for doing
these projects and do we want to authorize the engineering work to be done on it and
solicit bids. We're not necessarily approving the project this evening, is that?
Todd Gerhardt: That is correct. And also to include direction to staff on the scope that
you'd like to research and bring that information back to you during the final assessment
hearing.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. To the extent that there are assessments in the future, that there
will be a separate public hearing for that, at that time as well.
Todd Gerhardt: That is correct.
Mayor Furlong: So right now what we're focusing on, are these projects that we want to
do as a city and as a proposed funding, including the assessments and city project,
reasonable and make sense so. Again, I would invite any resident from Charing Bend to
come forward at this time and address the council. If there's no one from there, move to
Steller Court. And then we'll move to Lake Lucy Road.
Pat Johnson: Good evening Mr. Mayor and council people. My name is Pat Johnson and
I reside at 1730 Lake Lucy Road and we have a number of matters that Mr. Oehme
presented. I want to say first of all that we kind of went through this process about 3
years ago with the roads and many of us were upset about the way we were treated I
guess by staff. That was a different administration. Different staff. I must say Mr.
Oehme and his staff have treated us very well. Answered our questions. Did a very nice
job of presenting options to us as neighbors. Convinced me, I think we were torn because
it's a pretty high cost for us. When we're talking about $28,000 plus for a sewer project,
but I think he convinced me at least, if not my wife, that this is something we're going to
have to do eventually. What I like about it is the fact that we're given an option of 10
year delay. Essentially at the end of 10 years, as I understand it, we have to hook up, but
prior to that time we can just the interest. That's a great option for those of us, like
myself and some of my neighbors who have kids in college and hopefully in 10 years
they'll be out of college and we can pay those things. So those are my comments about
the sewer. I think that as much as all of us don't want to see that cost, at some point in
time the road being ripped up. It's not going to be ripped up again for at least 15 years, at
some point in time the septic systems are going to fail and my concern is that perhaps the
10
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
State's going to make some of us change our systems anyway. So I think economically,
although I don't like the cost of it, economically I think it makes sense.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Anyone else from Lake Lucy Road?
Councilman Lundquist: Paul, can you put the map up please so we can.
Mayor Furlong: Good evening.
Scott Eiman: Good evening. I'm Scott Eiman. I live at 1206 Lake Lucy Road on the
north side, and as was mentioned before, we went through this. I think it was last year. It
wasn't? Seemed like it was just last year. But anyway, I don't think it's a good idea to
make any road skinnier at this day and time. I mean that's kind of down sizing and Lake
Lucy does take a lot of emergency vehicle traffic. It does. I mean we, that's their
shortcut to 7 and 41 from here in town and it's all the emergency vehicles. It's fire
department. Ambulances. And everything and I think if you make a road skinnier, it's
just not good. And that, on top of that I don't want a jogging path on my side of the road.
It just seems like there's so much more room on the south side of the road. And it just
doesn't make sense. I mean you know, whether they've got to cross the road with a
pedestrian path or something at some point, and do that twice, and maybe not disturb the
gutters and the sewers that are already there and the power that you'll have to move. The
trees. The telephone poles. Utilities that will have to be moved. Fire plugs or fire
hydrants. And I didn't receive any ballots on this project. I don't know. To vote on or
something.
Mayor Furlong: I think, correct me if I'm wrong. I think those were sent to the
properties that might receive an assessment for the sewer and the water only. They were
not sent to property owners outside of that area so if you didn't receive a, is that correct?
Todd Gerhardt: That is correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, so if you didn't receive a ballot it means that you're not in one of
the properties that might receive those sewer and water hook-ups.
Scott Eiman: Okay. And am I correct, is it 10 foot wide jogging path? That's what
they've got to be?
Paul Oehme: That's what we're planning to do.
Scott Eiman: Okay. How come so wide?
Todd Gerhardt: It's standard that the park department requires for people to ride bike,
walk two abreast. Todd Hoffman, our Park and Rec Director can probably give a little bit
more detail on that.
11
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
Todd Hoffman: Formerly that standard was 8 feet wide but with all the multi use and the
increased activity in the community, the new standard is 10 feet wide trail so all trails
built in the last 2 years have all gone to 10 feet wide. Previously it was 8 feet.
Scott Eiman: And the one on 101 there, that's not 10 feet wide?
Todd Hoffman: No.
Scott Eiman: And that was built, that was just last year.
Todd Gerhardt: Yeah the 101 trail, we didn't have the criteria set for that was to try to
stay within the existing right-of-way that was out there, so that trail may narrow down to
4 to 5 feet in some areas and go back out to 8 feet. So we were under some tight
constraints when that was constructed so it will vary throughout on that. But Todd, what
sections of trail have you built in the past 3 years that are 10 feet? 41.
Todd Hoffman: Highway 41. The Coulter Road on Coulter. Holiday Inn Express trail.
Todd Gerhardt: Paul, can you just help explain to everybody where this trail would sit.
Everybody knows where the existing curbs are right now. How far out would the trail go
from the existing curb on the north side of Lake Lucy?
Paul Oehme: We're anticipating to have a boulevard between the back of the concrete
curb and gutter to the edge of the new 10 foot wide trail so approximately 4 feet worth of,
4 to 5 feet worth of green space, sod inbetween the trail and the curb. However, there's
some instances where it's going to have to narrow up. Just due to the grades and
specifically right by the limestone retaining wall just west of Yosemite. That will, the
trail will have to be right in back of the curb at that particular location so the boulevard's
going to vary a little bit but we would like to maintain between 4 and 5 feet. Where the
separation is for safety sake and to maintain that green space.
Todd Gerhardt: And maybe be a little more specific. Existing curb today, if you were to
lay the trail where the existing curb is today, how far would the trail go behind the
existing curb?
Paul Oehme: Approximately 9 to 10 feet. We're narrowing the roadway down by
approximately 4 feet. We're trying to maintain a boulevard green space between there so
the trail right now would be approximately where the edge of the curb is currently.
Todd Gerhardt: Okay, thanks.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Scott Eiman: And the boulevard is for what reason? I mean do you have to have 4 and 5
feet of boulevard? Of green grass.
12
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
Paul Oehme: We like to try to maintain some separation between the pedestrian traffic
again and the traveling vehicular traffic, just to give it a little more buffer zone there. We
try to maintain between 4 and 5 feet just because sod's not going to grow if it' s only 2
feet wide basically. There's just not enough surface area. It burns out too quickly so we
try to maintain a wider separation.
Scott Eiman: And I'd like to know, being's as this, if this was to go through and say you
infringe, well not infringe but you come 10 feet towards my house, does that move the
easement 10 feet closer?
Todd Gerhardt: No. The way I understand it, this project would stay within the existing
right-of-way that the city has in there. I think that's where Paul was alluding to that we
would narrow the trail down in those areas where existing right-of-way didn't exist, or
you went up against an existing retaining wall.
Scott Eiman: Okay. And well, Todd you know too, you lived there. Our driveway is
pretty hard to get out of the way it is and for us to stop for a jogging path and then cross
that and stop again, getting out in the winter time can be pretty bad. I mean we have one
of those driveways where the grade is going down and until the city, somebody from the
city came and put a little bituminous curb, we used to just, our driveways washed out.
And if the jogging path is not going to be curb and gutter, then we're going to be taking
all that water on from Powers Boulevard down to our driveway and that's where it's
going to drain. I just, I don't know. I'm back to the making a road smaller is not a good
idea at any time.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Scott Eiman: Thank you. I guess that's it. Oh, I do have one other thing. There was
some residents that actually live off Lake Lucy on the roads that stem off. But the
jogging path would be going through their yard. Their side and they weren't notified of
this. They received no letters. And their property is adjacent to the north side of Lake
Lucy.
Todd Gerhardt: Okay. Maybe if we could get those names from you after the meeting
Scott, we'll try to contact them.
Scott Eiman: Okay, thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Mr. Oehme, do you want to comment a little bit. He raised
a question about the storm water runoff on some trails. What work will or has been done
or?
Paul Oehme: Yeah, absolutely. We'll, the anticipated construction would, we would put
a valley gutter basically or through his driveway to facilitate proper drainage along Lake
Lucy Road so, and plus that, the back of the curb, and his driveway will be built up to a
fashion that all the drainage along Lake Lucy Road will not drain into his property so I
13
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
would not anticipate, and we were not, there's, we would not allow for that situation to
happen.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. We're still discussing Lake Lucy Road project.
Anyone with the Lake Lucy Road address at this time. We'll open it up for general
comments after that but if we can just get these.
Bob Kendall: Good evening gentlemen, I'm Bob Kendall at 1645 Lake Lucy Road.
Pretty much for all the improvements. The sewer, as a real estate appraiser and owner of
a real estate appraising business I have some concerns with the fees that go along with it
that are substantial. How do you re-occur those values from $28,000 if you were going to
sell. If you're going to sell in the next 10 years, you'd have to pay the assessment off,
now that we're going to be moving or anything but. Other than that I can't really say no.
I am for the sewer project. If there's any ways that we could work with the pricing. It
seems like it's all very in schedule but $28,000 does seem, I mean you could almost put
two and a half septic systems in for the same price so. To the road project, I guess one of
the things that I'd have to say is one, is there going to be any more street lights on the
road or at least at Yosemite or some of the dark intersections that are going to be in there.
Yosemite, or actually not Yosemite but Lake Lucy Road and Lake Lucy Lane.
Todd Gerhardt: Paul, I don't believe we were recommending any street lights but that's
something we can look at to see if there's any deficient areas.
Bob Kendall: Okay. And then for the road, I guess for the Christmas display and for the
parking, if we can get another foot or so just for the parking. You know it's not
something that, one says not to narrow the road. One says you know I'm for narrowing
the road. I still like to get both parking spots on each side and I know it's over asking
what, you know to justify the road or how do you justify the curb to the path and I know
the curb and the path is, you know there's the telephone poles and the fire hydrants and
I'm sure that the path is going to run to adjoining that or adjacent to it so. Other than that,
and then also with the narrowing of the road and is there any way that, I know they've
been doing some studies on enforcement but is there any way to get that road down to 30
miles per hour. Because on my turn where it's coming through there, and then with all
the signage and everything that we do for the Christmas display again to come down and
slow down quite a bit in there but still in the summer time that corner becomes a 45 miles
an hour breeze through there and I have some concern about safety in there so, that's
about it. Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other residents Lake Lucy Road.
Mark Williams: Thank you. Mark Williams. 1655 Lake Lucy Road. I did submit an e-
mail, fairly detailed e-mail last Friday so I won't take a lot of time here but I know I'm
going to sound like a whiner here but I guess, I've done some studies in terms of traffic
on Lake Lucy Road. We've been through this before and I have to say this proposal
related to road assessments is a lot better than it was a couple years ago. Still something
doesn't sit quite right with me. When you look at a road where 40 percent of some cost is
14
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
being assessed to the homeowners who's driveways abut Lake Lucy Road, and my
estimate say that we use probably 5 percent or less of the road in terms of volume of
traffic on that road. Enough said. I know it's, I mean you guys have a previous policy in
which collector roads were, the cost of those maintenance and those was absorbed in
some sort of general maintenance budget. That maybe has changed in subsequent
projects but I guess maybe you understand my point. Secondly, related to the sewer
project. There's, somewhere somebody should go back and look at a City Council
meeting in about 1989 I believe. Somewhere during that period of time when they
discussed Lake Lucy Highlands and how it was going to be basically, at that point in time
it sounded like it was going to be by-passed in terms of sewer. Sewer hook-up. There's
some comments, it wasn't a formal proposal or anything but somewhere back in that
general time there's comments in some of your minutes of your meetings related to that.
I guess it seemed a little bit, the proposal to the residents, the ballot we had was, you
know do you want sewer? Do you want to change the large lot designation? Both of
them were sort of indecisive in terms of the numbers. There wasn't a profound shift one
way or another in terms of how people voted. And to me I guess it's kind of an all or
nothing deal. I have a septic system that's working. It's in good shape. I anticipate it's
going to work for quite a long period of time. I have an alternate drain field site.
Although I don't want to develop my property now, it seems crazy that the original
designation of this property was set up because of the fact that it was not inside the
MUSA boundary and there was no access to sewer and so it was large lot, 2 1Iz plus acre
size and if you come in and add sewer, why do you not consider changing the designation
of the property at that point in time? I don't want to run out and develop but it seems, it
seems like it should receive some sort of consideration. Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Anyone else from Lake Lucy Road? Is there anyone else
that would like to discuss this part of the project? Lake Lucy Road area project. Anyone
else is invited to come forward at this time now. Okay, we'll keep the public hearing
open and move forward to the Pioneer Trail area. This project includes Foxford Road,
Eastwood Court, Meadowlark Lane, Deerbrook Drive, Homestead Lane, Flintlock Trail
and Pineview Court. And again I think just for organization, if you allow me to call off
people, invite people up by street, I'd appreciate that. Why don't we start with Foxford
Road. If anyone on Foxford Road would like to come forward and address the council on
the Pioneer Trail project, or their particular road project. Eastwood Court. Meadowlark
Lane. Invite you to come forward. Deerbrook Drive. Homestead Lane.
John 1: I have a question.
Mayor Furlong: Certainly. Good evening.
John 1: Good evening. My name is John... I live on Homestead Lane. 1050 Homestead
and I've got a question. I live on the inside curve of Homestead and we're going to, the
way it sounds like they're just going to resurface it and we don't have the water or sewer
coming in, but the question I have is, after everybody's got home businesses now and we
have, it used to be a quiet road but now it's really, really busy and it's on a dead end
street. And a lot of the, we have a lot of trucks up there all the time, and I live on the
15
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
inside curve and that street is so long and we're outside of town so when the trucks come
to deliver, I mean they're, it's not 30 miles an hour. It's 30,40, 50 flying around the
curves. Well I live on the inside curve so I mowed all the ditch. Took all the weeds
down so, because you can stand on that inside curve at night, when the sun goes down
and if a car comes by, you can darn near get clipped. And I've gotten close to getting hit
myself. I saw kids getting real close to cars in there. I'm wondering what we can do to
shave that curve when we resurface it to make it wider there or make a curb there so they
can stay on the road more. Instead of getting off because if you come up there now, they
drive 6 feet off the curb on my side, on my yard on that side just to get around the curve.
Because they can't, they're going so fast that if you don't get off the road to go around
the curve shoot, they'll end up in the ditch and most of the time in the winter time they
slide in the ditch on my side, so I'm just wondering what we can do there. Just asking
what, to think about it. What you can do on that curve when you resurface it so to help
on slowing the traffic down. If there's a curb there, they might slow down a little bit to
go around it so they don't have to go around it so fast and I'm worried about the little
kids because there are a lot of little kids out there now living in that section and I don't
want anybody getting hurt on my side of the street. It gets pretty close. I've been
standing out there, I have a truck real close to my face one time so that's all I've got to
say about it and I don't know if you can do a curb there, I don't know.
Mayor Furlong: Let's ask the City Engineer if that was considered at this point or what
can be done.
Paul Oehme: Well we haven't considered it yet. This is the first time I've heard about it
so we'll look at the geometry of that intersection and the radiuses there and see what can
be done.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Anyone else on Homestead Lane. Flintlock Trail.
You're welcome to come forward. Pineview Court. Anybody else that would like to
speak on this, on these projects. The Pioneer Trail area projects. Okay. The other
sections here include, we'll move onto the next area. The Chan View area project. I'd
invite anybody to come forward and speak to the council on that project area. At this
time. If there's nobody, then we'll move onto the proposed improvements for the City
Hall and fire station parking lots. Invite anybody to come forward and address the
council at this time.
Todd Gerhardt: They're needed Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Furlong: Would you like to step down and state your name and address for the
record. Okay, very good. Anybody else who would like to come forward and address
the council on the overall project or any follow-up comments that haven't been made that
you'd like the council to consider. No? Okay. Without objection then we'll close the
public hearing and bring it back to council. Council, any follow-up questions for staff?
Councilman Labatt: In reference to the miscellaneous work, can you just kind of give a
general description of where that might happen.
16
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
Paul Oehme: The curb and gutter work?
Councilman Labatt: Yeah, you know the miscellaneous.
Paul Oehme: The $65,000?
Councilman Labatt: Yeah, $65,000 worth of miscellaneous work.
Paul Oehme: From now on we're looking at seal coating a certain percentage of streets,
so last 2004 we had about $20,000 worth of curb repair south of Highway 5. In the Lake
Susan area. Down in that area so as we move through the city with our sealcoat program,
we're looking at improving the curb and gutter work in those areas, and next year's work,
I think you just approved it tonight is authorizing the, us to prepare the plans and specs
for that project. And those improvements are a little bit west of say Audubon and west
and I think we have some areas north of 5 too. I think 78th Street might be hit by some of
those curbs. I can't, basically it's the areas that we're trying to sealcoat for next year.
We've identified that, you know we know we have some curb work that has to be done
out there so we're trying to anticipate doing those before we get to sealcoat projects, so.
And if you look back on your map, on the consent agenda item for seal coating, the map
that's shown on there is basically the areas that we're anticipating to do the curb work,
so. If that helps you.
Councilman Labatt: Okay.
Paul Oehme: And then the trail, the trail spot repairs, the Park Director can lead us to
those areas too but those are just spot repairs that we're anticipating throughout the
network.
Mayor Furlong: Any other questions at this time?
Councilman Labatt: No.
Mayor Furlong: Any other questions? Mr. Oehme, I guess a question with regard to the
sewer and water portion of the Lake Lucy Road project. If it's not done now, when
would be, could it be done later? If it could be done, how would it be done and from a
relative cost standpoint, what would we be looking at at that time? As best estimate of
course.
Paul Oehme: Well, anticipated life expectancy of the improvements that we're proposing
on Lake Lucy Road are between 10 to 15 years with proper maintenance, so you know I
personally would not proposed to extend sewer and water to this area unless the full
length, or the full life cycle of that roadway project is realized. It's going to cost us more
to do in the future, obviously with inflation and cost of work and everything else but
again it will cost us more to do in the future too because now we're dealing with concrete
and gutter versus bituminous curb which is easy to replace and not as expensive to
17
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
replace as well too so. To put the sewer and water in later, it will definitely cost us, I
would say significantly more to do it 10-15 years from now.
Mayor Furlong: More than just inflationary costs? The project scope would change?
Paul Oehme: The project scope would change because we're dealing with concrete curb
and gutter out there now instead of bituminous so it's more expensive to replace and put
back together again. You know with you know anticipated traffic along Lake Lucy Road
too, I mean the traffic in the city of Chanhassen, it's always going up . You know we
identified some projections on Lake Lucy Road in the next couple years so traffic,
maintenance during construction would be more of an issue as well too. To do it later
too, you know just the materials cost too I think would just be higher.
Mayor Furlong: You mentioned traffic's going up. One of the residents spoke about not
narrowing the road because of traffic. From an engineering standpoint, I assume Mr.
Gerhardt we've talked to our public safety group, deputies and such. Is there a concern
about safety from a traffic standpoint by narrowing the road?
Paul Oehme: Yeah, well that's the first thing we looked at when we looked at Lake Lucy
Road. Our engineer from HTPO did look at the traffic count projections and it still meets
the level of service that we would feel comfortable with.
Mayor Furlong: Alright. Okay, thank you. Any other questions for staff? If not, I'll
bring it back to council for comments and discussion. Anybody want to get started?
Councilman Lundquist.
Councilman Lundquist: Overall generally in favor of the project. Time to do it. Needed
to be done. Comments about the assessment policy and collector roads and all those, I'm
in favor of the way that it's been done. Right now it's consistent with how we've done
them in the past and, or in the past few years anyway. The only question in my mind
right now is the sewer and water piece and what the benefits really are of those. I think
the subdividing piece in my mind is a big piece for me and right now I'm not sure that I
could say that I'm in favor of changing those and all of those changing the zoning out
there. It seemed that those being subdivided, so without those subdivisions, there's a
couple of systems out there I think, or one that may be failing so that's an issue out there
but you know, $28,000 plus $9,000 or so for water, you're talking about $37,000-$40,000
on a property. I'm not sure if that's the wisest time. Granted we'd have to wait 10 or 15
years or possibly longer to get out there and do it again, but at this point we've put the
ballots out and the water's up in the air. Kind of 50/50 but clearly the residents out there
have said that they're really not interested on the sewer piece. Some of them that did say
that they were interested, wouldn't be without an ability to subdivide so I'm still up in the
air on that at this point and probably would favor going forward with plans and specs but
removing the sewer and water portion from that at this time. So anxious to hear what the
other members have to say.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you.
18
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
Councilman Peterson: That part's easy because my thoughts parallel your's almost
identically. I think that the sewer and water is, that's just a lot. For somebody who
doesn't want it, doesn't need it, that's a huge check to write. And if we are doing it on
the assumption that that will eventually subdivide, I mean I think most of you know my
feelings towards subdivisions. We should do everything we can not to allow subdivision
and keep the larger lots existing. I think that's what our residents generally want. That's
part of the reason why a lot of them move here, for the green space and the open space
and the uniqueness of Chanhassen. I think that 10 or 15 years isn't that long of a time to
wait to redo the road and reconsider sewer and water then. I think technology between
now and then will certainly change, and septic systems may be more appropriate than
putting in sewer and water at the time. We may have technology that allows individual
systems to work as efficiently as metro systems work. That may be a bit aggressive but I
think there's certainly a possibility. Technology changes quickly. We're talking 15
years. It will change. So I concur with councilman when he says everything else seems
fine but I would be willing to wait 10 or 15 years for Lake Lucy sewer and water.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Councilwoman Tjornhom.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I feel comfortable only because this is just voting on
approving a study. We're not actually talking about anything else at this time, correct?
Todd Gerhardt: That is correct.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay, because I do think that we do have to address the
rezoning of the properties along Lake Lucy and I think that I need more time to think
about that and really study that so I'm in favor of going ahead and approving the study at
this time but that's as far as I could go.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Labatt?
Councilman Labatt: I'm along the similar path, no pun intended on the bike path, with
the other councilors. You know $37,000 is a pretty big pill to swallow when you don't
have a failing system or you don't want it. I can also understand on the other hand that
for the one resident that does have a failing system and the ones that may fail the next
couple years, that they may want that. So I'm in favor of going through with the street
project. I'm not really too supportive of the sewer and water at this time. I'm just trying
to look for a couple of comments. And then as far as the narrowing of the road, the way I
understood the path on the north side is still going to be inside of the current existing
right-of-way. So I mean nobody's getting so to speak land taken from them. We're
taking the jogging and the bicycle traffic off of the roadway and we're going to put it up
onto an elevated path, 4 to 5 feet off of the roadway. We're going to be creating a safer
environment. And I do believe that narrowing was going calm it and slow the traffic
down. When they first made that road out there as wide as they did, it was like an
19
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
expressway. It still is in certain times out there. I think if we narrow it, and maybe to
address Mr. Kendall's concern there, as staff is working with engineers on this, maybe
we can look at that, create a little cushion there or space there somehow, work with his
concerns. Obviously it's a huge attraction to the city that Christmas display has there and
let's just see what we can do to address that. And then as far as the rezoning on the
properties, I mean that's going to take a comp plan change and I don't think that we
should be, in essence here the tail's wagging the doggy here and saying that we're going
to have a street you know project here, making a huge comp plan change. I don't think
we want to go down that path. I'm not going to support looking at changing the large lot
designation to a single family or allowing subdividing at this point. I don't think that we
as a council should be looking at that right now so I don't really support the subdividing.
That's all my comments in this section.
Mayor Furlong: So just for clarification.
Councilman Labatt: Did I confuse you?
Mayor Furlong: On the sewer and water. I didn't say that.
Councilman Labatt: Okay.
Mayor Furlong: The sewer and water right now you're saying not go forward with that?
Councilman Labatt: I said we shouldn't, no. Yeah.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Comments are interesting and all the comments on Lake Lucy
Road project. That's probably the more interesting and potentially complicated one. I
think given that we're looking at all these projects, the Pioneer Trail area, Chan View
area and City Hall, I think we appreciate the public comments for everybody and even
those that came to the open houses. Staff had a number of open houses to talk about
these projects. I think that was helpful in terms of providing residents with answers to
their questions on how these projects might affect them and I thank the staff for their
efforts there because I think it made the process go better and obviously answered
people's questions in these different areas that didn't come forward tonight. The other
thing, just from an overall comment I'd like to comment on is the feasibility study that
we received. Very pleased with it. Comprehensive. Diligent in their study. It wasn't a
cookie cutter application in terms of the solutions. My reading of it, it not only justified
the need for doing all these projects but also justified the best method, the most cost
effective way to solve the problems in the different areas so I commend staff and the
engineer to put that together. The street assessment, or street project feasibility study. I
think this is the best one that I've had the privilege of seeing. Just some comments back
up on Lake Lucy Road. To narrow the road. I don't necessarily like narrowing the road
for reasons said but I think the benefit of taking a trail off the road. Right now you have
two white lines on the shoulders and moving that up, putting a boulevard in there is,
drastically outweighs the issue for the traffic, to the extent it calms the traffic. I've
received calls from residents. Cars going over the speed limit there. I know that we had
20
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
the speed trailer, deputies put the speed trailer out I think next to Mr. Kendall's property a
few days ago, letting people know as they come over that hill to slow down. And that's
important but you know the other day as I was driving down that road, there were 2
women walking with strollers side by side inside that white line, and that to me was just
about all you need to say we need to make an improvement here so I think from the street
improvement project, I'm happy to hear from the residents they support it because I think
that ultimately needs to be done. I'm a little concerned about the sewer and water, not
going forward with that. I agree we don't want a street project to create a comprehensive
plan adjustment. That shouldn't be the motivation. That should be separate but I'm a
little concerned about not doing it now given that now is the time to do it, and you can't
always pick and choose for each of the property owners when the best time is. So I'm a
little hesitant, are we being penny wise and a pound foolish on not pursuing that and
investigating that a little bit more? You know we didn't ask about where the bids would
come in and whether ultimately these would be the proposals. I know we got some
favorable pricing this last year on our street projects, that's always possible to do and
certainly those savings would be passed along so, I'm a little hesitant not to say go
forward with at least the plans and specs on the sewer and water and evaluate that. Once
we get that in and the bids in, and then re-evaluate from a decision standpoint as to
whether do that. It would be spending money that we might not ultimately use but it
would give us better information to make that decision and give us the benefit of time as
well so we can keep these projects on track and possibly pursue that option as well. But
overall I commend staff on the projects and the proposals. From a street project
standpoint, very well done. I think all these are going to be well received by our
residents and I think in terms of staff s recommendation on the various projects, I would
support them as they've been presented. In terms of things like the location, the trail and
such. The sewer and water is created by the opportunity of re-doing the road, and it's
that sewer and water that has created this interest. Now I think some the residents
potentially have the right to subdivide so we're getting a couple steps down, but I think it
still makes sense to pursue the plans and specs for the sewer and water, even though we
might not end up using those plans and specs, just to confirm so. Other thoughts.
Comments.
Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Mayor, I guess comments. To talk about, I feel like did I
have enough information right now to make the decision on the sewer and water and that
essentially we know the septic system cost $10,000 to $15,000 to put in. And that's
obviously assuming that there's an alternate site and some of those types of things for
granted, but even if we spend $20,000 or $30,000 on the sewer and water piece of the
plans and specs and find out that the sewer and water portion of this thing would have to
essentially be cut in half for that to be, in my mind a wash. To get from $28,000 sewer
hook-up to a $15,000 septic system and if we have, as I read through the feasibility
report, I don't think our engineer's estimate is off that far. You know I'll give them 20%,
plus or minus maybe and probably maybe even a little tighter than that, but for them to
get to 50%, I think with our city staff and the engineer looking at it, that they're just not
off that far and that would be the only thing that would sway me to spend another
$20,000 or $30,000 to go forward on plans and specs. If they thought that they might
have missed it by half, then we could talk about it but right now I feel like we got enough
21
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
information to go ahead, so that's the only reason why I'm comfortable proceeding that
way.
Mayor Furlong: And Mr. Oehme, any comments on that? Is that something, as I'm
hearing the council they are thinking about it but what is the likelihood that the cost
estimates, especially with the sewer and water might come in significantly below what's
being estimated?
Paul Oehme: I think we're pretty close to where it's going to come in.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Paul Oehme: We've looked at the costs and compared it to other projects in the past and
they're comparable.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Thank you. Well again, I understand that from an
economic standpoint the proposed assessments are about double what you save in your
septic system would be, so it's, you know the question is, is there benefit to reduce septic
systems overall. But just my comments on, this is the opportunity. The next one will be
in 15 years.
Councilman Lundquist: Well and it's true that the next time we do it that it's not going to
be any cheaper, that's for sure. Come back in 15 years and it's not going to be half a
million dollars to put it in. It's probably going to be closer to 750 or a million, so I think
the, my thoughts are that you know, we pass on it now. There may never be sewer and
water, city sewer and water out there. And if I thought that we needed city sewer and
water out there at any time in the near future, in the next 20-30 years, I'd probably vote
for it now but I guess my thoughts are, the way that is in that area is right now, that my
vote would be that there's probably never city sewer and water out in that area. At least
not in the foreseeable future.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other comments? Discussion.
Councilman Labatt: I would concur with Mr. Lundquist. I mean you know, it just
doesn't make sense to assess somebody you know $28,000 for sewer and 9 for water
when they can, I think Mr. Kendall said, you can put in two septic systems for the price
of the assessment.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Other comments? Discussion. I guess at this point,
is there a proposed motion?
Councilman Lundquist: I would move that the City Council receive the feasibility report
for 2005 street improvement and proceed with plans and specifications set forth in that
feasibility report with the exception of removing the sewer and water installment or
upgrades from the Lake Lucy Road portion. Lake Lucy Road and what's that.
22
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
Mayor Furlong: Steller Court.
Councilman Lundquist: Steller Court.
Mayor Furlong: I think those were the two weren't they? Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilman Peterson: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Been made and seconded. Any further discussion?
Roger Knutson: Mayor, just a point of clarification. You have in front of you a
resolution. I assume what you're doing is adopting the resolution but just deleting the
sewer and water portion. Would that be the motion?
Councilman Lundquist: Yes sir.
Mayor Furlong: Within the feasibility report right?
Roger Knutson: Right.
Councilman Lundquist: Yep.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Is there a, it's been made and seconded. Clarified. Is
there any other discussion?
Resolution #2005-08: Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson
seconded to adopt the attached resolution and authorize preparation of plans and
specifications for the 2005 street improvement projects, with the exception of sewer
and water in the Lake Lucy Road/Steller Court project. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to o.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you everyone. Thank you for those that came in and took
time to address the council and came to the open houses.
REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL (RR) TO SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) AND PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR
A 43 LOT SUBDIVISION WITH VARIANCES FOR PRIVATE STREETS. LOTS
1 & 2. OLD SLOCUM TREE FARM (6620 & 6640 GALPIN BOULEVARD).
PINEHURST. PLOWSHARES DEVELOPMENT. LLC.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Nathan Franzen
Plowshares Development
23
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
Steve Kroiss
Peter Coyle
Matt Goldstein
Curtis N eft
Chris Moehrl
Daren Laberee
Bruce Mattson
Charles Jackson
Alan Nikolai
Beverly Jackson
Doris Nikolai
Plowshares Development
Larkin & Hoffman
Lundgren Bros Construction
Westwood Professional Services
Westwood Professional Services
Westwood Professional Services
2020 Crestview Drive
2100 Crestview Drive
6282 Cartway Lane
2110 Crestview Drive
6570 Galpin Boulevard
Kate Aanenson: Thank you. The subject site, located just off of Galpin Boulevard, south
of the Crestview neighborhood. Just north of the W oodridge Heights, and then the
subdivision here... before you. There's two action items on the proposal tonight. One
would be the rezoning. It's currently zoned RR. The comprehensive plan has it guided
for residential single family and then the second action tonight would then be the
subdivision of approximately 27 acres into the 43 lots. The plat itself is very complex in
the fact that it's heavily wooded and it is also, has a significant change in grade. Really
about 50 feet in change in grade. Of the 27 acres of this plat, 18 acres of that or 60
percent of that is going to be graded. Because of the severe elevation changes and the
number of trees and the amount of grading, it's going to impact the development, so one
of the issues that certainly came into play was tree loss. The city ordinance does allow,
through their calculations of the tree loss formula and does provide a mechanism to
replace those trees and that is provided for in the staff. What I'm going to do is kind of
focus on the critical issues that were presented and not go through the entire plat, as there
is verbatim minutes. But one of the issues on the trees, when this subdivision, the
subdivisions to the south and to the east came in, we did provide opportunities for access
to the site. For example on Manchester Drive, was stubbed. And then also we did
provide a private drive off of Brenden Court because we anticipated with the creek
crossing that there could be a private drive in that location at that time that was
anticipated. At this time the applicants are proposing to donate that Outlot A. We'll talk
about that in a minute but change in wording there. So that's kind of the area that they're
preserving for trees. Through our experiences we've talked about on trees, on lots.
Trying to preserve trees on individual lots is sometimes creates a quagmire so we find it's
the best way to do it as preserving in larger clumps and you can see with the retaining
walls, how they're working to preserve some of those areas of significant trees. I would
treat this similar to what we did, when we saw in the newest application on Vasserman
Ridge has probably been our most recent one with significant trees where we preserve the
trees in the back of the lot and there's some retaining walls and the like. A similar
developer would be on these lots, so we believe that that's been addressed. One of the
issues that the Planning Commission did address was the trees along Galpin and I just
wanted to touch along that for a minute. There was a concern from the neighbor to the
north regarding tree loss and the Planning Commission also addressed some of the
arborvitaes that were along that. The arborvitaes that were on that site are on a particular
lot, not in the right-of-way. We're certainly working to preserve as many trees along the
24
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
site as we can. Staff was a little concerned about the wording of that condition and how
that works. But the Assistant City Engineer Matt Saam did meet with the, talked to the
County and I think what we worked on the north side here is reducing the length of that
dece1lane. I don't know if you have a better map of that Matt, but so we won't have to
be so far north, and there was a concern about trees. All those trees are in the right-of-
way so there may be some tree loss but they're not on private property. They are in the
city right-of-way.
Matt Saam: Ifwe could zoom in. There we go. Here's the proposed access to Pinehurst
off of Galpin. I'm sorry. Here's the proposed access to the site off of Galpin. We have a
property just to the north of this development that has an existing driveway also off
Galpin. One of the County requirements, because Galpin is a County road, is to install a
turn lane for right turn movement. People going south into the site. Initially the
developer had looked at starting it right, way up at the top at the existing street
intersection of Crestview would have conflicted with this driveway. We spoke with the
County today and they're willing, based on traffic, speed limit, that sort of thing, to start
the turn lane just past this driveway.
Kate Aanenson: But maybe Matt if you could address, some of those trees are in the
right-of-way currently. They're not on private property so there will be some tree loss
but those are currently in the right-of-way. Of the County road.
Mayor Furlong: Which one? The hedge there.
Kate Aanenson: This. These trees right here on the neighboring property. The other
arborvitaes are inside the development itself and they may be lost. I think the Planning
Commission had concern that we try to preserve those as much as possible. Just to kind
of refrain how we do this. . . by the City Forester to ensure that it's properly staked and
maintained before they commence grading. Before they're authorized to proceed.
Engineering and the City Forester and depending if there's wetland impacts, those are all
reviewed before they're allowed to proceed grading so that's kind of our check in to
make sure that it's consistent. So I guess that's kind of the tree issue and the trees along
the site regarding the, but certainly it's our goal and as is the developer's to preserve as
many of those as possible. The second issue that's been raised on this is the street
connection. Certainly as the planners and trying to, and the comprehensive plan trying to
connect neighborhoods together when we know there's movement going north or south.
Kind of providing those trip generations for circular movement. We had recommended a
connection. The Planning Commission recommended against that but we just want to talk
a few minutes about why we think that's important. Again, historically throughout the
city when we do infill development, some of the neighborhoods that we connect, even up
on the northern end of Minnewashta we try to provide those cross access connecting
neighborhoods to provide, whether you're up on Country Oaks or even Minnewashta
Landings where there was an older neighborhood. 1940's, we tied those in. Again,
connecting neighborhoods. Better transportation movement. So the request to the north,
and I think that's where the Planning Commission struggled. They hadn't seen the
Shivley Addition, which did go to the Planning Commission last week. We did want to
25
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
see access to the north because there is movement going to the junior high, so we had
recommended that a sidewalk trail be built and established to get access via a trail over to
the junior high. Both these, the Shivley which you'll be seeing and Pinehurst would be
going to that middle school. The other recommendation was if it was cul-de-saced and a
private street, this was noticed for variances. To do a private street with a cul-de-sac. At
a minimum we still feel strongly about that trail connection, to get again the walkers.
They're going to be cutting through somebody's yard to provide that trail access to get to,
up to the junior high. We did do it on the other subdivision, on the end of Brenden Court.
There is a pass thru on the gate on the other side again to expedite that. It seems like that
age will find the shortest distance to get to that site. So with that we are recommending
approval that that connection. One of the other issues that came up was drainage. On
Lot 27, which is this lot. I'm sorry, this lot right here. Kind of in the middle of the plat
next to the pond, and if you can zoom in on this. This has a drainage swale that runs
through it, and this is addressed in a little bit more detail on page 5 of your staff report.
We looked at it a little bit more carefully. The applicant's engineer also looked at it more
carefully too but left off the drainage on Lot 23 which is up here... The concern that we
have when you have a drainage swale running through the area, is that you, it's hard to
convey that point of contact where the water's running through. We're concerned that
we've had this problem before where the drainage disappears. We have water in the
basement. We have people putting structures in those. We believe that's really, we're
creating an inferior lot and our concern about the long term impacts of that, so with that
we would not recommend approval. Lot 23 again was not included in the conveyance.
There was some other discussion talking about could it be piped? Could it be drain tile?
It's kind of hard when you have sheet flow from these lots coming down to get that into a
channelized. Can we get it to a concentrated point to put a channel or a pipe? I'm not
really sure again because of the grading and the way that slopes, if we could get it to a
concentrated. Again, and the maintenance of the pipe, but it's kind of an issue that we
believe someone buying this lot really is getting a problem. And as we've experienced
with Country Oaks, which we recently just went back and retrofitted those sometimes
lose their purpose. So our concern with that is again discussed on page 5. If the council
chose to approve that as a lot, we're recommending that a drainage and utility easement
be placed over that entire width of whatever that drainage swale. At this point it's not
identified as how deep and how much, what that width would be but we would
recommend that that be described and there be a clearly put out drainage easement over
that so any buyer would be made aware of that. And that also the specific computation so
that we know that it can manage that, and the homeowner, future homeowner is made
aware of that. Again our first choice again based on overland conveyance, that we know
sometimes swales and easements disappear, so that was our concern on that one. Moving
on, the sewer connection. Matt passed out for you a copy of revised sewer. Did you
want to address that Matt or?
Matt Saam: Sure. As Kate said this was passed out to the entire council. Previously
staff had some concerns with the way that the sewer was proposed originally. We'll go
down here, make a 90 degree turn, another 90 and then come into Lake Lucy Road. We
sat down with the developer recently. Gave him our list of concerns, which are
highlighted on your paper. I won't take the entire time to go through all of those.
26
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
Steepness of slope. This is city owned property. Future possible well site. Those are
some of the issues. The developer, I think did a good job oflistening and taking into
account our issues with it. They've come back with a different proposals basically to
directionally bore, bore in a straight line shot on this sewer that would save this entire
hillside. Again it's a very steep slope. We're concerned with long term stabilization of
that slope, especially on city owned property. Degradation of the line. They've lowered
the pipe slope so the slope won't be as great. Those maintenance issues go away. The
only issue we really had left was, we still need an open cut into Lake Lucy but we feel we
can live with that. It's a compromise so, long story short. We've come to a resolution on
this issue with the developer.
Councilman Labatt: Matt can you, on that big map, show us where it is on that.
Matt Saam: Sure. Again, this is Galpin right here. We're coming down a street. This is
the sewer area, then we own this outlot on the north side.
Councilman Labatt: On that steep hill.
Matt Saam: Yes.
Councilman Labatt: Do we have any other sewer lines in the city that are on that steep of
a hill? Coming down.
Matt Saam: I'm sure we do. Yes. I'm looking at our Utility Superintendent, yes.
Councilman Lundquist: How well do they work?
Mayor Furlong: Yeah, I think Councilman Lundquist's question is appropriate. We've
got them. How well do they work? Do they cause a struggle?
Matt Saam: At the steep slopes that were originally proposed, we were 9 plus percent in
the original submittal. We had concerns there. I won't get into specifics. Vortexing
gases being given off. They can prematurely degrade the interior of the concrete
manhole, that sort of thing. We also had issues with trying to get Kelley's jetter, which
cleans the sewer line. Again I won't get into details but getting that up a steep slope at
that long of a distance. They brought the slope down now to something in the lines of 7
percent I believe. We checked with PCA and that's a much better slope and Kelley says
he can live with that one so.
Councilman Labatt: What did they do to make it go from 9% to 7%?
Matt Saam: Basically deepened the sewer at the top end.
Councilman Labatt: So are we still looking at what 30 feet or something like that at one
point when I was reading?
27
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
Matt Saam: Yes. The maximum, and we can verify this with the developer's engineer
but the maximum depth now is 30 feet, whereas before if they would have brought it the
way we wanted it too we would have been in the 35 to 40 foot area, so they have
lowered, or not gone as deep.
Councilman Labatt: Okay. So long term maintenance wise, we're not concerned at all
about that slippery slope?
Matt Saam: Again, based on conversations with the utility folks who maintain those
lines, they can live with this versus what the original proposal was.
Mayor Furlong: Would there be a preference to, from a maintenance standpoint ongoing
cost to the city to still bring it out to Galpin? Would that be a lower cost? Would there
be any cost differential on their ongoing utility cost?
Matt Saam: It would be deeper. It never went out to Galpin, just to correct it.
Mayor Furlong: Oh I'm sorry.
Matt Saam: It would go down Manchester. It would be deeper. I would think we'd see
some increased costs on the deeper maintenance of the sewer. For sure to construct it,
it's more costly to go deeper.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. So it really saves cost then, the cost would probably be a wash
either way? Is that fair or is one preferred over the other in terms of maintenance cost?
Matt Saam: It's better to not, if we don't have to go as deep in terms of maintenance.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. So the shallower, the 7% grade is.
Matt Saam: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: Is still going to be less than bringing it out to Manchester.
Matt Saam: In our opinion we can.
Mayor Furlong: Best estimate.
Matt Saam: Yeah, we can live with that and it will be better.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Kate.
Kate Aanenson: Okay with that, I believe that's kind of the summary of the critical
issues that reflect in this plat. Again we worked hard with the developer. It is a complex
site. Again just talking about sewers, and figuring all those layers. There is 3 wetlands.
They're not touching. So we worked well. Revised, made some revisions. Reduced tree
28
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
loss, retaining walls so all and all there's still just a couple of sticking points. If we can
go to page 9, which is the beginning of the conditions, I'd just like to walk through those.
Make sure there's some correct wordsmithing. Again, there's two motions. The first one
is the rezoning on page 9. Bottom of page 9. And the second motion would be for the
preliminary plat.
Mayor Furlong: Is the council vote, is it a four-fifths on the rezoning matter?
Kate Aanenson: I think it's just a simple majority.
Mayor Furlong: Or is it simple majority on both?
Roger Knutson: Simple majority on either one.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Kate Aanenson: So following then on page 10, number 2. The applicant has requested
that Outlots A and B be, the words be changed from dedicated to donated. Again a
conveyance term. Then that's all I had on page 10. Page 11, there's a couple conditions
that were added by the Planning Commission. Just to be clear on, so there's no
misunderstanding. The applicant work with the staff to preserve every effort. I would
hope we do that with every plat. That goes without saying. I'm just not sure again
enforceability on that. Then the arborvitae hedge, again that is on private property. It's
our understanding that that probably will be graded. I'm not sure that we're, you know
on that right turn lane, that it may be lost based on the requirement for the right turn lane.
Just to be clear on that. And then going to page 13. I think (q). We resolved that issue.
I believe in the fact actually the developer, which is, we resolved the, investigated the
further sewer based on the plans. If you want to give today's date that the revisions that
were handed out tonight. I think that one's been resolved.
Mayor Furlong: So staff would request that (q) be removed?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: So that can just be deleted because that's not an issue?
Kate Aanenson: Correct. And we'll just address that in the plans dated tonight. And
then 8 on that page. The applicant work with staff to incorporate a totlot. That's an
extraction. I'm not sure that we can force upon the developer. Again, this development
is not proposing a park but is being requested to pay park and trail fees. So there isn't a
totlot proposed at this time. And again that's not an extraction that we would request.
With that, I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff.
29
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
Councilman Labatt: Kate, talk about it briefly when you say you're going to come back,
that sliver of land in the Gestach part. Brenden Court. What's the plan with that?
Kate Aanenson: At this time it could be, we have a utility easement so we want to
maintain an easement over it but I don't think we need to maintain it as an access. When
every time we look at subdivisions, we look at, it's all part of a piece of a puzzle. We
want to see how the adjoining properties would, could subdivide. It was never our
intention to put a public street there because we didn't think there was enough lot depth
based on the creek crossing. We didn't want to have to cross the creek, so at that time the
current ordinance allows 4 homes off of a private drive. So we put the private street in
there, which will provide access to those 4 lots. Otherwise the only way to get access
would have to be over the creek to get to there. The applicants have chosen to make that
a donation area and preserve all those trees.
Councilman Labatt: So are we going, that's paved right? Right now.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Councilman Labatt: So are we going to keep that paved or are we going to restore it back
to natural?
Matt Saam: The only thing I would say to that is, we do need that access if we have
utilities in there. To the manhole, that sort of thing. We'd like to make sure we maintain
available access. It doesn't necessarily have to be paved. Gravel. Something like that.
Kate Aanenson: I think between now and the time it comes back, maybe we can meet
with the neighboring property owners and kind of see how the developers are come back
for final plat to see what, but we do have easements for utilities we want to maintain.
Mayor Furlong: Any other questions?
Councilman Labatt: I've got a whole list.
Mayor Furlong: Well, do you want to start? You've started. Do you want to keep
going?
Councilman Labatt: Sure. Let's talk about Lot 27. I've read stuff from the Planning
Commission and their concerns with it. I've heard your's and I've read the developer's
book that they've put together, which is actually a very nice book. But all three are
saying a little bit something different. And to me it looks like a bulldozer on top of a hill
at sunset. This huge thing sticking out of place just to try to throw a lot in there. We've
heard about swales and the problems that they create. We just went back and fixed a
problem over by Lake Minnewashta. We've listened to former Councilor Ayotte talk
about the swale in his back yard with that development in Near Mountain and the
problems that caused. So I would support Kate in removing Lot 27 and shifting that pond
a little bit. See how you worded it in here Kate, but you talked about, if you eliminate
30
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
Lot 27 you'd move that pond a little north. But if you can just comment more on Lot 27
and what Plowshares has said in here about Lot 27.
Kate Aanenson: Sure. Again, they reviewed the drainage. It's our belief that Lot 23 also
has contributed to that drainage swale. Part of24, 25 and 26 is going to a public area.
And our concern is that it's hard to have overland conveyance you know without
appropriate easements is not a good thing. We've learned that historically. We've
learned these things about drainage. That's a bad thing. But even if we get an easement,
the issue is, and we've had this problem that people, it might not be the first year. It
might be the second year and we might not have a water problem but people tend, it's
right in their side yard, to want to use it. Whether it's to put a swing set in or storage,
something, and that tends to back up the water, and we have concerns that we're setting
ourselves up for a problem lot and wouldn't recommend that.
Councilman Labatt: Okay. So we had that taken care of.
Kate Aanenson: Let me just add one more thing to that because this question wasn't
asked. Could it be piped? Could it be drain tiled? And again, because of the grades
there, it's hard to get a concentrated point to control that water. We think that'd be a little
difficult to try to, in order to channel it better, so you have a more controlled, that was our
concern.
Councilman Labatt: Okay. Update on page 3. I'm just reading my notes here. Kate in
your staff report you talk about concerns on the western end. In your narrative here.
Kate Aanenson: The connection?
Councilman Labatt: Well I'll find it. Can we talk about that, the connection from, you're
recommending what you're just showing us. The through street up onto the next project.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Councilman Labatt: The Planning Commission feels it should be cul-de-saced.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Councilman Labatt: And this was at the Planning Commission last week? The.
Kate Aanenson: The one to the north.
Councilman Labatt: Yes.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Councilman Labatt: What did they.
31
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
Kate Aanenson: Still didn't want the connection.
Councilman Labatt: Huh?
Kate Aanenson: Still didn't want the connection. They still recommended against the
connection.
Councilman Labatt: How are they going to access, off of a private drive?
Kate Aanenson: So this is the subdivision, they would come out Crestview. So we're
saying it gives them another area to come out to, whether it's construction traffic. All
this traffic now comes just on this. And part of it is connecting neighborhoods. While
people may not be, wishing to subdivide now, those are larger lots that can be subdivided
in the future and again we always try to not just plan for today but plan for tomorrow.
Looking down the road. Trying to make good decisions down the road. For better
circulation.
Councilman Labatt: So if you can go back to that other page. Isn't our goal of having,
how long is Crestview? Is it over 500 feet?
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
Councilman Labatt: And isn't our goal in our comp plan or guidelines that we talk about,
we don't like cul-de-sacs over 500 feet.
Matt Saam: Yeah, we try to limit the length.
Councilman Labatt: So by allowing access from Street B up there, we're achieving the
ultimate goal here of having a loop.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Councilman Labatt: Correct?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Councilman Labatt: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: A secondary access for both.
Councilman Labatt: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: Again, just to reiterate on that. The other condition was, with that
connection was a trail to give access up there.
32
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
Councilman Labatt: Yeah.
Kate Aanenson: Or sidewalk.
Councilman Labatt: And then on page 3 of your staff report, in the update section, you
talk about this, and maybe I'm combining two things here. As part of the court judgment
approved on October 1 ih, that paragraph.
Kate Aanenson: ... the original staff report?
Councilman Labatt: Yeah, the update.
Kate Aanenson: I'm sorry, what was the question?
Councilman Labatt: I'm confused here on this. What, is this, what portion of the
development is this?
Kate Aanenson: This is the sewer.
Matt Saam: Yeah, I just learned about it.
Kate Aanenson: ..okay, I'm sorry. There was some mitigation done, that little lot
remnant piece that was tied to this parcel. It's against city ordinance to leave a narrow
strip of property that's unbuildable so it has to be assembled with one or the other, so it's
a litigation. They need to tie that into this plat.
Councilman Labatt: Oh, so it's all internally in the property?
Kate Aanenson: That's the legal description, I'm sorry. Yeah.
Councilman Labatt: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: So that wasn't a part of it. We didn't catch that with the original but
was brought to our attention when we looked at the plat. So we can't leave a lot, a
narrow piece that's unbuildable.
Councilman Labatt: Got it. Okay. And then as long as you've got that up, let's talk
about the turn lane impact here from south on Galpin. And the impact that's having on
the north property. And I did not have a chance to talk to that homeowner about his
feelings or her feelings on that.
Matt Saam: Yeah, I talked a few times since last week with actually the son of the
homeowner here. I think he's here tonight representing his mother. Initially you have
concerns again about if the turn lane would go in her, per county requirements, it would
start right up here north of the existing driveway property. That taper or widening of the
lane would go into the existing driveway. They basically didn't want to deal with that.
33
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
We took a look at it from traffic. Really how many people are going to be coming to this
development from the north. We're thinking most of the traffic will be coming from
Highway 5 to the south, both to and from. Plus the speed limit here is in the 35 mph
range. We're not talking 50. North of Lake Lucy remember it's less than 50, so we don't
need quite as long of a standard turn lane we don't believe. Based on those two factors.
So we talked to the County and they agree that they can decrease from their standard turn
lane requirement and start it just south of this resident's driveway. And as far as the
impacts go, this is the old original plan which showed grading basically in this entire
right-of-way in front of that property. Now, I've talked to the applicant's engineer. The
grading can start just south of the driveway. It won't have as much of a tree loss impact,
that sort of thing.
Councilman Labatt: So how long will the turn lane be?
Matt Saam: Approximately 200 feet I believe, and the standard is 380 on a higher speed
roadway.
Councilman Labatt: So let's take the turn lane at Longacres Drive, from southbound.
How long is that turn lane then?
Matt Saam: I would guess that one's 380. Again that's 50 miles per hour in that area.
Councilman Labatt: Well this is a 40 zone here.
Matt Saam: Okay, the resident there and excuse me ifI'm wrong, told me it was 35. It's
35 to 40. Either way it's lower than south of Lake Lucy. And again, where are these
people coming from? How many are going to be coming from the north? Galpin to the
north. While it does, I don't believe it connects into 7 directly. There's a round about
way but again, most of the traffic will be coming from the south.
Councilman Labatt: Well it connects right directly to 7. Galpin does.
Matt Saam: Outside of the city.
Councilman Labatt: Yeah.
Mayor Furlong: You can't turn south from westbound 7 there.
Councilman Labatt: No, you just go to Chaska Road and take Mayflower, like I do every
day I come home from work. I just, you know I'm looking for some more hard data,
empirical data that shows that where I live south on Galpin, I drive north every day to go
to work. I mean I just, there's a lot of guys that drive north. People that live in Stone
Creek drive north to 7 to get to work in the north metro, and I just, I mean I'd like to see
some more data to justify this whole turn lane shortening and I think you're looking at
trying to dump a lot of speed into a short turn lane to get into this development coming
south. So, I don't know, any other comments on it or?
34
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
Kate Aanenson: I guess we'd agree that the traffic is coming from the north and that's
why we put this shortened turn lane coming southbound because you can't take that turn
coming southbound from 7, unless you come Chaska Road but.
Mayor Furlong: Yeah you do Chaska, Mayflower and you can still get south.
Councilman Labatt: You do it too don't you?
Mayor Furlong: Yes.
Councilman Labatt: Well you turn on Pheasant. I'm just, a point of concern I have you
know.
Mayor Furlong: Just a quick question. Do we have any traffic counts or speed counts on
that section of road recently in the last couple-three years?
Matt Saam: On Galpin, yeah. It's a state aid road. It's done every other year at a
minimum. I don't have those figures in front of me but we do have those in the office.
Mayor Furlong: And that would include not only count but speed? In that area.
Matt Saam: That I'm no sure of.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Your point is, make sure it's long enough to handle the traffic.
Councilman Labatt: Exactly.
Mayor Furlong: And this is preliminary.
Kate Aanenson: You know if, that's something we can certainly look at. It's got to come
back for final plat.
Councilman Labatt: That's all I'm asking is, let's look at that and if we need to lengthen
it, then we need to.
Matt Saam: We can definitely look at the traffic patterns, the counts. Ifwe have speed
data and bring that before you at time of final plat.
Councilman Labatt: Okay. And then as far as, and still on this turn lane, the impact.
The trees that are being cut are in the right-of-way, or easement.
Matt Saam: Correct. Those to the north of the Pinehurst property.
Councilman Labatt: Correct, yeah. Is there any sort of, how does the development on
the downhill side of this, of this owner, now they're developing so now he's going to lose
35
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
trees in his yard. How are they compensated? What happens? I mean he's going to lose
how many trees in his front yard? 10?
Matt Saam: No, I believe the number is 2 now. If the turn lane would start south of the
driveway.
Councilman Labatt: Of the driveway. What if it started back up by that Melody Hill,
whatever that road is?
Matt Saam: Did you count those?
Kate Aanenson: 8.
Councilman Labatt: So if it has to start up there, that road, is there any sort of restitution
so to speak for losing trees?
Kate Aanenson: Well they're in the right-of-way. They're not on private property.
Otherwise we'd certainly have to.
Councilman Labatt: Well I can see if they're in the right-of-way... but these are trees that
are in the right-of-way that are going to be impacted on the development to the south that
this guy probably says well heck, I don't want to lose my trees. But you know.
Matt Saam: Yeah, the only thing I know that the applicant has spoke with the resident to
the north. So maybe they've entertained some of those discussions. That might be a
good question for the.
Councilman Labatt: Okay. And I guess I share some of the same concerns with the lack
of a park in here. I mean, in reading the staff report that you know this is in the Pheasant
Hills Park service area but there's really no direct access other than out to Galpin, down
Galpin, up Pheasant and over. I mean I just, I think we just need to look at that a little
bit. I just want to get other councilors comments on the lack of a park. Or a totlot.
We're dealing with the same issue down at Yoberry and we're going to have an impact
down there on the same topic. I think we need to look at the big picture here and you
know, talk about that so I'll let other guys take some time now.
Alan Nikolai: Mayor, can I ask a quick question?
Mayor Furlong: With what regard?
Alan Nikolai: Is there going to be any public comment on what you're talking about?
Mayor Furlong: On this project?
Alan Nikolai: Yes.
36
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
Mayor Furlong: Not this evening.
Alan Nikolai: ... questions that Mr. Labatt has brought up can be answered possibly.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Alan Nikolai: For example that they're disputing with that right-of-way. Those trees are
on my mother's property and that was, I indicated to the city today staff that we are
disputing where that property line is.
Mayor Furlong: Okay so with regard to, I guess with regard to that issue from our
standpoint Kate, there'd be surveys required I assume.
Kate Aanenson: Yep, and we'll get that worked out by the time it comes back for final
plat.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, so this is preliminary so we're.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct, and that's our intent. To resolve that between now and
when it comes back.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. We're still at questions for staff. Any other questions
Mr. Lundquist? Or others. Go ahead.
Councilman Lundquist: Question Kate on the zoning change from RR to RSF. What's
the density that we target in RR?
Kate Aanenson: For the most part we're coming in right around 2.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay and this development, the preliminary with the RSF,
what's the density there? Probably in here somewhere.
Kate Aanenson: In the staff report. 1.85.
Councilman Lundquist: 1.85, okay. So if we were to not change that zoning,
approximately any idea about how many lots would have to be removed out of here to hit
that?
Kate Aanenson: The RR is 2 1Iz acre lots so, just to be clear on the changing of the
zoning. It is the state law says it does have to be consistent so they do have the right to
go for the RR. I mean for the RSF so.
Mayor Furlong: I don't think your first question was answered, what you were looking
for, ifI understood it. You asked about density within RR.
Councilman Lundquist: Yep.
37
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
Kate Aanenson: Well it's 2 1Iz acre lot minimum so you'd have to take that times the 27
acres.
Councilman Lundquist: So if you have a 2 1Iz acre minimum, how do you get a 2.0
density?
Mayor Furlong: I think she misunderstood your question.
Kate Aanenson: Okay, you can't. Yeah. I did misunderstand.
Councilman Lundquist: Alright.
Mayor Furlong: You were saying RSF we average about 2.
Councilman Lundquist: About 2, okay.
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: For RSF but this one is whatever it is.
Kate Aanenson: Right.
Councilman Lundquist: So talk about the, talk a little bit more then about the rezoning
from RR to RSF. IfI understood what you're trying to tell me there, that we don't have a
choice.
Kate Aanenson: Well what the state law is, is the comprehensive plan is the guidance
and it is guided for low density. We left this in place because some people wanted that
because they were seeing a larger lots and not to pay the tax consequences. They weren't
ready to develop. There was no sewer and water available to the site. So what we put in
our comprehensive plan, until such time that a project came forward we wouldn't rezone
it. And so we have other areas in the town that are A2, agricultural but there is sewer and
water. For whatever reason it's not, and it's in the MUSA area. It's in the MUSA area,
utilities aren't brought to that site. And at that time we would propose a rezoning. So
this is consistent with that policy.
Councilman Lundquist: But it's still at our discretion to change that from, to change or
not to change from rural, from RR to RSF.
Kate Aanenson: Well I'll maybe let the City Attorney address that, the discretion.
Roger Knutson: I've not looked at this issue but how is it guided?
38
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
Kate Aanenson: It is guided residential single family. It's guided low density, excuse
me. It's not guided RSF. It's guided low density, which has a density range of 1.2 to 4.
something.
Roger Knutson: So under State law we're supposed to eliminate the conflict and you can
do that in one of two ways. Changing the zoning ordinance or changing the
comprehensive plan but you're facing with this application some time limits so.
Councilman Lundquist: So it's still.
Roger Knutson: You could change the comprehensive plan, in theory.
Councilman Lundquist: So we've got one of two things to act on. Either, if this is, if that
piece of this is denied tonight, then we're required to change the comprehensive plan, is
that what you're telling me? I'm not sure.
Roger Knutson: You would, yes.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Fair enough. That's it.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, other questions?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I have, I'm not sure if they're questions or comments but I
was on the Planning Commission for this and I don't know if Commissioner Sacchet can
come up and testify or not.
Mayor Furlong: I think in a minute, yep. What we'll do is get questions for staff and
invite the applicant up.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Because I see in the plans it looks like you are connecting the
neighborhoods.
Kate Aanenson: But, and the Planning Commission did recommend against it, that's
correct.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yeah. Okay, I just... I was at the Planning Commission
meeting and. . .
Kate Aanenson: Yep, and they also recommended against on Shivley too, that's correct.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay. That was just my only comment I wanted to bring up.
That there was discussion and it was adamant, most neighbors were there and they were
adamant that they did not want access.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any questions Councilman Peterson?
39
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
Councilman Peterson: Kate or Matt, on Lot 27. Can you just help me understand, if we
took an aggressive position and we talked about an easement, if we do want to do Lot 27,
you do an easement. Make the future homeowner, lot owner aware. Is there anything
else we can do over and above that? You know it just seems like we should be able to
figure out a way to fix that, and I'm not really concerned about if the property owners
knows it and then builds a sand box blocking the water, I really don't care about that. If
they're going to be that ridiculous, but if they're aware of it but is there anything we can
do from.
Kate Aanenson: Sure. Well what we did recommend, or actually is it on page, where is
it in the staff report. And that was to put the utility easement over it. Part of it is.
Councilman Lundquist: Page 5 Kate.
Kate Aanenson: Page 5, thank you. Is it a ditch? Is it a swale? And how do we figure
out that width, but at a minimum we want the easement over that so when someone
comes in for an accessory structure, we can tell them to stay out of that so, could it be
addressed? Yeah, but we're just telling you that, even though you put that on there,
landscaping people make different choices. Don't always check in, and that's typically
the hardest one. Some of the other accessory structures you get a permit for but you
know, 1-2 homeowners down the line, it's the grading issue. Landscaping, those sort of
things.
Councilman Peterson: Are we apt to see a heavy rain, a lot of water passing through
there? I mean like inches or an inch or is it just going to disperse?
Matt Saam: Councilman Peterson, the applicant's supplied drainage calculations
modeling 100 year storm event through the swale and it was in the inches range of water.
Councilman Peterson: Just from a practical standpoint, is it apt to stick around very
long? Is it apt to stay around very long? I mean is there enough of a drop there where
it's going to disperse quickly or flow?
Matt Saam: Yeah, it's not intended to pond or pool water. Of course during a rain event
there would be water in there a short time after the rain stopped there'd still be water, but
it's intended to drain out. To the pond.
Councilman Peterson: It's apt to drain out in hours? Minutes or? Hopefully not days,
right?
Matt Saam: That's a tough one.
Councilman Peterson: I know but I'm just saying, but the grading is intended to draw
attention away from, but it's draining within minutes I would assume.
40
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
Matt Saam: Yeah, unless it's spring rains where we're getting rain you know every day
for a while.
Kate Aanenson: I guess that was our concern too. It could be wet for a couple months in
the spring and that could be a concern, and that's, it just kind of lends to, if it' s not that
great of a lot, obviously it has a lot of value. We understand that. We appreciate that
from the developers but we also don't want, we're going to get the calls. And we're just
trying to set ourselves up you know to have the best, use our best information at this
point. To prevent a problem in the future.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Kate in terms of, a lot of my questions have been answered
already, but I reserve the right to ask more. With regard to connecting the
neighborhoods. That's something in our comprehensive plan that we require in terms of
trying to, for the reasons stated in the comprehensive plan. The question I have, and it
was brought up by one of the residents in the Planning Commission and I haven't had a
chance to address it specifically. Maybe it's been looked at with the Shivley
development up above. Rather than connecting on B Street, coming out of Pinehurst,
going straight over to Crestview. Have we looked at connecting at the end of the cul-de-
sac of A up to the cul-de-sac of Crestview, so we connect the neighborhoods without
maybe encouraging necessarily additional traffic through. Now, I.
Kate Aanenson: I think we're almost to the junior high by that point. I think you might
be a little bit past it. You're talking at the end of this? Up here.
Mayor Furlong: Yeah, if you back up because it looked like with your picture, and again
there's a lot there but it looked like with your pictures with the Shivley neighborhood laid
on top of that.
Kate Aanenson: Can this go, yeah. This is actually. . . on that side of the pen is actually
now we're at the middle school site. That's the property line.
Mayor Furlong: I mean done it align? Does it work?
Matt Saam: I think one of the things we were trying to do is save this applicant what this
proposal is trying to save the trees. Let me go up.
Mayor Furlong: Sure.
Matt Saam: They were trying to save the trees in this area, Mr. Mayor. I think that's
what you're asking if we could move this street over.
Mayor Furlong: No, not necessarily. IfB ended up being a private street or cul-de-sac,
which get back to the correctness of doing that. Rather than connecting the
neighborhoods, using Street B here and aligning that. Thank you for that picture. You
can see where I'm pointing at my television screen. Rather than connecting there. Does
it work to align the cul-de-sac at the end of Street A to connect that over to the cul-de-sac
41
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
over at the end of Crestview? See right now Street B is coming in short of that cul-de-
sac.
Matt Saam: Right through here.
Mayor Furlong: Yeah. And maybe it's going to eliminate too many lots out of both of
them.
Matt Saam: Yeah I guess maybe the applicant looked at it. I haven't seen a proposal,
sample grading plan, that sort of thing that would look at doing that.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. I think that would, and I don't want to redesign. I'm asking the
question, and maybe it's something since both of these are coming through at the same
time, somebody can look at. It's a tough situation because I definitely heard and saw
what the residents said on this issue, as well as the Planning Commission but the overall
benefits of connecting the neighborhoods I think are positive. Is there a compromise that
works where we can accomplish our goal of trying to connect the neighborhoods in terms
of building something more than a city of cul-de-sacs and private drives, and yet at the
same time address some of the neighbors concerns.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, we can look at it. I think, just my understanding is that it's no
connection, so I'm not sure if the point of the connection. It's the no connection. I'm not
sure if moving the contact, if the contact point makes it more palatable. I just think it's
the connection issue. That's all.
Mayor Furlong: It may not. There is an issue of additional traffic by making a curve all
the way around reduces any through point. We'll get to comments in terms of what the
expectations of traffic.
Andrew Johnson: Mr. Mayor, I am the...the development of that so if there are any
questions that you'd like to ask me, I'm available. I'm certainly willing to...
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Thank you. I'm not sure where we are in the process with
both of these. The preliminary but given that they're both coming through at the same
time. So I guess, I know the applicant will come up, or I'd like to invite the applicant up,
unless there are any other questions for staff at this time. Maybe they can address that
question and all the others they've heard this evening. Is a representative from the
applicant here? Is the applicant here? This evening.
Nathan Franzen: Good evening Mayor and council members. My name is Nathan
Franzen. I'm with Plowshares Development. Just want to start offby saying that the, we
appreciate staff s work on this project. It's been a back and forth on many different
issues and it's not been a very straight forward thing but we think we've come to a
conclusion on pretty much everything to date, with the exception of one thing and that
being the elimination of Lot 27, or condition (p). And I'm just going to start with that
one because that was a pretty big one for us. I just want to start off by stating that Lot 27
42
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
meets and exceeds all the city ordinances and standards for setbacks, size. We're not
asking for a single variance on that lot. In fact it's 20 percent larger than your minimum
lot size of 18,232 square feet, which seems like we should be able to create a conforming
lot out of something nearly a half acre in size. Staff s concerns were mainly related to
runoff volume and grades, as well as a swale being properly graded at the time of
construction or into the future. And I guess to address those concerns, when we
calculated the drainage area we went back and made sure that that area, that's draining
into Lot 27, was not going to be something that would cause a liability to the property
owner and from our standpoint we wouldn't be proposing a lot that we thought had
liability issues. We are a builder as well and we understand that these issues come back
years and years from today. From when they're approved. So I guess we're staking our
opinion or our reputation on this lot as well. And to address some of staff s concerns
related to that, we did provide all the calculations proving that this isn't anything out of
the ordinary as far as storm water runoff is concerned, and we are also willing to accept
all of the staffs alternative conditions found on page 5. Specifically that we will dedicate
the drainage and utility easement over the entire swale. This will help protect that swale
from ever being built upon and secondly we will survey the lot after the landscaping is
complete so once the landscaping's done, the sod is in, we'll go back out. Re-survey the
lot to insure that that swale is built correctly. I think that alone is something that's stating
our commitment to make sure that lot is going to be correctly. It's going to work
properly and I did bring along our project engineer to answer any questions more
specifically about site drainage. He's been going over that particular lot quite a bit lately
so, with that I would ask that you delete condition (p) and replace it with staff s
alternative conditions found on page 5. And I'll certainly answer any questions related to
that. As far as condition (0) is concerned, which is the connection to the Shivley
Addition, we would like to reiterate that we are in agreement with staff on this issue. We
see the need in the future for that area, if it ever were to redevelop, it would be in the best
interest of the city to have another connection. It's already been talked about that if
there's construction traffic on Crestview, that it is probably getting in and out of
Crestview because it is so narrow and it jogs. However if you don't agree with that, we
would ask that you approve the alternative street connection and basically if you feel that
street is not justified, we would ask that you approve the private street with the cul-de-
sac. This would still provide a sewer and trail connection but it would eliminate the
street connection and I guess Kate's been over that with you and we are fine and okay
with either of those options and we think both of those are quite viable options. I just
have a couple of clarifying points I'd like to ask, as long as we're up here. Condition 9
and that's the trail connection. I've been in discussions with staff on the condition
actually states that it will be stubbed out of Street A, which is this street right here. I just
wanted to clarify that that was a.
Mayor Furlong: I'm sorry Kate.
Kate Aanenson: That's wrong. We want that to come off of, there's a connect through
Street B.
Mayor Furlong: Yeah okay.
43
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
Nathan Franzen: If that could be noted, I'd appreciate it. And I'd also like to note that
we are donating Outlot A to the City and it is not required for the dedication or the City's
subdivision regulations, and that we are not receiving any financial payment or credit for
the city for the dedication of this land, and that's really for the record more than anything.
At this point I'd entertain any questions you may have about the remaining issues.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for the applicant. I guess the one question you
brought up, Lot 27. Councilman Peterson was saying what are the alternatives besides
just sheet draining that, surface drainage of that. I think that's going to be an issue. Have
you looked at that as alternatives?
Nathan Franzen: I would like to have my engineer address that.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you.
Chris Moehrl: Mayor, council members. My name is Chris Moehrl with Westwood. I'm
the project engineer on the job. What we've done on Lot 27, basically we've gone into a
detailed evaluation of the drainage on the lot. We don't want to propose a lot that's not
going to work from a drainage perspective or from an engineering perspective so we've
gone an extra step and done some additional detailed calculations. Basically from
discussions with staff and meeting with staff, understand the main concern again is
drainage. Ifwe look at this graphic here, essentially the way we have it graded out right
now is that all water would flow away from the pad to a high point right here and a swale.
That that would run down this side lot line. Some of the water would run this way and
some of the water would run towards the street and then there would be a catch basin
inlet right here that would pick up some of that water. We wanted to kind of get an idea
of really how much water is in this swale that we're looking at. I do have a drainage area
map that we put together. Right here, this is Lot 27. This is 26, 25, 24 and then we also
included half of 23. Part of our conservative approach on this too we assumed that the
entire house would drain towards the back yards. Ideally you've got a couple of down
spouts in the front of the house that would then drain out to the front of the street and a
couple downspouts in the back that would go to the back yard, but we did want to be
conservative on this approach because it is important to us. After doing those
calculations we ran it with 100 year storm, again being conservative, and we had
computed that in this drainage swale that goes around the house, we had 2 inches of
water in that swale. And again that would be at the peak of the storm. As soon as the
rain stops and you had asked the question about timing and how long that water would be
there. As soon as the storm stops, just because of the limited distances here, I would say
that that would drain out probably within 10 minutes. So it's not, the swale's not
designed to hold any water after the rain stops. It would fully drain out once it's ended.
So again through detailed design, we also want to ensure that the slopes grade away from
the pad. We do have it designed that way. We could steepen these slopes up a little bit
more to add a little extra security on the swale. We also looked at the ordinance for both
the city and watershed. There's a requirement of the lowest opening, which would be the
walkout elevation or.. .of3 feet above the 100 year high water level. In this case we're at
44
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
3.1 feet. Another requirement would be an emergency overflow which would need to be
at least 2 feet below the walkout elevation. On this particular pad we're also 3.1 feet
exceeding the requirement, and again the emergency overflow is a case where if you look
at the site, and again the grading design is probably one of the most important
engineering functions of the project. Ifwe look at the site and say okay, worst case
scenario. If all the storm sewer fails, all the pipes get plugged up, where does the water
go? That's why we do provide for emergency overflow so that we don't flood out houses
and we don't get basements with water.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant?
Councilman Peterson: Just before you leave, give me an idea of how wide the swale
would be, at the 100 year storm? With 2 inches of water in there, how wide are we
talking?
Chris Moehrl: 3 feet wide is what we used in the calculation.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Commissioner Sacchet, anything to add?
Uli Sacchet: Yes. Mr. Mayor, council members. My name is Uli Sacchet. I'm the Chair
of the Planning Commission. There is a few things I want to briefly add. First of all,
where the Planning Commission is coming from by recommending not to connect the
neighborhoods. I think that has not been properly looked at yet. The Planning
Commission very clearly understands the benefit of connecting neighborhoods, and we
also understand that the comprehensive plan very clearly gives directives that we do want
to connect neighborhoods. However, at the public hearing we had we had unanimous,
very outspoken unanimous consent from the neighborhood of Crestview to the north that
they do not want to be connected. We've had a similar situation not that long ago just
north of there where we had a neighborhood that did not want the road to go through. I
think it was Melody Hill or what was it called? Melody Lane. And in that case the
Planning Commission stood up the principle of the comprehensive plan and made the
recommendation to connect. At that point the council decided to allow the request of the
neighborhood not to connect. And in that particular case I think the connection would
have been more important than this particular case here, and therefore the Planning
Commission felt confident to recommend not to connect because it was very outspoken,
very unanimous request from the neighborhood to the north not to be connected. Now, at
the same time I also want to stress that the Planning Commission was very clear that we
recommend a trail connection. A foot trail connection. That ultimately will connect also
to the high school. To the West. And that's going to be part of the other proposal that's
going to come in front of you, but I do believe it plays into this consideration here. I also
want to point out that the Planning Commission did recommend nevertheless still to have
the connection from this proposal on the west side going to the high school as well. To
have both of them. There seemed to be value to that.
Mayor Furlong: I'm sorry, for clarification.
45
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
Uli Sacchet: Yes please.
Mayor Furlong: There's, the Planning Commission, so and we heard that Street A was a
mistake. You're saying that the Planning Commission recommend a trail going both at
the end of Street B and at the end of Street A?
Uli Sacchet: At the time I think we did, didn't we? Can you verify that Kate? It would
have to be verified to be very clear in terms of giving you a clear answer to that one.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Sorry for the interruption.
Uli Sacchet: I'm also not sure whether we considered the possibility of the private street
at the time which would make sense for the context that it become a private street to
reduce the impact. I do want to point out that the Planning Commission felt pretty
strongly about getting rid of the Lot that's been kind of discussed, whether it should stay
or not. Lot number 27 I believe it is. That's the things I want to add from the Planning
Commission. I also do want to point out, as you probably know this, it's my
understanding that we have very good representation of the neighborhood to the north
here tonight and as you probably observed some of these people would very much love to
make a comment so that's just something I want to add here. I think it could be
beneficial to let some of these people speak. Just my personal opinion. Thank you very
much.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Uli Sacchet: Any questions?
Councilman Labatt: Thank you. Did you say that the Planning Commission strongly
recommended to eliminate Lot 27? Did I hear you correctly?
Uli Sacchet: We voted to eliminate it. There was 1 member I believe that did not think
so, but where we were split is how to use the lot. There were some members of the
Planning Commission that thought it would be a good idea to do a totlot. Others thought
it would not be a good idea. But the majority was clearly voting to eliminate Lot 27.
Councilman Labatt: Okay, thank you.
Uli Sacchet: Anything else?
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Just a follow-up question. Mr. Hoffman, Councilman
Labatt asked a question about the totlot I think during staff presentation. Do you have
just a quick response to that about the totlot in the area relative to coverage?
Todd Hoffman: This is a map that shows park service areas in the community. The
concept of a neighborhood I think when we take a look at this particular area, it's not the
neighborhoods that we're talking about for park service areas. Park service areas are up
46
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
to a half mile for a neighborhood park. Over a mile for a community park, and then for a
regional park, such as Minnewashta Regional, that is just 3 to 5 cities is the park service
area. So if we take a look specifically at the property of Pinehurst, it does abut the
Minnetonka middle school site. It will have direct access to that recreational facility and
so it's directly in the center of this, of a community park service area. It is also on the
fringe of a park service area for Herman Field Park, which is to the west. Across 41.
And Pheasant Hills neighborhood park is just to the east across Galpin. That's the
current conditions that we have in this particular area for park service areas. Again,
neighborhood parks, half a mile. Up to half a mile. And they serve, again depending on
the size of the park, the neighborhood park, up to 5,000 residents in our community, and
so we're talking about 28 acres. 43 homes. Up to 100 to 150 residents and the city does
not have the ability to provide a neighborhood park site for every neighborhood of 100 to
150 residents. Ifwe jump forward a little bit and take a look at future planning in this
area in regards to park. We bring up the darker green circles are sites that are either
currently acquired or being studied. First in this area, the one that is currently acquired is
the area north ofPulte, and so you start to fill in this neighborhood park service area as
that land is developed. A site that we're studying very close to the Pinehurst proposal is
the Carlson property, right here near Lake Harrison, so the acquisition of a future
neighborhood park site and that begins to fill in that site even more. And then two, one
off to the west, one off to the east. If Camp Tanadoona every develops, we would look
for a property in that location. And if the Gorra property would ever develop, so you
start to see that the smaller circles really blend and fill in our total park service areas
which we plan into the future. We certainly recommend or encourage private developers
to develop their totlot. A totlot facility if they think that will meet the demands or the
needs of their residents, but again we cannot mandate that they do that.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any questions? Thank you for that addition.
Tim Larkin: Mayor?
Mayor Furlong: Sir.
Tim Larkin: As the only existing homeowner in the Shivley Addition, I would like to
request 5 minutes from the council.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Just a minute if you would please. Any other questions for staff?
Kate Aanenson: I just want to make one clarification too on the comment regarding the
trail. I think when we looked at Street A, for that trail, we hadn't seen the Shivley
Addition so I think it'd be a duplication to put it on A and B, if that was the case at this
time. I think it's staff s opinion that B would be a better access point, street or no street,
to get up through that. Tie into that cul-de-sac and go over.
Mayor Furlong: Given what you're seeing right now, the development to the north?
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
47
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
Mayor Furlong: Okay. As opposed to two?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, you're in the center more. Picks up more of that traffic going
north. The pedestrian traffic.
Mayor Furlong: Alright. You know with regard to other public comments. I'd be
happy, and we'd be happy to listen to comments from residents. Generally we pick those
up during the visitor presentations because the public hearing took place on this at the
Planning Commission level. If there was misunderstanding about that, I apologize. What
I would ask, since the council has had copies of the verbatim minutes for the Planning
Commission, that if somebody wants to address an item that's been raised tonight, or
some changes between the Planning Commission plan and this plan, and you want to
make comments on that, you're certainly welcome to come forward. What I don't want
to do, just for purposes of time and efficiency, that we get into a full re-discussion of the
issues discussed at the public hearing. The Planning Commission's the place for the
public hearing. Also we're dealing with this Pinehurst Addition so the Shivley Addition,
while that's gone through the Planning Commission. The council has not seen the
minutes of that. Some of us have watched the tapes or watched it on TV but I don't
necessarily want to get into that discussion, except for perhaps where there might be
some interconnections from a trail or a street standpoint. But even then, it might be
premature to get into those discussions. So if there is somebody that would like to come
forward and address the council on an issue, please do so.
Tim Larkin: Mr. Mayor, members of the council. I appreciate the time and I'll try to be
very brief.
Mayor Furlong: If you could state your name and address for the record.
Tim Larkin: My name is Tim Larkin. I am the, currently the only existing homeowner in
the Shivley Addition. I purchased the existing home. Working with the Lecy company I
found them to be very good folks, as I'm sure you know. I can appreciate your dilemma
because I understand from a testimony at the Planning Commission that the
comprehensive plan does call for a connection. The problem in this particular case with
interconnection is it leads to an inequity, and I'll try to be brief and address that. And I
would also like to point out that in the packet on this particular addition, or this particular
application, it very clearly states that the Planning Commission recommended that Street
B be turned into a cul-de-sac and that the connection that you're talking about to the
junior high school come off of Street A. It's in bold in the report in front of you. I don't
know how it stated that it was a mistake that it should come off of Street B. What I'm
confused about, and I'm a layman obviously. What I'm confused about is what is the
purpose of the Planning Commission? The entire neighborhood Mr. Mayor came out to
the Planning Commission. Gave public testimony and tonight I understand the limits of
time but tonight the staff has completely disregarded it, it seems to me, although they've
reported to you. They've completely disregarded the findings of the Planning
Commission, which were in short that the interconnection was not necessary in that the
48
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
current development has entrances and exits along Manchester and along Galpin. In
addition the inequity it's created on what would be the new Crestview, which is of course
my cul-de-sac, the inequity that would be created, you have 43 homes to the south that
would conceivably be coming up to the new Crestview cul-de-sac, dropping off their
children as if it were part of the junior high school and letting them walk through the
back yard of the junior high school. I think that creates an inequity for the folks in the
existing Crestview neighborhood. In addition, I don't have the map because I frankly
thought this was going to be a formality. I thought that the Planning Commission made
themselves very clear. I didn't understand that that wasn't binding. Staff has
recommended a trail, if I might use this.
Mayor Furlong: Could you help him orientate.
Tim Larkin: Alright, thank you. Staff has recommended the trail connection, as you can
see, here and here. Now I would, I don't know if you can zoom in that at all.
Mayor Furlong: Can you slide it over? There you go.
Tim Larkin: Here and here, which is literally down the back of my lot line, and then
towards the junior high to the west. The gentleman in this existing home testified at the
Planning Commission. I obviously paid a great deal of money 4 months ago and
preserved trees in this area here for that express purpose. As I understand it, there's
going to be a great deal of tree loss to put that trail in, which again is not something that
the Planning Commission was for. The Planning Commission and the developer agreed
that a better place for that trail would be between 2 and 3. Lots 2 and 3, and I understand
you're not here to consider the Shivley development tonight, but it seems to one citizen it
seems very confusing that the expressed recommendations of the Planning Commission
appear to weigh for nothing here tonight. And I have literally all my neighbors here
tonight willing to testify. I understand that you're not going to hear that testimony again,
but that literally allows the council to not hear the cries of the neighborhood that there's a
safety issue. There's an inequity being created. You've got 43 homes to the south
dumping into what will be a 5 person cul-de-sac. I think there's an additional safety
issue, and I'll leave this for last. I think there's an additional safety issue created by the
connection down the existing Crestview. If you're not familiar with it, it's a grade down
to Galpin and there's a very sharp curve in the middle of Crestview. It's not a very wide
right-of-way. I believe, and someone could correct me on this, I believe it's an existing
50 foot. 40 foot right-of-way existing. So it's a very narrow street and it has a very large
curve in the center of it. My neighbors to the east along existing Crestview are very
concerned with the safety issue of 43 homes cutting through there, as we all know will
happen. 43 homes cutting through there and coming down that very narrow, very windy
street so I appreciate your listening to my comments.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you.
Tim Larkin: Any questions for me?
49
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
Mayor Furlong: No, thank you.
Alan Nikolai: Mayor and council members. My name is Alan Nikolai, 6282 Cartway
Lane. My mother is Doris Nikolai who lives at 6570 Galpin Boulevard, which is on the
northeast of this development, and you said to keep it towards streets or things that have
not been already covered at the Planning Commission. And I will do that. Like to
commend Nathan over here and Matt with working with me in the last week on further
developments of that turn lane. That was, at the Planning Commission they found out the
day of! believe, so and then we finally have actually seen a plan in the last couple days.
My concern is that heard today some information. I do take exception to the trees being
on public right-of-way. They are on my mother's land. When that city trail was put in
approximately 5, 7 years back, she was paid by the city for construction easements and
also for loss of trees on that supposedly public right-of-way, what the city staff had said.
That is private. It is 33 1/3 feet off the county center line. Not approximately 50 feet as
city staff has suggested. That is an issue. So basically that is a problem. I do, my mother
talked with her, she does want to have that right turn lane start south of her private
driveway. If you have not been out there, her private driveway is a very steep,
approximately 12 to 15 percent grade already. To shift the turn lane 12 feet to the west is
going to greatly steepen that. There will be massive soil corrections to be able to get up
that driveway. It's already difficult now to make it steeper, it's going to be a nightmare
for her. So I'm very concerned about how that right turn lane will impact her property.
She would like to see it to the south and being that the County has looked at that, that if
you would consider that as a condition with this development, that it start to the south of
her private driveway. It'd be safer. Limited sight visibility for her to come down onto a
right turn lane. It's just not kosher. You don't have a public, a right turn lane and have a
private drive coming into the turn lane itself. That's an accident waiting to happen, and
that is a safety issue. You mentioned the streets. One thing that Mr. Larkin did not cover
is that it is also on that S curve on Crestview. It is very limited sight visibility, especially
in the summer time. Extremely limited. To the point if you have two vehicles going
more than 15 miles an hour, you're risking a head on there. The additional traffic would
make it an accident waiting to happen so I please not consider that in your decision
making about the connecting the two neighborhoods when there's unanimous consent
that they do not want that. Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. A quick question Ms. Aanenson with regard to the
right turn lane and the property there, where that would be. We can make a condition.
Our assumption is it's in the right-of-way at this point. Surveys will dictate where it is or
isn't. What if it's not all in the right-of-way? Ifwe require that based upon I think
Councilman Labatt brought up.
Kate Aanenson: Assuming there'd be some sort of compensation or get an easement
from the neighbor.
Mayor Furlong: And who would be responsible for that?
Kate Aanenson: The developer. A condition of approval.
50
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: Can I just iterate one thing because has come up before and while you
have verbatim minutes, I focused on the staff. I didn't want to minimize the Planning
Commission's recommendations because when we get to this level, often there is
sometimes a split on the Planning Commission or internally between planning and
engineering, so that's the purpose of this is to kind of filter through all of the
recommendations. Park and Rec, planning, engineering, and the Planning Commission
and certainly didn't want to minimize. I hope I reiterated that they didn't want to connect
it, nor did they on the Shivley want to connect those.
Mayor Furlong: I think that was clear.
Kate Aanenson: Again, one of our leading points on that connection, while we agree that
Crestview is a narrow road, we've heard both applicants say that construction traffic,
even at the back end where Lecy' s building could come through this way, which we think
is a benefit to that neighbor to the north also. That neighborhood Crestview to the north.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you.
Nathan Franzen: I'd like to shed some light on the trail issue and the turn lane issue real
quickly. Regarding the trail and Street A, one of the reasons why we suggested that the
staff was the grade different at the end of Street A and where the top of the playing field
is. You know does that, does everybody know where I'm talking about?
Mayor Furlong: The track you're saying in the middle school?
Nathan Franzen: This point. Is somewhere in the range of8 to 10 feet in difference of
grade, and that would most likely require steps so it's not going to be an efficient trail
connection that you can ride a bike. And that's why we agreed with staff that, behind the
scenes that Street B was a better alternative connection because it is all at grade. And in
fact the reason why it's to the north, northern part of Shivley Addition is because that is
where the school's property and the Shivley's properties the most even between the two
properties so there's the least amount of grading at that location. So that is why that
location was chosen. And also as far as the turn lane goes, the property line I guess is in
dispute. We have looked at it and believe that it is completely within the right-of-way.
However, I have also indicated that if it wasn't and we did remove trees, that we'd be
willing to replace the equivalent amount of trees that we take out of that right-of-way
area onto his property once it's identified so. We're willing to try to be a good neighbor
and replace any trees that we, are caused by us.
Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you.
Andrew Johnson: Mr. Mayor Andy with Lecy Construction. One thing that I did want to
mention too is, with this connection that we are willing to make, from here we also have
51
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
an issue because we are looking from basically walkout grade, okay. So there is going to
be, probably 6 or 7 foot grade difference from here to here, so we have the same issues as
Plowshares will to make that connection. Our big concern is that you have 43 residents,
or 42. The problem is, you're going to... all that traffic is going to come up along here, to
our development. The same thing with Brenden Court. We built a couple residents on
that cul-de-sac. It's the same thing that they have a problem is with all those residents
come out that street. And actually. . . build a fence because as you know looking across
here, with kids and everything else, it's going to be the quickest way. ... quickest way to
this trail so cutting across is certainly going to be an issue.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Okay, anybody else who would like to comment?
Very good, thank you. Any other questions for staff at this point? If not, let's bring it
back to council for discussion. Who'd like to make a go of this one? I'll start calling on
people. Deputy Mayor. W ell let' s start discussing some of the issues. I mean we can go
back and forth here. We don't have to just hit everything at once. Maybe the thing is to
start hitting some of the issues and we can hit some easier ones first.
Councilman Labatt: Big one first. Street B.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Labatt.
Councilman Labatt: Giving Craig some direction. Go ahead Craig.
Councilman Peterson: You know I'm torn. I came in thinking that it was a good thing to
do. You know that's what our goals are for the comprehensive plan. I like the idea of
bringing as many neighborhoods together as we can when appropriate and when
reasonable. I see the issue of the kids trekking through different neighborhoods. The
steepness of that. That will stop some kids from doing it. Some won't. So I'm on the
fence, no pun intended, on the street issue. Came in thinking that I want to connect and
now I'm anxious to hear other people's perspective.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you.
Councilman Peterson: Want to take them one at a time?
Mayor Furlong: I want to get some discussion going. We're hitting a late hour and I
think we have a lot of things thrown at us. I mean the big issues, and there are some
minor ones. We've got to clean up the minor ones too. Big issues are the connection
issue, the street connection. Trail is kind of related to that. We also have the Lot 27. I
think the sanitary sewer issue has been addressed. Some minor issues include whether or
not there's a totlot required. There's some issues on, we've got the right-of-way issue.
We've got, how many more issues do we got? We got some of the other conditions that
were included, not only in the staff s report but other conditions added by the Planning
Commission, that depending on which way we go with some of the issues may resolve
themselves. With regard to the arborvitae. You know that's kind of the right-of-way and
I think we've heard some information on where that is so, whether we want to start with
52
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
the street issues, you know and give thoughts on that. Why don't we do that? That's the
elephant in the living room I think and let's get some thought on connecting the
neighborhoods to the north, between Pinehurst and Crestview. Maybe we can see where
thoughts are there. Councilwoman Tjornhom.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Alright. Being newly elected I guess I am, as I said that I was
representing the residents of Chanhassen and tonight I feel that I have to represent them
in this manner. You have to respect the comprehensive plan and I do, unless there's an
overwhelming majority of people that have a different opinion. And I think this impacts
their day to day life and I think it impacts the whole neighborhood. They bought their
homes. They settled in expecting something that you know, if this road goes through,
their quality of life I think it lessens by the whole thing and so I think I have to respect
the people that are there now, and so I am not in favor of connecting the two
neighborhoods together.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Councilman Lundquist.
Councilman Lundquist: I would probably have to agree with the council, Councilwoman
Tjornhom, although not having, not to, obviously not living up there, if! look at, I've
probably driven down Crestview twice in my life so if I lived in this Pinehurst thing, even
if Street B was there, I don't know why I would want to drive down that road rather than
just drive right down this nice, wide street A out onto Galpin. You really don't have a
reason to drive on Pinehurst. It's a narrow street. You can't see. You can't turn around.
You can't get out onto Galpin from there either way, so at the end of the day, I don't
think it makes a difference because nobody's really going to do that anyway. But the
residents feel pretty strongly I guess I don't see an advantage either way other than
Pinehurst is going to lose some land. Some lot area having to build a cul-de-sac on there,
and you know with the Shivley Addition coming through, if they think that people are
just going to drive up there and drop their kids off, if they make that connection. If
people want to drop their kids off, they're just going to drive up Pinehurst and drop them
off there anyway, probably. So I guess I don't, it doesn't really, at the end of the day it
doesn't really matter to me either way on this one, and I'd be willing to go with the
residents request and wishes and just make that a cul-de-sac at B.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Councilman Labatt.
Councilman Labatt: Well, I can, I really do understand the points, and I've talked to
some friends up on that Brenden Court that have had problems with a dumping ground
for their kids to get through the fence there. So I understand the concern about the cul-
de-sac in Shivley being utilized that way. So the question would be is, do we make that
street to be a cul-de-sac and we say to Plowshares well, put the connection down off of
Street A. At the end of Street A between Lots 7 and 8 or Lot 8 and the private cul-de-sac,
and either way there's a grade. So do you take one person's problem and put it up on the
northern development and say well, you figure it out? I don't think we do. I think that
the problem lies within the Plowshares thing here. People are going to be accessing the
school. Let's let them create the trail connection through their own development. So if
53
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
I've confused anybody about my position earlier, I would, now I may confuse myself. In
listening to my fellow councilors, I'm now in favor of keeping Street B a cul-de-sac. I
think that that does make sense, the most to making that a cul-de-sac. And saying to
Plowshares, let's put that lot, that connection down off of Street A into the school. Did I
really confuse you mayor?
Mayor Furlong: No, but you jumped onto another issue and we were trying to stick to the
street. But the street and the trail are connected. No pun intended.
Councilman Labatt: Okay.
Mayor Furlong: My thought on the street connection, it is, I started looking at this and
recognizing the wishes of the residents to the north off Crestview, and saying that we
need to connect these streets. It's something that long term is what we need to do as a
city and from planning. I don't think the City of Chanhassen, as I mentioned earlier
tonight, should become a city of cul-de-sacs and private drives. I don't think that's good
development long term. It doesn't create a sense of community. A connection of
neighborhoods. The challenge here is, I agree with, while I agree with Councilman
Lundquist, I don't think there's going to be much in the way of traffic going through. It's
north at the end of most of the 42 houses. It does have that S curve there that is tough to
navigate. Will slow it down. I don't see a lot of traffic happening there. My concern is,
is that from a precedence standpoint, the argument that we're going to add traffic to our
road prevents us from connecting neighborhoods. From connecting streets in the future.
That concerns me because I think that argument will occur each and every time. And it
will keep us from following the comprehensive plan which is trying to build a city, not
individual developments. And that's where I'm struggling with this one. I don't think
anybody up here wants to go against a neighborhood, especially when it's as vocal and as
united in it's opinion as this one is, but at the same time, there are other neighborhoods
that are going to come to this council and to the Planning Commission and be vocal and
united and so this is one of those classic dilemmas and fortunately we get it on the first
meeting of this council. What type of city are we building? And I'm struggling. I think
there are some specific reasons here that I can look at to say don't connect these from a
street standpoint because of the design of Crestview. And the safety issues there. But
when we start looking at other roads, I mean we got to be careful, if that's what we're
going to say is, is if residents come to the councilor the Planning Commission and say
we don't want it because it's going to add traffic to our roads, then if that's the criteria I
think we're doing developments. We're not building a city and I think that's a problem.
So I don't know if you know what other people's thoughts are on there. I can see
specific reasons here where not connecting makes sense because of the design and the
layout of Crestview and the city currently has no plans to improve that. My preference
would be to connect them still. That is my preference. But I can see if my fellow council
members are saying there are some reasons not to but I think the impact is going to be
less than what I'm hearing people concerned about. It doesn't mean I don't think there
won't be an impact. There will be. You connect roads. There are going to be some cars
that are going to be kids riding bikes. I don't see a problem with that. I think that's
positive in terms of building a city. In terms of the trail, there's a need to connect the
54
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
trail. I've got, if we've got grading issues or adding steps is...I think putting a trail at the
end of a private road. . . all sorts of problems. We're talking, we're going to talk about Lot
27 in a minute. Let's talk about a trail coming through a private drive in terms of
inconvenience to those 3 property owners later, or the traffic or cars driving up the
private drive to turn around to drop off kids if the trail goes up there. I think that's going
to be a problem from a use standpoint. We need to put.
Councilman Labatt: At least it's their own neighbors though. Here you're taking.
Mayor Furlong: Well you don't, I guess I'm not necessarily saying that. There could be
other people. It's a public road. There could be other people that will come up and drop
children off. That happens on, is it Brenden Court right now. It's not just the people that
live on Brenden Court that use that trail to go to the middle school. The other thing is,
from a proximity standpoint here, you're traveling across the fields. You've got a much
longer walk and in the dead of winter, people aren't going to be dropping their kids off in
this neighborhood. They're going to be doing it someplace else or driving them right to
the front door, where they should so you know, anyplace we put the trail, somebody's not
going to like it so we've got to pick the best place. Whether we connect the
neighborhoods, people aren't going to like it. So the question is, is that good public
policy in terms of building a city or do we say there are reasons here where we won't, but
that is still our policy. And I would be comfortable with that but I wouldn't necessarily
be comfortable taking a position that we're not going to try to connect neighborhoods. I
think that's the wrong direction to go. Thoughts, feedback. Did we resolve anything or
are we just continuing to say this is a tough situation? Let's, given that, what do we want
to do, Councilman Peterson? Any other thoughts? You were waiting to hear from us.
Councilman Peterson: I think that based upon that, I would like to connect because I
think it's going to bring the neighborhoods together. I think that's important. And again,
I agree with Councilman Lundquist, that it's not going to bring traffic up. A little bit, but
probably not discernable and it will bring kids throughout the neighborhoods but I think
that's a good thing. So I probably would lean towards bringing the street through, as staff
recommended.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright, thank you. Other comments? Thoughts. If not, why
don't we try to move on to some other issues. Lot 27. We've got the Planning
Commission and staff are both recommending that that lot be eliminated because of
storm water runoff. Thoughts and comments on that.
Councilman Lundquist: I'll go first on this one. I think, I'm in favor ofleaving 27 the
way it is. The developer, the engineering firm, seems like they've put in a great deal of
effort and yeah, we've had some bad experiences in other places but unless the staff can
demonstrate that we've had calculations in that area and do things, and the fact that the
developer's willing to put an easement across that and do the surveying after the
landscaping, I think is a good compromise so I'm willing to give him 27 on that and I
think staff is right that we're going to be the ones, or they're going to be the ones that get
the call, not the developer and the home builder so the onus is then that we put that
55
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
easement out there and that we know that when people come in for that, to put up a
structure and things, that we watch for that and that we get the survey after that house is
built and the landscaping's in there so we can avoid some of those, oh I didn't know it
was there things going on so I'm in favor ofleaving 27 in. With the added conditions on
page 3 I think it is.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Other comments.
Councilman Peterson: I concur.
Mayor Furlong: Councilman Labatt.
Councilman Labatt: I say it goes. Eliminate it.
Mayor Furlong: You say eliminate it?
Councilman Labatt: Yeah.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. I'm concerned about keeping in a problem lot. The
engineering information that we have in our packet was dated on the 30th. The Planning
Commission didn't have privy to that information in terms of the storm. But I also
respect their opinion about not wanting to create a problem lot. We've got an engineer
saying it's okay. We've go the developer that I think has done good work in this city
before and while coming in tonight I was assuming that, I was hoping that there'd be a
solution beyond just looking at surface drain, and what I'm hearing is there really isn't.
And so, you know, the concern there is that we're creating a problem lot but working
with the best information we've got I guess. I can go either way on that one at this point.
Is there any other issues or discussion on that? Other major issues or other issues to
discuss here? The right turn lane's been brought up. That was late in the Planning
Commission. It sounds like there's been some progress there, both in terms of staff, the
county and the developer and the property owner. To the extent that there is property line
disputes, that's not an issue for the city to deal with, am I correct there?
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, so Councilman Labatt, you were suggesting that we make sure
that staff work with the County. Get traffic counts and design that right turn lane so that
it's sufficient for the traffic there. I think that's a reasonable position and with the desire
to keep it on the south side of the driveway if at all possible.
Councilman Labatt: If at all possible yeah, but we need to, I mean they've got the traffic
counts. We know what the speed limit is out there. You and I drive that road a lot. It's
40 zone there but we, some travel faster than 40.
Mayor Furlong: You've seen some others?
56
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
Councilman Labatt: I've seen some. Never done it myself but, so we just need to get
better data and we need to figure out that if the Nikolai's lose trees that are not in the
right-of-way property, that they are compensated by Plowshares.
Mayor Furlong: And it sounded like Plowshares was willing, did I understand, whether
it's in the right-of-way, if you're taking trees out, you'll do some replacement and work
with the property owner?
Nathan Franzen: Correct, either way.
Mayor Furlong: Yeah so, okay. Are there any other comments or discussion on the right
turn lane? There was the issue on the arborvitae hedge, ifI'm pronouncing that correctly.
Councilman Lundquist: Arborvitae.
Mayor Furlong: Arborvitae, thank you. If that's the only mistake I make, I'll be doing
pretty good. Any thoughts or comments? The Planning Commission was saying use best
efforts not to take it out. I think that's, that will be done. Anyway. The question is
whether or not we force replacement of that in addition to whatever we're requiring under
our ordinance with regard to tree replacement. That was one, I guess a minor issue that I
see coming from that. Any thoughts or comments? That's the condition 4(e) and (t).
That were added. I guess there are 3 things there. Best efforts to preserve trees beyond
the tree preservation plan. There is ensuring that the hedge in the retaining wall survives.
Maybe there's a question about the word ensure there. And then replacing the hedge.
People comfortable with that? Is it more than what we need to be doing?
Councilman Lundquist: I would say thoughts on the arborvitae and the turn lane and all
of that stuff are still too far up in the air. We need to see where that, where the right-of-
way is. Where the private property is. What is all going on. Traffic counts. Speeds.
There's just way too much up in the air right now for me to say either way on the turn
lane. I don't know enough about what's going on there so we've got some work to do
there now so whether that.
Mayor Furlong: Between now and the final.
Councilman Lundquist: And final, absolutely. So whether that, you know I don't know I
guess what our options are there right now. Preliminary and final, but with what
information I have now, I can't say really anything in the turn lane right now because it's
too far up in the air.
Mayor Furlong: With the plant.
Councilman Lundquist: Or yeah, the hedges and all of that stuff. There's too much in
dispute and up in the air right there.
57
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
Mayor Furlong: For clarification, Ms. Aanenson, what do we need to do tonight in the
preliminary in terms of conditions, given Councilman Lundquist's issue of let's see
where some things shake out before we deal with these conditions. Do we continue with
these proposed conditions then or do we?
Kate Aanenson: Sure, I guess I would say, work with staff to demonstrate how the trees
can be preserved. If they can be preserved so we kind of leave it open ended so when it
comes back for preliminary, we show you the best management practices that we've
employed or however we're going to try to save those, or if they can't be saved, giving
the rationale why.
Councilman Lundquist: Or you know if it' s in the turn, I'm sorry, right-of-way. Private
property.
Kate Aanenson: Correct. Grading of the house pad. Correct.
Councilman Lundquist: Yeah, I think both the applicant and the homeowner there have, I
believe that they'll work it when they figure out where the line is and what's going on
and all of those kind of things but right now nobody knows really I don't think.
Mayor Furlong: The arborvitae are on the Pinehurst development property.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: It's not the property to the north.
Kate Aanenson: So I was just going to separate those two, thank you. Just for
clarification. Just for the clarification, for the City Attorney too, so what we're talking
about is (e) and (t). What we wanted to do. This is on page 11. What we wanted to do is
to put those in the format of following up with additional information to clarify those
points whether or not the evergreen hedge can be saved with a retaining wall. So it's a
but for. So we can resolve that at time of final plat and that would be consistent with (t).
Then a separate condition was, regarding preservation of trees on the Nikolai property.
To resolve that. To get additional information on the right-of-way line and.
Mayor Furlong: Can we put conditions?
Kate Aanenson: You can add, certainly.
Councilman Lundquist: Top of conditions?
Mayor Furlong: No, with regard to the property to the north.
Kate Aanenson: Sure, you can add any conditions you want.
Mayor Furlong: In terms of tree replacement in the right-of-way and...
58
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
Kate Aanenson: Well I guess it's a separate, it's a civil.
Councilman Lundquist: If those are on the Nikolai, those trees are on the Nikolai
property and that turn lane has to go into that private property.
Kate Aanenson: That's a matter between the developer and Mr. Nikolai to resolve.
Councilman Lundquist: Right. So our condition is that the turn lane has to be there and
then they've got to figure out.
Mayor Furlong: Properly designed based upon traffic.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct. They resolve it. Whether that's compensation or
however they work that out, that's correct.
Councilman Lundquist: Yeah, that's not for us to figure out.
Mayor Furlong: So you've got some suggested wording on 4(d), (e) and (t) there? To
address Councilman Lundquist's issues.
Kate Aanenson: Yes, between now and final plat the staff work to resolve conditions (d),
(e) and (t), to see if they're still valid. And then the other one I would add is, at the time
of final plat the staff shows you based on traffic and turn movements, the right-of-way
lane. The length that that needs to be for the dece1lane.
Mayor Furlong: I hope you're writing this down. Okay, we'll call on you at that point.
Kate Aanenson: Okay, sure.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other thoughts other than Councilman Lundquist on the trail
there, unless you have questions.
Councilman Labatt: Going back to that, where the existing driveway is right now, is that
going to be the same point to enter the development?
Mayor Furlong: Is that where the street is?
Councilman Labatt: Within 5-10 feet. So Todd's here. When we put the trail in, by my
seat up here, we went through an extensive effort to save those arborvitaes then right?
Todd Hoffman: Correct.
Councilman Labatt: And I mean we narrowed the path. Maybe you can kind of update
us on what.
59
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
Todd Hoffman: We moved the path from the farther in the ditch line up to the shoulder
of the road.
Councilman Labatt: At the applicant's request.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Councilman Labatt: And now we seem to.
Kate Aanenson: Different circumstances. Different.
Councilman Lundquist: I'm not saying not save the arborvitae. I'm just saying now.
Kate Aanenson: We don't have enough information here to clarify exactly how it's going
to.
Councilman Lundquist: I don't know if we can or not.
Roger Knutson: What you'd be doing is determining the feasibility of saving the
arborvitaes.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: And we're dealing with the arborvitae to the north of the existing
driveway, correct?
Kate Aanenson: All vegetation along that. Vegetation along Galpin. Feasibility of
saving vegetation along Galpin.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Okay. Where are we? Other issues. Minor issues. Other issues
that people want to discuss.
Councilman Lundquist: The trail.
Mayor Furlong: The trail? Where are we on the trail? I guess it's B, A or not. I'm
losing my place and that's not good at this late hour so with regard to the trail,
Councilman Lundquist. Thoughts.
Councilman Lundquist: I guess a question I think I heard the City Attorney talk to Mr.
Gerhardt before about, if it comes off of the private drive on, at the end of Street A and
we have to put stairs there, do we have an issue with accessibility?
Todd Gerhardt: Can't have stairs. Unless you provide another alternative around it.
Councilman Lundquist: So you've got to have a switchback or something. That sounds
like fun. So the longer, theoretically, the longer, farther away that we can get that trail
60
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
access from a grade change at the middle school, the easier that grade can be. I guess I'm
on Street B then.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Mr. Hoffman, comments?
Todd Hoffman: Clarification, or a comment. Just as we have a responsibility to provide
access, pedestrian access to the school site for the Pinehurst, when the Crestview property
comes through, we're going to have the same responsibility to connect those people. And
so if we do it only on Pinehurst, then we're going to have to do it up on Crestview as well
as they come through so instead of having one, it would probably make sense to combine
the two at the one access point that can connect it to neighborhoods.
Councilman Lundquist: So in other words if you put, if we put one at A with stairs and a
switchback, when Shivley comes in, you're going to have to put one there anyway.
Todd Hoffman: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: So that's why the recommendation was to include the trail across on B.
Okay. Any other thoughts on the trail? Councilman Labatt. Councilwoman Tjornhom.
Councilman Labatt: Could we do both?
Mayor Furlong: Require two trails? Well each developer would require a trail.
Councilman Lundquist: They're going to anyway.
Mayor Furlong: Where would you put them Councilman Labatt? What are your
thoughts?
Councilman Labatt: Well just run it down along Lot A there or Lot 8 off of Street A.
Mayor Furlong: Can I, Kate with regard to the preliminary plat. Is it, you wanted
direction from the council as to where that trail's going to go. I think there's a sense that
we should have a trail.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: And so there are, we've got both of these developments coming through
somewhat simultaneously so we can try to minimize the impact to all the homes and
reduce the class to all developers and maximize the effectiveness of the trails and avoid
as many steps and switchbacks as possible. Is that possible to do? Or do we need to
definitively state here where that trail goes at this time?
Kate Aanenson: Again, just kind of in the perusal of the Park Director but I just want to
remind everybody at the end of that, unless you went between these two, you're coming
at the end. You're on the end of a private street.
61
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
Councilman Labatt: Well what I was looking at is you've got a sidewalk running down
along the entire length of Street A, and it ends right there at the beginning of the private
drive.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Councilman Labatt: So you're jumping across to get to the other private drive, and then
you run it down along the lot, between Lot 8 and the private drive right towards the end
of the cul-de-sac. Then you're on the school property.
Councilman Lundquist: You're talking about running it right down the middle of 8. Lot
7 is halfway through the cul-de-sac in Street A.
Todd Gerhardt: There's some grade issues in that area too.
Councilman Labatt: Well we're talking about running it right down along here.
Councilman Lundquist: The lot line is here.
Councilman Labatt: No, I'm talking about running it right along here.
Councilman Lundquist: Yeah, that's a private drive.
Councilman Labatt: We'll run it right along the edge of Lot 8. Keep it inside of Lot 8
and just dedicate some land. Keep it off the private drive but just make a sidewalk there.
Councilman Lundquist: But the sidewalk goes along the private drive.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: What are the issues?
Kate Aanenson: I guess grades. Private drive.
Mayor Furlong: Yeah, the question is the grade issue. The further west you get, relative
to the school property to the north. While they're checking the grades on that, any other
comments on the trail or the location of the trail. Whether it comes offB or A or the
private drive.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I think Mr. Larkin had some concerns with his trees being
taken off the trail.
Mayor Furlong: That would be in the Shivley development.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yep.
62
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
Councilman Lundquist: You're going to wipe out trees no matter where you go. To get a
trail through there.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: Is it, for the Shivley development, what did Planning Commission do
with that? Did they table it or pass it? Approve it?
Kate Aanenson: No, they recommended approval without the connection but with the
trail connection. They had concerns regarding that connection between, going to the
north. Whether that, they spent a lot of time talking about grade and one of the members,
I'm not sure exactly. . .
Mayor Furlong: Well I guess from a concept standpoint, did they include a trail between
the end of the cul-de-sac on Crestview and the school?
Kate Aanenson: Yes. Yes. Yes they did.
Mayor Furlong: So that's going in.
Kate Aanenson: Yes. In the interest of trying to design it here, if you can give, since
we're coming back with final plat and you're going to see Shivley, it gives us some time
to sit down with them and sit down with Shivley and try to work it out and come back
under final plat. I'm not sure we're going to solve it.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, good. Any other issues we can address that way?
Kate Aanenson: I'd be happy to take them all that way.
Mayor Furlong: We need some. Okay, so anything else? Any other issues to discuss
here? We've dealt with, or we've at least exposed people's thoughts on the street
connection. Exposed people's thoughts on the Lot 27. We've got, we're going to have
further information brought out with regard to the right turn lane and the preservation of
vegetation along Galpin. Not to maximize that. Any other issues? Councilman
Peterson?
Councilman Peterson: Playground.
Mayor Furlong: I'm sorry. Playground? Totlot. Totlot, okay. Let's talk about that
quick.
Councilman Peterson: I don't think we need it.
Councilman Lundquist: Concur.
63
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Other thoughts. You're saying no?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: No totlot.
Mayor Furlong: No? Your thoughts?
Councilman Labatt: I'm either way but no.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. I don't know that it's necessary to require it here, given what we
heard from the Director of our Parks. I'd say no on that. Especially if 27 goes through,
it'd be hard to require a totlot on 27. Okay. Any other issues? Thoughts. Okay.
Councilman Lundquist: Could I propose a, something to help us speed us along. It
seems like to me.
Mayor Furlong: Now you want to propose that?
Councilman Lundquist: It seems to, we've got I think the street connection yeah or nay
and Lot 27 as a yeah or nay. Everything else I think we probably have consensus on
among the council so perhaps we could formulate a motion to include all of those and
then work on an amendment basis for what we do with the street and other piece.
Mayor Furlong: Well why don't we start with a motion that either includes or excludes
and then see if we need to amend. That motion.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay.
Mayor Furlong: If that would work. So we have a comprehensive motion to begin with.
Somebody want to work on that?
Kate Aanenson: And there are two motions...
Mayor Furlong: Two motions. Can we deal with those together, or do we need 4 on
either of them? Or we asked that earlier. We're on 3 on both of these?
Roger Knutson: You need a simple majority on both. So you can combine them in one
motion or individually if you choose.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Councilman Lundquist: Can we do the first one first?
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Is there a motion? That first motion.
Councilman Lundquist: Motion to approve the rezoning from RR to RSF.
64
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
Councilman Peterson: Second.
Councilman Lundquist: Findings of fact in the staff report.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Is there any discussion on that motion?
Everybody's on track here. We're on recommendation A on page 9. That's all we're
dealing with now. Any discussion on that motion? It's been made and seconded.
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that the City
Council approves the Rezoning of 27.62 acres located within the Pinehurst
subdivision from Rural Residential (RR) to Single Family Residential (RSF) based
on consistency with the City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan and compatibility
with surrounding development. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously with a vote of 5 to O.
Mayor Furlong: That motion prevails. Do we want to go with motion B?
Councilman Lundquist: Alright, it was my crazy idea. I'll take a run at it I guess. Move
that the City Council approve preliminary plat for Pinehurst Addition with a variance for
the use of private streets, plans prepared by Westwood Professional Services. That
would be recommendation B with conditions in the staff report. Condition, Kate what
condition is it that we're calling the street? Whether it goes through or whether it's a cul-
de-sac. Is that condition (o)?
Mayor Furlong: Yes, I think so.
Councilman Labatt: Let's deal with number 2 first. Where they wanted that reworded.
Councilman Lundquist: Where are we at? Oh yeah. Donated. Condition 2, Outlots A
and B donated to the City.
Councilman Labatt: Let's take them right in order.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Condition 4. 4(d), (e) and (t).
Kate Aanenson: Feasibility of preserving vegetation along Galpin will be studied and
presented at the time of final plat.
Councilman Lundquist: And then did we add condition (g) about the turn lane?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, or I added that at the very end but you can put it there too.
Mayor Furlong: Want to put that under engineering?
Kate Aanenson: ... engineering, that's where I would put it.
65
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
Councilman Lundquist: Alright. So where are we putting that? 5(v)? Alright, let's hit
5( 0) first. That's the street, right? I would move that 5(0) be worded so that the street B
is connected to Crestview as recommended by staff. And with the addition of condition
5(v). That a right turn lane, or that is already in 5(u) so 5(u) is a right turn lane off Galpin
is required and specifications to be determined.
Roger Knutson: You dealing with (p)?
Councilman Lundquist: Paragraph 5(u). Condition 4(u) on the turn lane.
Councilman Peterson: But we've got (p) in there too.
Councilman Lundquist: Oh I'm sorry. And (p), remove condition 5(p).
Councilman Peterson: And reinsert staff recommendations on page 5, right Kate?
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Councilman Lundquist: Yes, and insert on the top of page 3 I think that is.
Kate Aanenson: Right, I...it's 5. You're right.
Councilman Lundquist: For clarification those conditions being an easement required
over the whole drainage piece and the survey after the landscaping is completed.
Councilman Labatt: Did we want to delete (q)? Because that's been worked out, right?
Councilman Lundquist: (q) has been worked out so remove that.
Councilman Peterson: And delete 8.
Councilman Lundquist: Yep. Number 8 is removed.
Mayor Furlong: Clarification. What did you do with (u)?
Councilman Lundquist: (u) is a right turn lane off Galpin into this will be required and
design specifications to be determined.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Councilman Labatt: Are you scratching out to meet Carver County requirements and
you're going to say to be?
Councilman Lundquist: Yeah. Scratch out the last sentence.
Mayor Furlong: Carver County and City of Chanhassen requirements?
66
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
Kate Aanenson: It's a County road. Matt?
Matt Saam: Correct. County.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, so they will have input on that.
Matt Saam: We'll work with them.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, so how do you, how would you, given what you've heard from
the concern of the council.
Councilman Lundquist: A right turn.
Kate Aanenson: I heard what Brian said. I think that all of us just need to work with the
Nikolai's to ensure tree loss. That the right-of-way.
Councilman Lundquist: Yeah, but that's not our issue.
Kate Aanenson: It's not but.
Councilman Lundquist: I think the understanding is there. Ifwe require them to build a
turn lane, they've got to figure it out from there. If that means that the trees are on
private property and they've got to take them out, then they've got to work with our
concern really is that the turn lane is there. If those trees are in the right-of-way, then
they come out. If they're on private property, then that's up to that developer to work
with the Nikolai's to figure out how they're going to buy the property from them, replace
the trees, both, whatever they got to do. That's none of my concern.
Mayor Furlong: So the only thing you're adding to (u), from what's there.
Councilman Lundquist: Specifications to be determined. Still determine length of it, as
well where it starts. Where it's...
Todd Gerhardt: And that would be submitted at final plat.
Councilman Lundquist: To be determined by final plat submittal. And number 9. That
there has to be a trail connection from this neighborhood to Minnetonka West, that origin
point to be determined by final plat. How's that for open ended.
Mayor Furlong: Did you take out 8?
Councilman Lundquist: 8 is gone.
67
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
Mayor Furlong: I think you did pretty well. Location of the trail is to be determined.
Councilman Lundquist: Whether it's A or B or how that works out with Shivley. So, as
a recap. Lot 27 stays in. Turn lane to be determined. Connecting the neighborhoods
through Street B into Crestview. No totlot and the trail to be determined. Everybody
there?
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Everybody understand the motion?
Councilman Labatt: Yeah.
Mayor Furlong: Clear on that? Is there a second?
Councilman Peterson: Second.
Councilman Labatt: Can I make a quick friendly amendment?
Mayor Furlong: Why don't you offer your amendment, yeah.
Councilman Labatt: It's very minor. In reference to that sliver of land in the Gestach
neighborhood. That if there's any cost incurred by the City to, whether we remove the
asphalt or whatever we do back there, that Plowshares is responsible for that?
Mayor Furlong: This is off Brenden Court?
Councilman Labatt: Yeah. But this is in, this was land that was required to be dedicated
or outlotted when Brenden Ponds was going to go in there. Brenden Court by the
Mancino's requested that so if we're going to be foot with the bill now of removing that,
you know they should.
Matt Saam: That cost goes with the development.
Councilman Labatt: That cost goes with the development.
Mayor Furlong: Cost to restore. So you're proposing that as an amendment for...
Councilman Labatt: If there's a cost that the City would incur in whatever's decided to
do with that asphalt private road.
Councilman Peterson: Do we need that as a condition or is that normal and customary?
Roger Knutson: I would suggest since it's been raised that it'd be appropriate to vote on
the motion. Make that an amendment.
Mayor Furlong: Make that an amendment. Amendment's been made and seconded so I
guess the question is.
68
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
Councilman Lundquist: Condition 10?
Mayor Furlong: Add condition 10. Your proposing to amend the original motion by
adding a condition 10 that any, do you want to re-state that?
Councilman Labatt: Any cost incurred by the City on the donated sliver of land, portion
of land, whether we decide to remove that asphalt or.
Mayor Furlong: This is on the access off Brenden Court?
Councilman Labatt: Yes. That that cost would be paid for by Plowshares.
Roger Knutson: Or the work done by Plowshares.
Councilman Labatt: Yeah, yeah. Yeah.
Mayor Furlong: That's an amendment to the motion. Is there a second to the
amendment?
Councilman Peterson: Second.
Councilman Lundquist: For clarification that's paid for or removed by Plowshares?
We're not requiring them to pay for us to do work?
Roger Knutson: I'm a little bit at a loss but normally you would give the developer, you
want the developer to do the work so.
Mayor Furlong: I guess the City probably hasn't spent the time determining how they
want that.
Councilman Labatt: No, I'm just saying if there is any cost that we're going to incur.
Todd Gerhardt: We're talking about the stub road off of Brenden Court.
Councilman Labatt: Yeah.
Councilman Peterson: The private street.
Todd Gerhardt: It's not donated.
Councilman Labatt: Okay, the stub road then.
Todd Gerhardt: The stub road.
Councilman Labatt: Off of Brenden Court.
69
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
Todd Gerhardt: Not the donated land.
Roger Knutson: So you would think you'd want to get this resolved by final plat time to
give them direction, so maybe you want to leave this as another open ended issue. To say
determined by the time of final plat whether this should be removed. If it needs to be
removed, that the developer do it or pay for it.
Councilman Labatt: Sounds good.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And Councilman Peterson you're comfortable with seconding
that?
Councilman Peterson: Affirmative.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any discussion on that? Amendment. Just on the
amending the motion to include the cost there. I think it's reasonable is my thought. Any
other discussion? Let's vote on that. On adding that condition as an amendment. Unless
there's further discussion.
Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to approve an
amendment to the motion to include condition 10 which reads, A determination
shall be made by final plat whether to remove the stub road off of Brenden Court.
If it is determined to remove it, the developer shall either do the work or pay for it
to be removed. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote
of 5 to O.
Mayor Furlong: So that, we now have condition 10 included in our original amendment.
Other discussion on the amendment, or on the amended motion.
Councilman Labatt: Before we vote can we just briefly talk about the connection real
quick. I mean I'm on the fence and you know so help me jump to one side here Brian.
Councilman Lundquist: Well interesting because I think that originally I was there too
but I think the mayor made a convincing argument about pulling them together. Pulling
these neighborhoods together and providing that and the more I think about it, it may
actually contribute positively by giving some of the people on Crestview another
alternative out of that neighborhood, instead of driving down the narrow S curve, so I
think when I look at that, I don't see how there's going to be a mass of cars that are going
to be going up and down Crestview because we connected that road. Other than maybe
an additional 5 or 6 houses that are along that road may have the option of going either
way, but if!' m given the option, I'm going to go with the nice, new road that's wide open
and has better access, better sight lines and quite frankly I can go to more places than
just right out onto Galpin. When I get through there I can take Manchester and go you
know out through Lake Lucy. I can do a lot of different things on that so that's why I
changed my mind on that one. So if that helps you or not. Steve if that's.
70
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
Councilman Labatt: No, thank you.
Councilman Lundquist: You know I mean I'm sensitive to the residents. I know that
they're not, the residents of Crestview are not going to be happy with that but
unfortunately I think it comes with the territory and looking out for the greater good and
the precedent that it sets concerns me and that's why I changed my mind so hopefully the
residents don't feel like their thoughts were fallen on deaf ears and know that although
we didn't allow those people to speak at the meeting, that we do read, I read the minutes
from the Planning Commission. Anyway so, we might not have heard them by ear but
certainly read them so that's why I think that's a big issue for them but that's why I made
the decision the way I did.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Other discussion on this motion. I guess my thought as we're
coming here, I think this is a classic example of how democracy has been compared to
making sausage. You try to do the best you can. It's not always pretty. Sometimes you
don't want to know what takes place but fortunately we do it in the open public setting.
There was a question raised earlier tonight that I'd like to address too before we vote on
this with regard to the purpose of the Planning Commission and what good are they if it
comes to the council. I value the process that we have in terms of the Planning
Commission. I think it's a very excellent process. I value and respect all the
commissioners that serve on the Planning Commission. They put in a tremendous
amount of time. More than many residents realize, and we value, I do and I know the rest
of the council does, value the effort and the commitment and the participation that the
public has at the Planning Commission. Part of the purpose for the Planning Commission
as I see is, is to make the process as efficient as you can and at the same time creating
some inefficiencies. And why do I say that? Because the Planning Commission, one of
their most powerful tools I think is when things aren't ready to go forward, to table them
and get answers and get some of the questions. You can see some of the things here that
weren't quite done that we struggled with here. The Planning Commission does an
excellent job of doing that. To the extent that recommendations come out of the Planning
Commission in a single motion, we also recognize that there are differences of opinion,
even on the Planning Commission. Not all their motions are unanimous. With a
development this size, typically there's some give and take and I think you're seeing that
up here tonight too. So I think the Planning Commission has a very important role in the
process. I commend Commissioner Sacchet and all his fellow Commissioners. We may
not always agree on everything, and I think unfortunately sometimes those are the times
we remember. We don't remember all the things we agree on and those by far outweigh
everything else, so whatever action this council takes this evening on this or future
projects, you know there isn't always going to be agreement. You won't see agreement
among the 5 of us. I don't know how people can expect agreement out of the 7
commissioners and 5 of us all at the same time every time. And it just isn't going to
happen so I wanted to make sure that people realize that this council, and certainly I
individually respect all the information and the work that the Planning Commission does
and recognize that they put in a tremendous amount of effort and we do value their
opinion. I hope they keep doing what they're doing. So I wanted to add that comment. I
71
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
think what we're doing here tonight is a reasonable compromise in trying to balance the
rights of a developer to develop his property. The goal of the city for the public good and
this is a difficult situation with regard to the street connection. It's probably the biggest
issue. The thoughts of the residents have not been forgotten by any means. It's what's
made it difficult and why I stand by my earlier comments this evening, so. Any other
comments or thoughts on this? We've got a motion in front of us that's been amended by
adding the condition number 10. Is there any other discussion or proposed amendments?
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that the City
Council approve the preliminary plat for Pinehurst Addition with a variance for the
use of private streets, plans prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Inc.,
dated 9/17/04, revised 9/22/04 and 11/05/04, based on the findings of fact attached to
this report and subject to the following conditions:
1. Setbacks shall be a minimum of 20 feet from the back of the private street.
2. Outlots A and B shall be donated to the city.
3. Water Resources Coordinator Conditions:
a. Wetland buffer widths of 16.5 feet to 20.0 feet shall be maintained around all
wetlands on-site.
b. All structures shall maintain a 40-foot setback from wetland buffer edges.
c. The building pad on Lot 9, Block 1 shall be revised to reflect the wetland setback
requirements.
d. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with
the City's wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install wetland buffer edge
signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins and shall pay
the City $20 per sign.
e. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3: 1.
All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent
cover year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames:
Time
Type of Slope (maximum time an area can remain unvegetated
when area is not actively bein!! worked)
Steeper than 3: 1 7 Days
10:1 to 3:1 14 Days
Flatter than 10: 1 21 Days
These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, 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
72
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
ditch or other man made systems that discharge to a surface water.
f. Daily scraping and sweeping of public streets shall be completed any time
construction site soil, mud, silt or rock is tracked or washed onto paved surface or
street that would allow tracked materials or residuals of that material to enter the
storm water conveyance system.
g. Construction site access points shall be minimized to controlled access points
with rock entrance and exit pads installed and maintained throughout
construction.
h. Based on the proposed developed area of23.36 acres, the estimated total SWMP
fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording is $83,465.
1. 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 (NPDES Phase II Construction Permit), Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering)) and comply with their
conditions of approval.
4. Natural Resources Coordinator Conditions:
a. A minimum of two overstory trees shall be required in the front yard of each lot.
b. The developer shall be responsible for installing all landscape materials proposed
in rear and side yard areas.
c. Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits prior to
any construction.
d. Tree preservation on site shall be according to tree preservation plans dated
09/17/04. Any trees removed in excess of proposed tree preservation plans will
be replaced at a ratio of 2: 1 diameter inches.
e. The feasibility of preserving vegetation along Galpin will be studied and
presented at the time of final plat.
5. Engineer's Conditions:
a. The applicant will be required to meet the existing site runoff rates for 10-year and
100-year, 24-hour storm events. The proposed ponds must be designed to
National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards. In addition, the proposed
ponding must be sized to accommodate the drainage generated from the property
to the north, as shown in the City's Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP).
73
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
b. The storm sewer must be designed for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event. Submit
storm sewer sizing cales and drainage map prior to final plat for staff review and
approval.
c. Drainage and utility easements must be dedicated on the final plat over the public
storm drainage system including ponds, drainage swales, and wetlands up to the
100-year flood level.
d. Staff recommends that Type II silt fence, which is a heavy duty fence, be used
adjacent to the existing wetland, existing creek area, and around the proposed
pond. In addition, tree preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree
removal. Erosion control blankets are recommended for all of the steep 3: 1
slopes with an elevation change of eight feet or more.
e. All plans must be signed by a registered Civil Engineer in the State of Minnesota.
f. On the utility plan:
1. Show all existing and proposed utility and pond easements.
2. Maintain 10-foot horizontal separation between all sanitary/water/storm
sewer maIllS.
3. Increase the watermain pipe size in Street D to 8-inches in diameter.
4. Add a storm sewer line between Lots 7 and 8, Block 1 with a catch basin at
the north property line for future connection by the property to the north.
5. Extend sanitary manhole #12 to the north property line with an invert
elevation of 1049.0.
g. On the grading plan:
1. Show all existing and proposed easements.
2. Show the benchmark used for the site survey.
3. Maximum allowable side slope is 3: 1; revise in the rear yard of Lots 14 and
15, Block 1 and the rear yard of Lot 3, Block 2.
4. Show the location and elevation of all emergency overflows; the elevation
must be 1.5' lower than any adjacent house pad elevations.
5. Show the retaining wall top and bottom elevations.
74
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
6. Use storm sewer class 5 in roadway; revise note under general grading and
drainage notes accordingly.
h. Any retaining wall over four feet in height must be designed by a registered civil
engineer and a permit from the city building department must be obtained. In
addition, encroachment agreements will be required for any retaining wall within
a public easement.
1. The sanitary sewer and water hookup charges along with the Lake Ann
Interceptor charge will be applicable for each of the new lots. The 2004 trunk
hookup charge is $1,458.00 per unit for sanitary sewer and $2,814.00 per unit for
watermain. The total 2004 Lake Ann Interceptor charge is $2,102 per unit and
the SAC fee is $1,425.00 per unit. All of these charges are based on the number
of SAC units assigned by the Metropolitan Council. Sanitary sewer and water-
main hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of
building permit issuance.
J. All disturbed areas, as a result of construction, must be seeded and mulched or
sodded immediately after grading to minimize erosion.
k. The applicant should be aware that any off-site grading will require an easement
from the appropriate property owner.
I. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the
applicant will be required to supply the City with detailed haul routes.
m. Due to the depth of the proposed sanitary sewer from MH-20 to MH-17, the
required easement width will be increased to 50 feet.
n. All of the utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with
the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. 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.
o. Street B will be connected to the north to Crestview Drive.
p. Lot 27 is approved with the following conditions:
1. A drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated over the entire width of the
swale on the northwest side of the buildable area on Lot 27, Block 1. No
structures shall be allowed within this drainage and utility easement, with the
exception of the retaining wall shown on the approved grading plan.
75
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
2. To ensure proper drainage, a survey shall be required for Lot 27, Block 1 upon
completion of the landscaping. The survey shall be submitted to the City and
reviewed by staff to ensure consistency between final grades and the approved
grading plan. If discrepancies exist, any inconsistent areas shall be re-graded to
match the approved grading plan. Additionally, any property owners should
anticipate flowing and/or standing water within the swale on the northwest side of
the property (Lot 27, Block 1). This may preclude mowing of the swale during
times of above average precipitation.
q. Revise Street C to be a standard 28 foot width.
r. Lower the western end of the site in the area of the two private drives.
s. This development is required to provide enough additional platted right-of-way
which results in 50 feet of right-of-way on the western side of the Galpin
Boulevard centerline.
t. A right-turn lane into the site off of Galpin Boulevard will be required to be
constructed with specifications determined by time of final plat.
6. Geotechnical testing report and recommendation will be required and needs to be
provided to the city.
7. A 30 foot wide private easement, cross access and maintenance agreement must
also be submitted for the private street.
8. Provide an access trail from this neighborhood to Minnetonka Middle School
West, the location to be determined by time of final plat.
9. A determination shall be made by final plat whether to remove the stub road off
of Brenden Court. If it is determined to remove it, the developer shall either do
the work or pay for it to be removed.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to o.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you everybody. Noticing the time or the hour, let's take a 5
minute recess.
REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL WITH
VARIANCES FOR A 4.080 SQ. FT. ONE-STORY WAREHOUSE BUILDING.
NORTHWEST CORNER OF AUDUBON ROAD AND COULTER BOULEVARD.
PAISLEY PARK STUDIO STORAGE: RON SCOFIELD.
Kate Aanenson: Thank you. This is a two action item before you. Again it's just, there
is a subdivision creating a 7.6 acre lot and one outlot and then a site plan approval. The
subject site is located just north of the General Mills site, south on McGlynn Drive,
76
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
adjacent to the existing daycare. The site is zoned office industrial park. The subdivision
itself is pretty straight forward. There are conditions of approval there for the
preliminary plat and we really don't see a lot of issues. We are requesting just the radius
on Coulter be changed to provide better, right now we have some trucks that cut that
corner so we're working on changing that radius but really other than that the
subdivision, we did ask for just some additional landscaping but that's pretty straight
forward. The layout decide itself. The building is well conceived. It is mostly for
storage and does provide additional parking for special events over at the studio across
the street. The architect is here tonight to show the colors on the building. Again, the
small building for this size lot. Under 5,000 square feet. Again providing some storage
and additional parking across at the street. Weare recommending approval. There was
some additional conditions the Planning Commission added and that was a landscape
buffer between the parking and the daycare to the north, and revising the parking lot to
better accommodate cars, around the median just so there's better flow through that. The
Planning Commission did recommend approval on December ih of this and 7-0 so with
that we are recommending approval with the conditions in the staff report.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. And those conditions include the two recommended
by the Planning Commission you're recommending as well, thank you.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: Any questions for staff on this one? No? Thank you. The applicant is
here. Are there any issues you'd like to address to the council sir. Thank you for sticking
around.
Truman Howell: I have to, excuse me. My name's Truman Howell. Truman Howell
Architects. I have to respond to Todd's comment when he first, when we first saw each
other this evening and he says your practice has now come to this. Doing storage
buildings. I think I've been before you before for things a bit more significant. The
Houlihan's and a few other hotels but in any case, whatever they said they want us to do,
we'll take care of it and get it done so.
Todd Gerhardt: It's a great looking storage building Truman. Best one I've seen yet
today.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for the applicant? Hearing none, anything
for the Planning Commission on this one? Thank you. Is there any discussion or a
motion to approve.
Councilman Peterson: Move approval.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Councilman Lundquist: Second.
77
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
Mayor Furlong: Been made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion?
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City
Council approve Preliminary Plat approval for McGlynn Park 3rd Addition creating
one lot and one outlot, plans prepared by Ryan Engineering, dated 10/15/04, subject
to the following conditions:
1. Full park fees shall be collected at the rate in force at the time of final plat approval.
2. Based on the proposed developed area of approximately 2.4 acres, the water quality
fees associated with this project are $14,292; the water quantity fees are
approximately $13,450. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to
the City at the time of final plat recording, is $27,742.
3. 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 (NPDES Phase II Construction Permit), Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources (for dewatering) and comply with their conditions of approval.
4. A revised landscape plan showing the required number ofplantings shall be
submitted to the city prior to final plat approval.
5. Prior to final plat approval, a professional civil engineer registered in the State of
Minnesota must sign all plans.
6. A 40-foot cross-access easement for the shared driveway access must be obtained and
recorded against the lots and the driveway must be built to a 9-ton design.
7. Sanitary sewer and water hookup charges will be applicable for the new lot. The
2004 trunk hook up charge is $1,458 per unit for sanitary sewer and $2,814 per unit
for water. Each of these charges is based on the number of SAC units assigned by the
Met Council for the new lots. Sanitary sewer and water hookup fees may be specially
assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit issuance.
8. The applicant will be required to submit storm sewer sizing design data for a lO-year,
24-hour storm event with a drainage area map at the time of final plat.
9. This development is required to provide ten additional feet of platted right-of-way
along Coulter Boulevard.
10. The existing 30-foot curb radius along the north side of Coulter Boulevard must be
removed and replaced with a 45-foot curb radius."
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to o.
78
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City
Council approve Site Plan approval of Planning Case # 04-41 for a 4,080 square-
foot, one-story warehouse building, plans prepared by Ryan Engineering, dated
10/15/04, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the
necessary security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping.
2. Outlot A, McGlynn Park 2nd Addition must be final platted in to a Lot and Block
configuration prior to issuance of a building permit.
3. A sidewalk shall be extended from the parking lot north to McGlynn Drive. A
pedestrian ramp shall be provided at the parking lot curb.
4. A canopy shall be provided over the door on the western elevation of the building.
5. Additional foundation plantings shall be provided for the southerly 37 feet of the
eastern building elevation. In addition, landscaping shall be provided on the west
side of the building north of the overhead doors between the parking lot and the
building.
6. Wall mounted lighting must be shielded from off-site views.
7. The metal halide lighting shall be replaced with high pressure sodium lights.
8. Natural Resources Coordinator Conditions:
a) Applicant is required to plant 21 overstory trees in the parking lot area.
b) Applicant is required to meet minimum bufferyard landscaping requirements
along the north property line, Audubon Road and Coulter Boulevard.
c) A revised landscape plan showing the required number of plantings shall be
submitted to the city prior to final plat approval.
9. Building Official's Conditions:
a) The building must be protected with an automatic fire sprinkler system.
b) The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed
in the State of Minnesota.
c) Six accessible parking spaces must be provided as near as possible to the building
main entrance.
d) The water service must be brought up into the building directly inside the exterior
wall.
e) The plans were reviewed for general building code compliance only. Complete
plans must be provided before a detailed plan review can be done.
79
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
t) The developer shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to
discuss plan review and permit procedures.
10. Fire Marshal's Conditions:
a) A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps,
trees, shrubs, bushes, Xce1 Energy, Qwest, Cable TV and transformer boxes.
This is to ensure fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by fire
fighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1.
b) Builder must comply with The Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention
Division Policy #29-1992 regarding premise identification. If structures are not
visible from street, additional numbers will be required at driveway entrance.
Size of numbers and location must be approved by Chanhassen Fire Marshal.
c) The proposed hydrant shown on plan must be relocated 100 feet north to the
parking lot island.
11. Engineer's Conditions:
a) A 40-foot cross-access easement for the shared driveway access must be obtained
and recorded against the lots and the driveway must be built to a 9-ton design.
b) The applicant should be aware that any off-site grading will require an easement
from the appropriate property owner. In addition, if importing or exporting of
grading material will occur to/from the site, a detailed haul route must be
provided for staff review.
c) Add City Detail Plate Nos. 1002, 1004, 1006, 3101, 3102, 5201, 5203, 5207, 5300
and5301.
d) On all plans:
1. Revise the drive way aisle width to 26-foot minimum.
2. Include a north arrow and bar scale.
3. Provide a plat name.
4. Show the location of proposed handicap parking stalls.
5. Show the location of the vacated right-of-way for McGlynn Road.
e) On the site and utility plan:
1. Add note "Any connection to existing manholes must be core drilled."
2. Show the sanitary service pipe class as SDR26.
3. Show the water-main pipe type and class.
4. Show the proposed and existing storm sewer pipe size, type, class and slope.
5. Show the existing and proposed manhole rim and invert elevations.
6. Show the dimension of the curb radii for the access drive at McGlynn Road.
t) On the grading plan:
1. Add Type I silt fence around the grading limits.
80
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
2. Show the benchmark used for the site survey.
3. Show a 75-foot minimum rock construction entrance.
4. Correct the proposed elevation contours off the northeast corner of the
parking lot.
5. Label the FFE of the proposed building as 979.6, not 879.6.
6. Revise all slopes to maintain a 3: 1 maximum.
7. Show the location of the existing boulevard trees along Audubon Road and
Coulter Boulevard.
g) Any retaining wall over 4-foot in height must be designed by a registered
structural engineer in the State of Minnesota and require a building permit from
the City of Chanhassen Building Department.
h) A concrete driveway apron and pedestrian ramps will be required at the access
location.
12. Add a landscape buffer between the parking lot and daycare center.
13. Revise the parking lot plan to better accommodate the cars around the medians.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to O.
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF CITY CODE AMENDMENT FOR SWMP WATER
QUALITY FEES.
Lori Haak: Mayor Furlong, council members. Hopefully the staff report is real straight
forward so we can move ahead very quickly on this item. Basically it comes down to
basically a recognition by staff that the current way that the ordinance is worded to
address water quality fees is really not equitable to developers who provide ponding on
site for off site storm water, and the best way to really get to the heart of this issue in a
brief fashion is to look at an example like I have here. We have talked at length about
Pinehurst this evening and I brought that in as an example. Pinehurst is proposing a
storm water pond just southwest of the now intact Lot 27, and that pond. Please take no
offense. The pond is treating a total of21.78 acres and of that 21 acres, 15.88 is within
the subdivision itself and 5.9 acres is coming from off site. The Shivley Addition, of
which we discussed earlier and then the existing Crest, some of the lots in the Crestview
Addition. Under the current scenario for calculating storm water fees, Pinehurst is 23.62
acres. The water quality charge for that would be just over $25,000 and they would
receive credit for 100% of the off site area that's treated by their storm water pond, which
is 5.9 acres again coming in from this Shivley Addition and the existing homes on
Crestview Lane. Under the proposed scenario the Pinehurst Addition, oh I'm sorry. Let
me back up. This Crestview Addition, which is Shivley we've been calling it all night,
has 3.36 acres and the cost for that development would be just over $3,500. It would be
$3,672. And that would not change with the proposed ordinance. What would change
however is that the Pinehurst Addition would receive credit for 50% of the area treated
on and off site. And 50% comes from the effectiveness of that storm water pond that
81
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
they're proposing to construct. So instead of just receiving credit for the off site water
that they're treating, they're receiving credit for all of the water quality benefit that
they're providing to the City ofChanhassen. Now the city is retaining the 50% of that
fee in order to make downstream improvements because the stormwater ponds are only
47 to 68 percent efficient so there is still some remainder that the City of Chanhassen will
have to pick up and so we believe as a staff that this really reflects the actual benefits and
the cost that are born by applicants as opposed to right now where in this instance
Pinehurst is dedicating land and the construction cost and paying the entire water quality
fee. In the future they would be, oh sorry. They would be receiving credit for doing that
in an attempt to begin to cover some of the costs that they're incurring there, and we
would look at this again with the 2005 SWMP update so, Surface Water Management
Plan update. With that staff is recommending adoption of the ordinance as stated in the
staff report.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Questions for staff.
Councilman Lundquist: Lori, just so I understand. Your example that's in the staff
report. Under the current ordinance Pinehurst would have to write us a check for
$19,084.
Lori Haak: Correct.
Councilman Lundquist: With the new ordinance they'd have to write us a check for
$10,405.
Lori Haak: Yeah, the number in your staff report is actually incorrect. So it is this
number here. There was a miscommunication in the actual calculations so we're, yeah.
The concept is still the same but you're looking at these final numbers.
Councilman Lundquist: So they'd have to write us a check for $13,630.
Lori Haak: Right.
Councilman Lundquist: So they get to keep the extra $6,000. It's in their pocket.
Lori Haak: Right. And again with Crestview, because their water is being treated off
site.
Councilman Lundquist: Off site, they've got to pay the whole thing.
Lori Haak: They got to pay the whole thing.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay, thank you.
Mayor Furlong: And this is an issue basically the inequity that was in our ordinance was
82
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
for those developers that actually installed ponds to treat water in their development.
That's where the inequity was.
Lori Haak: That's right.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Todd Gerhardt: Or oversize the ponds for the regional benefit of water treatment, and not
getting credit for it.
Mayor Furlong: Well they still got some credit for the over sizing, didn't they? Like
there's a credit here but the size of the credit wasn't proportional to the overall benefit
that they were doing between their own development and the over sizing.
Lori Haak: That's right. This was just in general a better reflection of what's actually
going on on site.
Kate Aanenson: And then just to be clear, that's something that we're changing this
number now. We know it's a problem but as Lori indicated, when we update the SWMP
plan we're going to re-visit that number, the 50% and see if that's a good number.
Mayor Furlong: Evaluate it more.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah...
Mayor Furlong: We're absolutely closer to the right answer here. But we're going to
continue to monitor, okay.
Councilman Lundquist: Roger, no issues with past, anything going on? I mean it's an
ordinance change and other than the fact that the guys who wrote us a check like 2 weeks
ago are going to be kind of mad.
Roger Knutson: Our ordinances are constantly changing. If you increased the fees they
wouldn't be mad. You know. People have already paid. You have to draw a line
somewhere.
Councilman Lundquist: Yep.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, other questions for staff. Any discussion on this? I think it's
very reasonable. The thing I want to get on the record is I commend staff for bringing it
forward. When they see something that's inequitable in our ordinances and it's resulting
in fairness to our developers, even though it reduce costs and dollars coming into the city,
I think it's tremendous. These are too often we get accused of raising fees and here we're
reducing them so, unfortunately it's 11: 00 and if people are still watching we appreciate
it.
83
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
Todd Gerhardt: And the reporter left.
Mayor Furlong: So you'll be sure to give her the information. I think it's reasonable,
thank you. Is there any other discussion on this? If not, is there a motion to approve.
Councilman Lundquist: Motion to approve.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilman Peterson: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Been made and seconded. Any further discussion?
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that the City
Council adopt the ordinance to amend the current surface water management
connection charge ordinance (City Code Section 18-63). All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to o.
APPOINTMENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
Mayor Furlong: Earlier this evening, well let me start back. We have 2 vacancies on the
Planning Commission. Unexpired terms. One of which, the term is due to expire in
March of '06. The other is due to expire March of '07. We, the city advertised and
received 5 applications for those 2 positions. This evening we had the opportunity to
meet with 4 of the 5 applicants. The fifth applicant was not able to make it. Based upon
those interviews, first of all good quality individuals and always appreciate people
coming forward willing to spend the time, especially the time on the Planning
Commission that it takes to serve the residents in what can be a thankless job at times, so
we certainly appreciate everybody's interest. Given the interviews and our discussions,
and our inability to interview all 5 candidates, what we hope to do is interview the fifth
candidate prior to our next council meeting if we can, and Mr. Gerhardt you're going to
try to make arrangements for that. So that we can have that input but regardless of that
outcome, it was the council's position that we would like to appoint Jerry McDonald to
the vacant term that would expire in March of2007, so that would be for the 2 year
vacancy tonight so that he can be included in the Planning Commission next Tuesday. So
if, is there a motion to approve that appointment?
Councilman Lundquist: Motion to approve.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilman Peterson: Second.
Mayor Furlong: I guess we got this one, with three seconds. Any discussion on that or
further comments about the process or the applicants. All good people so.
84
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that the City
Council appoint Jerry McDonald to the vacant term of Planning Commissioner that
would expire in March of 2007. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously with a vote of 5 to O.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: None.
ADMNISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: LOCAL BOARD OF APPEAL AND
EQUALIZATION TRAINING.
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, City Council members. The Commissioner of Revenue believes
that this local board of appeals needs training when dealing with our upcoming local
board of appeals and equalization. So under State Statute I need at least one council
member to go through a training session on January 31, 2005. I prefer more than one just
in case there is somebody absent, then I need another individual. Or if you would all like
to attend. It's scheduled for Monday, January 31 st from 9:00 a.m. to noon at the
Government Center down in Carver County.
Mayor Furlong: From 9:00 to noon?
Todd Gerhardt: Yep.
Mayor Furlong: Are there any other training sessions that will be done? Is there any
other training sessions that will be provided?
Todd Gerhardt: None that I'm aware of.
Mayor Furlong: League of Cities isn't doing anything?
Todd Gerhardt: No.
Mayor Furlong: Alright. I'd have to check my calendar. Are there other people that are
interested in doing this? Is there any, can you test out?
Councilman Labatt: I can't check.
Mayor Furlong: Well we'll just assume you can make it then. Alright. We will have at
least one there and I know that we'll get two there.
Todd Gerhardt: Okay, I'll send out a reminder just a couple of days before hand.
Mayor Furlong: No, you'd better do it sooner than that.
Councilman Labatt: You may want to post it as a council meeting in case 3 of us show
up.
85
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
Todd Gerhardt: I'll do that.
Mayor Furlong: Yeah, post it as a council meeting. Let's put it on our calendars. Find a
way to get there if we can. I think it's important that this council continues as the board
of, local board of appeal with regard to property values in our city. I wouldn't want to
defer that to another body so.
Todd Gerhardt: And if we do not have a certified training board for that then they just
by-pass us and go directly to the county board and they take action on the item.
Councilman Labatt: So what would happen then.
Todd Gerhardt: This is for '06.
Councilman Lundquist: So if we don't go through the training we can avoid all that, is
that what you're saying?
Todd Gerhardt: Yeah. You give up some power there.
Councilman Labatt: Is this training going to be offered every year? Or every other year
or something like that?
Todd Gerhardt: Well I've got to believe...
Mayor Furlong: 4 years.
Todd Gerhardt: Right now this is what Carver County has offered up. You know this is
really for, it's got to be, the training has to be completed before January 1 st of 2006 so
this is for the board of review in 2006. And you're having training now.
Roger Knutson: And each year thereafter. So one of you gets to, at least one of you gets
to go every year.
Mayor Furlong: This one within the last 4 years.
Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, it's every 4 years. The training, as long as that person is on the
City Council.
Mayor Furlong: Or on the board. And at the meeting. All these qualifiers. Alright.
Todd Gerhardt: Just so you know, there's an incentive. You get $50. That would be
considered a special meeting.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright, I've got the commitment of my fellow council members
that we will have people there. Right? Okay. I did hire a Finance Director, Greg Sticha
who worked in Minnetonka. Prior to Minnetonka he was an Accountant III in Shakopee
86
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
for several, or a couple years, and then with the State Auditor's office for a couple more
years. Greg is a great candidate. I think we're lucky to have somebody that qualified.
He's eager to be a Finance Director. I think that's probably one of the big positives. He
comes with a wealth of financial background in detail accounting. Giving out monthly
reports and working with the audit, budget process and special projects that I think would
be a benefit to us so. Greg will be starting on February ih and there is a press release that
I did send out to Melissa and I think you should have it on your e-mail at home if you
haven't seen it already.
Mayor Furlong: Good.
Todd Gerhardt: That's all I had.
Mayor Furlong: We had good candidates to choose from there?
Todd Gerhardt: We had 15 applicants. We got it down to 2 serious candidates and it was
a difficult decision. One was Finance Director in Farmington and he would basically,
that would have been a lateral move. We went with the person that wanted to grow and
move into a harder position so.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for the City Manager or other staff? Hearing
none before we adjourn, I would just like the record to show that prior to Councilwoman
Tjornhom joining up this council, all of our meetings ended by about 9:30. And so I
certainly hope that this is not indicative of the contributions that she will make going
forward. No, we welcome you and sorry you got this one, like I said. This wasn't a
baptism by fire but baptism by weapons of mass destruction so with that, Councilman
Labatt.
Councilman Labatt: Tomorrow night I have a meeting at District 112. Superintendent
search. I know Tom had called me before Christmas, right around there so I'll be sitting
on the panel. I think what's important is that we, when you and I talked Tom, and we can
share it here, is we need to look at you know we've always talked loudly about the lack
of schools in Chanhassen and Tom and I share concerns about it and when we look for a
new superintendent, we want to make sure Chanhassen's being considered and thought of
and so if you have any thoughts or anything, shoot me an e-mail or somehow let's talk
about it the next council meeting but we're meeting tomorrow night with the search firm
for 1 hour to get the ball rolling on that and I'll let you know.
Mayor Furlong: Great, thank you. Thank you for taking that. Appreciate it. Is there any
other items to come before the council this evening? If not, is there a motion to adjourn?
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 11:05 p.m..
Submitted by Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
87