1a Approval of Minutes (2)
-Ía--
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 11, 2005
----.._- -----
Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. The meeting was opened with the
Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilman Peterson, Councilman
Labatt, and Councilwoman Tjornhom
COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Lundquist
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Justin Miller, Kate Aanenson, Roger Knutson and Matt
Saam
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
Janet Paulsen
UJi Sacchet
Rick Dorsey
Charles Deng
7305 Laredo Drive
Planning Commission
1551 Lyman Boulevard
6804 Briarwood Court
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 Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated March 28, 2005
Receive Commission Minutes:
-Planning Commission Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated March 15,2005
b. Resolution#2005-36: Approval of Loan Agreement, TH 212-TH 101 Gap Bonding
Project 03-09-3.
d. Resolution#2005-37: Award of Contract with Markhurd for Aerial Photography and
Planimetric Data Capture, PWI25C.
e. John Henry Addition:
1) Final Plat Approval
2) Approval of Construction Plans & Specifications, Project 05-05
f. Approve Quit Claim Deeds of Vacated Santa Fe Trail Property, File 95-05.
City Council Meeting - April 11, 2005
h.
Resolution#2005-38: Assignment of KMC Telecom Encroachment Agreement to
CenturyTel Acquisition, LLC.
I.
Approval of Ordinance Amending Section 18-41 Concerning Reimbursement of
Environmental Reviews.
J.
Resolution#2005-39: Award Contract for Trunk Watermain Improvements from
Lakeview Road to 86th Street, Project 04-18.
k.
Resolution#2005-40: Approve Signal Agreement for TH 10 1 and Pioneer Trail
Intersection, PW053G.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to O.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
Senator Julianne Ortman: Mr. Mayor and members and staff, it's very nice to be here with you
this evening. It's been a while since I've been here. It's always nice to come back, like I'm
coming back home. There are a lot of things going on at the Capitol right now and I just thought
I'd stop in to let you know about a few of them. There's some things going on here in Carver
County that I want to update you on. I'm sure that many of you, like many of our residents have
read in the newspapers about the discussion at Carver County about the combination of the
AuditorrrreasurerlRecorder. It's a proposed combination and a proposal on the part of the
County Board that those elected officials become appointed in the future, and there was some
discussion where they passed a resolution for the one asking for special legislation to accomplish
those goals. When that request came to my office I thought that we should talk more about what
the process has been to include the members of the public who would be unavoidably affected by
this question. And we've come to an arrangement whereby the County is going to be making
some town halls, developing some town halls and making presentations across the county to the
residents so they will understand what is being proposed. What the parameters are. What the
consequences and implications are. There will be public hearings. I'm expecting that there will
be at least one here. A presentation to you all here. And more importantly it's an opportunity
for the residents to participate and join in the discussion about the direction that we want for our
county. There's no reason to believe this isn't good policy. We just want to make sure that
everyone has a stake in this policy when it goes to the point of passing special legislation that
would essentially allow for the appointment, to the extent that we introduce it, without an
election. So we would arrange for these county offices to become combined and appointed
through legislation. So I've asked the County Board to just take a little bit more time. Involve
the public. They've agreed and Commission Ische, all of the commissioners have been very
gracious in my request and so what they've agreed to do is to wait until next year. They're going
to re-vote on that issue as a county board in January-February next year and I have agreed to
introduce that legislation right away. Our House members Joe Hoppe and Paul Kohls are both
on board with this proposal. We would introduce it and pass that legislation in short order and
then allow for a reverse referendum. Current statutes say that if you're going to have special
legislation, the reverse referendum would be 10% of the voters could say we want this as a ballot
question. My hope and Commissioner Ische has agreed that we should set that at 5% reverse
2
City Council Meeting - April 11, 2005
referendum as opposed to a 10%, so we're going to make sure that we've educated the public.
That they feel that they have an opportunity to participate in those discussions and that they will
have some influence in the outcome here and I think it's been a very good arrangement and I'm
very grateful to Commissioner Ische, Chairman of the County Board and the Administrator Dave
Hemsey for working with me to try and find a solution that I think meets everyone's wishes for
what will happen in the next year on this issue. In addition, we have recently passed through a
couple of House and Senate committees approval for a Chanhassen licensing center. As you
know the Carver County Board and I see that Commissioner Workman is here, he might want to
address this as well. The County Board unanimously supported development of a license center
in the city of Chanhassen. That requires special legislation because it would be within the
distance that, or not far enough away in order to be able to do it so I've introduced the special
legislation, as well as Joe Hoppe to pass through the Senate Transportation Committee as well as
the House Committee. It's going to local government affairs and so I think we're making
reasonably good progress on this bill. I am very optimistic that we will pass it. In fact Hennepin
County has their own bill. They're looking for an additional licensing center in the city of
Minneapolis and like it or not we're being considered with them in these committees as we go. I
think that's a good thing because now we've got broad support for both. Both Democrat and
Republican areas looking for some kind of special legislation. That's always a good thing when
we're all kind of similarly situated. So that's going on at the Capitol. And then I wanted to visit
with you a little bit about the market value credits that I'm sure you all have been hearing quite a
bit about. The Governor's tax bill and budget proposal has proposed that the market value
credits that the city, that were cut in '04-05 biennium to deal with the budget shortfall, the
Governor's proposal was to extend those cuts into the '06-07 biennium. And the Senate DFL,
my counterparts on the tax committee, introduced a bill that would make them permanent. In
their view those dollars are better spent appropriated to LGA than they are to market value cities
and of course coming from Chanhassen I would disagree with that. In fact it's bad public policy
to say that we're going to permanently cut that. We should be looking at that over the next
couple of years so when that bill came up on the senate floor, I just wanted to let you know I
introduced an amendment to take that provision out of the senate bill, so there will be no further
discussion at the Capitol this year of making those market value credit cuts permanent and I was
able to succeed. The House would never support that so I think we're pretty safe this year in that
they're temporary. Only it's unfortunate that they're temporary but everybody in the State of
Minnesota is trying to make do with just a little less than is comfortable at this time. Hopefully
our economy is going to continue to grow and that we will grow into our spending needs as
opposed to taxing them. So I think that's good news. In addition, I've been, you know that the
Highway 212 ground breaking is coming up. I know that that was postponed a little bit but not
significantly. And we also have progress on Highway 5. MnDot has finally recognized that at
least it's an unmet need to widen Highway 5 west of 41. They at least now have it in their
reports as the kinds of need that they would hope to meet if they had the resources. That's really
important because we, how long were we in the 30 year plan on 212? I mean I think 60 years
before we got funded on 212, so getting into their system. Now they're aware of us. They know
of the need and when the resources are available, now they're going to acknowledge the City of,
well Carver County and it's need for Highway 5. So we're making some good progress on
transportation at the Capitol as well. There are 3 other bills that I'm working on and I'll just be
very brief. I'm working on the drug sentencing reform bill and hopefully you've heard about
that. There's been quite a bit of press. The financial crimes task force, funding their efforts. We
3
City Council Meeting - April 11, 2005
all know about identify theft crimes and they've become more rampant and become a huge issue
for our residents because not many cities and counties have the resources to do the investigative
work that is needed to track down these financial crimes so this task force is very important.
And the Governor at my request has continued their funding into the next biennium the amount
of $600,000. And then as I have been the last 2 years, I'm working on an education tax credit
bill and we've made significant progress passing through the senate and repeal of the maximum
family cap and raising the allowance authorized now for families that have education related
expenses, whether they be public school, home school or private school, so we've made some
progress for these families that have expenses that they're dealing with related to education. So
that's a list of the highlights and I'm sure you all may have some questions related to other
legislation and I will do the best I can to answer those questions. Commissioner Workman is
here, was here. I'm sure he can address some of the issues related to the County to the extent
that you'd like as well, but again thank you for the pleasure of being here tonight and inform you
about what's happening at the Capitol.
Mayor Furlong: Very good, thank you Senator. Are there any questions from council for the
Senator?
Councilman Labatt: No.
Mayor Furlong: At this time. I guess the one comment that I would make, and it goes along
with 212 and 101 and the improvements that are being planned for there. Tonight at our work
session now on our consent agenda we continue to see a very cooperative relationship with
MnDot and with Carver County on some of these projects, and so I know you were actively
involved and I'd like people to know that you were actively involved, especially on the 101
project, in making sure that that got funded and we found a way to get that done. The 101 gap
along with 212, which is important, so we thank you for that but also it's always nice to see a
continuing cooperation as these projects now are coming to a head and getting ready to get going
and so we're looking forward to continuing that obviously and that's helpful to everybody when
we can get the cities, county, state government organizations to work together. Everybody wins
so.
Senator Julianne Ortman: Thank you Mr. Mayor and members for having me here tonight.
You're a lot easier than the senate crowd. I'll come back any time. Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Very good, thank you Senator. We're still within visitor presentations, if
anybody else would like to come forward and address the council on any matter. We'd welcome
that at this time.
Rick Dorsey: My name's Rick Dorsey, 1551 Lyman Boulevard and I don't know when the
appropriate time was for this but this just came to my attention. This item that's in the consent
agenda dealing with the bonds in that I own property in the area. I sure would like to have been
notified. Was not notified dealing with it. Have no idea what it's about. It looks like perhaps
there's some of it I'll be paying for. I don't know if that's the case. I haven't had a chance to
look through it. I just picked this up right now but I wanted to make that point known.
4
City Council Meeting - April 11, 2005
Mayor Furlong: Well we appreciate your comments. I will defer to the city attomey. It's my
understanding that there were public hearings previously on each ofthese items and there's
different. No I'm just, this isn't the first time that some of these issues have come before the
council. Mr. Knutson, can you explain kind of the schedule of, in terms of notification.
Roger Knutson: Which item on the agenda is he looking at?
Rick Dorsey: 1 (b).
Mayor Furlong: B as in boy.
Roger Knutson: We've done most of it but we'll still have, the assessment hearing, you haven't
been notified there will be an assessment hearing coming up. I can't tell you when. Justin?
Mayor Furlong: Mr. Miller.
Justin Miller: This action tonight didn't assess any property. This didn't bind the council to do
any of that. All this did was it gave us a choice, we have the option to use state bonding instead
of our own bonding and we felt this was a good option. It gives us a lot more flexibility, and
that's simply all this was. It's just approving a loan agreement with the State.
Rick Dorsey: I think it talks about repayment to the loan and it talks about not less than 20%
will be assessed to property owners.
Justin Miller: That's right.
Rick Dorsey: So you're committing without having any assessment information to the property
owners or letting them know that it exists? It seems to me that if you're going to borrow the
money and somebody's got to pay it back, those people who are going to be assessed or going to
be paying it back should hear about it. And it says in here that 20% of the payment back on it
will be assessed to benefiting properties. I don't know what the definition of benefiting property
is but I'm assuming it's going to be the area around 212.
Todd Gerhardt: Mr. Mayor, council members. As I stated earlier, if we're going to enter into a
loan with the State we have to assess at least 20% of the $4 million dollars that we would be
borrowing from the State to qualify in the state's loan program. This will not affect how the
assessment hearings will be held with the east/west collector or any of the utility work.
Rick Dorsey: But it's on top of that is it not? Am I misinterpreting this?
Todd Gerhardt: It's a part of it.
Rick Dorsey: Well it hasn't been brought up before is what my point is. These are, this money's
being borrowed to pay for what was described as city obligations.
Todd Gerhardt: That's correct.
5
City Council Meeting - April 11, 2005
Rick Dorsey: For those portions that weren't part of the, that are outside the MUSA area, items
being paid for by supposedly assessments.
Todd Gerhardt: Well it's a part of the utilities that go underneath 212.
Rick Dorsey: Along Powers Boulevard, isn't this the area that we're talking about?
Todd Gerhardt: That's correct.
Rick Dorsey: That's one of the areas.
Todd Gerhardt: That's correct.
Rick Dorsey: And my understanding, I've been told by staff that those were being paid for by
the State. That there was nothing dealing on Powers Boulevard that was going to be part of the
assessments.
Todd Gerhardt: Not when it deals with utilities though.
Rick Dorsey: Well again, misinformation. And what my point is in coming up right now is that
I was not informed about these public hearings and my property is in the area that would be
under consideration for it. I should have been informed.
Todd Gerhardt: Well this isn't an assessment hearing.
Rick Dorsey: I understand it's not, but the discussion that you had the public hearing for the
bonding, the borrowing of the money, which has an obligation to people, of which I will be one
ofthem, and it's not an insignificant amount of money. I should at least have been informed that
there's going to be a public hearing on it, and I was not informed. That was my point.
Todd Gerhardt: I don't believe you were one of the assessments included as a part of this portion
of the bonding. We notified those people that were going to be assessed for that hearing, and it
was 4 or 5 people and I think it was more in the 101 area in that.
Mayor Furlong: And sir, excuse me. I'm just reading from the staff report because we consider
these issues obviously as council members when they come up and as part of the background it
states that on February 28, 2005 a public hearing was held to fulfill the public notification
requirements for the bonding assessment requirements for these two projects. So we've got a
number of projects going on, as you know, and it may be if you weren't notified that your
property then may for this particular item, may not be part of the potential assessment roll. So all
I'm saying is, from a public notification standpoint and I'll defer to the city attorney, but I think
in terms of notification and public hearings, that that was followed prior to us taking action on
this.
6
City Council Meeting - April 11, 2005
Roger Knutson: And I don't know anything about your property or where you property is. All I
can say is we had a public improvement hearing. If you were not notified of that public
improvement hearing, we can't assess your property unless we go back and have a public
improvement hearing. We can have an assessment hearing. If you aren't notified ofthe
assessment, we can't assess your property.
Rick Dorsey: So, that's good. Thank you... Thank you.
Todd Gerhardt: I've got to add to that, you were notified last fall.
Rick Dorsey: Not notified about this meeting.
Todd Gerhardt: Last fall were your notified of an assessment hearing?
Rick Dorsey: I haven't been notified of an assessment hearing yet. Yes, you had a feasibility
study.
Todd Gerhardt: A public hearing.
Rick Dorsey: Public hearing for the feasibility study and I raised issues to it.
Todd Gerhardt: Okay, then you've been notified.
Rick Dorsey: Not for the public hearing.
Todd Gerhardt: That was the public hearing.
Rick Dorsey: That was a different issue.
Mayor Furlong: There seems to be some confusion so what I would suggest, since we're not
going to solve it here, is that, if you want to talk to Mr. Gerhardt or Ms. Aanenson and deal with
this specific issue sir. Okay, thank you. We're still within visitor presentations, if anybody else
would like to address the council on the matter, please come forward.
Bill Flanagan: Hi. Bill Flanagan, I live at 6653 Brenden Court. I'm here on the issue ofthe
Pinehurst development and other developments.
Mayor Furlong: That will be part, there will be a formal public hearing for that. Is this a
different issue?
Bill Flanagan: This is actually not really about the property. It's just about development along
Galpin. Here's my only concern. We're putting all these homes in, Ashling Meadows and
others, if it's 43 houses, it will be 86 cars. If you've driven down Galpin lately, it's in, and
maybe it's just didn't fare well with the winter. It's gotten really, really crazy and I'm worried
about safety and just the overall quality of what, you know if you overdevelop, won't we run a
risk of that. And so I just, I trust, I voted for many of the people that are here tonight, that you're
7
City Council Meeting - April 11, 2005
taking into consideration that when you strike the balance between the people that are currently
living here and new development. I don't want to stop progress but we don't really have the
infrastructure it seems to me to deal with a lot ofthe traffic we currently have, whether you be
exiting off of Lake Lucy to get onto 41. You cannot make left turns out of that area at all. Even
on non, I mean during rush hour pretty lenient but it's, we're going to have to do something
about the roads and the traffic so if you have comments or you've already taken that into
consideration, I haven't been able to be at any of the other public hearings and if not Ijust
wanted to let that concern be voiced.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Is there anybody else who would like to speak during visitor
presentations this evening? If not, then we thank you. We have visitor presentations every
meeting and people are always welcome to come. We'll move on now with our agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING ON V ACA TION OF PUBLIC EASEMENTS WITHIN PINEHURST
PLAT. FILE 05-01.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Nathan Franzen
Bill & Max Flanagan
Julie Fuecker
1851 Lake Drive
6653 Brenden Court
6751 Manchester Drive
Matt Saam: Thank you Mr. Mayor, council members. Just to remind you of the location we're
in for the Pinehurst plat. This is the subject property. We're on the west side of Galpin, just
north of Lake Lucy Road. Prior to the recent replatting of this property into the Pinehurst
development, the property was originally platted back in 1987 into the two lots shown here. The
plat was called Old Slocum Tree Farm. With that plat the City received, as we always do,
standard side lot line drainage and utility easements. Now with the replat of the property we're
again getting our standard easements and in fact many more and wider easements. So in order to
clear up the title so there aren't any encumbrances on the new lots, the developer has requested
us, the city to vacate the old underlying easements. Staff has no objection of this and I'd be
happy to take any questions.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for staff? Just the one question I have for
clarification. The timing of this is such that, this is kind of all part of the steps that need to be
taken that are typically taken when we're dealing with a replat?
Matt Saam: Yes. Yeah, I'll explain it to you. If you approve this tonight, then when the city
attorney's office records the plat, they will record this I believe immediately before the plat so
it's not like we're giving up these easements before we get the new ones, if that's the concern.
Mayor Furlong: Exactly. Thank you. Any other questions? No? If not, thank you. We'll go
ahead and open up the public hearing at this time for anybody that wishes to speak on this issue.
Please come forward to the podium. State your name and address.
8
City Council Meeting - April 11, 2005
Julie Fuecker: My name's Julie Fuecker, 6751 Manchester Drive. I live on Manchester Drive
and it's going to be opening it up to that and I guess I'm not sure what you're talking about with
easements. I'm very naïve on this. We have a group of homes in this area here that have an
easement that has a bunch of trees. Are you getting rid of that and widening that or what's the
point of impact on these homes that butt up against the new development?
Matt Saam: Sure. Your easements are not being affected. It'd be the easements on the property
to the north of you. We're vacating or releasing the existing ones because they're being replaced
with the development of the property by new easements and in fact wider ones.
Julie Fuecker: Okay, so the one here in Woodridge Heights remain the same?
Matt Saam: Correct.
Julie Fuecker: Okay.
Mayor Furlong: If anybody else would like to come forward on this topic. Interested parties. If
not, without objection then I'll close the public hearing and we'll bring it back to council. Any
additional questions for council on this matter? For staff. If not, is there any discussion from
council? Hearing none, is there a motion?
Councilman Peterson: Motion to approve.
Councilman Labatt: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion?
Resolution#2005-41: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to
approve the resolution vacating the existing public drainage and utility easements as
defined on the attached vacation description. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously with a vote of 4 to O.
REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE 2.77 ACRES INTO 6 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WITH
VARIANCES: LOCATED AT 6500 CHANHASSEN ROAD (NORTH OF FOX HOLLOW
DRIVE. WEST OF HIGHWAY 101. AND SOUTH OF PLEASANT VIEW ROAD): FOX
DEN: APPLICANT 10 SPRING. INC.. PLANNING CASE 05-08.
Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor, members of the City Council. 10 Spring Inc., the applicant
is requesting to subdivide 2.77 acres into 6 lots. The site is just north of the Fox Hollow
subdivision has direct access, or abuts Highway 101. Access to the site is via Fox Drive. Again
that was a paper street that was put in place at the time that the subdivision, again as staff, when
we look forward to how the property would be served in the future. We take that into
consideration. There is an existing home on the site. That will be removed. The average lot size
is 15,452 square feet so all the lots do meet the minimum standards as far as the zoning
ordinance. The staff did have some concerns on Lots 1 and 4, and I'll show you the home plans
9
City Council Meeting - April 11, 2005
for those in just a minute. Again the majority of the site will be graded. As you can see the
perimeter, working to save the existing trees. The stub street to the site, as I indicated, was
proposed by staff at the time that this plat went in. That was done as a PUD. Little bit narrower
streets and they have variances on the front yards. Because the existing right-of-way is in place,
staff is recommending that the 50 foot remain. Although we are recommending, that we are
recommending that variance, continuation of that. And then the pavement width would be the
same. It's just the right-of-way that would be different. Some of the issues that came up on this
plat would be the drainage. There's an existing pond. The Planning Commission did spend
some time discussing whether or not that pond could be sized. In reviewing it with the applicant
it appears that that's the appropriate place to put the pond. Again that's detailed on page 4 of
your staff report. Looking at other locations, there's existing monument sign and some of those
sort of things, and as you're aware with the storm water management plan, it's our goal to
combine those and make the best of that site that's already there. Again our ordinance hasn't
changed since the original Fox Hollow went into place and the City would then take ownership
and maintenance of that. So there will be some water quantity and quality fees paid to that and
then ultimately would take over the maintenance of that. The other area, I mentioned the street
going with the 50 foot right-of-way. That is going to be our recommendation and the other,
we'll be taking park fee extraction. There is a park, North Lotus just immediately adjacent to
this property and in close proximity. With that, I just want to take a minute to talk about the
homes. One of the things that we noticed our lot size, our width requirement is 90 feet. In some
of those areas where they're right at 90 feet we start to get concerned because when that
ordinance was put in place, as we've discussed with the Planning Commission, it was typical to
have a 2 car garage. Now everything that we see is a 3 car garage, so we wanted to make sure
that a reasonable sized home could be placed on that. So if you look at Lots 1 and 4, which were
the ones that were right at the 90. We wanted to make sure, so the applicant did show us the
house plan that they would propose for those lots, and again that does meet. Again it has a 3 car
garage, which we believe is the acceptable kind of size that would be built for the community
right now. So those lots do work. We have had some recent subdivisions, some smaller ones
have gone in that for some reason a homebuyer wanted to increase the square footage and we did
not support the variance and those were replatted to accommodate the bigger house size. Again,
it's not our goal to put a lot in place to have variances. We would consider that self created
because this is a brand new subdivision. So we're relying on the developer that these would be
the similar size style home that would fit on those lots. Again there was some concerns from one
of the neighbors, and I'd just like to take a minute to go through that. This neighbor right here
again.
Mayor Furlong: I'm sorry, could you point again.
Kate Aanenson: This neighbor right here.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Kate Aanenson: In existing Fox Hollow subdivision. This did go to the Planning Commission
on March 15th. There is some of the records that we addressed during that meeting but there was
some additional information. One was regarding the lot width. Why couldn't it be 24 feet?
There was a lot of information specifically given from public safety regarding, if you parked on
10
City Council Meeting - April 11, 2005
the street, those sort of things, it would really prohibit because it is a public street to go that
narrow, so the current design at 31 feet is our standard and we believe that that's the appropriate
width for that area. There was also a question regarding boulevard plantings. The neighbor did
want to look at some evergreen trees, again for sight line reasons. If you look at where that Fox
Hollow Drive goes all the way to North Lotus Park. Turning movements through there. We
haven't approved street trees, evergreens for boulevard. If we do, we'd look at pines would be
the one permitted. The spruces. Again they're fuller on the bottom and they cause some sight
distance and snowplowing storage so if the City Council did want to approve that as an
alternative we would recommend that they be pines. Again provide some additional screening.
Planting width. There was some indication that the staff mis-informed, and I think it's how it's
interpreted and we interpret it that the, and we have always interpreted that there's a minimum
tree every 30 feet. Again, they could be spaced such but we found that putting them too close
together actually does detriment in the long run as far as the growth, so we'd recommend that.
There was a retaining wall originally proposed on the site and that retaining wall has been
removed. You do not have the current construction... There's a little bit more detail on that
regarding some blockage on the other side. That was field investigated and it appears that there
might be some outlet control measures that need to be fixed on the Eden Prairie side. That
contact has been made to see, to get them to fix that portion of, that may be causing problems.
Again that will be further delineated and described in the final plat. And ultimately there was a
question regarding a land survey. Some errors. I think that was just described and the notes that
were described on the survey, but we believe that they close appropriately and there's no
discrepancy. Just some call outs in certain elements of the survey themselves. So with that we
are recommending approval, as did the Planning Commission, with the conditions outlined with
the variance for the right-of-way, and I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff. Councilman Labatt.
Councilman Labatt: Kate, you talked about the utility pond will be taken over.
Kate Aanenson: This one, correct.
Councilman Labatt: Which one?
Kate Aanenson: This part right here.
Councilman Labatt: Alright. The one that's existing right now.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct. It's existing right now. It would be enlarged.
Councilman Labatt: What's our long term exposure or expense as far as, the fees we're going to
be taking in, are we going to be covering ourselves?
Kate Aanenson: correct.
Councilman Labatt: For how long?
11
City Council Meeting - April 11, 2005
Kate Aanenson: That's the whole storm water management plan maintenance and that's part of
what we're doing with the SEH update. Getting all those inlet/outlet structure points. And that
will be part of the management plan, what ponds we need to be maintaining at what time point.
Point in time, correct.
Councilman Labatt: Well what do you foresee as far as maintenance or.
Kate Aanenson: We already have quite a few of them on a maintenance schedule. Some of the
older ones. Maybe Matt wants to address...
Matt Saam: Sure, Councilman Labatt. As far as maintenance, what we're talking about is
typically once every 5 years we might go in and remove a sand delta, which is usually a few feet
in front of the inlet apron to the pond. You know sediment that gets in the storm sewer then
washes into the pond. It typically forms like a sand bar near the inlet to the pond. That's what
usually needs to be dredged out. With this development however, because they're increasing the
size of the pond, they're going to be draining it all down, as I understand, and I think at that time
we'll be using that, since the pond will be drained, now using that time to dredge out the pond to
make sure it's operating effectively.
Kate Aanenson: It's a pretty old pond, yeah.
Councilman Labatt: Okay.
Mayor Furlong: Other questions for staff? Couple here. There was, you answered most of my
questions in the staff report, so I appreciate that. The Planning Commission, after hearing the
public hearing comments added a few additions to the requirements under item 12 I believe.
Some of these you've addressed. Some of them are more a staff work with developer to explore
this. I guess my question is, as you look at this and as we're considering this for the preliminary
plat this evening, have some of these already been taken care of?
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: ...if I understand your thoughts on (j) through (m).
Kate Aanenson: Sure. As I indicated, looking at the pond location, that is the best place for the
pond location. Trying to preserve some of those trees. It's counter productive to pond versus
trees.
Mayor Furlong: So just for expediency, it would be staffs recommendation that you've done
this already?
Kate Aanenson: Correct, yes. We have looked at all those issues.
Mayor Furlong: You have looked at all these issues that were addressed, okay.
12
City Council Meeting - April 11, 2005
Kate Aanenson: And it goes specifically back to the evergreens on the street. If we wanted
evergreens instead of a deciduous, just the recommendation on the species type.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, and I think that would fall within this proposed condition here, is getting
staff's recommendation on anything different. Okay, thank you. Any other questions for staff?
At this time. No? If not, is the applicant here? Is there any items you'd like to address to the
council.
Scott Rosenlund: Good evening. I'm Scott Rosenlund, 622 West 82nd, Chaska and with 10
Spring Inc. Part of the developer. And no, I don't have anything to add but if you did have
questions our engineering firm, Cara Otto is here too to address any questions you might have.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any questions for the applicant? Very good. Thank you sir.
Appreciate you being here. With that I'll bring it back to council for discussion. Any discussion
on this?
Councilman Peterson: No, I think it's straight forward and I think staff has worked with the
applicant in making a better project, along with Planning Commission so I'd recommend
approval.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Anything?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I agree with Councilman Peterson that it's pretty straight forward.
The Planning Commission did a great job of ironing out all the wrinkles and no problem.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Very good. Councilman Labatt.
Councilman Labatt: I don't disagree at all with my counterparts.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. The one thing I was checking out too was the issue that Councilman
Labatt raised earlier with regard to the ownership of that pond. I think what we're doing is we're
accepting the improvements to that pond, but the city already owns it.
Kate Aanenson: The city owns it, that's correct.
Mayor Furlong: The city owns it now and is responsible for the current maintenance on it so
we're going to allow the developer to improve the pond and then we'll accept those
improvements.
Kate Aanenson: Yes, and also...
Mayor Furlong: And do everything else we've talked about.
Kate Aanenson: Correct, and we're also getting storm water quantity and quality fees as a part
of it.
13
City Council Meeting - April 11, 2005
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. No, I would concur with my fellow council members. I
think the issues that were raised at the public hearing, the Planning Commission and staff worked
on a number of those and while there may be differences of opinion, I think this is a reasonable
proposal for the property and so I would support the preliminary plat. Any other discussion?
Hearing none, is there a motion?
Councilman Labatt: Move approval for staff's recommendation.
Mayor Furlong: For the staff report? There's no rezoning required on this at all so it would just
be, you're moving the preliminary plat motion beginning on page 10 of the staff report?
Councilman Labatt: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion?
Councilman Labatt moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council
approve the Preliminary Plat for Planning Case #05-08 for Fox Den for 6 lots with a
variance for a 50 foot right-of-way width as shown on the plans prepared by Otto
Associates stamped "Received February 11,2005", subject to the following conditions:
1. The pond on Outlot A, Fox Hollow shall 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 shall be maintained or replaced.
2. An outlet meeting National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permanent storm water
management system requirements (NPDES Permit MN R 10000 1 , Section C, Subsection ID,
Page 11 or 26) shall be installed at the outlet of the pond on Outlot A, Fox Hollow.
3. A floating Faircloth skimmer or another preapproved method should be used for dewatering.
The flow route, distance to receiving waters and name of receiving waters of the storm water
basin and dewatering activities shall be included on the plan. A detailed dewatering plan
with method, rate, and erosion and sediment control considerations, such as energy
dissipation, shall be provided.
4. Geotextile or gravel bed and riprap shall be provided for energy dissipation at the existing
and proposed flared-end inlets to the storm water pond and the outlet of the pond on the east
side ofHwy 101.
5. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3: 1. All
exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round,
according to the following table of slopes and time frames:
14
City Council Meeting - April 11 , 2005
Type of Slope
Steeper than 3: 1
10:1 to 3:1
Flatter than 10: 1
Time
7 days
14 days
21 days
(Maximum time an area can
remain open when the area
is not actively being worked.)
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.
6. A detail for the catch basin (CB) sediment control shall be provided for the CB between Lots
2 and 3.
7. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street
sweeping as-needed.
8. The applicant shall pay the total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat
recording. At this time, the estimated fee is $8,021.
9. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g.,
Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES
Phase II Construction Permit), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering»
and comply with their conditions of approval.
10. 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 on the site must be abandoned in accordance with State Law and City
Code.
11. Fire Marshal conditions:
a. No burning permits will be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either
be removed from site or chipped.
b. A lO-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.
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.
d. Temporary street signs shall be installed on each street intersection when construction of
the new roadway allows passage by vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota Fire Code
Section 501.4.
15
City Council Meeting - April 11, 2005
12. Environmental Resources Coordinator Conditions:
a. Applicant shall revise landscape plan to show a minimum of 21 trees to be planted.
b. A minimum of two 2 Y2" deciduous, overstory trees shall be required in the front yard of
each lot.
c. No more than one-third ofthe required trees may be from anyone species.
d. Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits around all trees
proposed to be preserved prior to any grading.
e. Any trees proposed for preservation that are lost due to grading and construction
activities will be replaced at a rate of 2: 1 diameter inches.
f. All 21 trees shall be planted within the proposed development. A revised landscape plan
will be required prior to final approval.
g. A landscape buffer shall be planted along Hwy. 101 and include, at a minimum,S
overstory trees, 7 understory trees and 12 shrubs.
h. Trees #142-144 and six green ash not shown on the tree inventory, located along the
south property line near the existing shed, shall be preserved.
i. The applicant shall plant boulevard trees along Fox Hollow Drive and Fox Drive to
replace trees lost due to pond expansion. One tree shall be planted every 30 feet except
within the sight triangle. Species selected shall be approved by the city.
J. Developer will work with staff to explore possibilities of minimizing tree loss to the north
of the pond and consider alternate design on the pond using available space.
k. Developer will work with staff to consider buffer plantings around the pond.
I. Developer will work with staff to evaluate the impact to the buffer trees to the north of the
cul-de-sac on Lot 4.
m. Developer will work with staff to evaluate the placement of evergreens versus deciduous
for buffering purposes.
13. On the Utility plan:
a. Show all easements.
b. Add a note "Any connection to existing structures must be core drilled.
14. Add the following City detail plates: 1005,2001,5300 and 5301.
15. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will
be required to supply the City with a detailed haul route and traffic control plan.
16. The sanitary sewer hook-up charge will only be applied to five of the six new lots. The
water hookup charge will still be applicable for each of the new lots. Since the developer
will be responsible for extending lateral sewer and water service to the lots, the sanitary
sewer and water connection charges will be waived. The 2005 trunk hookup charge is
$1,458 for sanitary sewer and $2,955 for water-main. Sanitary sewer and water-main
hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit
issuance. All of these charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Met
Council.
16
City Council Meeting - April I 1,2005
17. 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. The applicant must be aware that all public utility
improvements will require a preconstruction meeting before building permit issuance.
Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will be required, including the MPCA,
MnDOT, Watershed District and MDH.
18. A professional engineer registered in the State of Minnesota must sign all plans.
19. The applicant must be aware that any grading on privately-owned property will require a
temporary easement.
20. The applicant will be required to clean the existing stormwater pond after enlargements have
been completed.
21. Prior to final platting, storm sewer design data will need to be submitted for staff review.
The storm sewer will have to be designed for a lO-year, 24-hour storm event.
22. Drainage and utility easements will need to be dedicated on the final plat over the public
storm drainage system including ponds and drainage swales up to the 100-year flood level.
The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide.
23. Staff is recommending that a small 0'-3') retaining wall be installed along the western right-
of-way of Fox Drive south of the site. This will alleviate the steep slopes in the area and
provide room for a boulevard area in back of the curb for snow storage.
24. A minimum 20-foot wide easement will be required over the watermain that is outside of the
right-of-way.
25. The developer shall pay full park dedication fees."
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to O.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: None.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: None.
CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION.
Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor I think the only thing I'd like to bring up is that the farmers
market is going to happen again starting June 4th so let's start advertising that and hopefully it
will get bigger and better and better attended than last year so we can continue to grow that.
17
City Council Meeting - April 11, 2005
Mayor Furlong: Why don't you mention the times. The times and locations.
Councilman Peterson: I certainly can.
Mayor Furlong: You can start advertising right now.
Councilman Peterson: Farmers market will begin June 4th through October 29th and again will
be held 9:00 a.m. to 1 :00 p.m. on Saturdays.
Mayor Furlong: And that's right outside our senior center. That parking lot nearest City Center
Park.
Councilman Peterson: It's a wonderful venue.
Mayor Furlong: Yes it is. Thank you. Any other discussion? If not, is there any other, if
there's no other items to come before the council this evening, we will be finishing up our work
session items immediately after adjournment in the Fountain Room. Is there a motion to
adjoum ?
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to adjourn. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The City Council meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m..
Submitted by Todd Gerhardt
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
18
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 11, 2005
Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. The meeting was opened with the
Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilman Peterson, Councilman
Labatt, and Councilwoman Tjornhom
COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Lundquist
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Justin Miller, Kate Aanenson, Roger Knutson and Matt
Saam
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
Janet Paulsen
Uli Sacchet
Rick Dorsey
Charles Deng
7305 Laredo Drive
Planning Commission
1551 Lyman Boulevard
6804 Briarwood Court
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 Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated March 28, 2005
Receive Commission Minutes:
-Planning Commission Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated March 15,2005
b. Resolution#2005-36: Approval of Loan Agreement, TH 212-TH 101 Gap Bonding
Project 03-09-3.
d. Resolution#2005-37: A ward of Contract with Markhurd for Aerial Photography and
Planimetric Data Capture, PWI25C.
e. John Henry Addition:
1) Final Plat Approval
2) Approval of Construction Plans & Specifications, Project 05-05
f. Approve Quit Claim Deeds of Vacated Santa Fe Trail Property, File 95-05.
City Council Meeting - April 1 I, 2005
h.
Resolution#2005-38: Assignment of KMC Telecom Encroachment Agreement to
CenturyTel Acquisition, LLC.
I.
Approval of Ordinance Amending Section 18-41 Concerning Reimbursement of
Environmental Reviews.
j.
Resolution#2005-39: A ward Contract for Trunk Watermain Improvements from
Lakeview Road to 86th Street, Project 04-18.
k.
Resolution#2005-40: Approve Signal Agreement for TH 101 and Pioneer Trail
Intersection, PW053G.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to O.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
Senator Julianne Ortman: Mr. Mayor and members and staff, it's very nice to be here with you
this evening. It's been a while since I've been here. It's always nice to come back, like I'm
coming back home. There are a lot of things going on at the Capitol right now and I just thought
I'd stop in to let you know about a few of them. There's some things going on here in Carver
County that I want to update you on. I'm sure that many of you, like many of our residents have
read in the newspapers about the discussion at Carver County about the combination of the
AuditorrrreasurerlRecorder. It's a proposed combination and a proposal on the part of the
County Board that those elected officials become appointed in the future, and there was some
discussion where they passed a resolution for the one asking for special legislation to accomplish
those goals. When that request came to my office I thought that we should talk more about what
the process has been to include the members of the public who would be unavoidably affected by
this question. And we've come to an arrangement whereby the County is going to be making
some town halls, developing some town halls and making presentations across the county to the
residents so they will understand what is being proposed. What the parameters are. What the
consequences and implications are. There will be public hearings. I'm expecting that there will
be at least one here. A presentation to you all here. And more importantly it's an opportunity
for the residents to participate and join in the discussion about the direction that we want for our
county. There's no reason to believe this isn't good policy. We just want to make sure that
everyone has a stake in this policy when it goes to the point of passing special legislation that
would essentially allow for the appointment, to the extent that we introduce it, without an
election. So we would arrange for these county offices to become combined and appointed
through legislation. So I've asked the County Board to just take a little bit more time. Involve
the public. They've agreed and Commission Ische, all of the commissioners have been very
gracious in my request and so what they've agreed to do is to wait until next year. They're going
to re-vote on that issue as a county board in January-February next year and I have agreed to
introduce that legislation right away. Our House members Joe Hoppe and Paul Kohls are both
on board with this proposal. We would introduce it and pass that legislation in short order and
then allow for a reverse referendum. Current statutes say that if you're going to have special
legislation, the reverse referendum would be 10% of the voters could say we want this as a ballot
question. My hope and Commissioner Ische has agreed that we should set that at 5% reverse
2
City Council Meeting - April 11, 2005
referendum as opposed to a 10%, so we're going to make sure that we've educated the public.
That they feel that they have an opportunity to participate in those discussions and that they will
have some influence in the outcome here and I think it's been a very good arrangement and I'm
very grateful to Commissioner Ische, Chairman of the County Board and the Administrator Dave
Hemsey for working with me to try and find a solution that I think meets everyone's wishes for
what will happen in the next year on this issue. In addition, we have recently passed through a
couple of House and Senate committees approval for a Chanhassen licensing center. As you
know the Carver County Board and I see that Commissioner Workman is here, he might want to
address this as well. The County Board unanimously supported development of a license center
in the city of Chanhassen. That requires special legislation because it would be within the
distance that, or not far enough away in order to be able to do it so I've introduced the special
legislation, as well as Joe Hoppe to pass through the Senate Transportation Committee as well as
the House Committee. It's going to local government affairs and so I think we're making
reasonably good progress on this bill. I am very optimistic that we will pass it. In fact Hennepin
County has their own bill. They're looking for an additional licensing center in the city of
Minneapolis and like it or not we're being considered with them in these committees as we go. I
think that's a good thing because now we've got broad support for both. Both Democrat and
Republican areas looking for some kind of special legislation. That's always a good thing when
we're all kind of similarly situated. So that's going on at the Capitol. And then I wanted to visit
with you a little bit about the market value credits that I'm sure you all have been hearing quite a
bit about. The Governor's tax bill and budget proposal has proposed that the market value
credits that the city, that were cut in '04-05 biennium to deal with the budget shortfall, the
Governor's proposal was to extend those cuts into the '06-07 biennium. And the Senate DFL,
my counterparts on the tax committee, introduced a bill that would make them permanent. In
their view those dollars are better spent appropriated to LGA than they are to market value cities
and of course coming from Chanhassen I would disagree with that. In fact it's bad public policy
to say that we're going to permanently cut that. We should be looking at that over the next
couple of years so when that bill came up on the senate floor, I just wanted to let you know I
introduced an amendment to take that provision out of the senate bill, so there will be no further
discussion at the Capitol this year of making those market value credit cuts permanent and I was
able to succeed. The House would never support that so I think we're pretty safe this year in that
they're temporary. Only it's unfortunate that they're temporary but everybody in the State of
Minnesota is trying to make do with just a little less than is comfortable at this time. Hopefully
our economy is going to continue to grow and that we will grow into our spending needs as
opposed to taxing them. So I think that's good news. In addition, I've been, you know that the
Highway 212 ground breaking is coming up. I know that that was postponed a little bit but not
significantly. And we also have progress on Highway 5. MnDot has finally recognized that at
least it's an unmet need to widen Highway 5 west of 41. They at least now have it in their
reports as the kinds of need that they would hope to meet if they had the resources. That's really
important because we, how long were we in the 30 year plan on 212? I mean I think 60 years
before we got funded on 212, so getting into their system. Now they're aware of us. They know
of the need and when the resources are available, now they're going to acknowledge the City of,
well Carver County and it's need for Highway 5. So we're making some good progress on
transportation at the Capitol as well. There are 3 other bills that I'm working on and I'll just be
very brief. I'm working on the drug sentencing reform bill and hopefully you've heard about
that. There's been quite a bit of press. The financial crimes task force, funding their efforts. We
3
City Council Meeting - April 11, 2005
all know about identify theft crimes and they've become more rampant and become a huge issue
for our residents because not many cities and counties have the resources to do the investigative
work that is needed to track down these financial crimes so this task force is very important.
And the Governor at my request has continued their funding into the next biennium the amount
of $600,000. And then as I have been the last 2 years, I'm working on an education tax credit
bill and we've made significant progress passing through the senate and repeal of the maximum
family cap and raising the allowance authorized now for families that have education related
expenses, whether they be public school, home school or private school, so we've made some
progress for these families that have expenses that they're dealing with related to education. So
that's a list of the highlights and I'm sure you all may have some questions related to other
legislation and I will do the best I can to answer those questions. Commissioner Workman is
here, was here. I'm sure he can address some of the issues related to the County to the extent
that you'd like as well, but again thank you for the pleasure of being here tonight and inform you
about what's happening at the Capitol.
Mayor Furlong: Very good, thank you Senator. Are there any questions from council for the
Senator?
Councilman Labatt: No.
Mayor Furlong: At this time. I guess the one comment that I would make, and it goes along
with 212 and 101 and the improvements that are being planned for there. Tonight at our work
session now on our consent agenda we continue to see a very cooperative relationship with
MnDot and with Carver County on some of these projects, and so I know you were actively
involved and I'd like people to know that you were actively involved, especially on the 101
project, in making sure that that got funded and we found a way to get that done. The 101 gap
along with 212, which is important, so we thank you for that but also it's always nice to see a
continuing cooperation as these projects now are coming to a head and getting ready to get going
and so we're looking forward to continuing that obviously and that's helpful to everybody when
we can get the cities, county, state government organizations to work together. Everybody wins
so.
Senator Julianne Ortman: Thank you Mr. Mayor and members for having me here tonight.
You're a lot easier than the senate crowd. I'll come back any time. Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Very good, thank you Senator. We're still within visitor presentations, if
anybody else would like to come forward and address the council on any matter. We'd welcome
that at this time.
Rick Dorsey: My name's Rick Dorsey, 1551 Lyman Boulevard and I don't know when the
appropriate time was for this but this just came to my attention. This item that's in the consent
agenda dealing with the bonds in that I own property in the area. I sure would like to have been
notified. Was not notified dealing with it. Have no idea what it's about. It looks like perhaps
there's some of it I'll be paying for. I don't know ifthat's the case. I haven't had a chance to
look through it. I just picked this up right now but I wanted to make that point known.
4
City Council Meeting - April 11, 2005
Mayor Furlong: Well we appreciate your comments. I will defer to the city attorney. It's my
understanding that there were public hearings previously on each of these items and there's
different. No I'm just, this isn't the first time that some of these issues have come before the
council. Mr. Knutson, can you explain kind of the schedule of, in terms of notification.
Roger Knutson: Which item on the agenda is he looking at?
Rick Dorsey: l(b).
Mayor Furlong: B as in boy.
Roger Knutson: We've done most of it but we'll still have, the assessment hearing, you haven't
been notified there will be an assessment hearing coming up. I can't tell you when. Justin?
Mayor Furlong: Mr. Miller.
Justin Miller: This action tonight didn't assess any property. This didn't bind the council to do
any of that. All this did was it gave us a choice, we have the option to use state bonding instead
of our own bonding and we felt this was a good option. It gives us a lot more flexibility, and
that's simply all this was. It's just approving a loan agreement with the State.
Rick Dorsey: I think it talks about repayment to the loan and it talks about not less than 20%
will be assessed to property owners.
Justin Miller: That's right.
Rick Dorsey: So you're committing without having any assessment information to the property
owners or letting them know that it exists? It seems to me that if you're going to borrow the
money and somebody's got to pay it back, those people who are going to be assessed or going to
be paying it back should hear about it. And it says in here that 20% of the payment back on it
will be assessed to benefiting properties. I don't know what the definition of benefiting property
is but I'm assuming it's going to be the area around 212.
Todd Gerhardt: Mr. Mayor, council members. As I stated earlier, if we're going to enter into a
loan with the State we have to assess at least 20% of the $4 million dollars that we would be
borrowing from the State to qualify in the state's loan program. This will not affect how the
assessment hearings will be held with the east/west collector or any of the utility work.
Rick Dorsey: But it's on top of that is it not? Am I misinterpreting this?
Todd Gerhardt: It's a part of it.
Rick Dorsey: Well it hasn't been brought up before is what my point is. These are, this money's
being borrowed to pay for what was described as city obligations.
Todd Gerhardt: That's correct.
5
City Council Meeting - April 11, 2005
Rick Dorsey: For those portions that weren't part of the, that are outside the MUSA area, items
being paid for by supposedly assessments.
Todd Gerhardt: Well it's a part of the utilities that go underneath 212.
Rick Dorsey: Along Powers Boulevard, isn't this the area that we're talking about?
Todd Gerhardt: That's correct.
Rick Dorsey: That's one of the areas.
Todd Gerhardt: That's correct.
Rick Dorsey: And my understanding, I've been told by staff that those were being paid for by
the State. That there was nothing dealing on Powers Boulevard that was going to be part of the
assessments.
Todd Gerhardt: Not when it deals with utilities though.
Rick Dorsey: Well again, misinformation. And what my point is in coming up right now is that
I was not informed about these public hearings and my property is in the area that would be
under consideration for it. I should have been informed.
Todd Gerhardt: Well this isn't an assessment hearing.
Rick Dorsey: I understand it's not, but the discussion that you had the public hearing for the
bonding, the borrowing of the money, which has an obligation to people, of which I will be one
of them, and it's not an insignificant amount of money. I should at least have been informed that
there's going to be a public hearing on it, and I was not informed. That was my point.
Todd Gerhardt: I don't believe you were one of the assessments included as a part of this portion
of the bonding. We notified those people that were going to be assessed for that hearing, and it
was 4 or 5 people and I think it was more in the 10 1 area in that.
Mayor Furlong: And sir, excuse me. I'm just reading from the staff report because we consider
these issues obviously as council members when they come up and as part of the background it
states that on February 28, 2005 a public hearing was held to fulfill the public notification
requirements for the bonding assessment requirements for these two projects. So we've got a
number of projects going on, as you know, and it may be if you weren't notified that your
property then may for this particular item, may not be part of the potential assessment roll. So all
I'm saying is, from a public notification standpoint and I'll defer to the city attorney, but I think
in terms of notification and public hearings, that that was followed prior to us taking action on
this.
6
City Council Meeting - April 1 I, 2005
Roger Knutson: And I don't know anything about your property or where you property is. All I
can say is we had a public improvement hearing. If you were not notified of that public
improvement hearing, we can't assess your property unless we go back and have a public
improvement hearing. We can have an assessment hearing. If you aren't notified of the
assessment, we can't assess your property.
Rick Dorsey: So, that's good. Thank you... Thank you.
Todd Gerhardt: I've got to add to that, you were notified last fall.
Rick Dorsey: Not notified about this meeting.
Todd Gerhardt: Last fall were your notified of an assessment hearing?
Rick Dorsey: I haven't been notified of an assessment hearing yet. Yes, you had a feasibility
study.
Todd Gerhardt: A public hearing.
Rick Dorsey: Public hearing for the feasibility study and I raised issues to it.
Todd Gerhardt: Okay, then you've been notified.
Rick Dorsey: Not for the public hearing.
Todd Gerhardt: That was the public hearing.
Rick Dorsey: That was a different issue.
Mayor Furlong: There seems to be some confusion so what I would suggest, since we're not
going to solve it here, is that, if you want to talk to Mr. Gerhardt or Ms. Aanenson and deal with
this specific issue sir. Okay, thank you. We're still within visitor presentations, if anybody else
would like to address the council on the matter, please come forward.
Bill Flanagan: Hi. Bill Flanagan, I live at 6653 Brenden Court. I'm here on the issue of the
Pinehurst development and other developments.
Mayor Furlong: That will be part, there will be a formal public hearing for that. Is this a
different issue?
Bill Flanagan: This is actually not really about the property. It's just about development along
Galpin. Here's my only concern. We're putting all these homes in, Ashling Meadows and
others, if it's 43 houses, it will be 86 cars. If you've driven down Galpin lately, it's in, and
maybe it's just didn't fare well with the winter. It's gotten really, really crazy and I'm worried
about safety and just the overall quality of what, you know if you overdevelop, won't we run a
risk of that. And so I just, I trust, I voted for many of the people that are here tonight, that you're
7
City Council Meeting - April 11, 2005
taking into consideration that when you strike the balance between the people that are currently
living here and new development. I don't want to stop progress but we don't really have the
infrastructure it seems to me to deal with a lot of the traffic we currently have, whether you be
exiting off of Lake Lucy to get onto 4 I. You cannot make left turns out of that area at all. Even
on non, I mean during rush hour pretty lenient but it's, we're going to have to do something
about the roads and the traffic so if you have comments or you've already taken that into
consideration, I haven't been able to be at any of the other public hearings and if not I just
wanted to let that concern be voiced.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Is there anybody else who would like to speak during visitor
presentations this evening? If not, then we thank you. We have visitor presentations every
meeting and people are always welcome to come. We'll move on now with our agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING ON V ACA TION OF PUBLIC EASEMENTS WITHIN PINEHURST
PLAT. FILE 05-01.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Nathan Franzen
Bill & Max Flanagan
Julie Fuecker
1851 Lake Drive
6653 Brenden Court
6751 Manchester Drive
Matt Saam: Thank you Mr. Mayor, council members. Just to remind you of the location we're
in for the Pinehurst plat. This is the subject property. We're on the west side of Galpin, just
north of Lake Lucy Road. Prior to the recent replatting of this property into the Pinehurst
development, the property was originally platted back in 1987 into the two lots shown here. The
plat was called Old Slocum Tree Farm. With that plat the City received, as we always do,
standard side lot line drainage and utility easements. Now with the replat of the property we're
again getting our standard easements and in fact many more and wider easements. So in order to
clear up the title so there aren't any encumbrances on the new lots, the developer has requested
us, the city to vacate the old underlying easements. Staff has no objection of this and I'd be
happy to take any questions.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for staff? Just the one question I have for
clarification. The timing of this is such that, this is kind of all part of the steps that need to be
taken that are typically taken when we're dealing with a replat?
Matt Saam: Yes. Yeah, I'll explain it to you. If you approve this tonight, then when the city
attorney's office records the plat, they will record this I believe immediately before the plat so
it's not like we're giving up these easements before we get the new ones, if that's the concern.
Mayor Furlong: Exactly. Thank you. Any other questions? No? If not, thank you. We'll go
ahead and open up the public hearing at this time for anybody that wishes to speak on this issue.
Please come forward to the podium. State your name and address.
8
City Council Meeting - April 11, 2005
Julie Fuecker: My name's Julie Fuecker, 6751 Manchester Drive. I live on Manchester Drive
and it's going to be opening it up to that and I guess I'm not sure what you're talking about with
easements. I'm very naïve on this. We have a group of homes in this area here that have an
easement that has a bunch of trees. Are you getting rid of that and widening that or what's the
point of impact on these homes that butt up against the new development?
Matt Saam: Sure. Your easements are not being affected. It'd be the easements on the property
to the north of you. We're vacating or releasing the existing ones because they're being replaced
with the development of the property by new easements and in fact wider ones.
Julie Fuecker: Okay, so the one here in Woodridge Heights remain the same?
Matt Saam: Correct.
Julie Fuecker: Okay.
Mayor Furlong: If anybody else would like to come forward on this topic. Interested parties. If
not, without objection then I'll close the public hearing and we'll bring it back to council. Any
additional questions for council on this matter? For staff. If not, is there any discussion from
council? Hearing none, is there a motion?
Councilman Peterson: Motion to approve.
Councilman Labatt: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion?
Resolution#2005-41: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to
approve the resolution vacating the existing public drainage and utility easements as
dermed on the attached vacation description. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously with a vote of 4 to O.
REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE 2.77 ACRES INTO 6 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WITH
VARIANCES: LOCATED AT 6500 CHANHASSEN ROAD (NORTH OF FOX HOLLOW
DRIVE. WEST OF HIGHWAY 101. AND SOUTH OF PLEASANT VIEW ROAD): FOX
DEN: APPLICANT 10 SPRING. INC.. PLANNING CASE 05-08.
Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor, members of the City Council. 10 Spring Inc., the applicant
is requesting to subdivide 2.77 acres into 6 lots. The site is just north of the Fox Hollow
subdivision has direct access, or abuts Highway 101. Access to the site is via Fox Drive. Again
that was a paper street that was put in place at the time that the subdivision, again as staff, when
we look forward to how the property would be served in the future. We take that into
consideration. There is an existing home on the site. That will be removed. The average lot size
is 15,452 square feet so all the lots do meet the minimum standards as far as the zoning
ordinance. The staff did have some concerns on Lots I and 4, and I'll show you the home plans
9
City Council Meeting - April 11, 2005
for those in just a minute. Again the majority of the site will be graded. As you can see the
perimeter, working to save the existing trees. The stub street to the site, as I indicated, was
proposed by staff at the time that this plat went in. That was done as a PUD. Little bit narrower
streets and they have variances on the front yards. Because the existing right-of-way is in place,
staff is recommending that the 50 foot remain. Although we are recommending, that we are
recommending that variance, continuation of that. And then the pavement width would be the
same. It's just the right-of-way that would be different. Some of the issues that came up on this
plat would be the drainage. There's an existing pond. The Planning Commission did spend
some time discussing whether or not that pond could be sized. In reviewing it with the applicant
it appears that that's the appropriate place to put the pond. Again that's detailed on page 4 of
your staff report. Looking at other locations, there's existing monument sign and some of those
sort of things, and as you're aware with the storm water management plan, it's our goal to
combine those and make the best of that site that's already there. Again our ordinance hasn't
changed since the original Fox Hollow went into place and the City would then take ownership
and maintenance of that. So there will be some water quantity and quality fees paid to that and
then ultimately would take over the maintenance of that. The other area, I mentioned the street
going with the 50 foot right-of-way. That is going to be our recommendation and the other,
we'll be taking park fee extraction. There is a park, North Lotus just immediately adjacent to
this property and in close proximity. With that, I just want to take a minute to talk about the
homes. One of the things that we noticed our lot size, our width requirement is 90 feet. In some
ofthose areas where they're right at 90 feet we start to get concerned because when that
ordinance was put in place, as we've discussed with the Planning Commission, it was typical to
have a 2 car garage. Now everything that we see is a 3 car garage, so we wanted to make sure
that a reasonable sized home could be placed on that. So if you look at Lots I and 4, which were
the ones that were right at the 90. We wanted to make sure, so the applicant did show us the
house plan that they would propose for those lots, and again that does meet. Again it has a 3 car
garage, which we believe is the acceptable kind of size that would be built for the community
right now. So those lots do work. We have had some recent subdivisions, some smaller ones
have gone in that for some reason a homebuyer wanted to increase the square footage and we did
not support the variance and those were replatted to accommodate the bigger house size. Again,
it's not our goal to put a lot in place to have variances. We would consider that self created
because this is a brand new subdivision. So we're relying on the developer that these would be
the similar size style home that would fit on those lots. Again there was some concerns from one
of the neighbors, and I'd just like to take a minute to go through that. This neighbor right here
again.
Mayor Furlong: I'm sorry, could you point again.
Kate Aanenson: This neighbor right here.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Kate Aanenson: In existing Fox Hollow subdivision. This did go to the Planning Commission
on March 15th. There is some of the records that we addressed during that meeting but there was
some additional information. One was regarding the lot width. Why couldn't it be 24 feet?
There was a lot of information specifically given from public safety regarding, if you parked on
10
City Council Meeting - April 11,2005
the street, those sort of things, it would really prohibit because it is a public street to go that
narrow, so the current design at 31 feet is our standard and we believe that that's the appropriate
width for that area. There was also a question regarding boulevard plantings. The neighbor did
want to look at some evergreen trees, again for sight line reasons. If you look at where that Fox
Hollow Drive goes all the way to North Lotus Park. Turning movements through there. We
haven't approved street trees, evergreens for boulevard. If we do, we'd look at pines would be
the one permitted. The spruces. Again they're fuller on the bottom and they cause some sight
distance and snowplowing storage so if the City Council did want to approve that as an
alternative we would recommend that they be pines. Again provide some additional screening.
Planting width. There was some indication that the staff mis-informed, and I think it's how it's
interpreted and we interpret it that the, and we have always interpreted that there's a minimum
tree every 30 feet. Again, they could be spaced such but we found that putting them too close
together actually does detriment in the long run as far as the growth, so we'd recommend that.
There was a retaining wall originally proposed on the site and that retaining wall has been
removed. You do not have the current construction... There's a little bit more detail on that
regarding some blockage on the other side. That was field investigated and it appears that there
might be some outlet control measures that need to be fixed on the Eden Prairie side. That
contact has been made to see, to get them to fix that portion of, that may be causing problems.
Again that will be further delineated and described in the final plat. And ultimately there was a
question regarding a land survey. Some errors. I think that was just described and the notes that
were described on the survey, but we believe that they close appropriately and there's no
discrepancy. Just some call outs in certain elements of the survey themselves. So with that we
are recommending approval, as did the Planning Commission, with the conditions outlined with
the variance for the right-of-way, and I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff. Councilman Labatt.
Councilman Labatt: Kate, you talked about the utility pond will be taken over.
Kate Aanenson: This one, correct.
Councilman Labatt: Which one?
Kate Aanenson: This part right here.
Councilman Labatt: Alright. The one that's existing right now.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct. It's existing right now. It would be enlarged.
Councilman Labatt: What's our long term exposure or expense as far as, the fees we're going to
be taking in, are we going to be covering ourselves?
Kate Aanenson: correct.
Councilman Labatt: For how long?
11
City Council Meeting - April 11, 2005
Kate Aanenson: That's the whole storm water management plan maintenance and that's part of
what we're doing with the SEH update. Getting all those inlet/outlet structure points. And that
will be part of the management plan, what ponds we need to be maintaining at what time point.
Point in time, correct.
Councilman Labatt: Well what do you foresee as far as maintenance or.
Kate Aanenson: We already have quite a few of them on a maintenance schedule. Some of the
older ones. Maybe Matt wants to address...
Matt Saam: Sure, Councilman Labatt. As far as maintenance, what we're talking about is
typically once every 5 years we might go in and remove a sand delta, which is usually a few feet
in front of the inlet apron to the pond. You know sediment that gets in the storm sewer then
washes into the pond. It typically forms like a sand bar near the inlet to the pond. That's what
usually needs to be dredged out. With this development however, because they're increasing the
size of the pond, they're going to be draining it all down, as I understand, and I think at that time
we'll be using that, since the pond will be drained, now using that time to dredge out the pond to
make sure it's operating effectively.
Kate Aanenson: It's a pretty old pond, yeah.
Councilman Labatt: Okay.
Mayor Furlong: Other questions for staff? Couple here. There was, you answered most of my
questions in the staff report, so I appreciate that. . The Planning Commission, after hearing the
public hearing comments added a few additions to the requirements under item 12 I believe.
Some of these you've addressed. Some of them are more a staff work with developer to explore
this. I guess my question is, as you look at this and as we're considering this for the preliminary
plat this evening, have some of these already been taken care of?
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: ...if I understand your thoughts on (j) through (m).
Kate Aanenson: Sure. As I indicated, looking at the pond location, that is the best place for the
pond location. Trying to preserve some of those trees. It's counter productive to pond versus
trees.
Mayor Furlong: So just for expediency, it would be staffs recommendation that you've done
this already?
Kate Aanenson: Correct, yes. We have looked at all those issues.
Mayor Furlong: You have looked at all these issues that were addressed, okay.
12
City Council Meeting - April 11, 2005
Kate Aanenson: And it goes specifically back to the evergreens on the street. If we wanted
evergreens instead of a deciduous, just the recommendation on the species type.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, and I think that would fall within this proposed condition here, is getting
staffs recommendation on anything different. Okay, thank you. Any other questions for staff?
At this time. No? If not, is the applicant here? Is there any items you'd like to address to the
council.
Scott Rosenlund: Good evening. I'm Scott Rosenlund, 622 West 82nd, Chaska and with 10
Spring Inc. Part of the developer. And no, I don't have anything to add but if you did have
questions our engineering firm, Cara Otto is here too to address any questions you might have.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any questions for the applicant? Very good. Thank you sir.
Appreciate you being here. With that I'll bring it back to council for discussion. Any discussion
on this?
Councilman Peterson: No, I think it's straight forward and I think staff has worked with the
applicant in making a better project, along with Planning Commission so I'd recommend
approval.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Anything?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I agree with Councilman Peterson that it's pretty straight forward.
The Planning Commission did a great job of ironing out all the wrinkles and no problem.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Very good. Councilman Labatt.
Councilman Labatt: I don't disagree at all with my counterparts.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. The one thing I was checking out too was the issue that Councilman
Labatt raised earlier with regard to the ownership of that pond. I think what we're doing is we're
accepting the improvements to that pond, but the city already owns it.
Kate Aanenson: The city owns it, that's correct.
Mayor Furlong: The city owns it now and is responsible for the current maintenance on it so
we're going to allow the developer to improve the pond and then we'll accept those
improvements.
Kate Aanenson: Yes, and also...
Mayor Furlong: And do everything else we've talked about.
Kate Aanenson: Correct, and we're also getting storm water quantity and quality fees as a part
of it.
13
City Council Meeting - April 11, 2005
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. No, I would concur with my fellow council members. I
think the issues that were raised at the public hearing, the Planning Commission and staff worked
on a number of those and while there may be differences of opinion, I think this is a reasonable
proposal for the property and so I would support the preliminary plat. Any other discussion?
Hearing none, is there a motion?
Councilman Labatt: Move approval for staff's recommendation.
Mayor Furlong: For the staff report? There's no rezoning required on this at all so it would just
be, you're moving the preliminary plat motion beginning on page 10 of the staff report?
Councilman Labatt: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion?
Councilman Labatt moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council
approve the Preliminary Plat for Planning Case #05-08 for Fox Den for 6 lots with a
variance for a 50 foot right-of-way width as shown on the plans prepared by Otto
Associates stamped "Received February 11,2005", subject to the following conditions:
1. The pond on Outlot A, Fox Hollow shall 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 shall be maintained or replaced.
2. An outlet meeting National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permanent storm water
management system requirements (NPDES Permit MN RIOooOl, Section C, Subsection lD,
Page 11 or 26) shall be installed at the outlet of the pond on Outlot A, Fox Hollow.
3. A floating Faircloth skimmer or another preapproved method should be used for dewatering.
The flow route, distance to receiving waters and name of receiving waters of the storm water
basin and dewatering activities shall be included on the plan. A detailed dewatering plan
with method, rate, and erosion and sediment control considerations, such as energy
dissipation, shall be provided.
4. Geotextile or gravel bed and riprap shall be provided for energy dissipation at the existing
and proposed flared-end inlets to the storm water pond and the outlet of the pond on the east
side of Hwy IO I.
5. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3: 1. All
exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round,
according to the following table of slopes and time frames:
14
City Council Meeting - April 11, 2005
Type of Slope
Steeper than 3: I
10:1 to 3:1
Flatter than 10: I
Time
7 days
14 days
21 days
(Maximum time an area can
remain open when the area
is not actively being worked.)
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.
6. A detail for the catch basin (CB) sediment control shall be provided for the CB between Lots
2 and 3.
7. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street
sweeping as-needed.
8. The applicant shall pay the total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat
recording. At this time, the estimated fee is $8,021.
9. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g.,
Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES
Phase II Construction Permit), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering»
and comply with their conditions of approval.
10. 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 on the site must be abandoned in accordance with State Law and City
Code.
11. Fire Marshal conditions:
a. No burning permits will be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either
be removed from site or chipped.
b. 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.
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.
d. Temporary street signs shall be installed on each street intersection when construction of
the new roadway allows passage by vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota Fire Code
Section 501.4.
15
City Council Meeting - April 11, 2005
12. Environmental Resources Coordinator Conditions:
a. Applicant shall revise landscape plan to show a minimum of 21 trees to be planted.
b. A minimum of two 2 \1," deciduous, overstory trees shall be required in the front yard of
each lot.
c. No more than one-third of the required trees may be from anyone species.
d. Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits around all trees
proposed to be preserved prior to any grading.
e. Any trees proposed for preservation that are lost due to grading and construction
activities will be replaced at a rate of 2: 1 diameter inches.
f. All 21 trees shall be planted within the proposed development. A revised landscape plan
will be required prior to final approval.
g. A landscape buffer shall be planted along Hwy. 101 and include, at a minimum,S
overstory trees, 7 understory trees and 12 shrubs.
h. Trees #142-144 and six green ash not shown on the tree inventory, located along the
south property line near the existing shed, shall be preserved.
I. The applicant shall plant boulevard trees along Fox Hollow Drive and Fox Drive to
replace trees lost due to pond expansion. One tree shall be planted every 30 feet except
within the sight triangle. Species selected shall be approved by the city.
j. Developer will work with staff to explore possibilities of minimizing tree loss to the north
of the pond and consider alternate design on the pond using available space.
k. Developer will work with staff to consider buffer plantings around the pond.
1. Developer will work with staff to evaluate the impact to the buffer trees to the north of the
cul-de-sac on Lot 4.
m. Developer will work with staff to evaluate the placement of evergreens versus deciduous
for buffering purposes.
13. On the Utility plan:
a. Show all easements.
b. Add a note "Any connection to existing structures must be core drilled.
14. Add the following City detail plates: 1005,2001,5300 and 5301.
15. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will
be required to supply the City with a detailed haul route and traffic control plan.
16. The sanitary sewer hook-up charge will only be applied to five of the six new lots. The
water hookup charge will still be applicable for each of the new lots. Since the developer
will be responsible for extending lateral sewer and water service to the lots, the sanitary
sewer and water connection charges will be waived. The 2005 trunk hookup charge is
$1,458 for sanitary sewer and $2,955 for water-main. Sanitary sewer and water-main
hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit
issuance. All of these charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Met
Council.
16
City Council Meeting - April 11, 2005
17. 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. The applicant must be aware that all public utility
improvements will require a preconstruction meeting before building permit issuance.
Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will be required, including the MPCA,
MnDOT, Watershed District and MDH.
18. A professional engineer registered in the State of Minnesota must sign all plans.
19. The applicant must be aware that any grading on privately-owned property will require a
temporary easement.
20. The applicant will be required to clean the existing stormwater pond after enlargements have
been completed.
21. Prior to final platting, storm sewer design data will need to be submitted for staff review.
The storm sewer will have to be designed for a IO-year, 24-hour storm event.
22. Drainage and utility easements will need to be dedicated on the final plat over the public
storm drainage system including ponds and drainage swales up to the lOO-year flood level.
The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide.
23. Staff is recommending that a small (1'-3') retaining wall be installed along the western right-
of-way of Fox Drive south of the site. This will alleviate the steep slopes in the area and
provide room for a boulevard area in back of the curb for snow storage.
24. A minimum 20-foot wide easement will be required over the watermain that is outside of the
right-of-way.
25. The developer shall pay full park dedication fees."
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to O.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: None.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: None.
CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION.
Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor I think the only thing I'd like to bring up is that the farmers
market is going to happen again starting June 4th so let's start advertising that and hopefully it
will get bigger and better and better attended than last year so we can continue to grow that.
17
City Council Meeting - April 11, 2005
Mayor Furlong: Why don't you mention the times. The times and locations.
Councilman Peterson: I certainly can.
Mayor Furlong: You can start advertising right now.
Councilman Peterson: Farmers market will begin June 4th through October 29th and again will
be held 9:00 a.m. to I :00 p.m. on Saturdays.
Mayor Furlong: And that's right outside our senior center. That parking lot nearest City Center
Park.
Councilman Peterson: It's a wonderful venue.
Mayor Furlong: Yes it is. Thank you. Any other discussion? If not, is there any other, if
there's no other items to come before the council this evening, we will be finishing up our work
session items immediately after adjournment in the Fountain Room. Is there a motion to
adjourn ?
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to adjourn. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The City Council meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m..
Submitted by Todd Gerhardt
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
18