CC 2005 02 28
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 28, 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 Labatt, Councilman
Lundquist, Councilman Peterson, and Councilwoman Tjornhom
STAFF PRESENT:
Todd Gerhardt, Todd Hoffman, Paul Oehme, Roger Knutson, and Kate
Aanenson
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
Richard Crawford Chanhassen Villager
Nathan Franzen 1851 Lake Drive West #550
Todd M. Simning 1851 Lake Drive West #550
Janet Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive
Debbie Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive
Dan Keefe Planning Commission
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS:
None.
CONSENT AGENDA:Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Labatt 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 February 14, 2005
-City Council Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated February 14, 2005
Resolution#2005-16:
b. Approve Cooperative Agreement for Highway 212, Project 03-09-2
Resolution#2005-17:
c. Order Improvements for the 2005 MUSA Project 04-05.
d. Approve Quit Claim Deed with MnDot for TH 101 and Pioneer Trail Intersection
Improvements, PW356C.
Resolution#2005-18:
e. Approve Quit Claim Deed with MnDot for City Acquired RALF
Property, Project 03-09.
Resolution#2005-19:
f. Approve Plans & Specifications; Authorize Advertisement for Bids
th
for West 86 Street/Lyman Trunk Watermain Improvements, Project 04-18.
Resolution#2005-20:
g. Accept Bids & Award Contract for SCADA Hardware, PW307D.
City Council Meeting – February 28, 2005
Resolution#2005-21:
h. Accept Bids & Award Contract for 2005 Sealcoat Project 05-02.
i. Approval of Lyman Boulevard Agreement with Carver County.
j. Approval of Wetland Alteration Permit to Fill .11 Acres of Type 3 and .01 Acres of Type 2
Wetland for Intersection Improvements Located at Highway 101 and Pioneer Trail,
Planning Case 05-07.
k. Approval of NPDES, Phase II, MS4 Permit Approval.
l. Approval of Private Kennel License, 8561 Flamingo Drive, Lindy & Denise Hollingsworth
m. Approval of 2005 Strategic Plan.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
None.
LAW ENFORCEMENT/FIRE DEPARTMENT UPDATE.
Sgt. Jim Olson: Good evening and thank you. This month in the council packet I included the
sheriff’s office area report for January, the area citation list again for January, the Community
Service Officer report and also copies of crime alerts that were put out by Crime Prevention
Specialist Beth Hoiseth. With monthly numbers, I’d like to start off with that. Our total calls
for service were up by 70 for the month of January over last year and the criminal calls were
down by 8 for the year. Just a couple of things I wanted to highlight. Burglary was up 2 to 5.
We have had recently 5 business burglaries in the city and 3 of them seem to be related. There
have been a couple others relating to other cities in the area also to that. Just a crime prevention
tip for some of the businesses in town. It’s very important for businesses to do nightly deposits
of their cash and checks, and also when they take their checks in to stamp them right away for
deposit only so they cannot be cashed. And have a locksmith or Crime Prevention Specialist
Beth Hoiseth come out and take a look and evaluate your locks that you have on your doors.
Beth is more than happy to come out, free of charge of course to take a look at that and do a
overall scene survey of your business. Theft was down from 28 last year to 22 this year. Traffic
stops up for January this year was up by 63, and I wanted to point out traffic details. It does look
like it’s down quite a bit. That was supposed to be pulled out of the packet. Or out of that crime
report. They are not getting, we are not getting numbers for those any more. They’re doing
sheets for us. Now the deputies are but that should not be on there anymore so that’s why that is
down. Deputies no longer giving numbers for those. Any questions on the monthly numbers?
Okay. Councilman Lundquist asked me to do a comparison with other communities for some of
our stats that we had. I was not able to get those for 2004 for some of the other communities but
I was for 2002 and 2003 and compare those against Chanhassen. The other communities that I
compared them to are the ones that Ehlers and Associates have also compared Chanhassen to,
and those cities are Chaska, Champlin, Shakopee and Savage. Population was up about 9% in
Chanhassen from 2002 to 2003. And was about approximately a 1% in the other cities that were
2
City Council Meeting – February 28, 2005
included in that. Total reported crime was up 5.3% in Chanhassen and compared to the other
cities, two of them were up about 3 ½%. One was down 76%, and I scratched my head a little
bit over that one and one was down about 3.4%. And then total calls for service, Chan was up
almost 10%. 9.8%. Two cities were down. One was down 2 ½% and one was down 3.3%. One
city was up 71% for calls for service and it was a different city from the one that was down the
crime, and one city was up 6.25%. As far as additional officers that other cities put on,
Chanhassen and one other city both stayed the same. Two cities went up by 2 and one city went
up by 4 from 2002 to 2003. And as soon as I get the numbers for 2004 I will go over those also.
Any questions on those numbers at all?
Councilman Lundquist: Sergeant Olson, on the numbers you just talked about, were you able to
get a breakdown of criminal versus, I mean some of those numbers could be misleading for us.
We obviously put an emphasis on things like traffic for the last year or two or three and so some
of that might be misleading, the fact that we’re actually handing out more traffic citations versus
you know, although that’s still a call for service and things. I would classify that in a different
category than burglaries and criminal activity.
Sgt. Jim Olson: And that was our total reported crime and that was up 5.3% here in Chanhassen
from 2002 to 2003. The calls for service includes the traffic stops and other calls.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay, so the 5.3 would be the criminal portion of that or?
Sgt. Jim Olson: Correct. Part I and Part II crimes, yes.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay.
Sgt. Jim Olson: Were there other questions for me for this month at all?
Mayor Furlong: Anything for the Sergeant? CSO calls for service. I know those are up. Is that
a better utilization of the staff? I don’t think our numbers have changed in terms of CSO hours.
Sgt. Jim Olson: No they haven’t. Our calls for service went up 15 for CSO’s from 2004 to 2005
and traffic assists were up by 8 and that would account for a lot of that and the other which
includes medicals and prior calls were up by 4.
Mayor Furlong: So better, or more calls for service out of the same staff then?
Sgt. Jim Olson: Yes. Yes.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Sgt. Jim Olson: Thank you very much.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you Sergeant.
Sgt. Jim Olson: Have a good evening.
3
City Council Meeting – February 28, 2005
Mayor Furlong: Chief Geske is here as well this evening from the fire department. Good
evening Chief.
Chief Gregg Geske: Good evening. As you see in my report there, don’t have a whole lot going
on. We’re down in call numbers again so that’s a good thing. We’ve been up to a couple things
I guess. Basically lately I attended a League of Minnesota Cities class with City Manager
Gerhardt and Assistant City Manager Miller regarding fire department issues and didn’t find out
a whole lot of issues that we have here that come to light so that was good. Probably be
recruiting sometime in April here to add a couple new fire fighters with hiring sometime in July.
We’ve got a couple fire fighters who will be leaving this year so we’ll be processing
replacements on those. Other than that we don’t have a whole lot that went on. No fires to
report or anything like that so pretty quick report for you this month. Quiet is good.
Mayor Furlong: Any questions for the Chief?
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, I’d just like to add the class we did attend, our fire department does a
great job in organizing themselves, managing themselves compared to some other communities.
There are townships that are having difficulties so hats off to Greg and his staff in making sure
they’re well managed over there and I appreciate that.
Mayor Furlong: Good, thank you.
Chief Gregg Geske: Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you Chief.
REQUEST FOR REZONING OF PROPERTY FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT TO RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT AND SUBDIVISION
(WITH VARIANCES); LOCATED EAST OF HIGHWAY 41, SOUTH OF HIGHOVER
DRIVE AND NORTH OF GUNFLINT TRAIL; YOBERRY FARM, APPLICANT;
YOBERRY FARMS, LLC, DAVID HURRELL AND KAREN WEATHERS; PLANNING
CASE NO. 04-43.
Public Present:
Name Address
Uli Sacchet 7053 Highover Court South
Greg & Linda Twedt 6999 Highover Drive
Karen Weathers Applicant
Jesse Larson 3440 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis
st
Steve Johnston 410 1 Avenue North, Minneapolis
Tom Stokes 4052 Oakland, St. Bonifacius
th
Bill Coffman 600 West 78 Street
th
Chuck Alcon 6138 76 West, Loretto
4
City Council Meeting – February 28, 2005
Tim Block 6903 Highover Drive
Dan Johnson 6951 Highover Drive
Travis Sprague 6888 Highover Drive
Rodd Wagner 6915 Highover Drive
Joe Thull 6872 Highover Drive
Dave Damman 6934 Highover Drive
Philip Haarstad 7066 Harrison Hill Trail
Brent Kreofsky 2221 Hunter Drive
Martin Zielinski 2211 Hunter Drive
Scott Muschewske 2241 Hunter Drive
Mark Erickson 2216 Hunter Drive
Larry Lovig 2475 Gunflint Court
Bill Borrell 2300 Longacres Drive
Todd Rech 2408 Hunter Drive
Stuart Henderson 7240 Gunflint Trail
Jennifer Rysso 7108 Harrison Hill Trail
Michael McGonagill 2451 Hunter Drive
Mark Zaebst 2325 Hunter Drive
Larry Synstelien 6893 Highover Drive
Lois Degler 9111 Audubon
Dan Hanson 2390 Longacres Drive
Chris Rozwadowski 2443 Highover Trail
Jacqie Dougherty 2423 Highover Trail
Ray Alstadt 2423 Highover Trail
Kate Aanenson: As you indicated Mayor, this item was tabled two weeks ago to respond to the
two petitions from the neighborhood so in our cover memo to the staff report we broke those
down. There was similar issues. We didn’t want anybody to think we overlooked an issue we
tried to take them, or combine them where it seemed appropriate so I’ll go through those briefly.
The first one was that the proposed development exceed the capacity of a local road. We
explained at the last meeting to kind of put it back in as per our comprehensive plan what the trip
generation is. 1,000 trips per day on a local road. We broke the number of lots. Again it’s the
staff’s opinion that the road capacity does work. The other issue was brought up was that there’s
different lot widths and I think there’s some ambiguity of how to measure the streets. We
measure the consistent back of curb to back of curb so if you go up the back of that. The 31 feet
Highover and Gunflint Trail so they’re consistent. There’s also some issues regarding the
connection of the two streets so on page 4 of the staff report we did go through and identified in
both staff reports of Highover and Longacres describing the fact that those streets would provide
access because we knew, as I indicated in the last staff report, it’s our job to make sure we don’t
land lock any property owners so we did provide a means for those two streets to be connected,
and they were identified in both staff reports and conditions of approval. The other issue was
that the streets, again be discourage through traffic and I’d like to refer to the site plan if I can.
In designing the site plan, obviously this was the one connection point and the connection point
to the north at Highover. Looking at a circuitous T street again forcing a stop and a turning
movement. In all the traffic calming manuals that’s the way to do it. Instead of it’s not a straight
shot all the way through to, again looking at the design, working with the developer, our
5
City Council Meeting – February 28, 2005
engineering staff, the planning staff, looking at the best way to provide internal traffic calming
and circulation, we believe that was the best way to manage that and again consistent with the
comprehensive plan. And while I’m talking about the comprehensive plan, I just wanted to
reiterate because there was a lot of the staff said this, the staff said that. Our job is to make sure
that the comprehensive plan and the city’s ordinance is followed, so we go through a project.
That’s our job to make sure it meets. It’s not Sharmeen Al-Jaff’s opinion. It’s not Kate
Aanenson’s opinion. It’s does it meet the city ordinance based on that recommendation so again
we believe this is consistent with what the city’s zoning ordinance says. The third issue was the
development fails to mitigate the negative impact on surrounding properties. Again, I believe
you spoke to this last meeting too Mayor. There are three zoning options for low density within
the city. Just recently added another one for small, for a little bit smaller lots where we’ve got
some unique circumstances, but those are twin homes, a PUD or the third option would be the
traditional RSF single family minimum 15,000 square foot lot. Highover was developed with a
15,000 square foot lot minimum. Longacres and the Woods, at the PUD which allowed for lots
as small as 11,000 square feet and since that subdivision was developed we’ve changed some of
the ordinance regarding calculation of wetland. Cannot be included in the lot. They are in
Longacres so those lots appear larger. These there is no wetland included. It’s all upland, so all
the lots do meet the minimum and then also we’ve included bluff ordinance city wide when
Longacres came in so this is being held to the current city zoning ordinance. So it is consistent
with that as far as negative impacts. Again it’s single family. Adjacent to single family.
Comparable in size and the homes. Number 4 was to verify the slope. We did do that and it’s
identified in your staff report and that slope is in this area here. And we broke it down into
segments just to make sure that nobody thought we were trying to avoid that but the average
slope in that area is 23% so it does not meet the bluff requirement. Number 5 was the Hunter
Drive issues. We did attach some studies that were done with the city’s speed trailers. It details
th
the number of vehicles, speed, average speed and then the 85 percentile which is used for
engineers to determine appropriate posting and that was done the month of February. Again as
we’ve indicated, there’s some other measures that we know we need to continue to monitor as
this, even after this development’s done and continue as we do on all city streets, continue to
monitor those situations as we do in other streets, whether it’s conflict or perceived conflict. So
with that, again we believe that the street can handle that. And again I’ll let Paul, the City
Engineer identify any specific issues that you may have regarding how to address those traffic
issues. And then number 6 was the construction access from 41. The developer is proposing to
use existing Hurrell driveway, which is on the north side which is approximately on Lot 3. In
order to access that for the entire development the roads would have to be connected otherwise
the only one, the way you could benefit from construction purposes would be if the road was, if
this development was built in it’s entirety. One of the questions was, could it continue to be used
for construction traffic throughout? The city staff sat down and looked at you know would it be
nice to say all the traffic coming in should go this direction. But then you’re forcing the burden
on one side or the other, whether it’s one direction on Longacres. One direction on Highover,
and really splitting and distributing that traffic kind of works the best during that construction,
certainly during the construction of the sewer, water, roads. All the improvements. Those
improvements would come off of the Hurrell driveway which as I indicated is Lot 3. Again that
supposes that the main drive, Highover Drive tying into Gunflint Trail is put in place as one
continuous project. Again MnDot’s concerned about that, as is the city staff. Those people and
the speed on 41, as Councilman Lundquist indicated last time we talked about trying to close
6
City Council Meeting – February 28, 2005
those accesses on Highway 7 where there’s high volume of speed. People know where those two
access points are now, Lake Lucy and Highover Drive. We don’t want to introduce other
conflicts and create an additional situation, a problem. Not only for people coming in or out or
someone trying to go north, that would be a resident right here. The other issue was the retaining
wall. We showed both directions. This would be this area here. Moving this, flip flopping it
back and forth. Again we believe the location of that, the street as it is today is a better situation
than trying to put the retaining wall adjacent to the wetland. Additional tree loss. So again that’s
further identified in the staff report. Examples of local streets connecting more than one
neighborhood. We gave you examples of several, four that, excuse me, four. Not several. That
showed similar back to back 31 feet that are connecting neighborhoods of more than one type
and mixed development. The last one you’re looking at Stone Creek Drive is probably the
longest one we have. That one, just to clarify. I know Councilman Labatt had asked staff if that
would be connected, the staff did recommend connecting that street. It wasn’t connected but it is
one long, all the way through and it was the recommendation from the council at that time, but
there are, there is townhouse projects on that street as well as single family homes so it has a
total of 210 so we gave you those examples where we always recommend the connection of
those two streets. And then lastly, the last, the change that was made from the application since
you’ve seen it last was the introduction of the totlot located in this Outlot D and the developer
had proposed to put in a totlot in that location. So with that, the staff still takes a position that it
does meet the city’s zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan and we are recommending
approval with the conditions outlined in the staff report and I’d be happy to answer any
questions.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Kate, could you just refresh my memory as to the certain times
construction trucks can come into a neighborhood and then they have to stop coming in.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: And road restrictions also.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, we put together a development contract and there are hours, construction
hours regarding that. Typically, I don’t believe there’s any construction activity on Sundays and
then there are hours of construction. I don’t have those memorized but.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Sorry, I.
Kate Aanenson: That’s alright. Paul may know.
Paul Oehme: The typical construction hours would be from 7:00 in the morning to 6:00 at night.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay. And then road restrictions. Spring. When are those dates?
Paul Oehme: They vary from year to year depending upon weather conditions but typically they
would come off sometime the end of April.
7
City Council Meeting – February 28, 2005
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay.
Mayor Furlong: Any other questions for staff? Councilman Lundquist, any?
Councilman Lundquist: Well I can probably, not on the staff report, no. I’ll see what the
discussion is and probably ask a few more.
Mayor Furlong: Councilman Labatt, any questions?
Councilman Labatt: I’ll wait with mine.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Peterson.
Councilman Peterson: Kate could you just share a little bit about the background of the comp
plan and how the comp plan tries to integrate neighborhoods and the rationale for that, just to
kind of refresh our memory.
Kate Aanenson: Sure. Again the comprehensive plan’s the guiding policy for the city and one
of the things that it talks about is providing the internal linkages, that we use efficient use of the
land. Again we’re working together with the developer as we indicated you know as we did on
Longacres, and try to look at those. While we were accused that our street doesn’t work because
it has some windy, those are the things that we like to do. That’s what the neighbors like so if
it’s a straight shot, which we get critiqued on Lake Lucy, people do go faster so we look at
making those streets to handle the traffic but also avoid running the high volumes which is in the
land use policy that we try to avoid the speeds and the volumes. Which we believe that this
project does. Also as part of the transportation policy is each development should provide and
dedicate the public streets which this project does, and that they have provided sidewalks. You
know we’ve changed our sidewalk policy as we moved through the last few years. We kind of
realize that there’s some connections that need to be made, whether it seems at the time that they
will be used but connecting, as we did on Highover, making the sidewalk connection. Getting
people moving north up to those collector roads. So this does provide that. Also as we indicated
before, as part of the comprehensive plan we want to provide access to all those property owners
that also want to connect onto as we’ve worked with the regional park and that grant is, Todd
Hoffman the Park and Rec Director talked about getting that linkage to go underneath 41 over to
the regional park so all those people have an opportunity. And the comprehensive plan really
talks about creating a community, not just a series of neighborhoods. We’re all part of the
community as whether we go to school together. Pick each other up for church, whatever the
situation may be but really creating a set of communities and this isn’t the only neighborhood
that’s, as we showed on our plan that there’s different neighborhoods that are connected and we
will have some additional in the future but again because the comprehensive plan says we have
to provide access to adjoining properties and we can’t sequentially, it doesn’t always come in the
right order. As long as there’s adequate access and we do our best to identify those connections
in the future to the best of our ability, to do that. I think I answered your question.
8
City Council Meeting – February 28, 2005
Councilman Peterson: Yeah, what about other issues? You know we talked about safety. Is
there a safety issue in a cul-de-sac for public safety or not?
Kate Aanenson: Well you know Paul can address some of the length of the cul-de-sac issues.
Paul Oehme: You know for longer cul-de-sacs there’s issues with emergency vehicles only
having one access point to get in and out of. There’s some sort of blockage at one end of the cul-
de-sac, emergency vehicles would have a hard time reaching properties at the far end, that type
of thing. For inefficiencies of cul-de-sacs there’s, you know it takes two trips basically for mail
and delivery vehicles. City vehicles. One in and one out instead of the connection point through
the neighborhood and then around so those type of things we look at. You know for cul-de-sacs
in general, cul-de-sacs are really designed for small localized pieces of land that either have
environmental issues, grade issues, access issues to be extended to. It’s not for the intent of cul-
de-sacs to be extended for long distances to service just a few properties. That’s in general you
know our, the trying to reduce the size and the length of cul-de-sacs.
Councilman Peterson: Okay, thanks.
Mayor Furlong: Ms. Aanenson, one of the questions that falls under item number 7 in the staff
report. The e-mail that I received made some reference and maybe this is a question too for Mr.
Knutson. Made some reference to, that the Option A here, which is being recommended, is the
best one, did not meet our ordinance. Can you, does it meet the ordinance?
Kate Aanenson: It’s staff’s opinion that it does meet the ordinance. We’ve been questioned on
this regarding double frontage lots several times. We have responded to that and reviewed that
with the City Attorney. There is a 10 foot buffer and it’s heavily landscaped so it’s our opinion
that it does meet city ordinance.
Roger Knutson: That’s also my opinion.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. You show an access from Highway 41 for the construction period.
Reading the staff report, the question is one of safety and as I understand the staff report, there’s
a concern about the safety for having the construction traffic coming in and out on 41. Clearly
the residents on Longacres and Highover are concerned about safety in terms of added vehicles
to the roads. What’s the difference between those construction vehicles entering the site through
say Longacres and then up Gunflint rather than coming off of Highway 41 directly on the
property? What’s the difference from a safety issue and from a traffic flow issue?
Paul Oehme: Well the intersections at Longacres, that’s dedicated access point currently. The
temporary construction access point is, it’s not, right now it’s not signed. We definitely could
recommend that it be signed properly but it’s another access point along 41 that could potentially
cause problems, especially with large vehicles, cement trucks, delivery trucks, accessing at that
particular location when vehicles aren’t aware of that particular access point being at that
particular location. It’s not something that they’re used to. It’s something that could potentially
cause problems.
9
City Council Meeting – February 28, 2005
Kate Aanenson: Can I just go a little further on that too? People that travel 41 know that Lake
Lucy and Longacres Drive, for most people that drive it on a regular, or somewhat regular basis,
know those two points are there and keeping those. And those were put in a position that have
good visibility. Sight lines. This other access, under temporary conditions is not going to have
the same sight lines so at a minimum, in working through MnDot and with the weight of the
vehicles and that to the neighborhood, they felt that that would be a good point to kind of make
the cut off during the construction of utilities and the streets. The heavier vehicles. But to have
all those daily trips, on a point where the residential or the daily driver on 41 doesn’t know that
that point is there, and the speed on 41. You know similar to what we talked about on Highway
7, it’s introducing a conflict that we believe is unsafe.
Mayor Furlong: You mentioned turn lanes in your staff report. Are there bypass lanes at those
intersections, do you know?
Kate Aanenson: I don’t believe so.
Mayor Furlong: On either side.
Kate Aanenson: No.
Mayor Furlong: I think there is one at Lake Lucy if I’m not, for southbound 41.
Councilman Labatt: For southbound, yeah.
Mayor Furlong: Is there one southbound at Longacres too?
Councilman Labatt: No.
Kate Aanenson: No.
Mayor Furlong: We should look into that anyway. Okay. But there are turn lanes for
deceleration for cars at Lake Lucy.
Kate Aanenson: Yep.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: Which you wouldn’t have at the other, and that’s.
Mayor Furlong: I’m sorry.
Kate Aanenson: Which you wouldn’t have at the temporary access which, that’s.
Mayor Furlong: Well I guess I wanted to clarify. The advantage of that is, as you get
decelerating cars off traffic.
10
City Council Meeting – February 28, 2005
Kate Aanenson: But you’d expect someone to slow down and stop and someone’s looking for
that. Makes a quick stop and you’re rear end. Those are the sort of things that we’re saying
we’re introducing that conflict.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Thank you. Any other questions for staff at this time? Okay.
Is the developer here this evening? Good evening.
Chuck Alcon: Good evening Honorable Mayor, members of the council. My name is Chuck
th
Alcon. I reside at 6138 76 Lane in Greenfield, Minnesota. We have very, just a couple of
comments to add to the staff comments. We did try to respond to some of the issues raised 2
weeks ago in our letter of 23 February and I believe you have that. But secondly, as we go
through the process for platting and our project engineer, Landforms is a very experienced
company. What we tried to do is we try to look at the comprehensive plan, the city codes, the
city ordinances, the land itself and when that process is finished we submit a plat. We believe,
excuse me, we believe our submitted plat is the very best engineering recommendation that we
can come up with, given the land, given the comprehensive plan and given the zoning codes and
ordinances. As noted earlier, it is compliant without variance. With those just brief comments
we’ll stand by for any questions you might have.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for the developer at this time?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I have one. Just as I was leaving for the meeting I received an e-mail
and I wasn’t able to read it and comprehend it totally. It was from a resident, yeah this one. It
was from the Harrison Hill neighborhood and you had been in negotiations about different
plantings I think and a fence, is that the e-mail you have right there Brian?
Councilman Lundquist: I think the question is on the end of Gunflint, the steep curve or tight
curve, whatever we’re calling it, and whether or not there’s 4 lots there or not. Is that the one
you’re talking about?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yeah.
Chuck Alcon: I believe Mayor the one we’re talking about is right here?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yes.
Chuck Alcon: If you look…we made several changes in this particular area. Drawing this road
away from this property line as far as we can go. We also have a sidewalk…on the back of curb.
In some areas we’ve changed our plantings to see that those, the viburnum trees which are a little
more dense so we believe that buffering is more than satisfactory. Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: I’m sorry, did you have any questions? Okay, thank you. At this time, as I
said earlier, I’ll open it up for public comment. Again my preference would be similar to last
time is if there are, similar to the visitor presentations. If we could have representatives of
groups come forward rather than multiple people repeating the same issues and to the extent that
we can deal with the issues that were presented in the staff report this evening, or new
11
City Council Meeting – February 28, 2005
information that you might have that we need to be aware of, that would be my preference but at
this time I would certainly open it up for public comment. Invite people to come forward. State
their name and address if they would.
Rodd Wagner: Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council. I’ll be relatively brief this evening. I
wanted to speak to how.
Mayor Furlong: I’m sorry, if you could. I know you spoke last time.
Rodd Wagner: I’m sorry. I’m sorry, my name is Rodd Wagner. I live at 6915 Highover Drive.
There’s been some discussion about traffic counts and traffic loads and I just want to walk you
through some of the math that we’ve done. How we get concerned that Highover Drive is going
to be pushed out of compliance with a local road. This is the same map that we’ve seen many
times at the Planning Commission and at the prior City Council meeting and I’ve just highlighted
the various sections here. The blue section being the existing Highover Drive. I’ve segregated
the lots by those that abut the street and those that do not. There are currently 30 homes, 30 lots
along the, in the blue section right now. The Yoberry extension would add an additional 19 onto
those that abut Highover Drive, and here I’m making a simplifying assumption, I’ll speak to
variations here in a second. A simplifying assumption that the lots that are either abut or connect
to Highover Drive will go north. Obviously there will be a trade of traffic back and forth but
let’s start with that as just kind of a simplifying assumption to be able to make some reasonable
counts. There is a Street A designated by the developer. That picks up an additional 5 homes.
There are 17 homes in the green area. Highover Court North and South that spit out onto the top
of Highover Drive. And there are currently 4 homes in the pink area, the Highover Trail area
right now. There is also, as I’m sure the council is aware of the Carlson property to the east
which is shortly going to come before the city for development as well. I understand that will be
in the neighborhood of 50 plus homes that they’ll be seeking in that area. If you make the
assumption that those on Highover Drive stay on Highover Drive and go north up to Lake Lucy
to avoid the weaving traffic to the, or weaving road to the south as staff has made reference to,
then you get to 75 homes that are currently on that road and if you add an additional 25 or so off
of the Highover Trail extension, you’re up to 100 homes. You’re already at capacity for a local
street and with the first UPS truck, FedEx truck, school bus that goes through there, you are now
over the statutory limit of a local street. Now, it is possible of course that more traffic would go
south. To the degree it is also possible that more traffic would go north. For example the folks
that are on the extension of Gunflint Trail could drive north and I think that becomes more of an
issue as development continues west and more things are developed out towards St. Bonifacius
on Highway 7 out to the northwest of us. You could assume that more traffic will go south. If
so, then you load more traffic onto Gunflint Trail. The statutory requirement for a local road is
one of limited continuity that primarily serves the abutting properties and Gunflint Trail would
no longer fit by that definition. It would not primarily be serving the abutting properties. We
have no problem with the rezoning. We agree that it ought to be single family residential, and
however we do have, and continue to have concerns about the traffic and the fact that it goes
beyond a matter of art or discretion. That in fact it is as configured here and with the additional
development, that it will further either, further exacerbate the problem on Hunter Drive. Take
Gunflint Trail out of compliance as a local road, or take Highover Drive out of compliance as a
local road and therefore that that through access ought not be allowed. We would urge that the
12
City Council Meeting – February 28, 2005
council rezone and approve the preliminary plat with a condition that there not be through
access. Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any comments from staff on the comments here?
Kate Aanenson: Sure. The situation that we showed in your staff report, for example on the
collector street on Stone Creek Drive, which starts on Galpin and loops back up to Coulter. It
has 210. That is the recommendation for the managing of traffic, and we put these in to show
you. We’ve got examples. I’m not sure what the use of statutory requirement means but those
are the recommendations for what a traffic should hold. I’d let the city attorney maybe address
what the statutory requirements would be but we certainly have streets that based on for example
when staff recommended connecting those two that handle much more traffic than the city code
recommends for a local street.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you.
Tim Block: Mayor and council members. My name is Tim Block and I’m at 6903 Highover
Drive. I’d like to start from the beginning saying that the residents here are here and they’re not
afraid to show you a map of what this Yoberry development looks like with everybody else in it
and I think you have not seen yet a map like that but I think that it’s important for us to start
concentrating on this map and not on just Yoberry on it’s own. I’d like to start just to talk about
the general area of Highway 41. In the comprehensive plan there is a section about Highway 41.
There are many concerns about Highway 41 being a high traffic corridor. If I can read from the
comprehensive plan it’s on page 1998 it talks about the metropolitan region expanding
north/south routes in this area will become more important as destinations are less centered on
the Twin Cities urban core. So we see right now in the comprehensive plan already the ideas,
that Trunk Highway 41 is going to be important north/south corridor. It says currently there are
a lack of good north/south routes that provide connections between major east/west principle
arterial routes and major river crossings. And it concludes in that section and I’m sorry, I can put
it up for you to see it and read it as well. It says even though it provides an important function
for the region, there are no major improvements planned for the facility. As a result other
parable routes, Audubon Road and Galpin Boulevard will become more important in distributing
the traffic demand during peak traffic periods. So we see right now, we see the comprehensive
plan already recognizing that north/south routes along Highway 41, as you see on this map, can
become an important part of what we need to look at. What I wanted to point out at the outset is
that you’ve seen a lot of discussion about what was going to happen, and we heard that as this
plan went in effect, this was going to be the connection to Yoberry here. But that problems
existed that may, that made the design go straight through and so we have already a change from
the original plan. You see a lot of quotations about what the original plan was. The original plan
has an idea of cutting Highover Drive off. Making people turn onto Highover Trail. I mean
Highover Way, and then come north again, and so we have a change and I submit to you that
there are at least 5 distinct reasons why this proposed development should be a two cul-de-sac
non-through street. That is the first one. The change in the plan already had some traffic
calming measures and had to be changed. You are being presented with the staff report. I just
would like to talk about two things and they are those that are addressed in topic number one.
I’ve been in Texas too many times and so I have taken on some of the things that they say, so as
13
City Council Meeting – February 28, 2005
to item number 7, I don’t have a dog in that fight but as a resident of Chanhassen I ask you not to
do that to anybody. Not to do that to anybody who’s in this city. But I’m going to keep my
comments to item number 1. There are two basic topics in item number 1 that I’d like to talk
about. One as Rodd Wagner had talked about was the evaluation of the potential traffic analysis
and the second is the width of the streets. You can see that item number 1 really is two
paragraphs and so as I address these two questions I’m going to address them in order, in reverse
order. The width of the streets has been a concern of the residents. Highover Drive has been
measured by the residents at 26 ¼ feet of pavement, and so the question became after the first
hearing, well what’s the ordinance. What is the measurement? What is the right way to measure
a street? And so when I heard that we measure streets base to base curb I said to myself well, as
an engineer I thought well I can’t ride on the curb. I can’t put my car on the curb as I’m driving.
Why is it part of the measurement so I called the Chanhassen police department and asked them
if I could get ticketed and the answer was yes. So I looked at the ordinance and I said well what
does the ordinance say? And the ordinance says, roadway pavement. And I agree that that
might be up to interpretation so I went further. I said what is the comprehensive plan say? So I
went to the comprehensive plan on Chapter 5 and it talks about the road widths and it says urban
roadways are required to dedicate 60 feet of right-of-way for local streets and 28 to 30 foot wide
permanent, or pavement width. Again pavement, it didn’t give me a definition of what pavement
meant. But then it says, rural roadways are also required to have a bituminous surfacing 24 feet
wide and I thought what does that mean, also required to have a bituminous surface of 24 feet. I
didn’t know what bituminous meant so I looked in the dictionary and it says coal. So from the
comprehensive plan it indicates that, at least from my interpretation that you need 28 feet of coal
based pavement. But it still didn’t make sense completely to me so I went to the road design
manual that MnDot prepares and that talks about curbs. And it says curbs are used extensively at
the outside of the shoulder of urban streets, and that’s what we’re talking about, urban streets.
And curb serve several functions and they provide pavement delineation. So I thought well
maybe if the curb is providing the delineation, that you can’t count the curb so I went one more
page in MnDot and it said, the gutter section can be considered part of the shoulder width.
However on low speed urban streets where shoulders are not practical, the curb and the gutter
section should not be considered part of the travel lane width. The curb face should be offset a
minimum of 2 feet from the edge of the travel lane. I submit to the council that 26 ½ feet, I don’t
know if it’s code or not but it’s thin and I’d like to just show you one more thing from the packet
that you were given. There was an attempt to give us similar situations and I looked at the first
one and I said well, the first one’s kind of weird. You really have to go well out of your way to
th
go around there and the local street, West 86 Street, 31 feet base to base. Mission Hills Drive,
31 feet base to base. But then I went to the next one and the next one the local street Lake Susan
Hills, 35 feet base to base. And I even went to the next two, the local street, Lake Susan Drive,
35 feet base to base. And Stone Creek Drive, 35 feet base to base, so the residents are
concerned. The residents believe that Highover Drive is thin. The residents are worried that
Chanhassen has said that local streets can hold 1,000 cars. Everywhere else I’ve looked in North
Caroline, in Georgia, in Georgetown they say 800 cars and I thought maybe it was because the
width was bigger that we can hold 1,000. But everything that I can find, just looking at this, I
cannot find why it is that Highover is what it is. But it is. We have to deal with that and the fact
of the matter is that we have to deal with it because we are now in a position where we’ve built
those streets and we have to do something about it. So I would submit to you that the second
reason why Highover Drive and the Yoberry connection should be two cul-de-sacs is because
14
City Council Meeting – February 28, 2005
Highover Drive and Gunflint are thin. They’re thin on Chanhassen routes. We see 3 out of 4
examples where the streets are 4 feet more wide. So we go back to the first paragraph in that
section 1 and we talk about the traffic analysis and late this afternoon I tried my best to produce
to you what I believe to be a traffic analysis for that period, or for these two neighborhoods, and
what I think that Rodd Wagner and I are both suggesting to you is that we need to consider 5
different traffic generators when we talk about traffic on Highover. We need to look at Highover
Drive. We need to look at Yoberry. We have to look to some extent at Longacres. We have to
look at the new development and we have to look at through traffic. And I submit that right now
in the plan we’re only looking at 2 of those 5. In the appendix to the comprehensive plan there is
a travel forecast flow chart and we talked about this last time that maybe the better way to do this
would be to see what traffic flow really is instead of trying to estimate it. Ask the residents what
they thought the traffic was like, and this traffic flow chart that’s part of the comprehensive plan
indicates that after you’ve done what the city staff has done and after you’ve done what Rodd
Wagner’s tried to do and after what I tried to do, you can go through these steps and they include
doing existing traffic counts and making sure that everything’s calibrated and make sure that the
traffic that you’re predicting is really what’s happening. And I understand we can’t do that, so
we have to go back to what we have right now in front of us and that is, an attempt to look at
traffic from the top and that is look at the trip generation model that’s accepted and see what we
can get. So I gave you in an e-mail my attempt at it and I looked at what it would be like through
through traffic and what it would look like with a cul-de-sac approach, and I can tell you right
now I agree that you can probably sit here and tell me well, these numbers you probably can play
with and these numbers that you can probably play with and maybe that many people from
Highover Drive aren’t going to go north or south, but the reality is is that if you do it the way that
Mr. Wagner did it and do it the way that I do it, you see that these numbers are bumping up on
the top limits. And what I wanted to point out to you is that if you cul-de-sac the two areas, 3 of
the 5 generators are gone. There’s no longer a real issue for most of Highover Drive as to the
new extension of Highover Trail. We know that half of Yoberry is not going to be coming
through our properties and we know that Longacres isn’t going to be coming through our
property, but what I think the neighborhoods are worried the most about is that we live where we
go onto Lake Lucy. We try to get on 41. There’s a bus. There’s a truck. Somebody’s turning
left and it’s the through traffic that really is our concern because we know that in the past we’ve
been able to stop residents, ask them to slow down and so what we’re worried about is very
simply someone coming down Lake Lucy, seeing a bus or truck trying to turn left and saying,
I’m going to make it to Longacres before them and I’m going to prove that this is a faster route.
And so you can see in the traffic analysis that I put out to you and I think again as I’d say, it’s my
best attempt at something that I heard at the last meeting, that with the through, with the cul-de-
sacs we’re going to get rid of Highover Trail, Longacres and through traffic. We know what we
can predict for everybody else and that way we don’t have an issue like we do at Hunter Drive or
at other places where we’re looking in the past and saying what are we going to do. If we’re
going to be limited to the traffic analysis as it is right now without following the rest of the flow
chart, this is the safest route to keep us under the 1,000. I would like to conclude then with
Figure A6 from the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan includes management tools
when you’re coming upon an area that there’s a lot of traffic. And if you look on the
comprehensive plan, this is the Chanhassen comprehensive plan. It talks about local urban
streets and one of the management tools is cul-de-sacs. So the comprehensive plan gives us the
power to go forward and break this into two cul-de-sacs. Make it a non-through street. I told
15
City Council Meeting – February 28, 2005
you there was 5. I think I’ve addressed 3 or 4. The width of the street is a concern. The height
of Highover Drive. The highest point in Chanhassen a concern. The high traffic that the
residents have established for you through their own testimony is a concern. There was a change
in the development that took away one of the most critical according to some comments. One of
the critical ways to slow traffic down, make them turn on Highover Way and then come up
north. That was changed. And so, and then I start where I began at the target area. The
comprehensive plan says watch out for north/south corridors along 41. I’d ask that you approve
the development for residential use but I’d ask that you set a condition that there is no through
street and I’ll take any questions if you want.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Block? No? Thank you. Comments.
Thoughts.
Kate Aanenson: Well I just wanted, just to clarify the change in the plan. There was no change
in the plan. There was different iterations of Highover, and what I was trying to demonstrate
when we looked at Highover, we looked at based on topography, that’s how we have to lay out
roads. Topography. Avoidance of wetlands. Those sort of things. You know our first choice
would have been to have that street come down. That was never submitted. It was never
changed. It was just an iteration. We’re meeting with the developer to say you know, so it was
never changed. So I just want to clarify that point. And we looked at that. And then the
comprehensive plan does state a length of cul-de-sac that’s recommended too, so just for the
record.
Councilman Lundquist: What is that length Kate?
Paul Oehme: I think it doesn’t, to clarify for Kate. I don’t think it will state a specific length. It
states that we need to look at the topography. We need to look at the area that, where the cul-de-
sac is going in and the impacts to the surrounding community is or the surrounding area is.
Kate Aanenson: We discourage the long ones.
Paul Oehme: That’s correct. So one other comment regarding roadway widths. Highover Drive
is 31 feet back to back, and that’s our typical standard. That’s what our practice is. Other
communities are narrower streets even. Eden Prairie for example is 28 feet back to back with
their curb so every community sets their standards and that’s what we typically design our streets
and our local roadways to.
Councilman Lundquist: So we sort of have autonomy over how wide the streets are.
Paul Oehme: Eden Prairie has, you know every community has their own adopted standard
street width that the council can change. Or approve. Have approved so, and this council, this
city has chosen 31 feet for their standard local street width.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Anyone else who would like to comment.
16
City Council Meeting – February 28, 2005
Uli Sacchet: Mr. Mayor, council. Good evening. My name is Uli Sacchet. I live at 7053
Highover Court South, which is you want to look where this is in relationship to the development
is right here. Immediately adjacent to the north of the cul-de-sac of Gunflint Trail. I just want to
make sure quick a comment and a half. Before I address my personal interest I do believe one
thing is being really missing throughout these proceedings, looking at this proposal, and it’s to
appreciate what the city staff does. I think city staff has been really between a rock and a hard
place as you say in this country. On one hand trying to work with the developer. On the other
hand trying to accommodate all the concerns of the residents, and particularly Sharmeen Al-Jaff
I think has done a fantastic job, a very ungrateful job and I do want to go on record of expressing
that. I also do want to thank all the residents for very eloquently expressing all their concerns,
even though I don’t necessarily share quite the same extent of the concerns and fears, and we do
have a term in city planning that we use, since I’m on the Planning Commission. I want to make
it clear I’m addressing you as an individual resident, not as a Planning Commissioner, but we do
have a term in city planning which is called NIMBY, which means not in my back yard, and I do
believe that phenomena plays somewhat into it. Taking the danger of falling a little bit into the
NIMBY pattern myself here, talking about what’s going on in my own back yard, I do want to
point out that I believe the option with the road to the east versus the alternate option which I
understand from the proceedings of your last meeting, you’re still trying to decide which way to
go. If the road goes up here through the woods, would have a far greater impact on not just my
lot but the whole Highover neighborhood to the north there, so I would like you to know. I
would want to go on record that I definitely much prefer the road on the east side. I do believe
there is a lot of buffer to the Harrison Trail between that utility easement. Between the efforts
that the developer has made so I, since I’m directly affected I want to go on the record that that’s
what I would like to recommend from, as a resident. Thank you very much.
Mayor Furlong: Anyone else who would like to make a public comment this evening. See some
movement in chairs.
Brent Kreofsky: Good evening Mr. Mayor, councilmen. My name is Brent Kreofsky. I live at
2221 Hunter Drive and I want to address a couple of things that were mentioned tonight. One is
the temporary access for 41. I believe the proposal was to allow that temporary access only
during the construction of the road and the sewer, that’s correct?
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Brent Kreofsky: Okay.
Paul Oehme: The, yeah the 2005 construction season but I think MnDot would just give us a one
year window when that temporary construction access would be over. That’s their
recommendation. That’s what they would give us access for.
Brent Kreofsky: Okay. And in the assumption is that the construction for the housing, the
cement trucks, that type of stuff would come in through the other, if I understood you correct,
would come in the other way. You thought that would be fairly balanced, and I would just ask
council to put yourself in our, those of us that live on Hunter Drive, in our position and it’s not a
very enviable position. You guys have heard a lot of detail thrown at you tonight. You pour
17
City Council Meeting – February 28, 2005
over the pages and pages that we’ve got here and as I find myself trying to make this difficult
decision, I believe Uli mentioned not in my back yard. Put yourself in a position that those of us
that are living on that road would be in and will find ourselves in as you’re trying to make this
tough decision. I would ask that we try to extend that, if at all possible. I don’t know if we can
with MnDot to last the entire time, or at least as much of the construction as possible. Okay.
The second item that I want to touch on is Hunter Drive of course. I’m representing several of us
here from the end of Hunter Drive and I haven’t seen the results of what the sheriff’s department
has reported to you for average speeds and things like that but one of the things I like about
Chanhassen is it’s a small town and when the sheriff is sitting down at the end of the corner of
the road, people know about it like that. So I’d be careful to use that fully and understand that
that plays a role in this situation. I live at the end. I’ve had people skid up into my front yard.
Had a couple other folks have had the same thing. Four times this winter we’ve had people
coming up into our yard. We’re right there at the end of intersection of Galpin and Hunter Drive.
So I would ask that the council looks at two things. One is a stop sign at Fawn Hill and Hunter
and also further consider 20 miles per hour on Hunter Drive. Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Quick question of clarification.
Brent Kreofsky: Sure.
Mayor Furlong: Your first item you were talking about Hunter Drive and also construction
access off 41.
Brent Kreofsky: No, no, I’m sorry. I live on Hunter but I was talking about the temporary
access into Yoberry for construction.
Mayor Furlong: And then I thought I heard, so I thought I heard you were connecting and
dealing with the issue of construction traffic coming up Hunter…
Brent Kreofsky: Yeah, the assumption that staff made, as I understood it was that construction
traffic for cement trucks, the lumber trucks would come through Hunter, Longacres, or the other
accesses. Highover.
Kate Aanenson: Right. If you can zoom in on that a little bit. You know one of our concerns is
looking at if we force the construction traffic to go a certain way, now you’re forcing the burden
on a very small, so if you, could you say no construction past Gunflint and force everybody past
this? I’m not sure how happy just those, I’m on Longacres Drive, coming down.
Mayor Furlong: Your fingers are off the map. Off the camera, I’m sorry.
Kate Aanenson: I’m sorry. There we go. So if we’re, if we’re taking down Gunflint Trail, say
no construction traffic. Everything has to go past this. I’m not sure how happy those people
would be, so we looked at a lot of different scenarios. Saying no construction down this way.
Which is one of the issues if you split the neighborhood, you know the access, as I pointed out,
to get construction traffic, even in the first part if you were to split the neighborhood, is coming
off of Lot 3. If you split that, not all the construction traffic is going to be able to, and I’m
18
City Council Meeting – February 28, 2005
talking sewer, water. The utilities and the road surfacing would not be able to service that entire
neighborhood, so some of that utilities is going to have to come down then through this access
because that utility construction access services the north portion. So what we’re working really
hard to do, and it’s complex. Is try to move it so it’s equally distributed as much as possible, and
that’s going to be a lot of management on our’s and complaint driven and managing that. Being
up there and managing, and with the developer who we spoke to about that. Making sure that
he’s on top of that with the contractors that he’s, and in the development contract.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Anybody else who would like to address the council on this matter.
New item or topic related to the staff report. No one? Alright. Very good, thank you. I’ll close
the public comment period now without objection and bring it back to council for discussion or
there might be, based upon the public comment we’ve received, additional public comment,
there may be some questions for staff so maybe we can start with that if there are any immediate
questions for staff at this time. Anyone? Follow-up. No?
Councilman Peterson: Kate, with regard to the 41 connection that we just talked about, what are
the odds? Right now I’m kind of leaning towards pushing and using 41 throughout the whole
project just, as I look at the common sense factor, you know is it more dangerous on 41 or is it
more dangerous for construction traffic on a neighborhoods? I’m kind of leaning towards it’s
less dangerous for 41 but what do we need to do to see if we can get MnDot to extend that.
Paul Oehme: We just petition MnDot for extension of the temporary access permit to 41 and see
if they will grant that to us. We can take it up the chain of command at MnDot and knock on
every door to see what we can do to extend that. That permit length as long as we can.
Councilman Peterson: Do we have any precedence at all or not? That you’re aware of.
Paul Oehme: Not that I’m aware of.
Councilman Peterson: Okay, thanks.
Kate Aanenson: I think just to add to that, I think it’s, you can tell a lot as we begin construction.
You know how it’s being managed. I mean we’ll figure that out real quick if there’s problems.
If it’s not working so.
Councilman Peterson: We can always change it.
Kate Aanenson: Correct, right. Exactly, but I’m saying we’ll see how it’s being managed and
that’s going to be prudent on everybody to be responsible out there if there’s…and that sort of
thing so. But if it’s working…
Councilman Peterson: Okay.
Mayor Furlong: Any other questions for staff at this time? Okay. I’m sorry, did you have a
question?
19
City Council Meeting – February 28, 2005
Councilman Lundquist: Yeah a couple please, if you don’t mind.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Councilman Lundquist: Kate let’s talk about two cul-de-sacs, at least on paper. You’ve got a
proposed layout or one that was looked at before.
Kate Aanenson: Sure. Before I put it up there I just want to make clear, it’s hard to split the
baby so somebody’s going to share probably a little bit more of the burden, and that’s based on
topography and how that all works out because the high point’s in the center. So, having said
that, can you zoom in on that Nann.
Councilman Lundquist: Is that a qualifier? For the record.
Kate Aanenson: We did look at that. So this cul-de-sac, this is Mrs. Weathers property, would
come back down into Gunflint Trail. Then this cul-de-sac, again this is the high point here,
would go back up towards Highover. And then again based on grading, getting through there.
The orange reflects sidewalk connections. Again the goal is to connect, we’re still trying to get
up to that trail connection over to Minnewashta. Again the complexity comes in with this is the
driveway, to use this. So how do we get that construction traffic down here because you
wouldn’t cut across the lot. That adds the other layer of complexity.
Councilman Lundquist: So, back on the temporary access for construction. Where is the
proposed temporary access?
Kate Aanenson: Lot 3, which is, let’s see if we can focus in on that a little bit better. It’d be
coming off of this lot right here. So you wouldn’t have access to this portion, the southern
portion so that would still have to come.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay so Mrs. Weathers driveway isn’t, at one time I thought last
meeting that were talking about using the existing driveway as the temporary access.
Kate Aanenson: No, on the Hurrell property. Yeah, that’s on the Hurrell property.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, she’s continuing to live there and being platted into another lot so, and
that driveway would be eliminated.
Councilman Lundquist: Oh okay. I had seen one of the conditions that it’s elimination of the
driveway.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, that was a MnDot condition so that’s the complexity is trying to make
that all balance. We can look to that but that would be our one concern. Because once you have
utilities in, you can’t have any driving across the lots just to be clear on that.
20
City Council Meeting – February 28, 2005
Councilman Lundquist: Alright. And then on that, the impact of the end of I guess it would be
Highover Drive now, against Harrison Hill instead of Gunflint, with the sharper corner there on
the northeast corner. Does that essentially the same layout as either proposals?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Yeah, it’s pretty close to the same. Yeah, this curve might be a little bit
tighter to make this connection. This group. So I’m not sure to what level of detail again, just to
be clear for the record, this is just an iteration showing a drawing so. Yeah so.
Councilman Lundquist: Yep. Yep. Okay.
Councilman Labatt: Kate what, Brian can I?
Mayor Furlong: Yep, go ahead.
Councilman Labatt: With that curve on Gunflint, would it have to be a curve or couldn’t you
just make it a 90?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, we could look at that, yeah. Like a, yeah. A T or L.
Councilman Labatt: L.
Kate Aanenson: It’s a construction traffic issue. I guess we haven’t solved that whole thing yet.
Councilman Labatt: Well I think both plans obviously have construction traffic issues. So
there’s, the point isn’t really, is that good for the south or the north, in either plan you’re going to
get it both ways.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, but this will have heavy construction traffic during this utility portion of
it because you can’t get that, and if you did, if MnDot let us have the whole year, as you had
asked us to do, which we’re hoping to continue that, if we could mange that appropriately, then
this wouldn’t be an option for that.
Mayor Furlong: I’m sorry, explain that again.
Councilman Peterson: Would not be the option?
Kate Aanenson: Would not be an option because.
Councilman Lundquist: They wouldn’t get any.
Kate Aanenson: They wouldn’t get any, yeah. There wouldn’t be any way to access that so you
couldn’t provide that alternative, which we had hoped to do.
Councilman Lundquist: You can’t have both.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
21
City Council Meeting – February 28, 2005
Councilman Labatt: Well I think you’re dealing with a construction season problem versus a
lifetime problem. What’s the number of lots in this plan compared to what’s proposed right
now?
Kate Aanenson: They’re the same.
Councilman Labatt: So the developer’s not losing any lots.
Kate Aanenson: No. But again it’s the, well like I said you know, there’s going to be, based on
this plan, more of them are going up to Highover based on that topographic break. Again, going
back to what I said about how we work through the design, it has to do with sewer flow, water,
wetlands, so that’s all driving the grades of the street’s driving that so.
Councilman Peterson: How many again on the upper cul-de-sac? How many lots versus the
lower?
Kate Aanenson: Again, this is the original, king of first blush at it. The Gunflint access would
have 21 and 36 would go towards Highover.
Mayor Furlong: I’m sorry, could you repeat that.
Kate Aanenson: 21 on the Gunflint and 36 towards Highover.
Mayor Furlong: That schematic that you have or plan or I don’t know what title you want to
give to it. Who put that together or how long have you had it?
Kate Aanenson: Their engineers.
Mayor Furlong: The applicant.
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: Put it together, okay. Have you had that long or how long has that been?
Kate Aanenson: No, we just got this in the last meetings. Asked them to kind of look at putting
one together.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. So staff hasn’t looked at, from any detail standpoint.
Kate Aanenson: No, but I believe.
Mayor Furlong: Or what level of detail have you looked at it in terms of a normal site plan
process.
22
City Council Meeting – February 28, 2005
Kate Aanenson: This portion is going to be pretty similar. This cul-de-sac. Correct me if I’m
wrong, that part is still, yeah…
Steve Johnston: Good evening. My name is Steve Johnston. I’m with Landform. We, the plan
you see in front of you from an engineering standpoint will work. The eastern most cul-de-sac is
in the exact same place. The northwestern cul-de-sac is identical. And the cul-de-sac on the
Weathers property on the southwestern corner are identical. There are a few things though that
you should make note of. This results in a cul-de-sac that is 1,850 feet long. Results in a cul-de-
sac with 86 plus homes on it. There will be 86 homes plus whatever comes in with the Carlson
property. Now if I came to you with a new project that says I want to put 100 plus homes on a
single cul-de-sac, I wouldn’t stand a chance. You would laugh me out of here. This is being
done for political reasons, not for traffic safety. Not to meet a comp plan. Not to address the
plan that meets all your ordinances. It’s being done politically. So I just want to make that part
of it clear. Engineering wise this plan that’s in front of you I’m confident we can make work.
But I would never have come to you with this plan in the first place expecting you to approve it
because while your ordinance may not specify maximum cul-de-sac length, I doubt that you
would approve 1,850 feet of cul-de-sac with 86 plus units on it.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you.
Steve Johnston: And that will guarantee that in the Highover neighborhood they will have over
1,000 trips per day. The analysis we looked at that we were presented with earlier, there’s a
major piece of it that was missing in that analysis and that is not where the trips are generated
from but what the destination is. If somebody is heading south and they happen to live on
Highover Drive in our project, they are going to go south. Just because they live on that street
does not mean that they are going to go north up through the Highover neighborhood and then
come south again on 41. There’s going to be a split somewhere in the neighborhood that they’re
going to view it’s easier to go, when they’re going north, it’s going to be easier to start out going
north. And some portion that may view it’s easier to go south and then north. You have to look
at the destinations in the traffic study, not just where the homes are and what street they happen
to be on. I believe that the current plan will split the traffic pretty evenly. It is going to be
destination driven, not where you are within the individual projects. Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any additional questions for staff?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Kate can you address what he just stated about the next potential
development being land locked or having trouble if it is a double cul-de-sac. Is that what I
heard?
Kate Aanenson: No. Are you talking about the Carlson piece?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yes.
Kate Aanenson: This subdivision has access via Galpin. Extension into Highover and the
developer is working to try to secure access to Lake Lucy. So it splits the traffic three different
ways.
23
City Council Meeting – February 28, 2005
Councilman Labatt: Three ways.
Kate Aanenson: Three ways, correct.
Councilman Labatt: Kate, how long is the Settlers West? That cul-de-sac that we just made
down in that, on the bluff. That was 1,400-1,500 feet. We’ve done long cul-de-sacs.
Paul Oehme: We have in certain situations. This one, it’s not 1,800 feet. It’s more like 3,500
feet because you have to add in the existing Highover Drive, which would make this the longest
cul-de-sac in our city.
Councilman Labatt: Well there’s got to be one. We have done, Settlers West was, yeah. We
looked at that topographically speaking.
Paul Oehme: Absolutely.
Councilman Labatt: We decided a cul-de-sac and make it long. We could have come up from
the bluff and.
Paul Oehme: Well access was limited from the bluff area in that particular project we were
looking at environmental issues again and access so I mean basically we were landlocked there.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Okay, any other questions for staff at this time? Follow-up questions.
No? Why don’t we move to discussion then. Council discussion. See where this brings us.
Who’d like to start? Councilman Labatt, you went last last time.
Councilman Labatt: Ah sure. Sure. I guess my position really hasn’t changed from 2 weeks
ago. I’ve done some more reading on other issues around metro areas and it wasn’t 3-4 weeks
ago Bloomington had an article in the Star Tribune about their east/west roads. People are trying
to avoid 494 traffic. And the problems they’re having down there and what they’re trying to do
now and they’re closing some streets or they’re putting signs up, if you don’t live here don’t
drive here. All this kind of stuff. They’re experiencing problems today from planning 20 years
ago. And I think we need to try to avoid what Bloomington’s going through today and those
residents are feeling. The two cul-de-sac plan, this is the first time I saw it was right now. It’s
something that, so the developer’s not losing any lots. Still gets the same number of lots. We’re
going to have a safer area here without the through traffic. The construction north and south
vehicles. It’s 21 to 36. I really think we need to look strong and hard here at the two cul-de-sac
option. What we’ve seen on paper here and hearing that it doesn’t affect the bottom dollar, the
number of lots in a developer is an option that we should really look at. For the sake of the
Highover people, Longacres people, they’ve never said not in my back yard. Nobody’s ever said
we don’t want this development. They’ve liked the development. Let’s tweak it. Let’s make it
a little bit safer. And my hats off to all the residents who have stood by and said you know, this
is going to be a nice development but here’s our concerns. Unlike some of the other past
developers we’ve had, or developments that come in where people have said not in my back
yard. So, I’ll leave it at that. My comments are still the same as last time. I would you know
24
City Council Meeting – February 28, 2005
strongly ask that we give the two cul-de-sacs some very serious consideration and I did have a
couple amendments to the conditions, but I’ll give you those after I hear everybody’s comments.
Just kind of tweak a few of them if I need to.
Mayor Furlong: Alright. Thank you. Other thoughts.
Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor, I was hoping for a sore throat and my voice would and I
don’t think that’s going to happen in the next 15 minutes. You know Steve, I hear what you’re
saying on the side of the cul-de-sac and it’s interesting to see it. What is a little bit scary is that
we’re talking about essentially doubling the size of our longest cul-de-sac. Not adding a few
feet, and that’s somewhat alarming to hear that. If we put in that long of a cul-de-sac with 86
homes, that traffic count will even go higher than what some of the residents and what staff is
predicting and that’s worrisome from a safety perspective so I think what we had hoped to
accomplish with the two cul-de-sacs isn’t necessarily happening when you have to put that many
homes on a cul-de-sac. It certainly addresses it for the Longacres side, but it doesn’t seem to be
a clear cut decision on the Highover side. What we certainly don’t want to do is make a decision
that puts even higher traffic counts on any road. And I think you also have to factor in the, you
know the garage, garbage. The garbage trucks and delivery trucks and the mail and the school
buses are going to make double the amount of trips on a very long street, and I think that’s just
something that we just need to be conscience about. A lot of discussion tonight, and 2 weeks ago
was about interpreting the comprehensive plan and the ordinances and I have a great deal of
understanding of wanting to interpret that but I really think it’s, we can sit and interpret the
ordinances and codes and talk about definition of words but I think it’s going to come down to, is
it really going to be safer for a through street or is it going to be safer for two cul-de-sacs. And
we’re tasked with interpreting the ordinances because the ordinances and the comprehensive plan
are about interpretation. They’re not a black and white document that we are respectfully tasked
with interpreting that. And tonight, and over the last multiple weeks, what I’ve read and I feel
the passion of all the residents around there but I’m still tasked with making a decision what’s
best for the residents in my interpretation of the code. I just don’t see a compelling reason right
now that two cul-de-sacs is going to be safer. It’s an opinion, okay. You may agree or disagree
with that opinion but I do my best to make an informed decision and listen and we’re obligated
to adhere to a comprehensive plan and our interpretation of that. We all ran for office, and I
think to a person we’ve agreed that the comprehensive plan is something that we want to use as
our guiding principle and long cul-de-sacs aren’t part of that, for all the right reasons. 4 weeks
ago we made a determination, unanimous determination that the Pinehurst development needed
to be connected through a through street for all the same reasons we’ve talked about tonight. So
I, you know, for me to make a decision that is against that decision was 4 weeks ago. It’s fresh in
our respective minds. There really isn’t that much difference between these two developments.
Actually there’s more common with Yoberry than there would be on the Pinehurst because it
was really two different styles of developments that we agreed that it was right to connect those.
It goes down to is proper planning the use of cul-de-sacs and I’m leaning towards agreeing with
staff that it’s not proper planning and it’s not safe and it could be more unsafe if we potentially
do it as the one option has been presented tonight. There may be other options, and maybe that’s
something we’re going to talk about as a council is that, is that the only option for the two cul-
de-sac version, but I don’t like hearing 86 homes and over 3,000 feet. That’s alarming. I do
think that we should work with MnDot you know to get the 41 connection to the length of the
25
City Council Meeting – February 28, 2005
project and work effortlessly to make that happen. I like what the developer has done with the
totlot. Adding that in. The Harrison Hill, you know we didn’t get consensus 2 weeks ago. We
don’t have that tonight. I think what the developer and staff has agreed to is reasonable on there
with, if oriented to the east. Hunter Drive, we have an issue. Again as we said last week, those
are two different issues and I think we necessarily need to deal with the Hunter Drive but we
need to as a council deal with that with dispatch and you know there were things in the staff
report that I hadn’t seen before that we need to pursue aggressively, but whether that is a stop
sign on the corner, I don’t know but I want to talk about it soon. So, that being said, it is my
qualified opinion that there isn’t a compelling reason to change from the comp plan and that I am
not convinced that two cul-de-sacs are even going to be safer for the community. Those are my
humble thoughts.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other comments.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Are you ready for my humble thoughts?
Mayor Furlong: Certainly.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Very humble thoughts. I’d have to say that I agree that this
development meets the bare bones development requirements of the city. The project contains a
maximum amount of lots and with the minimum requirements of our city, and I believe that also
happened with Longacres and Highover and that’s why we’re having the problem right now. Is
we’re trying to combine three maxed out developments and make them run smoothly together
and I think that’s what we’re dealing with. I think the numbers could be played many different
ways. You know one development has 57 homes. One development has, I’m sorry, 58. One has
59. It goes on and on and you can play those numbers which ever way, whatever side you’re on.
If you want to say that you’re going to have too much traffic on Gunflint, you’re going to take
those numbers and add them to your side of the pile. And if you think that you’re not going to,
that the traffic will be no problem, you’re take those numbers, cut them in half and move them
over to your side of the pile, so I think it’s all up for interpretation because I cannot guesstimate
and no one else can predict how people will live..they’ll take and the places they’ll go. And so I
feel, I don’t feel comfortable assuming anything when it comes to traffic patterns and how
people are going to live. I’m very, very disappointed that there was never a formal application
submitted to MnDot for access for these developments onto Highway 41. I don’t believe that we
really strong armed them or used creativity and determination to make this happen, and I’m not
sure why because I think we wouldn’t be sitting here right now if we had worked a little harder
on that and maybe, I don’t know, strong armed MnDot. Maybe it still wouldn’t have worked but
I think we all would have felt better leaving tonight knowing we had earnestly put up a fist fight
for it. Figuratively speaking, I think these two neighborhoods have brought us to the dance in
Chanhassen. I think they’re the ones that took a chance on us all. They pay high taxes. They’re
good families and they’re a huge reason why this city is, the city as it is and I want to
acknowledge that and I want to make sure that we’ve all heard and understood them. The
concern that these people have for their children. Another issue I have is construction traffic. I
find it unacceptable to have huge trucks and construction crews using these roads and sometimes
racing through these roads to get home at night. I just think it’s imperative that all construction
traffic enter and exit off of 41 for as long as it takes for the building process to get done. And on
26
City Council Meeting – February 28, 2005
a good note though, on a good note about this whole thing, I’ve been pleased about the parks.
I’m pleased that Highover came together, Not, Longacres came together with the developer and
discussed the park situation and the developer graciously gave this development a park. I’m not
for making developers put parks in. I don’t believe in that but I think that was the best solution
to this problem, and on that note I want to say that I’ve learned one thing is I want to make sure
our city does not become a city of wrist bands where if my child has a blue wrist band he can
play at the blue park. But he can’t go to the red park. I just, in the future I hope we all think
about that and I understand who’s the best solution because that park access on 41 I don’t think
was feasible for a young mother with a stroller to access so. And I think the developer did a nice
job by, in welcoming the existing neighbors to the park and I trust that the invitation will be
reciprocated with the other two developments. I think everyone worked hard on this
development and I think, and I hope tonight that we all leave here knowing that our voices were
heard, and it’s not always the ending that counts most but the process and how we got there and I
think everybody worked hard and they should be proud.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Other comments. Councilman Lundquist.
Councilman Lundquist: Couple of things hit first. We haven’t talked a lot about that northeast
cul-de-sac along Harrison Hill. My thoughts on that are, where we’ve got it now, be it a through
street or some cul-de-sac option, that I’m in favor of leaving all 4 of those lots with, as presented.
The totlot, I think is interesting. We heard from the applicant’s engineer on the political reasons
for the cul-de-sac and on the record for that and I’d also go on the record that I think the totlot
qualifies under that same political thing. That I find it ironic that the reason we’re talking about
a totlot and the reason that the city doesn’t get into the totlot business and require those is
precisely why we’re talking about it now. Because we have residents of Longacres that are
upset, probably rightly so, that they have funded a park with their homeowners dues and that
there’s a potential that someone from a new development who didn’t have the right colored wrist
band would be playing in the park. Now if you look at it and say, if we don’t put totlots in
altogether, we don’t have a problem like that so you know if the developer wants to put a
playground into the Yoberry development, then I guess that would be their specific choice. But I
guess it’s a be careful if you live in a glass house about throwing rocks so. The Highway 41
access into the neighborhood, as a permanent thing, my opinion for the record there is I wouldn’t
have been in favor of that regardless of how hard we had pushed MnDot. I think it’s improper to
go on a highway of that speed and that amount of traffic and access a neighborhood directly into
that would not be a prudent thing so I think we’ve got, I feel like we got enough informal
feedback from MnDot there and that that wouldn’t necessarily have been the right thing to do
anyway. I’m in agreement with Councilman Peterson on the Hunter Drive thing. An issue that
came up as part of this, but the way I see the Hunter Drive issue, it’s something that we need to
address whether Yoberry exists or doesn’t exist or no matter how it exists, with cul-de-sac or
through street. That’s an issue that we’ve got to address and sooner rather than later. On the
through street versus the non-through street, cul-de-sac option, seems to be kind of the
potentially the biggest sticking point here and I do find it again ironic that we’re talking about it
now. 4 weeks ago or 5 weeks ago, whatever it was when we talked about Pinehurst, which
coincidently the developers are here as well, we had the same process. Residents on Crestview
that made their voice heard that they didn’t want a connection to a new neighborhood and
concern about traffic and all of those things and that it was actually myself that made that motion
27
City Council Meeting – February 28, 2005
to connect those for the unpopular vote that night. And that I sit here tonight, I think right now
in favor of not having a through street in the Yoberry, and that particularly evening with the
Pinehurst and Crestview, I believe we probably, that that will actually add to the safety of the
Crestview neighborhood, the Crestview street. If you’ve ever driven up and down that street, it
can be treacherous on a good day. Whereas connection to the Pinehurst neighborhood provides
another outlet to that so I think we can distinguish that one there. This one, the long cul-de-sac,
the number of houses, I think where I’m at now is I’d like to talk about a non-through street
option on Yoberry but not necessarily the preliminary plan that we’ve got laid out. 86 houses, 18
to 4,000 feet. However you measure it. Probably is a lot more than maybe the residents on
Highover may have bargained for. There’s some potentials there that are a little bit scary as
well. Now, as Councilwoman Tjornhom said, we can manipulate the traffic numbers any way
we want to. It’s 1,000. It’s 1,050. It’s 810. Whatever. We can put experts on either side that
will give you any number you want, but something that Councilman Labatt said is really the
driving factor for me on the non-through street is the one thing that we can ensure without a
doubt is if you don’t have a through street you’re not going to have cut through traffic. So cul-
de-sacs are, don’t allow cut through traffic so that’s really the biggest thing for me here with
th
Highway 41. I’ve seen it before. I’m one of those offenders in Bloomington that gets off on 98
Street and goes across so I don’t have to get on 494 every day so you know, whether or not I
drive the speed limit probably depends on if I’m talking on the phone or not, but so.
Mayor Furlong: Too much information. Way too much information.
Councilman Lundquist: So where I, summary I think on some of the other. On the through
street versus non-through street, I’d like to see us approve the development with a non-through
street option and then between now and final plat look at a couple of different scenarios where
we can split. Try to make that a little bit more even split. I know that with the through street we
come up off of Gunflint and service that northeast cul-de-sac so potentially there’s a way, at least
to take a look at. I’m sensitive to the number of iterations that have gone through the developer
already and don’t want to recreate the wheel there but I think we talked last time we’re probably
looking at 4 to 6 weeks between now and then that we could at least take a look at something like
that. To try to even out the traffic flow. I do believe that on the cul-de-sac option that there’s
going to be, somebody’s going to have construction traffic going through their neighborhood
because they’re only going to be able to service that one way and so that’s going to be the
Longacres residents are going to have construction traffic going through their neighborhood
because we’re going to have to work hard to keep the construction access open for 3 years to
service one. There’s certainly no way we’re going to be able to keep two of them open so
recognize also that doing that that we would be driving construction traffic through the
Longacres neighborhood for that southerly cul-de-sac. So really not a winning total solution
here. I think we’ve got to make compromises on either side. That this is one of those tough ones
where there just isn’t going to be a cut and dried bonafide, wonderful solution so it’s going to be
give and takes on all sides here but that’s where I stand right now.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Always interesting when we get to this point. I’m going to
say a few things here. First of all I want to start out by recognizing and thanking the residents
that have put so much time and effort into looking at this development. What I really appreciate,
not just their efforts but the thoughtfulness with which they looked at the issues and how they
28
City Council Meeting – February 28, 2005
were respectful in their comments. Generally all the comments were one of trying to be
constructive criticism. That’s fair. That’s part of the process and that’s what we need all the
time. And understand too, can’t speak for my fellow councilors but with regard to responding to
all the e-mails that they did, maybe they did a better job than I, but with the volume and other
issues, know that if you didn’t get a response, it was read and it was considered. I make a very
strong point of doing that and some people I try to get calls back to. Rodd, you for one and
wasn’t able to connect but know that all that is considered throughout the process, as well as the
public comments. It’s not only that we heard this evening and in our prior council meeting but
also at the Planning Commission meetings. One of the advantages of having that and having the
verbatim minutes gives us, the council, that, all that input as part of the process. I also want to
recognize and thank our city staff for doing an excellent job in terms of trying to work through
the details here. This is not an easy development. It’s their job as professionals to evaluate our
ordinances and city plans. Work with the developers and develop collectively the best
development that meets those. I talked last week about really what our issues were. What is the
question before the council this evening and there are two. One is whether the request for
rezoning meets our land use and our comprehensive plan. And the second, if it does, does the
subdivision meet our ordinances and our comprehensive plan and those are the questions in front
of us. The ordinances, the comprehensive plan establish the guidelines of how we want our city
developed and the objective of the Planning Commission and the council through the process,
working with staff is not only to establish those comprehensive plans and ordinances, and
modify them when necessary, but also to ensure adherence to them. What we don’t want is
arbitrary or capricious decisions being made along the process because as we protect the issue is
property rights. As the ordinances and comprehensive plan protect property rights or provide
property rights, limit them perhaps to a developer. It also protects those of us that are already
residents and we need to make sure that we adhere to those ordinances because that protects all
of us. Whenever one of us wants to come and do an addition to our house or add on a deck or
put in a swimming pool, our neighbors have the right to make sure that we’re doing it to
ordinance and to code. And if we are, we should be able to move forward with it. I think that’s
the, you know one of the issues here as we look at what are we, what’s the decision before us.
The biggest issue and the biggest objection by the residents that I hear is the through street
versus the non-through street. Versus cul-de-sac. I mean that is the issue. We have heard from
different people about different numbers and you know, we can, I think it’s already been
addressed on the issue with numbers. We may disagree on the benefits or the cost associated
with the through street versus a cul-de-sac. That, reasonable people can differ and that’s fine. I
believe that our goal, and what the comprehensive plan tries to do is provide for a comprehensive
development of the city. That word is used twice but that’s what it’s trying to do. Rather than
just dealing with a patchwork of individual developments. You’ll end up with a different result.
We’ll end up with a different result as our city in 15-20 years if we look at more of a patchwork
and individual items so, as Councilman Peterson said, I know I heard from each of us during our
campaigns and time and time again at council meetings, the comprehensive plan is important
because it provides that guide, that blueprint for development to occur. My preference is, with
regard to a through street or a cul-de-sac in general, speaking philosophically, is to have those
through streets to connect the neighborhoods. To connect people so that we have the opportunity
to, without getting on a major road, drop the babysitter off at night or pick them up before you go
out and or have our children get together with friends in another neighborhood. That’s important.
I think that builds a city rather than a patchwork of cul-de-sacs and private drives, as I said
29
City Council Meeting – February 28, 2005
before. The issue with whether we go forward with options, we can talk about options. I think
there’s, I’m not convinced with what I’ve heard tonight that the benefit from a traffic standpoint,
because that’s the issue with traffic, with through traffic and cul-de-sacs, is that there is going to
be much of a benefit. I think it’s perhaps subject to our opinions. I’m not an expert in traffic
engineering. I don’t want to become one while I’m sitting up here either. That’s what we rely
on our staff for and when they need to work with outside consultants to make sure that they get
good professional advice for the council, for the Planning Commission. My observations and
history with the staff is that they are professional. They try to look at these objectively with
regard to the comprehensive plan and ordinance, and that’s what we’re looking at. My issue
here, a vote on my part for this proposal as it’s coming forward is not a vote against the residents
and what we’ve heard in terms of concern about the traffic and whether we go with a different
design. My issue is, is we have a developer that we have heard time and again, from our staff,
from our city attorney, meets the comprehensive plan. Meets the ordinances and that’s our goal.
As a legislative body to protect property rights and to follow those rules. I think it’s incumbent
upon us to do that. Is it perfect? Is it what everybody would like? Perhaps not. There are
differences of opinion. Do the options we were looking at on the cul-de-sac for Gunflint Trail.
You’ve got differences of opinion. Which side you want that on, north or south. So ultimately
what we have to do in that situation is look at what are the options. Look at the different issues
and make the best decision possible. Not that we’re picking and choosing sides, but trying to
take all the facts in and vote for a plan, a development that will help develop our city. That
meets the plan and meets the ordinances. You know safety is an issue again with the through
street or non through street. There’s nobody up here I think that’s going to approve any plan that
we think is going to put any resident’s child or any children or anybody in danger. That’s not the
issue. When we get, but the key is, are we really providing benefit with the two cul-de-sac
option? My sense is no. We’re not. But again, we may differ on that so from my standpoint,
I’m looking at it, the two questions before the council. Does it meet the comprehensive plan for
the rezoning? Does it meet our ordinances for the subdivision? My sense is it does on both
accounts and that’s the proposal that the developer’s putting forward and I think that’s, as a
council, what we should be doing is looking at it from that side. Fully understand the comments
made by my fellow councilors here and you look for ways to accommodate requests. I’m just
not sure that the two cul-de-sac option, even though it’s been proposed and it’s kind of the thing
that residents are pushing towards, is going to make a benefit. It’s going to cause potentially
we’ve heard tonight, it’s going to cause some problems with construction traffic and the flow of
construction traffic. I’d like to see us push for construction traffic coming off 41 as long as
possible. I concur with that and however we need to do that. It’s, we can make it more safe
from construction traffic coming off 41 through a through street than we can with the two cul-de-
sacs. You know so, my sense is, and I empathize with the residents as well as for my fellow
councilors, this is not, it’s not a slam dunk decision clearly but that’s why we’ve been spending
so much time on it. But ultimately coming back to the questions, does it meet the comprehensive
plan? Does it meet the ordinances? My sense is it does and that’s what I think we need to do.
Could there be some minor tweaks to it within that with regard to construction access and other
things we can do and talk with staff about managing the construction traffic based upon the
roads? I think we can look at that. Do some tweaks but that’s where I am now philosophically
as well as subjectively trying to look at the proposal in front of us. I’d be open to other thoughts,
comments.
30
City Council Meeting – February 28, 2005
Councilman Lundquist: …tweaks over there Mr. Labatt.
Councilman Labatt: Well I’ll make a motion. Well I’ll make a stab at it. On the first try here,
let’s see what we can do. I would move that we approve Planning Case 04-43 to rezone 35.7
acres of property zoned RR. Plans dated and received December 20, 2004 with asterisk and
plans submitted, preliminary plans submitted on 2/28 on the two cul-de-sac option. Subject to
the following conditions, 1 through 45 as noted by the staff. Amending number 33. Simply
stating that and adding, street cleaning on soil tracked onto public streets Highover Drive, Lake
Lucy, Gunflint, Longacres Drive, Hunter Drive and Highway 41. Specifically stating those
roads. Should include daily street scraping and sweeping as needed during the construction
period. So changing 33 to read that. A little more specific. Adding number 46. The
construction access off of 41 shall be maintained for Phase I and II and into Phase III as long as
possible.
Councilman Lundquist: Steve, how do you define Phase I and II?
Councilman Labatt: Well as they, I believe Phase I is going to be the Youngquist property. Is
that right Kate?
Kate Aanenson: …maybe we can address exact what phase.
Chuck Alcon: Councilman Labatt, the entire project is one phase…three final plats.
Councilman Labatt: Okay, construction access shall be maintained for the total length of the
construction project, or as long as practical. Realizing that those lots up on the Hurrell’s there on
the northern property.
Councilman Peterson: It’s MnDot’s decision, not our’s.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, point of clarification. We don’t have jurisdiction over that.
Councilman Labatt: Well we can force them. Can’t we? Carrying that as long as it can go. I
realize government works slow at times and we can be slow too. And then adding number 47.
That no connection of Highover Drive or Gunflint Trail to exist and make it a two cul-de-sac
proposal.
Roger Knutson: Council member, does that also include adoption of the Findings of Fact as
presented?
Councilman Labatt: Yes.
Roger Knutson: Okay, thank you.
Kate Aanenson: Can I just make one other point of clarification? The map that was submitted
nd
was dated February 22. If you could just refer to that date.
31
City Council Meeting – February 28, 2005
Councilman Labatt: I referred to today’s date as it was presented to us.
Kate Aanenson: Just because it was on here.
nd
Councilman Labatt: February 22.
Kate Aanenson: Thank you.
Councilman Labatt: So noted the change.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, is there a second?
Councilman Lundquist: Second. Actually I would like to propose an amendment as well.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, it’s made and seconded. Councilman Lundquist.
Councilman Lundquist: Would propose an amendment to Councilman Labatt’s condition that
we set condition number 47 as no connection between Highover Drive and Gunflint Trail,
specifics to be determined between now and final plat. Just for clarification of, I don’t know if
it’s two cul-de-sacs or when you look at a plan like that, I guess you could say there’s like 4 cul-
de-sacs on that too.
Councilman Labatt: Yeah.
Councilman Lundquist: I think the important point is we don’t want to connect Highover and
Gunflint.
Mayor Furlong: No, I heard and when I was writing it down, maybe somebody else heard it
differently. That 47 was no connection of Highover and Gunflint Trail. Two cul-de-sac option.
You just want a strike…option and add in specifics to be determined?
Councilman Lundquist: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: So you’re proposing an amendment that 47 would be, would read no connection
to Highover and Gunflint Trail, specifics to be determined?
Councilman Lundquist: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Discussion on the motion.
Councilman Peterson: A couple questions. Point of clarification mayor. To the first and
second. So if it ended up being you know 4,000 foot long cul-de-sac with 86 or, a minimum of
86 homes, are you still a proponent of that if it ends up being that length is I guess one question.
I mean is this motion going to cost…
32
City Council Meeting – February 28, 2005
Mayor Furlong: Before we get to that, just for follow through. Hold onto that. We should
discuss his amendment and the merits of his amendment of changing the wording. Is there any
discussion on changing the wording?
Roger Knutson: Mayor, has there been a second to the amendment?
Mayor Furlong: No there hasn’t, thank you. Is there a second to the amendment?
Councilman Labatt: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. So let’s discuss the amendment then. Thank you.
Councilman Labatt: I think it gives us the flexibility and the length of that cul-de-sac, and
maybe make that Gunflint one go up to the east a little bit. I think Brian’s motion, or
clarification motion gives us flexibility and just exactly how long is Highover Drive cul-de-sac
going to be? Is it going to be 36 to 21 or what’s the exact mix going to be? And those can be
worked out at final plat.
Councilman Peterson: So how would you feel if there was no plausible alternative to the 86
homes and the 4,000 feet long cul-de-sac? I mean I’m just trying to get a sense, would that make
a difference?
Councilman Lundquist: That’s a fair question. I think at this point, knowing, not knowing
enough about that, that I’m comfortable saying yes. That if that’s the way it ends up being, then
that’s the way it ends up being. I believe that there’s a better alternative out there but due to
factors that we don’t know between now and then, it’s quite possible.
Councilman Peterson: Okay. Steve, you feel the same way?
Councilman Labatt: (Yes).
Councilman Peterson: Second question. If we separate the, into 2 or 3 or a dozen cul-de-sacs,
how do you deal with the totlot issue? Are we just kind of forgetting about that then? That
brings it right back into the forefront that was a pretty big issue 2 weeks ago that we’re ignoring
by doing this.
Councilman Lundquist: By not, myself by not putting it in as a condition, I think I’d leave it up
to the developer. I’m not going to require a totlot goes in. If they want to put it in, then that’s
their choice. If the development were to go forward without it, then I’m comfortable approving
it that way too. Leave that one for discretion of the applicant.
Mayor Furlong: When you say specifics to be determined, who? Staff?
Councilman Lundquist: Between the staff and the developer. At this point. I wouldn’t intend
on there I guess being any more public comment. Obviously they’ll have to be, the submission
33
City Council Meeting – February 28, 2005
of the required notice before we would approve final, but unless we were required to open up for
public hearing again, I guess I wouldn’t.
Kate Aanenson: Just point of clarification. Typically at final plat it goes on consent so I’m back
over where Councilman Peterson was. I’m back to, do I need to split the baby because if, I
believe in the whole this will work. What we don’t have is the civil’s, which is where you’re
going. We need to see all that. So I guess if this is the way you want to go, we would just work
this iteration with the developer to get the civil’s and make sure that it meets the ordinance and
do that. If you’re asking us to try to split the baby, then I would like to know that. Because
that’s a different situation and now we’re back to what’s the expectation with the neighborhood.
I just want to get clear direction so when we bring it back, we’re not.
Councilman Peterson: Roger, this would not need to go back to Planning Commission if we
have a whole different design? It would seem reasonable that it would need to go back to the
Planning Commission.
Roger Knutson: It wouldn’t have to go back because of the change in design but you take your
final plats to the Planning Commission or don’t you?
Kate Aanenson: No.
Roger Knutson: There’s no statutory requirement that they go to the Planning Commission. It
comes right back here for final approval. And this kind of change would not require another
public hearing at the Planning Commission.
Councilman Lundquist: I guess Kate for clarification I would like to see us, or like to see
between your department, Paul’s department and the developer, see if there’s another way. I
think the intent is to get a more of an even split. If that’s not possible for whatever reason, then
you know, leave it up where it is now. That’s the way I look at it.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Just describe, explain to me that he’s splitting the baby. Can you
split it for me now or can’t you?
Kate Aanenson: Well yeah, but what I’m saying is there an expectation that there’s going to be
equal division. Half are going to go one way, half are not. And I can’t say that because we don’t
have the civil’s in front of us to say the slopes, the grades of the streets are all going to work, and
that’s part of what I’m saying so, we will look to see if there’s another way to get more
equalized. If we can’t, well then we’ll bring that back and we’ll show those iterations at final
plat where we’re going, and why we recommended what we did.
Todd Gerhardt: Kate, Mayor, if I may. If I hear Councilmember Peterson saying is, if you’ve
got to lose some lots in this subdivision, you know lose them to get the cul-de-sac shorter. Is that
what I’m hearing you say?
Councilman Peterson: I’m just clarifying where, you know, I want to figure out whether I want
to vote for this or not and I won’t vote for it if it is 86 homes and a 3,500 foot long cul-de-sac.
34
City Council Meeting – February 28, 2005
Todd Gerhardt: So you know if you can find a way to lay the subdivision out, the same number
of lots but shorting the cul-de-sac and pushing more the lots in the southerly side. I know we
have this contour issue.
Kate Aanenson: Right, and that’s what I’m saying. Try to split it more equally, correct.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Can you put the map back up maybe so I can see?
Kate Aanenson: This one?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: No, the two cul-de-sac map.
Kate Aanenson: So this is the, we have to work through again the geometrics of this
intersection. This is Gunflint coming up, and then this would be Highover. So we’ll look at the
different iterations. Again, this is the highest point right here so we just need to look at those
civil’s and the grades and see if we can equalize that more, but I just want to be clear and I think
where Councilman Peterson’s going is, we need to understand if we can’t make it work, you
would accept this but we’ll see if we can make it a different version.
Councilman Lundquist: Yeah, I’m not asking for a 3 week long, exhaustive, you guys have done
this enough times where relatively quickly I think you’ll be able to determine if it even makes
sense to look at it any further or not. And there’s more of a you know, Nann can you put that
other one. When you look at this right here again, you know it seems plausible that somewhere
on Highover coming down there, that there’s a cul-de-sac. In the mix somewhere I guess is more
what I’m thinking along the lines of.
Mayor Furlong: Do you want to, for this minute, do you want to clarify that staff and the
developer that our amendment…
Councilman Lundquist: Yep, fair enough. For clarification that specifics to be determined by
staff and the developer.
Roger Knutson: Obviously it’s subject to your final approval at final plat.
Councilman Lundquist: Correct.
Roger Knutson: They will draft something up to bring to final for your consideration.
Mayor Furlong: Determine the proposed, would that work?
Roger Knutson: They propose something. You decide.
Mayor Furlong: So if I could, you want to do, for your amendment to the amendment, you want
to do proposed by staff and developers?
35
City Council Meeting – February 28, 2005
Councilman Lundquist: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: Rather than determined.
Councilman Lundquist: Specifics to be proposed by staff and the developer.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, is there a second to that amendment?
Councilman Labatt: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. So now 47, the amendment that we’re voting on is, 47
will read, no connection of Highover and Gunflint Trail, specifics to be proposed by staff and the
developer.
Councilman Lundquist: And that is the amendment. Not the full motion that we’re currently.
Mayor Furlong: That’s not, that’s the now the amendment that we’re looking at. All we’re
looking at is that amendment. Is that how we want that condition to read? And then we’ll deal
with the amended motion. Is there any other discussion on this?
Councilman Peterson: Yeah, just again. I’m just really concerned that the residents in Highover,
if ultimately this goes through and everybody else agrees to that long of a cul-de-sac or that
many homes, that they really realize what they’re getting, and I think that is a substantial issue
that we’re ignoring here is, I think we should consider if you do this. But again, I won’t vote for
it on the basis of that many homes because if they have traffic issues under the through street, I
think this is, that long of a cul-de-sac is going to compound that issue. I just, I’m confused as to
why we’re even considering that long of a cul-de-sac because traffic, we haven’t even asked city
staff to look at, does that push us well over 1,000. And I’m just, I’m worried that we’re sticking
our head in the ground and trying to appease the residents and now we’re giving them something
they haven’t even looked at before. Or even considered so I’m worried about that gentlemen and
ladies, so.
Mayor Furlong: Other discussion on this? I would concur with Councilman Peterson on the
issue of the two cul-de-sac option and how fast we’re going forward with the plan here. That
you know this has been under development for months in terms of the overall development and
the, there are a lot of questions that need to be addressed when you start changing this and you
eliminate the through street. You’ve got utility issues. Water. Sanitary sewer lines. You’ve got
storm water drainage. You start moving the roads around. The traffic. Again the extra long cul-
de-sac there. On the specifics to, is this amendment to this condition better wording than what
was originally proposed, no offense. I think it is better wording. It’s cleaner, but if I vote to
clean up the language, in case if the overall motion passes, that’s no way am I saying that I agree
with the implications of that. I just want to be clear on that. I think in terms of the language of
this amendment, this is better language than what we’re starting with on the motion, so I will
vote for this language but I have similar concerns with Councilman Peterson and it’s just, it is
not an issue of whether or not, whether or not the two cul-de-sac option works or not. I think this
design, as we’re seeing it here tonight is going to cause some problems. It’s just come too fast
36
City Council Meeting – February 28, 2005
here at the end and I think proper time needs to be looked at it to make sure that everything is
there. Any other comments on the amendment to condition 47?
Councilman Lundquist: I would call the question on 47 and then let’s discuss the larger motion.
Mayor Furlong: That’s fine. Is there a second to call the question?
Councilman Labatt: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Is there any other?
Roger Knutson: Yes there is.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, can I just ask if there’s any other discussion? Is there any other
discussion on the wording to the amendment? If not, then without objection we’ll proceed to the
vote. Is that okay?
Councilman Lundquist: Fair enough.
Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. So with regard to re-working 47 such that it reads, no
connection of Highover and Gunflint, specifics to be prepared by, proposed by staff and
developer, all those in favor signify by saying aye.
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to approve the amendment to
condition number 47 to read as follows: No connection of Highover and Gunflint Trail,
specifics to be proposed by staff and the developer. All voted in favor, except Councilman
Peterson and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1.
Mayor Furlong: Motion prevails on that amendment. Excuse me, the amendment. So now
we’re working with the amended motion. With amended condition 47. Any other discussion on
the motion?
Councilman Lundquist: Roger what options do we have, since this was a tabled item from 2
weeks ago, what are our requirements to act on this?
Roger Knutson: You’re out of time. Not quite. I mean you’re appropriate tonight.
Mayor Furlong: Is there any other discussion then on or proposed amendments to this motion?
Hearing none then, I think our comments were discussed earlier. We’ll proceed with the motion
as amended.
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that the City Council approve
Planning Case #04-43 to rezone 35.79 acres of property zoned RR, Rural Residential to
RSF, Residential Single Family for Yoberry Farm as shown on the plans dated received
December 20, 2004, and to approve the preliminary plat for Subdivision Case #04-43 for
Yoberry Farm for 57 lots and 8 outlots as shown on the plans received December 20, 2004,
37
City Council Meeting – February 28, 2005
and the plan presented February 28, 2005 and dated February 22, 2005, subject to the
following conditions:
1.A minimum of two overstory trees shall be required in the front yard of each lot. The
applicant shall supply the city with a list of the number of trees required on each lot as shown
on the landscape plan dated 12/20/04.
2.The developer shall be responsible for installing all landscape materials proposed in rear and
side yard areas.
3.Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits prior to any
construction.
4.Tree preservation on site shall be according to tree preservation plans dated 12/20/04. Any
trees removed in excess of proposed tree preservation plans will be replaced at a ratio of 2:1
diameter inches.
nd
5.Tree removal calculations must be shown for lot 3, block 1, Yoberry 2 Addition. Revised
calculations for the entire development will be required before final plat approval.
6.Payment of park fees at the rate in force at the time of platting shall be required as a
condition of approval.
7.The applicant will be required to meet the existing site runoff rates for the 10-year and 100-
year, 24-hour storm events. The proposed ponds must be designed to National Urban Runoff
Program (NURP) standards.
8.The storm sewer must be designed for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event. Submit storm sewer
sizing calculations and drainage map prior to final plat for staff review and approval.
9.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.
10.Staff recommends that Type II silt fence, which is a heavy duty fence, be used adjacent to the
existing wetlands and around the ponds. In addition, tree preservation fencing must be
installed at the limits of tree removal. Erosion control blankets are recommended for all
areas with a steep slope of 3:1 and an elevation drop of eight feet or greater.
11.All plans must be signed by a registered Civil Engineer in the State of Minnesota.
12.On the utility plan:
a.All watermain pipes must be PVC-C900.
b.Maintain 10-foot horizontal separation between all sanitary/water/storm sewer mains.
c.Sanitary manhole #4 must be with outside drop structure.
38
City Council Meeting – February 28, 2005
d.Show existing sanitary, storm, and watermain pipe type and size.
e.Show all existing utilities in Longacres Drive.
f.Reroute the proposed watermain in the southwest corner of the parcel to be between Lots
5 and 6 and 10 feet off the proposed sanitary sewer within the 30-foot utility easement.
g.Add the following notes: Any connection to an existing structure must be core drilled.
13.On the grading plan:
a.Show the 100-year HWL of wetlands 1 and 5.
b.Show the benchmark used for the site survey.
c.Show the location and elevation of all emergency overflows. The elevation must be 1.5
feet lower than adjacent house elevations.
nd
d.Delete the proposed grading on the custom house pad of Lot 3, Block 1, Yoberry 2
Addition.
e.Revise the retaining wall top and bottom elevations on the southwest corner of the parcel.
f.Remove existing temporary cul-de-sac pavement and re-sod it at the north on Highover
Drive.
st
g.Maintain a maximum driveway slope of 10% on Lot 21, Block 1, Yoberry 1 Addition.
h.Remove the existing outlet control structure after installing the proposed outlet control
structure on the existing north storm pond.
i.Show the location of the existing power lines along the eastern property line of the site.
14.Any retaining wall over four feet in height must be designed by a registered civil engineer
and a permit from the City's Building Department must be obtained. In addition,
encroachment agreements will be required for any retaining wall within a public easement.
Approved safety fence will be required on top of all retaining walls which are adjacent to
sidewalk or trails.
15.The sanitary sewer and water hookup charges along with the Lake Ann Interceptor charge
will be applicable for each of the new lots. The 2005 trunk hookup charge is $1,458.00 per
unit for sanitary sewer and $2,955.00 per unit for watermain. The total 2005 Lake Ann
Interceptor charge is $2,270.00 per unit and the SAC fee is $1,525.00 per unit. All of these
charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Metropolitan Council.
Sanitary sewer and watermain hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the
time of building permit issuance.
16.All disturbed areas, as a result of construction, must be seeded and mulched or sodded
immediately after grading to minimize erosion.
17.The applicant should be aware that any off-site grading will require an easement from the
appropriate property owner.
18.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.
39
City Council Meeting – February 28, 2005
19.All private driveway accesses for the demolished home sites off TH 41 must be removed.
20.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.
21.All lots must have a minimum useable area off the back of the house pad with a maximum
slope of 10:1.
22.The applicant will be required to cover the cost of all necessary upgrades to L.S. #27 for the
wastewater from the 11 additional homes.
23.A curve sign with a 20 mile per hour speed limit at the eastern end of Gunflint Trail is
required on both sides of the curve.
24.Existing drainage and utility easements within the site must be vacated prior to recording of
the final plat.
25.The pond built in conjunction with the Highover subdivision must be maintained to ensure it
meets the size and volume standards to which it was originally designed. Any inlet and
outlet structures on that pond requiring maintenance or replacement must be corrected. In
addition, areas experiencing erosion due to storm water discharge must be stabilized.
26.The applicant will either have to expand the existing pond or provide onsite ponding for the
drainage from the south-central portion of the site.
27.The applicant will need to obtain an agreement from Xcel Energy that prohibits any future
encroachment of the power poles into the street pavement or move the street and right-of-
way outside of the existing easement area.
28.A wetland buffer 16.5 feet in width must be maintained around Wetlands 2, 3, 4 and 5. A
wetland buffer 20 feet in width must be maintained around Wetland 1. Wetland buffer areas
should be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City’s wetland ordinance. The
applicant should install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before
construction begins and must pay the City $20 per sign.
29.All structures must maintain 40-foot setbacks from wetland buffer edges.
30.All bluff areas must be preserved. In addition, all structures must maintain a 30-foot setback
from the bluff and no grading may occur within the bluff impact zone (i.e., the bluff and land
located within 20 feet from the top of a bluff).
40
City Council Meeting – February 28, 2005
31.Silt fence must be installed between wetland impact areas and the remaining wetland.
32.All exposed soil areas should have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year
round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames:
Type of Slope Time (Maximum time an area can
Steeper than 3:1 7 days remain open when the area
10:1 to 3:1 14 days is not actively being worked.)
Flatter than 10:1 21 days
These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any exposed
soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter
system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man
made systems that discharge to a surface water.
33.Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets Highover Drive, Lake Lucy Road, Gunflint
Trail, Longacres Drive, Hunter Drive and Highway 41 should include daily street scraping and
street sweeping as needed.
34.At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat
recording, is $97,191.
35.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),
Minnesota Department of Health, Minnesota Department of Transportation, and comply with
their conditions of approval.
36.Submit streets names to the Building Department for review prior to final plat approval.
37.Building Department conditions:
a.A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before
building permits will be issued.
b.Demolition permits must be obtained prior to demolishing any structures on the site.
c.Existing wells and on-site sewage treatment systems but be abandoned in accordance
with State Law and City Code.
d.Separate sewer and water services must be provided each lot.
e.Retaining walls more than four feet high must be designed by a professional engineer and
a building permit must be obtained prior to construction.
f.The developer must coordinate the address changes of the three existing homes with the
construction of the development and provide access for emergency vehicles at all times.
38.Fire Marshal conditions:
41
City Council Meeting – February 28, 2005
a.A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees,
shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure
that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to
Chanhassen City Ordinance 9-1.
b.No burning permits will be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either
be removed from site or chipped.
c.Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be installed.
Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of
construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided.
Temporary street signs shall be installed on each street intersection when construction of
new roadways allows passage by vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota Fire Code
Section 501.4.
d.Submit proposed street names to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire
Marshal for review and approval.
e.An additional hydrant will be required at the southernmost tip of Lot 4. Relocate the fire
hydrant from between Lots 18 and 19 to between Lots 16 and 17 and add an additional
fire hydrant between Lots 1 and 8.
39.On Sheets C3.1, C4.1, C5.1 and L2.1 of the plans, a gap appears on the western edge of Lots 4,
19, 20 and 21 of Block 1 and Outlot A, Yoberry Farm. This gap must be eliminated.
40.A windmill appears within the front yard setback on Lot 4, Block 1, Yoberry Farm. The
applicant shall remove or relocate this structure prior to final plat recording.
41.Approval of this subdivision is contingent upon vacation of existing drainage and utility
nd
easements located on Lots 1 through 3, Block 2, Yoberry Farm 2 Addition.
42.The applicant shall remove the sidewalk on the west side of Gunflint Trail.
43.Trees that should be located prior to grading field verified as to whether or not they should be
removed include: #312, #42, #192, #250, 46, 81, 270 and #251.
44.The developer will be required to install a 10-inch raw water transmission main for future
connection to the City’s second water treatment plant as a part of the utility construction and
provide public drainage and utility easements over the transmission main. As this is a
system-wide improvement, the construction cost for the raw water main will be paid by the
City from the water portion of the utility fund.
45.The applicant shall provide a permanent trail easement or Outlot dedicated to the City
nd
between Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Yoberry Farm 2 Addition as depicted on the diagram:”
42
City Council Meeting – February 28, 2005
46. The construction access off of 41 shall be maintained for as long as possible.
47. No connection of Highover and Gunflint Trail, specifics to be proposed by staff and
the developer.
All voted in favor, except Mayor Furlong and Councilman Peterson who opposed, and the
motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. And again, thank you everybody for your involvement. It was a
long process but we do appreciate your efforts. Thank the council too for working through the
amendments and such like that.
Chuck Alcon: Honorable Mayor, just one question. I understand our direction is to work with
the staff to come up with a preliminary plat that does not have a connection between Highover
and Gunflint Trail.
Councilman Lundquist: Come up with a final plat.
Mayor Furlong: Move onto the next agenda on our agenda.
Councilman Peterson: Can we take a break?
Mayor Furlong: Oh certainly. Yep, looking at the time. Without objection we’ll recess subject
to the call of the Chair. Let’s make it about 5 minutes.
CONSIDER AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #75-2 FOR LAKE
MINNEWASHTA REGIONAL PARK, PLANNING CASE 4-37.
st
Kate Aanenson: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this item on February 1
and, to review that conditional use amendment and they voted 4 to 2 and the 2 no votes were
based on environmental reasons and I’ll go through the rationale for that in just a moment. The
subject site is the regional park. Across the street from the subject site we were just talking
about. The conditional use was put in place back in 1975 and at this point when the review went
through for the beachlots, or excuse me, for the boat launches, there was a lot of concern from
the associations that were on the lake as far as what effect that would have as far as the number
43
City Council Meeting – February 28, 2005
of people on the lake, and that really led to the whole beachlot ordinance. So over time, as
everybody’s kind of got use to the level of activity on the lake and we closed the boat launches
as we permitted the non-conforming beachlots, this is the control point for most of those
residents. There’s a few that do have launches, but most of them have to launch at this public
access, which gives us control on what’s going on the lake. So originally there was two boat
launches. This one here, which is next to the swimming beach, and then the boat launch 1, and it
was restricted by horsepower. Boat launch 1 and how it’s being used today is, most people enjoy
that one. It’s easier to get to. The other one does conflict with the beach, so the County would
like to amend that and allow that to be the more permanent one as they work through their master
plan. At the public hearing the concern was, because this is the inlet to the lake, that it may be
low and at those times you couldn’t launch, but if it’s low at that time, it’s probably not the best
time to probably be boating anyways. As we’ve learned the issues that we have with adjacent to
shorelines when there’s the high water, and the erosion as you recall on Lotus Lake when there’s
high water there, that’s when we get the most complaints based on the erosion factor. And over
time the motor boats has changed as far as their, the waking and the sophistication of that has
changed so we don’t believe that’s as, quite as critical. Again, as we’ve limited the access points
for the lake and kind of monitored how many boats can be, it seems to be self policing pretty
well for the other beachlots. So we are recommending approval to allow the boat launch 1 to
allow more than the 10 horsepower launching at that, as it’s being used today. Again, it’s really
cleaning up how it’s actually being used, but it does, because it is a conditional use, does take an
amendment so if you go to page 7 of the staff report, we are recommending approval of the
conditional use permit with the following conditions. They did also want to contact the DNR
with the dredging of Little Minne Bay, which is this, if it needed to be at some point in the
future. And that the conditional use be that they have 6.05. The lake access. The watercraft
access to Lake Minnewashta, for their park has been provided in the area designated as boat
access on the development plan in 1982. Be no wake with the signage. There’s a capacity of 25
trailer spaces to be developed and located in accordance with the plan marked official map. And
Marty Walsh is here from the County if you have any questions for him but we are
recommending approval.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any questions for staff?
Councilman Labatt: Yeah Kate, just a couple questions. No opposition to all this. The signage
is slow no wake at the launch site and out into Little Minne Bay. I wonder if we can also add in
there, Nann can you show that map again of the lake there?
Kate Aanenson: This one?
Councilman Labatt: Yeah, as you go up Minne Bay towards the main outlet to the lake, all that
is within the defined shore zone limit on the lake.
Kate Aanenson: Correct, and the no wake zone, right. And that was the one environmental
concern that the Planning Commission had.
Councilman Labatt: So, granted the sign at the access is great but once they get out there, to
prevent them from kicking it down a little bit. Could we have the County install buoys?
44
City Council Meeting – February 28, 2005
Kate Aanenson: I was going to say, buoys is how you control that.
Marty Walsh: That’s out there now.
Kate Aanenson: Is there buoys out there now?
Marty Walsh: Yes.
Councilman Labatt: How far do the buoys go out? I’ve used this access a couple times and
haven’t seen them.
Marty Walsh: Mr. Buoy.
Councilman Labatt: Mr. Buoy, okay.
Marty Walsh: Sorry about that. It’s been a long night for everyone, but we do have a number of
buoys that are located within Little Minne Bay and I’m going to say about the last buoy is
located about in this location here where my finger is.
Councilman Labatt: Those are the slow, no wake buoys?
Marty Walsh: Yes they are.
Mayor Furlong: You’ve got to wait til the ice is off before you can see them.
Marty Walsh: They are removed on a seasonal basis, that is correct.
Kate Aanenson: For clarification on that, that we also say that the signage also included buoys.
Mayor Furlong: That’s how you define a no wake on a navigable water.
Todd Gerhardt: I know there’s one here. And coming into the bay.
Mayor Furlong: Yeah, but to Councilman Labatt’s point, this you said specifically signage at the
launch site.
Kate Aanenson: Launch site, right. Just to further clarify.
Mayor Furlong: Is that okay?
Marty Walsh: That’s fine.
Mayor Furlong: Any problem with that?
Marty Walsh: No problem with that at all.
45
City Council Meeting – February 28, 2005
Mayor Furlong: And I know our sheriff department patrols Lake Minnewashta quite a bit so, if
anybody’s going through a no wake fast, they should catch them. Okay. Any other comments or
thoughts?
Marty Walsh: I have no other comments. For the record I guess if you want my name, Marty
Walsh. I’m the Parks Director for Carver County.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you Mr. Walsh. Thank you for being here. Any other questions or
comments? On this. We’ll bring it for staff. Bring it back to council for discussion. I’m
sensing by lack of discussion that, I didn’t even open it up for public comment though. No, I
think this seems to be straight forward and with the no wake, deals with the issue of the motor
size adequately. No wake through that bay so. I’m guessing that’s the sense of the council as
well.
Councilman Labatt: No issues.
Mayor Furlong: No issues. Very good. If there’s no other discussion or issues, anybody like to
make a motion?
Councilman Lundquist: Motion to approve with the amended clarification on the buoys.
Councilman Labatt: Second.
Mayor Furlong: We’ll leave it to staff to put that in. Okay. Made and seconded. Any
discussion?
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that the City Council
approve the amendment to Conditional Use Permit #75-2, Section 6.04, Lake Access based
on the Findings of Fact with the following condition:
1. Carver County Parks shall contact the Department of Natural Resources before
proceeding with drudging of Little Minne Bay channel.
2. Carver County shall install Slow, No Wake buoys in Little Minne Bay.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Mayor, not really a presentation per se but more of a formal send
off. One of our former mayors and her husband, the Mancino’s packed up their truck and moved
to California. Are leaving in the morning so I just wanted to formally thank Nancy for her time
and service and other help that she has given me and perhaps others of us as well, so will be a
resource that myself I will miss, but wish them all the luck in the world and hope they have a
wonderful time in California.
46
City Council Meeting – February 28, 2005
Mayor Furlong: Absolutely. I know Nancy, besides being mayor, served on the Planning
th
Commission for a number of years. Many years as Chair. 4 of July parade for a number of
years, committee. She was also I think originally served on the Park and Trail Referendum
didn’t she Todd?
Todd Hoffman: Co-chair.
Mayor Furlong: Co-chair for that. And also served on the Highway 5 corridor committee if I’m
not sure maybe, Bluff Creek too or no?
Todd Gerhardt: Carver County Planning Commission.
Mayor Furlong: So her finger prints will be all over our city for a long, long time and good
finger prints they are so we appreciate. Carver County Planning Commission as well, most
recently. That’s right, so if Nancy and Sam are listening, we thank you for your service and wish
you all the best.
Councilman Lundquist: They don’t have cable.
Mayor Furlong: They don’t have cable.
Councilman Labatt: They can read the Villager. We can send them the verbatim minutes.
Mayor Furlong: There you go. They get the minutes. Make a note of that and send it out. Get
their forwarding address. Nancy will probably keep the minutes if we sent them. Okay. Any
other council presentations?
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
Todd Gerhardt: This Wednesday I’ll be going to St. Paul, helping Len Simich work with our
local legislators and Met Council in receiving funding for the park and ride in downtown so I
think Councilman Peterson will also be attending. Also on behalf of the City Council and also as
a member of Southwest Metro.
Councilman Lundquist: I’ll be there as well but representing the Lakeville Chamber. It’s
Chamber Day on Wednesday as well.
Mayor Furlong: It’s a big capitol.
st
Todd Gerhardt: We have city day on March 31 so if anybody’s interested in attending that. I
can make reservations and plans on carpooling. I’ll put something in your next council packet
for you to take a look at. That’s all I have.
CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION.
None.
47
City Council Meeting – February 28, 2005
Mayor Furlong: Any discussions on the correspondence packet? If not, before we adjourn I’ll
th
take a moment of personal privilege here and wish my son Patrick a Happy 9 Birthday.
Councilman Labatt: Second that.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Councilman Lundquist: Hopefully he’s in bed.
Mayor Furlong: He’s a leap year baby so he gets one at midnight tonight for one second.
Councilman Lundquist: So he could be watching it?
Mayor Furlong: He’d better be in bed.
Todd Gerhardt: He’ll get 3 more chances.
Mayor Furlong: We’ll send him the verbatim minutes. Very good, if there’s no other business,
is there a motion to adjourn.
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to adjourn the meeting.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. The City Council meeting was adjourned at 9:35
p.m.
Submitted by Todd Gerhardt
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
48