CC 2005 09 29
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 29, 2005
Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.. The meeting was opened with the
Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mayor Furlong, Councilwoman Tjornhom, Councilman
Peterson, Councilman Labatt and Councilman Lundquist
STAFF PRESENT:
Todd Gerhardt, Justin Miller, Roger Knutson, Bob Generous, Paul Oehme,
and Todd Hoffman
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
Danny DeHoyos 921 Bluff Pass South
Chad Varner 2438 Hunter Drive
Daniel Knighton 17087 Hanover Lane, Eden Prairie
Joseph Pittsley 8218 Hillside Drive, Eden Prairie
Tyler Hokanson 2188 Grimm Road, Chaska
Richard, Jeffrey & Robbie Lyman 2441 Clover Field Drive, Chaska
Brendon Harris 18654 Vogel Farm Trail, Chaska
Micah Baird 9648 Jonathon Lane, Eden Prairie
Debbie Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive
Janet & Jerry Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive
Shayne Eyre 1100 Lake Susan Drive
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Mayor Furlong: Welcome everybody. We appreciate you joining us here this evening and for
those watching at home as well. We do have some boy scouts in our gallery this evening from
Troop 296 I believe so welcome to them as well. They’re working on their citizenship in the
community badge. At this time I’d like to ask if there are any modifications or changes to the
agenda that was distributed with the packet. If not, without objection we’ll proceed with the
agenda as distributed.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded
to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager’s
recommendations:
a. Approval of Minutes:
-City Council Work Session Minutes dated September 12, 2005
-City Council Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated September 12, 2005
Receive Commission Minutes:
-Planning Commission Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated September 6, 2005
City Council Meeting – September 29, 2005
Resolution#2005-79:
b. Call Assessment Hearing for TH 312/212 Improvements, Project
Numbers 03-09, 04-05, 04-06.
Resolution#2005-80:
c. Call Assessment Hearing for 2005 MUSA Improvements, Phase I,
Project 04-05.
e. Approval of Registered Land Surveys for:
Resolution#2005-81:
Lot 6, Block 1, Christmas Acres, Subdivision #05-02.
Resolution#2005-82:
860, 890 and 910 Pleasant View Road, Subdivision #05-09.
f. Approval of Amendment to City Code Relating to the Disposal of Unclaimed Property,
including Summary Ordinance for Publication Purposes.
g. Approval of City Code Amendment to Chapter 6, Article III Concerning Watercraft
Operating Regulations.
h. Approval of Reassignment of Landscaping Requirements, Highlands at Bluff Creek.
j. Chanhassen West Business Park:
1) Approval of Final Plat.
Resolution#2005-82A:
2) Approval of Plans & Specifications and Development
Contract.
Resolution#2005-83:
k. Order Preparation of Feasibility Report for 2006 Street
Improvements, Project 06-01.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Rick Dorsey asked that item 1(d) be pulled for discussion. Mayor Furlong stated the item will be
discussed after new business.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
Janet Paulsen: Council people. My name is Janet Paulsen and I live at 7305 Laredo Drive. I
wish to address the subject of the Harvieux subdivision.
Mayor Furlong: Mrs. Paulsen, would it be okay if we brought that up during, when we’re
discussing that?
Janet Paulsen: Sure, that’d be fine.
Mayor Furlong: That will be fine. I’ll make time for public comments. Would anybody else
like to address the council during visitor presentations this evening? No? Okay. We offer this
every evening so people are welcome to come each meeting.
2
City Council Meeting – September 29, 2005
LAW ENFORCEMENT/FIRE DEPARTMENT UPDATE.
Sgt. Jim Olson: Thank you and good evening. Tonight in your packets I’ve included the
Sheriff’s Office area report for the month of August. The area citation list for the month of
August. Community Service Officer Report and then also I have a couple of other miscellaneous
items for you to talk about tonight. Monthly numbers for the month of August, our total calls for
service were up by 262 for the month. Criminal calls were down by 47. Compared to last year.
Total calls for year to date are up by 603 and criminal calls are down by 118 for the year. So our
crime has been down this year in the city of Chanhassen. Thefts were down by 19 for the month
and for the year they’re down by 87. Damage to property was down by 19 over last year for the
month of August and for year to date they’re down by 16. And those are generally our two
biggest crimes that we have occur here in the city are thefts and damage to property. Traffic
stops were 537 for the month, which was up by 345 over last year for the month of August and
they’re up by 895 for the year. Citations were 386 for the month and that was up by 228 for the
month of August over last year and up by 633 for the year to date. And I wanted to briefly talk
about our concentration of traffic issues in the city that we’ve been doing recently. I went
through the citations and for the month of August 54% of our traffic stops resulted in citations,
which means that 46% of them were education. Education based where we’re verbally warning
the people about their driving conduct. Education of drivers is a big part of what we do and what
we’re trying to do, and I think that’s very important for the city. Traffic is the number one public
safety concern for the residents of Chanhassen. It’s important that we try to address that through
education and enforcement. My hope is that our traffic stops will end up going down and also
our citations go down, and that’s because drivers are following what we’re trying to do and what
we’re talking about. So we have been hitting the traffic real heavy. Our traffic car has been a
real big part of that with what we’re doing with the unmarked traffic thing, so any questions at
all number wise or so far? There’s a couple other things I want to talk about yet but.
Mayor Furlong: Questions for the Sergeant at this point? Sergeant Olson I have one and that
deals with, and I noticed under the citation list improper passing, specifically along Powers
Boulevard at various intersections, Lake Lucy and Powers and others. Could you just speak to
that as a continuing problem and how you’re addressing it?
Sgt. Jim Olson: It is a continuing problem and we do numerous where we’ve got a couple of
squads out there at a time that are pulling people over. We have put flags up on the turn lanes to
the point out where it says you know, vehicles must turn if you’re in the turn lane. We’ve been
issuing citations. I’ve had, we’ve done an article in the newspaper about this and it’s important
for people to not pass in those turn lanes. We’ve had a number of near accidents and a few
accidents that have resulted because of people and that area is a real big one for complaints that
we get called into the city to both myself and Beth Hoiseth, our Crime Prevention Officer. So
we are trying to address that and we continue to try to address that.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Sgt. Jim Olson: We have been fortunate this year with the amount of crime in the city. However
residents still need to remain vigilant with what’s going on. Keep your car doors, your garage
doors closed at night. Lock your cars if they’re in the driveway. Make sure you take your keys
3
City Council Meeting – September 29, 2005
out of them. If you do see something that doesn’t look right or is suspicious make sure you call
the sheriff’s office and the sooner you call the better for us. See how we can hopefully get there
in time and try to chat with whoever is doing what you think does not look right and find out
what’s going on. Also I regret to tell the council that Retired Carver County Canine Titan, that
some of the people remember in the city here, died today at the age of 11 years old. Titan was a
valued member of the sheriff’s office and was a frequent visitor to city hall and did many
presentations throughout the city for kids and adults and so on. Chanhassen Officer Keith
Walgrave was Titan’s handler and after Titan retired I think it was about 3 or 4 years ago or so,
Titan, or Keith took Titan home to live with him, or I should say maybe Titan took Keith home
to live with him. Titan will be sorely missed by all of us. He was a good puppy so we’re going
to miss him. Anything else for the sheriff’s office at all?
Mayor Furlong: Any questions or comments? No. Very good, thank you.
Sgt. Jim Olson: Thank you. Have a good evening.
Mayor Furlong: Good evening. Chief Geske, good evening.
Chief Gregg Geske: Good evening, thank you. First I want to apologize for my absence last
month. I was out of town and I had a back up plan. My back up plan was down at the Shakopee
on a mutual aid fire call down there at St. Mark’s so wasn’t around that night. Next I’d like to
invite everybody to our open house. Usually we get pretty good turn out for an open house and
th
that’s going to be on Sunday, October 16 this year. Along with fire truck rides, which are
always popular. We’ll have the dive tank set up with divers in that. Safety groups such as the
Carver County Sheriff’s Department, Ridgeview Ambulance and other related activities and stuff
going on that day so if everybody can come up there, it’s a great opportunity for the kids and
they always have a good time there so.
Mayor Furlong: What are the hours for the open house?
Chief Gregg Geske: The hours are from 1:00 to 4:00. We are gearing up for that occasion.
Planning for that. Along with that, during that fire prevention week, and there is some
information in the packet there, we run about 3,000 kids through our fire prevention classes and
such, and we got a call last week actually from the Early Childhood Development Center and
they want to send an additional 650 kindergarteners over so, keep them busy that week. We
have it pretty beneficial here in Chanhassen that we’ve got about 18 to 20 fire fighters that are
volunteering to take off time during that week to teach classes and stuff over at the fire station.
We do some at the schools and then we do a lot of them at the fire station so pretty beneficial to
have all those guys that took their time off and ladies and gentlemen do that. Past month we’ve
been pretty busy with weather related calls. The one where we had a lot of rain come through
about 3 weeks ago, we had about 8 calls that day and we had a couple mutual aids for structure
fires over in Eden Prairie. Did have a lightning strike here the other night, and have been called
out quite a bit for weather spotting so hopefully with the cool weather that’s going to slow up a
little bit but we’re ahead a little bit for the numbers this year and starting to balance out now so.
That’s all I had. If you have any questions.
4
City Council Meeting – September 29, 2005
Mayor Furlong: Questions for the Chief. See you got a new picture taken for the department. It
was in the packet so looks good. Considering what they had to work with I think they did pretty
good.
Chief Gregg Geske: At least they took it far enough away so you can…
Mayor Furlong: There you go. Okay, thank you.
Chief Gregg Geske: Thank you.
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER VATION OF ROADWAY EASEMENT, 2040
OAKWOOD RIDGE, FILE 05-03.
Public Present:
Name Address
Tom & Karrie Perrier 2040 Oakwood Ridge
Jay Peterson 8216 Stone Creek Drive
Paul Oehme: Thank you Mayor, City Council members. This item for your consideration is a
vacation of a 30 foot easement, roadway easement and again at 3040 Oakwood Ridge. The
location of the project is just south of a cul-de-sac of Oak Ridge on here. In the dark area. It’s
the roadway easement and Timberwood Drive is located at this, just off of Oakwood Ridge and
it’s, the project area is just located east of Galpin Boulevard. The applicant has requested the
vacation of a 30 foot easement on his property shown here. There is a 6 foot drainage utility
easement. It is along the property line consistent with what is required for developments. The
roadway easement was originally platted or dedicated along with the development at that time
and in consideration of a future roadway extension to the adjacent property owner. Due to the
development of the property east of here the roadway easement is no longer needed so staff has
no issue with vacating the easement at this time. The drainage utility easement will remain, the 6
foot drainage utility easement along the property will remain as it is today. Staff has also looked
at public utilities and private utilities in this area and we are not aware of any utilities in the
roadway easement so at this time I would request that a public hearing be opened for the
vacation of the 30 foot easement located at 2040 Oakwood Ridge and I just want to clarify too
that the recommendation that staff is requesting is a 30 foot easement, not the entire 60 foot
easement of the roadway at this time. The application has been for a 30 foot vacation and the
notifications that went out to the surrounding property owners was for a 30 foot vacation so we
want to be consistent with that.
Mayor Furlong: And I guess I have a question on that. If we’re vacating 30, there’s still going
to be 30 on the neighboring property?
Paul Oehme: Yeah. At this time.
Mayor Furlong: There’s enough right-of-way so there’s going to be 30 foot right-of-way?
5
City Council Meeting – September 29, 2005
Paul Oehme: Yeah, the existing roadway easement would remain on Lot 7, the property just
north of here, until another petition, application would be submitted to the city for the vacation of
that easement, or that roadway easement. So that would go through another public hearing
process. I mean we could take care of it all at once. You could table this item and take it back
and re-petition, get the 30 foot off. Or the 60 foot off at one time. Otherwise we could just go
ahead with the 30 foot at this point.
Mayor Furlong: I mean is that something that you pursued at all with the neighboring property
owner? To do them at the same time.
Todd Gerhardt: The neighboring property owner is interested in seeing that vacation, but at this
point we only advertised for 30.
Mayor Furlong: Understand.
Todd Gerhardt: And if that resident would like to pursue the vacation, they could come in. Meet
with Paul or his staff and make application for that vacation and then we would advertise it just
like a public hearing, like this item and, for your consideration.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. We will open the public hearing then and accept public
comments on this issue. Is anybody, any interested party please come forward and state your
name and address.
Jay Peterson: Good evening council. My name is Jay Peterson. I live on 8216 Stone Creek
Drive, and I guess my interest was just seeing what is the potential because of this vacation of
the easement, just to see what could I guess in the future, I guess my question to you is, what
could this turn into? Because being just on the east side of this easement, I’m just concerned that
there may be some development that could influence the way things look in the future, because
we have beautiful forests, lots of wildlife and I’m just wondering how that could affect things.
Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Staff, you want a quick response. I mean from an actual effect standpoint.
Paul Oehme: Sure. I believe the applicant is here and he can address maybe what he is
proposing at this time.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Please.
Tom Perrier: Thank you. The original.
Mayor Furlong: Sir, if you could just state your name and address for the recorder.
Tom Perrier: Oh, Tom Perrier, 2040 Oakwood Ridge.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
6
City Council Meeting – September 29, 2005
Tom Perrier: The original, when I first purchased the property back in 1998 I did know the
easement was on the property. It did raise a red flag with me. If you were to look at where the
easement is, it could have potentially disrupted my property significantly if there were to be a
road put in there, so it was always a goal of mine to pursue getting rid of that if possible, which
I’ve done to this, where we’re at right now, and there is the possibility that I may use that
property to build a storage shed or something. But the lots are big. It’s a 3 acre lot. I must have
40 mature oak trees on my property that are very, very gorgeous and I would never disturb any
of that. And where I would, if I did build or extend on the shed I have there right now, it would
be within 30 feet of my home so there really would be no disruptance of any of the existing
property that, or the trees I should say. It’s a very beautiful property and we would never, we
love the wildlife that’s why we would never do anything to disturb that. The only thing we
would use it for is again to extend on the shed that we have right there. Again the property is 3
acres. Is 3 acres. Roughly 3 acres. There is numerous spots to put a storage shed out there. So I
guess my point is is that if in fact I did need to put a shed somewhere on the property, I guess
according to codes and the covenants within Timberwood Estates, if I followed those rules that
would be applicable, but I guess my point is obviously I’m very concerned about the existing
nature that is back there.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, if I might just add. Typically what a homeowner can do in his rear yard
is a 10 foot side yard setback. Bob, tell me if I’m wrong. 30 in the back.
Bob Generous: 50.
Todd Gerhardt: 50 feet in the rear lot line. And if they had trees in that setback zone they can
cut those down and put a building on there, as long as they don’t go over the impervious surface
percentage. So I think that answers that gentleman’s question.
Mayor Furlong: And I guess the effect of this vacation, if it goes forward would be to move the
property line, the north property line 30 feet to the north, correct? Is that, am I understanding
that correctly?
Bob Generous: Well the property line wouldn’t change because this is an easement rather than
fee ownership.
Todd Gerhardt: It would allow him to build 20 feet closer to that property line because it’s a
roadway easement. By losing that 20 feet he can move closer to the property line with a shed or
out buildings.
Mayor Furlong: So the setback goes to the property line as opposed to the easement then.
Todd Gerhardt: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
7
City Council Meeting – September 29, 2005
Councilman Lundquist: Actually probably limits development rather than allows it because
you’re taking away the access to provide a road through there.
Todd Gerhardt: And if you look at the other map, I’m trying to figure out why we would have
wanted a road that way anyway because it doesn’t connect to the neighboring subdivision access
points so.
Mayor Furlong: Does that answer your question sir? Thank you. We’re still within a public
hearing so if anybody else would like to come forward and address this issue, please do so at this
time. Seeing nobody then without objection we’ll close the public hearing and bring it back to
council for discussion. Are there any additional questions or discussion on this matter? Any
comments? Hearing none, is there a motion to approve?
Councilman Lundquist: Motion to approve.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. A second?
Councilman Labatt: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none we’ll
proceed with the vote.
Resolution#2005-84: Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that the
City Council approve a resolution vacating the 60 foot roadway easement located along the
property line between Lots 7 and 8, Block 2, Timberwood Estates Addition. All voted in
favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
AMERICANA COMMUNITY BANK, 600 MARKET STREET, SUITE 100, REQUEST
FOR A VARIANCE TO PLACE A SIGN ON A CANOPY, PLANNING CASE 05-28.
Bob Generous: Thank you Mr. Mayor, council members. As you stated this is a variance
request for a sign on the north elevation of the Americana Bank. Our ordinance permits signage
on street frontages or primary entrances to buildings. This is neither for the Americana Bank and
so it’s the appropriate location. This is a site plan. As you can see on the west elevation and the
south elevation, which are street frontages for the development, they do have wall signage that’s
been approved. And in the northwest corner of the site they have a monument sign that they’ll
have their business name on also. Staff believes this provides adequate signage for the
Americana Bank and has recommended denial. As part of the public hearing before the Planning
Commission they also vote to recommend denial of the variance request. With that I’d be happy
to answer any questions.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff. Mr. Generous, what are the other, this is a
multi tenant building. What do the other sign allowances, or what’s coming forward that you’re
aware of? How much signage is going to be on this side of the building or throughout, around
the building?
8
City Council Meeting – September 29, 2005
Bob Generous: Well as you go further east there are some entrances to individual units that
won’t have signage and that will be based on their wall area, so we don’t know what the total
amount will be.
Mayor Furlong: That would be on the south side of the building?
Bob Generous: Well on the south side and they have entrances on the north or the east side of
the building. They would be able to put a sign above their entrance to provide opportunity for
people to locate them in that multi tenant development.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Okay. And how about, it’s a two story building. How about the second
floor. That would be accessed from inside.
Bob Generous: Well they would get a percentage of that. Well they would have signage on the
street frontage of course within the sign band area. However I do have an application that will
be coming forward in about a month regarding a locational issue on another tenant within the
building.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for staff? If not, is the applicant here
this evening? Good evening sir.
Paul Punt: Good evening. My name is Paul Punt. I’m with Attracta Signs. The President of the
bank couldn’t be here tonight. We’d like to speak to a few of the issues. Number one, when
these plans come before the Planning Commission and the council and even when the developer
is developing the plan originally, it’s impossible to consider every consideration that that
building’s going to be used for or what the tenant’s needs are in that building. And for that
reason there should be some flexibility and I think everybody agrees with that. Often times
when a development is put forth before the city and before the Planning Commission there’s a
little give and take that takes place. So you end up with commercial buildings around town that
have signage on them which actually does not conform to the city code. Sign codes. And that
includes signs such as signs that are on non-street front facing sides of the building. Some that
don’t have entrances. I can cite a couple of them. Houlihan’s is one. They have signs on 3 sides
of the building. One faces the parking lot where the entrance is. One faces the street and the
other one faces the wetland. But it is visible from Highway 5, but it’s still not frontage because
the lot doesn’t front on Highway 5. Another one would be right next door, Culver’s. They have
signs on all 4 sides of the building. So there are exceptions made and I realize that some of that
is in the give and take of the planning process, and a lot of these when you’re, especially when
you’re dealing with businesses like Culver’s for instance. They have a set plan that they go
nation wide. They have a set plan and the signs are ready. Where you’re doing a development
like this, you don’t know who all the tenants are going to be. You don’t know ahead of time
what all their needs are and you proceed along that line. Most importantly I think the city
recognizes and I think Bob even mentioned that signs are allowed to be located on non-street
frontage as long as there’s an entrance there. And the bank’s contention is that that drive thru is
as important entrance to them as their front door. That’s a big part of the business. I don’t know
exactly what it is but a large part of the business is done at the drive up. As is, well we’ve all
9
City Council Meeting – September 29, 2005
done it. I mean you drive to the bank, you make a deposit. You run through the drive up. And
the drive up gives them some flexibility as far as hours and that type of thing. There’s many
times that people can use that drive up to do their banking when the lobby’s closed. So in that
respect I think it is an entrance. Bob talked about one of the signs that’s going to go there is a
small sign that’s going on the, I don’t think I have a picture of it. A small sign that is going on,
right next to the drive up entrance that has ATM and drive up in it, and it’s got letters, about 2
inch letters on it that say Americana Bank. But the Americana Bank, Community Bank and that
sets back from the road probably around 200 feet from Market Boulevard, and you know the
name isn’t visible. The intention of this sign was that it would be a directional sign. Given how
that driveway goes in there and stuff, it could be confusing that people end up in that drive thru
when it’s one way around the building and when they don’t belong there so that’s why that sign
is going in there to begin with. To begin with to show that this is the drive up entrance. It’s not
intended to be an identification sign for the bank. The bank also has, from their old location to
the new one they have had a, at this point a net loss of about 45% of their signage, from what
they had on the old building. If this drive up, or if this canopy sign were permitted they’d still be
30% behind what they had before, so they are losing considerable amount of signage. I’ve got a
little drawing here of the site. This would be Market Boulevard down here and this would be
thth
West 78 Street. Where the number 1 is there, is the view from the street at West 78 Street. As
you can see that canopy is readily visible, whereas no other part of that building is. Our
th
contention is that West 78 Street would be just as much of a street frontage as Highway 5
would be to Houlihan’s. Even though you’re looking through a parking lot, it’s still visible from
that street. Picture number 2 is taken right after you turn the corner and you’re heading down
Market Boulevard. The end of the canopy is visible. The rest of the building is not. You
wouldn’t even know that that bank was there. Picture number 3, is taken about halfway down
towards the entrance. Again the end of the canopy is very visible. Trees block the sign on the
west side. There’s a point in here between number 2 and number 3 where you can see between
the trees and see the west side of the building, but you can’t read the sign because you’re looking
at the edge of the sign. You really can’t see what the sign says. Picture number 4, right at the
entrance where you go right into the property. The west side sign is covered up by trees. That
will only get worst as the years go on and all these pine trees grow up and mature. That west
entrance won’t even, that west side of the building won’t even be visible from that entrance. So
that location for a sign for them is very important as far as notification to the public of where
they are. Signs to businesses are a very integral part of their advertising, how to reach people
and the appearance that they present to people and a large part of, the national, international sign
association has done some surveys and one of those indicates that about 60% of new customers
that come to retail type businesses, of which a bank would be similar to that in that they are
community oriented. Their customers drive by the door every day. Same as retail business, and
about 60% of those new customers come because they see the location. They see the sign. That
brings them to the door. The rest is, the other 40% of new customers come through advertising.
You might catch somebody from White Bear Lake driving down here to bank if they’ve got
some good deal going or something, but I doubt it. Their customers drive by the door every day
and it’s important to them that they’re seen by those customers. I guess other than that we’re just
requesting that you present an open mind to our request and we’re hoping that you agree with us.
10
City Council Meeting – September 29, 2005
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Questions for the applicant. In terms of signage, now these
would be obviously permanent signs. Does the bank use any of the window panes or the
painting at all or is it their anticipation that they’re going to be doing that? They have been.
Paul Punt: I don’t think they intend to. The windows that they have are not of the size sufficient
to do much window pane writing anyway. Banks normally aren’t the type that do a lot of that
type of thing. I know Klein Bank has something on their window.
Councilman Lundquist: They did quite a bit in their old one.
Paul Punt: Oh did they? Yeah, I wasn’t aware of that but their windows aren’t such now that
they have much room for those windows. They’re quite narrow windows that are on there now.
Any other questions?
Mayor Furlong: Other questions for the applicant? No? Thank you Mr. Punt.
Paul Punt: Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Any follow up questions for staff? I believe the public hearing occurred at the
Planning Commission on this item so is there anybody that wishes to provide public comment
for items that are new or different from the Planning Commission? If not, no. Then I’ll bring it
council…some questions. Sure.
Councilman Peterson: Bob what did we end up doing at Community Bank, for the newest bank
in town. Since we have to be parity with banks but it would seem reasonable.
Bob Generous: Their issue was, they’re part of a PUD with Village on the Ponds and so they
allowed signage on all the sides of their building but they had a height restriction so they got a
variance for that so they could be up higher on the building. There was a limitation of a 20 foot
height for the sign.
Councilman Peterson: Their logo was up there.
Bob Generous: Yeah, and then they got the logo up on the tower and then the sign itself on the
south elevation is up above 20 feet so.
Mayor Furlong: But I think you said something too for clarification, excuse me Councilman
Peterson, that the Village on the Ponds, the PUD had.
Bob Generous: Specific standards for the signage.
Mayor Furlong: That are different than our ordinances.
Bob Generous: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: Alright, excuse me. Councilman Peterson, other questions?
11
City Council Meeting – September 29, 2005
Councilman Peterson: That was it.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I have one more question. Bob, when this originally came to the
Planning Commission a couple years, I think I was on it. Whenever the plan came through. Was
this, this was then going to be a bank? Was their drive thru in the original plans?
Bob Generous: Yeah, I believe so.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay. And there was not a sign or anything on it?
Bob Generous: No. They were just looking at a sign band and we developed a standard for
allowing street frontage of course and then we just, last year amended the ordinance to permit
signage for entrances to the buildings.
Mayor Furlong: I can assure you there was a bank in the plans when that came through. Other
questions? Councilman Lundquist? Councilman Labatt?
Councilman Labatt: No.
Mayor Furlong: I looked the right way this evening, so that’s good. Okay, very good. Let’s
bring it back to council for discussion then. Thoughts and comments.
Councilman Lundquist: Alright, I’ll take the first one. Interesting as we talked about give and
take on this particular building was a lot in the design. The bank was in there, in the original
designs. Signage opportunities were plenty there. You can make an argument either way I think
Mr. Punt as your arguments are that drive thru obviously is important to a bank but you’ve got to
go in the front door to sign up for an account before you can use the drive thru and I would
contend that you’re not going to get a lot of people that are driving one way on Market
Boulevard that aren’t going to turn around 8 hours later or less and drive the other way on
Market Boulevard as well. However that being said, it’s in a downtown business district. It’s
non lighted. I don’t think there’s a lot of offense going to be given to it, and you know like I said
I’d be inclined to allow the signage for that. I don’t think there’s a lot of other businesses along
there that have entrances in the back that are going to want people to come there anyway so, with
the exception of the bank so I think that it’s a reasonable use. I’m not sure that you’re going to
elevate the level of customers that are going to come running in the front door. Maybe I’m
wrong but again since it’s in a neighborhood business district I’m inclined to allow. Let it go.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Other comments. Councilman Labatt.
Councilman Labatt: I tend to agree with Mr. Lundquist. You know I went back and forth. I
think the deciding thing for me is that they’re not asking to illuminate it so it’s just going to be a
day time sign that you’ll be able to see. So I’m fine with allowing the variance.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
12
City Council Meeting – September 29, 2005
Councilman Peterson: I don’t know, I’d probably support staff’s position. I’ve been pretty
conservative on granting variances to signs in the past and I think this one doesn’t, it doesn’t
really present anything that’s a new opportunity that the bank is missing by not having it there.
To your point Brian I think that it’s just adding more signage for the bank, not for the drive thru.
I think the drive thru itself, you can see what it is. So to that end I think we’ve got the ordinance
there to limit the exposure of signs now and with that I’d support staff’s position that with the…
on two sides and a monument sign that’s enough.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilwoman Tjornhom.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I do agree with Councilman Peterson, especially since, when the
original plans came through Planning Commission and City Council the sign wasn’t there to start
with. You know saying that we made exceptions for Houlihan’s and Culver’s, they’re distinct
buildings all on their own where this is kind of attached to several different other buildings and
there was a certain theme and certain design and layout this building was supposed to have and I
just, I think that if we allow this, how can we, for the next client or whoever’s going to lease the
space in this building comes to and wants something done for them, I couldn’t say no to them so
I have to agree with Councilman Peterson and staff’s position.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you.
Councilman Peterson: You like deciding issues in this building don’t you?
Mayor Furlong: I’ll tell you what. What the four of you just described were all, I mean it’s the
choice of two rights here. Helping businesses advertise their location, which we try to do as a
city. And then follow our ordinances and put ordinances in place that we believe are fair for
everybody. That’s the challenge. I think in this situation the dilemma here for us is to figure out
which right to choose, and a lot of the issues have been named. They do have in the staff report I
think spells out were there other opportunities. One of the questions I had too was, what’s
coming down the road? What are the additional signage on this building? And when this did
come through site plan obviously there were some signs included I believe but perhaps not with
the prevalence that this may end up given other businesses locating there. My sense here is, you
know it’s a case by case basis when you’re looking at this and trying to be fair and just. It’s not
lit, which is helpful but I think it does, it does add more signage to the building. Takes away
some of the architectural features that we were sold upon when the site plan was approved. And
not knowing what’s coming down the road, if we start with a variance now, to Councilwoman
Tjornhom’s point, it may limit our ability to make decisions in the future as well. So I guess my
sense would be at this point, would be to not support it at this time. In part because I recognize
that this is a sign that the company already owns. It came off their building, and I guess I’d be
inclined to wait and see how the building and how the tenants fill out. What other sign requests
we have and then if indeed it doesn’t become over burdened with signs, yeah perhaps we might
reconsider in the future as well, but at this point I’m going to side with staff and support our
ordinance. Not because I’m going against businesses but because this building is still in process
in terms of the tenants filling it out and what I think the sign requests are going to be. But to the
end, after it’s filled out, and if it’s something that we want to look at again in the future, I
13
City Council Meeting – September 29, 2005
certainly would consider that as well. So any other thoughts or comments based upon what
people have heard? If not, is there a motion?
Councilman Peterson: I’d move to approve the denial as presented by staff in the staff report.
Mayor Furlong: Based on the findings of fact?
Roger Knutson: Yes, and adopting the findings of the Planning Commission as your findings.
Councilman Peterson: You know I don’t say that just so you have something to say during the
meeting.
Roger Knutson: I’d be really bored if you didn’t give me at least a little opportunity tonight.
Councilman Peterson: That’s fine.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Any further discussion on the motion? Seeing none we’ll proceed with the
vote.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council
denies Variance #05-28 for a request for relief from the city’s ordinances in order to place a
non-illuminated sign on a bank drive thru canopy without street frontage based on the
findings of fact in the staff report and the following:
1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship to warrant a variance.
2. The applicant has adequate signage.
All voted in favor, except Councilman Lundquist and Councilman Labatt who opposed,
and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2.
HARVIEUX SUBDIVISION, 6605 HORSESHOE CURVE, RONALD HARVIEUX;
REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT APPROVAL TO SUBDIVIDE
LOT 2, BLOCK 1, SATHRE ADDITION INTO 3 LOTS WITH VARIANCES,
PLANNING CASE 05-26.
Bob Generous: Thank you Mr. Mayor, council members. As you stated this is a request for
preliminary and final plat approval. There is a variance request for the use of flag lots to, as
creating two of the lots. The applicant has prepared revisions to the plat to correspond with some
of the issues that we had. Specifically this flag lot is required to be 30 feet in width and so
they’ve amended this plan to show that. In doing that they’ve had to revise lots 1 and 2. They
did follow the Planning Commission’s recommendation and maintained the existing east/west
line between Lots 1 and 2, and instead extending the lot to the south. Again the variances for the
14
City Council Meeting – September 29, 2005
use of the net part of the flag lot, they each have 30 feet or more of frontage on a public street.
The existing home on the south end, there will be no change in how that accesses itself. It shares
a driveway with the property to the west. As a condition of approval we’re requiring that they
provide an easement to maintain that access in place for that. Staff is recommending approval of
the preliminary and the resolution for the final plat subject to the conditions in the staff report.
With that I’d be happy to answer any questions.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff. Just to confirm Mr. Generous with these
realignments of the lot lines, all the lots still meet our ordinances, correct?
Bob Generous: Yes, they complied with ordinance.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Thank you. Any other questions for staff? If not, is the
applicant here this evening? Is there anything you’d like to address to the council?
Ron Harvieux: Mr. Mayor and council members. My name is Ron Harvieux. I live at what is
Lot 3 in the old subdivision. 6605 Horseshoe Curve. We have lived there, my family and I for
26 years and as I mentioned at the Planning Commission, we think we’ve been good stewards of
the land in the 26 years and we intend to be, as we develop the proposed subdivision. As Mr.
Generous has indicated, we have complied with all the directives of the Planning Commission.
We understand them and the compromises were pretty easy to make and we’ve made them. One
of the big issues that Bob mentioned was in realigning these lots to make a 30 foot neck lot, one
of the big issues the Planning Commission came up with, and we believe in is maintaining some
very large trees that are on the lot. It’s a very lovely wooded lot and we made the changes
without removing any further trees, which was that whole issue of not moving that north/south
line, so that’s what that’s about. We also changed the placement of the driveway and the neck
lot for Lot number 2, which was the Planning Commission’s request but also was our neighbor,
our near neighbor’s request. They would like to see that driveway move as far away from them
as possible. They happen to be just over the line, and we’re doing that. We understand their
needs and we’re trying to comply with that. And lastly we added patios and sidewalks to the
configuration for Lot number 2, which was getting close to the hard cover number, but we went
for the very worst case scenario because we really do understand the concept of the hard cover
and we understand what Planning Commission is saying to us, so we added the sidewalk and
patio the best we could see at this point to build a worst case scenario which still lives within the
guidelines and so we think we’ve addressed that issue. In fact we agree with everything that’s
been done with one exception and that is, just a point of clarification. Under the resolution
document for final plat, there’s a point number 3 which states the last sentence of that point, that
we should make sure, I think it’s all heavy. Bob, I might have to borrow the document. I left
mine back at my chair. Is it on the top, I’m sorry. It reads right now, heavy mixing trucks
should use conveyor pipes to transport cement. We are considering building what’s called ICF
poured concrete home there, which is ICF is Insulated Concrete Forms, but it is a pumping issue,
where the concrete’s pumped into the home and it’s poured concrete from the foundation all the
way up to the rafters. And quite honestly I don’t know if the state of the art stuff right now that
they can actually pump that concrete from the street all the way to where the house site is, so I
only ask on point number 3, as point of clarification, that heavy mixing trucks should use
conveyor pipes to transport cement as feasible. I simply don’t know if they can carry as far as
15
City Council Meeting – September 29, 2005
from the street all the way to the housing sites. If they can, we’d ask them to do that but we
don’t know that they can. Thank you sir, so for that one clarification. Beyond that I’m available
here to answer any questions that might come up and I thank you for the consideration.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Questions for the applicant. I guess when you say as feasible
you’re speaking to, that it’s physically possible.
Ron Harvieux: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: Not from a cost standpoint or.
Ron Harvieux: Well, well let’s see. Yeah, I suppose I have to say affordably. I mean I have no
idea what it would take to pump, I don’t know this, to pump cement 100 yards. I just don’t know
if that’s reasonably affordably feasible. I should put affordably in there because I don’t know. I
don’t know if that can be done. I think it’s a start of the art question but I have no answer to it.
Mayor Furlong: Yeah, cost is feasible from a cost standpoint is different things to different
people versus state of the art so, Mr. Generous thoughts there or Mr. Knutson, Mr. Gerhardt.
Todd Gerhardt: I believe we probably put that condition in there to try to protect the vegetation
around the foundation.
Ron Harvieux: And there are some other caveats that go to the same thing. Put in a 4 inch layer
of chipped mulch. Consider the use of bridging things that go over the root system, and we
understand that. We will do that, but the issue of pumping, my issue right now is pumping
concrete 100 yards. I just don’t know if that can be feasibly done. I just don’t know. But we
want to protect the trees.
Roger Knutson: Mayor?
Mayor Furlong: Yeah.
Roger Knutson: I’m not sure I’m quite understanding this but are we talking about, when it
comes out of the cement truck…the typical cement truck has a chute. I don’t know how long
they are but is that what you’re talking, using that chute?
Ron Harvieux: No sir, they do have booms.
Todd Gerhardt: Like a fire hose Roger.
Roger Knutson: So maybe what you’re saying is a boom that is readily available rather than,
maybe you can get something from.
Mayor Furlong: The other issue here, I mean depending on the sequence of building versus Lot
1 versus Lot 2, does that give you some other flexibility? I mean what I’m thinking is we might
have, we might not have the answer tonight but it might be something that we might have to
16
City Council Meeting – September 29, 2005
have them work with staff and when the situation comes up, when the grading plans are
submitted.
Ron Harvieux: That unfortunately, Lot 2, which is the lot that’s furthest away from the street is
the lot we’d like to develop first. So I mean in some ways perhaps that’s the one that needs the
answer first. Again I think probably in the world of pumping concrete, I suppose there’s
something out there that can pump it 100 yards. I don’t know. That’s not seems to be in the
realm of kind of evidential applications we’ve seen. It’s much less than that.
Mayor Furlong: Mr. Gerhardt, thoughts?
Todd Gerhardt: Not 100 yards.
Roger Knutson: Perhaps maybe what we’re getting at, I think I understand. You’re saying he
must do this if it is feasible and what we’re struggling is how do we define feasible. I mean
given all the, maybe you want to say if feasible and then let, delegate to the staff that that
determination and say, you’ve got to do it unless you can convince the staff that it’s not feasible.
And they’ll look at it carefully.
Mayor Furlong: Then if there’s a disagreement with staff’s interpretation they can come back
here. And that gives the flexibility, depending upon whether you can utilize Lot 1 or not, or
other options.
Ron Harvieux: I think the staff has been very clear and open and workable to date. I bet they
will continue to do that. I’d be very willing to accept that condition.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Mr. Knutson, would you like to work out some language when we get to
our motion and Mr. Gerhardt.
Roger Knutson: Certainly.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant at this point? No? Okay.
Very good, thank you. There was a request from Mrs. Paulsen to comment so I would invite her
forward at this time, and when she’s done, if other members of the public would like to
comment, they’d be welcome as well.
Janet Paulsen: Again council people. I have three issues with this development. The first one
is, refers to the side lot. Lot 3, which is the lot that has the present house on it. That driveway
also serves the neighboring lot, and according to our city codes we can’t have one driveway
serving two homes. Now if you have a flag lot you have a 30 foot space to put in your driveway.
That means you also have a 30 foot space to put in a private street. A private street can be used
to access two homes but not a driveway. In fact there is no such thing as private driveway in our
code. The second issue is Lot 2. I just want to make sure that the table that’s given is to be
understood then on Lot 2 the lot area is 18,422 square feet. And therefore the impervious surface
is one-fourth of that. The area has been corrected but with the lot area cannot include the neck,
that’s the deal with a flag lot. So I just want to make sure that that’s clear to the builder. And
17
City Council Meeting – September 29, 2005
then again about the private street versus a flag lot driveway. If you create, this is creating a new
subdivision and you’re creating Lot 3. Then if it has sharing a driveway with another lot you’re
creating a non-conforming lot which is also against code. Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: And I guess Mrs. Paulsen, quick question there. Your first point was about the
30 foot space. Was that a terminology issue between a shared drive or a shared driveway or
shared private street or private driveway? Is that terminology because your third point, I guess I
didn’t understand the difference between those two, so help me understand. Your first point was
about the.
Janet Paulsen: If you have room for a flag lot you have room for a private street. A private
street would be able to access 2 homes because it would have a 30 foot width and a 30 foot
length for those 2 homes to have their cars go through, but a flag lot would only have a 10 foot
driveway. That’s all that’s required for it, for 2 people to use it. Is that clear?
Mayor Furlong: I think so. Then your third point though was again relating to a shared private
street?
Janet Paulsen: If you have, if they have a shared driveway, or 2 homes accessed by one
driveway, which is against code, you’d be creating a non-conforming lot and you would have to
have a variance for that.
Mayor Furlong: So is it nomenclature or?
Janet Paulsen: No.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Janet Paulsen: It’s following code.
Mayor Furlong: That’s what we try to do. So but I’m just wondering if it was nomenclature that
was bothering you or if it was the title or.
Janet Paulsen: It’s also a safety issue because private street requires a wider pavement.
Mayor Furlong: But the current driveway does not meet the requirements for a private street, is
that?
Janet Paulsen: It’s wide enough to put in a private street. If they make it a flag lot.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Good, thank you. Mr. Generous, comments on those points.
Bob Generous: Roger and I have had this discussion back and forth. Lot 3 is an existing
condition. The subdivision’s not creating that private street/private drive issue. It’s already
there. They’re not changing that with the subdivision. Therefore we don’t, there’s no nexus
between the subdivision and making them upgrade that area because that’s in place. The new
18
City Council Meeting – September 29, 2005
lots are up on top. Our contention was that the configuration of the lots had to comply with the
ordinance requirements, and the 30 feet. That’s correct. That would be sufficient to do a private
street, and if they further subdivide to the west and added homes accessing off of that, then we
would make them upgrade that and get the variance for the private street, but because it’s
existing condition, they’re not changing anything. Except for the lot line in that area.
Mayor Furlong: So it’s an existing non-conforming and the use of that existing non-
conformance is not changing?
Bob Generous: Correct. It’s not intensifying or anything.
Roger Knutson: The courts have looked at this issue and said, you cannot require someone to
eliminate an existing non-conformity just because they’re subdividing if it’s a legal non-
conformity. For example if you have an existing building on there that is out of it’s setbacks and
someone wants to come in and subdivide it but that line isn’t changed because of the subdivision,
you can’t require it to be eliminated as a condition of the subdivision process. It’s not being
changed.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. And the other question was.
Bob Generous: The area for the Lot 2, yes we did recognize that the coverage cannot include the
neck area of the flag, and also the converse side of that, and which is good for Mr. Harvieux is
that we can’t count the impervious surface within that either so, he gets to take that out too.
Mayor Furlong: So the driveway along that.
Bob Generous: Within that 40 foot neck is not included in his impervious surface for the 18,000
square foot lot. The flag if you will.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, and did you use the 18,000 foot in the preliminary.
Bob Generous: Yes, we did use the total area to calculate it but we also used all the impervious
surface within that area too so I think there’s more impervious surface in there than any other…
properties so he actually gets a bonus.
Ron Harvieux: Could I…for that?
Mayor Furlong: Please.
Ron Harvieux: Maybe…
Mayor Furlong: If you could come to the microphone.
Ron Harvieux: Here is the lot without the neck lot. There’s the total width of the neck lot so
actually we’re.
19
City Council Meeting – September 29, 2005
Bob Generous: It’s less.
Ron Harvieux: It’s less and the neck lot is actually by itself, is more than 25% impervious
coverage because the driveway meanders. The driveway is 10 feet off the 40 foot lot so the
actual street would be 25% but because it meanders it’s over 25. And so really we’re penalized
by including the neck lot. If we take it out, our coverage is less.
Bob Generous: It goes from almost 25% to 23% site coverage based on that design.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Okay, thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to comment?
Debbie Lloyd: Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. Just to that last point, I think it would
behoove us then to put the accurate information in the report so it doesn’t lead to confusion.
Whether it be beneficial or detrimental, just to have the right calculations in there. Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Is there anybody else that would like to provide comment at this time? Very
good, thank you. Any follow up questions for staff? Or the applicant. If not, I’ll bring it back to
council for discussion. Comments. Thoughts.
Councilman Peterson: I think it’s reasonable. I think that to make those changes and clarify so
there is no ambiguity is certainly beneficial. Other than that, it seems reasonable.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilwoman Tjornhom, thoughts.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I agree with Councilman Peterson.
Mayor Furlong: Councilman Lundquist.
Councilman Lundquist: I would recommend that we completely remove the last sentence of
condition 3. I think we understand the intent there, but I just shudder at the amount of time that
Paul and Kate and Bob and our naturalist and everybody else and half of the city are going to try
to figure out if we can drive a cement truck on this. Sorry, concrete truck on this lot, and I think
we understand Mr. Harvieux and everyone’s intent to save as many of those mature trees as
possible and understand that he’s going to do that and we’ll put our trust. I’m willing to put my
trust in them to do the right thing and for us to sit here and try to figure out how we’re going to
pump concrete around this in my mind is ridiculous. So I would suggest let’s take it out and not
create an administrative pain for ourselves.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman Labatt.
Councilman Labatt: I concur with everybody, including Mr. Lundquist’s deletion.
Mayor Furlong: You’re very agreeable this evening. I think so too, and Councilman Lundquist I
think it’s a very reasonable recommendation and I would support just taking out that last
sentence as well. Any other thoughts? Comments. Very good. I appreciate the work that the
applicant and the Planning Commission did to try to recognize that there are some significant
20
City Council Meeting – September 29, 2005
trees on this lot and if we can, by working with the, how it will be developed to try to minimize
any damage to those and impact I think we can do that and I think that’s been done here
reasonably and I appreciate the applicant’s efforts as well as the Planning Commission and staff
to try to get that done. Are there any other comments? Thought?
Councilman Lundquist: One other mulligan Mr. Mayor to the comments that were made by the
public. Would also recommend through a motion that we amend the staff report to have the
correct calculations and data with that as well so that the permanent record reflects the correct
numbers.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Without objection let’s do that. Is there any other comments or
suggestions?
Councilman Labatt: No.
Mayor Furlong: Very good. Is there a motion?
Councilman Lundquist: What page is it on?
Mayor Furlong: 260. Or actually on the staff report 7 of 10.
Councilman Peterson: I’d recommend the City Council approve preliminary plat and final plat,
resolution as submitted by the staff report and the surveyor’s dated 8/04/05 with conditions 1
through 34 with condition number 3, the last sentence to be removed, along with, as we
discussed earlier, putting the proper information and data and points to make them accurate for
the staff report.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilman Lundquist: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none we’ll
proceed with the vote.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council
approves the preliminary and Resolution#2005-85 for Harvieux Addition with a variance
for the use of flag lots, plans prepared by Demars-Gabriel Land Surveyors, Inc., dated
8/04/05, revised stamped received September 12, 2005, based on the findings of fact
attached to this report and subject to the following conditions:
1. Only trees shown on the preliminary plat as being removed shall be allowed. No trees
are to be removed on Lot 1. Four trees are allowed to be removed on Lot 2. Any other
trees removed shall be replaced at a rate of 2:1 diameter inches.
2. Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the grading/clearing limits prior to any
construction activities and shall remain in place until construction is complete.
21
City Council Meeting – September 29, 2005
3. Detailed grading, drainage, tree removal, and erosion control plans will be required for
Lots 1 and 2 at the time of building permit application. Development of Lot 2 shall
incorporate a single-lane construction entrance covered with wood chips, tree protection
fencing must line the entrance route and a single storage area shall be designated for all
materials. Cement trucks may not be allowed to rinse out on site.
4. The front lot lines for Lots 2 and 3 are the westerly lot lines.
5. If grading will be done, a final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the
Inspections Division before building permits will be issued.
6. Separate water and sewer services must be provided for each lot. Relocate Lot 1 sanitary
sewer and water services from the northwest off Pleasant View Road to the west off
Horseshoe Curve.
7. Addresses for each home must be posted on Horseshoe Curve and on each home.
8. No burning permits will be issued. Trees must either be chipped or removed from site.
9. Builder/developer must comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy #29-1991
regarding premise identification.
10. 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:
Type of Slope Time
Steeper than 3:1 7 days (Maximum time an area can remain
10:1 to 3:1 14 days open when the area is not actively
Flatter than 10:1 21 days being worked.)
11. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and
street sweeping as needed.
12. The applicant shall pay for the total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of
final plat recording in the amount of $7,558.00.
13. The developer shall pay full park fees for the two new lots at the time of final plat
recording in the amount of $8,000.
14. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will have to be obtained, including but
not limited to the MPCA, and Watershed District.
15. Tree preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree removal.
22
City Council Meeting – September 29, 2005
16. Extend the silt fence to the north along the west side.
17. Add a note to the plan: All sanitary services must be 6 inch PVC-SDR26 and water
service 1 inch copper.
18. 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.
19. The sanitary sewer and water hookup charges are applicable for each of the new lots.
The 2005 truck hookup charge is $1,458 for sanitary sewer and $2,955 for watermain.
20. All disturbed areas as a result of construction must be seeded and mulched or sodded
immediately after grading to minimize erosion.
21. Gutters must be installed on the house on Lot 2 and must discharge to the southwest
corner of the lot.
22. Submit a security to ensure that the street cuts are properly restored to city standards.
23. The applicant should be aware that any retaining wall more than 4 feet in height must be
designed by a structural engineer registered in the State of Minnesota. Also, it will
require a building permit through the City’s Building Department.
24. Cleanouts are required at all bends of the sanitary sewer service or every 90 feet,
whichever is less.
25. A ten foot drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated along the western property
line of Lot 3.
26. A cross access and maintenance agreement shall be recorded over Lot 3 for the benefit of
Lot 46, Pleasant View Addition for the existing driveway.
27. Amend the staff report to have the correct calculations and data so the permanent record
reflects the correct numbers.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
CHANHASSEN WEST BUSINESS PARK: LOT 4, BLOCK 2, CHANHASSEN WEST
BUSINESS PARK, MINGER CONSTRUCTION, REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN
APPROVAL FOR AN OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDING, PLANNING CASE 05-27.
Bob Generous: Thank you Mr. Mayor, council members. As you stated this is a request for site
plan review. It’s the first building within the Chanhassen West Business Park, which is the plat
that was approved tonight as part of the consent agenda. This building is approximately 46,000
square feet. The development is off of Galpin Boulevard and Lyman Boulevard. It’s the most
westerly lot within the development, and I’ll just show you. This is the concept plan for the
23
City Council Meeting – September 29, 2005
overall development. It would be just west of the lot here. It’s always intended, it’s one of the
property owners development. He currently runs his business out of this site. He’s going to get
a permanent, brand new facility. It’s a block building. We think it’s going to be very attractive
and will add to the community and really make him happy. He’s looking forward to being able
to clean up the site. For years it’s been used as a contractor’s yard and so as part of this
development and then as part of his site plan he’ll be able to provide some screening and housing
for this business. Site plan itself is pretty straight forward. It’s accessing via a private street that
it shares with the property to the north. We are requiring that they provide a sidewalk connection
out to the public street. The one change from what was originally submitted was they’re
providing this little area up in the northwest corner of the site. This is the location that they want
to put a storage area, storage building. As part of their proposal they have a, I call it a tent like
structure. It’s a canvas building with aluminum or steel poles inside. They wanted to use that
for one of their tenants to store hay rolls. They’re a contractor for erosion control. The staff
believes that that building itself does not comply with the design standards for the development
and is not consistent with the building design. There are other opportunities for them to provide
this storage. They could put up a shed type roof and the ordinance, we’re requiring that they put
at least a 6 foot fence around it, stockade type fencing. They could go up to 8 feet and that
would provide a sheltered covered area that they could do this. There are other types of
buildings that they could do that would be consistent. What their approval is tonight is for their
site plan and this storage area and then if any building goes in there to house it, that it be
consistent with the building. Staff is recommending approval of the site plan with the conditions
outlined in our staff report. With that I’d be happy to answer any questions.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff. No? Yes? No? Okay.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Wait, yeah I’m sorry. Explain the whole covered shed thing again.
The picture was so bad in my report that I couldn’t get any.
Bob Generous: Unfortunately it didn’t show up very well on this either but this is a white canvas
structure that has metal supports inside. It’s basically it’s like a tent. It’s open. It would be
anchored. It would have to be, meet all our building code requirements. Snow load and
construction but we don’t believe that it would meet the design standards within the
development. This is not consistent with the building elevation which is the 3 colored blocks.
The entrance canopy area and so we think that they can do something different. Even if they just
put up a roof with a fencing that would be more consistent with the design standards than what
this is.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other questions for staff? If not, is the applicant here this
evening? Good evening. Is there anything you’d like to share with us?
Patrick Minger: My name is Patrick Minger, and the only reason I put this tent structure in is
because the tenant that is moving in out there stores, wants his rolls of hay inside and if we, you
know and he’s not a permanent tenant. So if we put up a building for, you know I was just trying
to keep the cost down and put the landscaping around it to hide it as you drive in from the main
entrance. But if he leaves then he’s, the tenant is actually buying this and I’m just looking for a
24
City Council Meeting – September 29, 2005
way to keep the cost down for him but I don’t want that hay put in this new building. That’s my
only dilemma. I’m just trying, now if we go with the steel structure, 8 feet high, these bundles
are like 4 feet high. That’s why they could stack them in there. So that’s, you know we can
work with staff and find something that, it’s smaller than what the city garage has. They had a
canvas type but since we’re back up against other industrial and nobody to see this, this is what
we proposed so. If he leaves then we would, he would take it with him. That’s pretty hard to do
with a metal building. With a metal roof. That’s, you know that’s just how we’re thinking now.
But we can work with staff and figure something else out. I don’t want to hold up the whole
building so.
Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. Any questions for Mr. Minger? No? Okay. Thank you.
Very good. Anyone from the public who wishes to comment on this matter? No? Okay. Bring
it to council for discussion then.
Councilman Labatt: I like the building. But I tend to, you know looking at the position of where
that tent structure is going to be, I have a hard time supporting that. Unless somebody can
convince me otherwise. But I do like the building and let’s move on.
Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. Other comments?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I agree with Councilman Labatt. I think the building looks great.
But I have to agree with staff when it comes to the tent like structure. This is a PUD site and I
think we owe it to the neighborhood that came here earlier and we need to keep our word that it’s
going to stay a PUD site and hold it to it’s high standards and so I support staff.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Other thoughts.
Councilman Peterson: I agree. I think the only other additional comment I’d make is I don’t like
our city’s tent either. And I’d like to put that as a point of discussion sometime down the road
too I think so.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Anything?
Councilman Lundquist: I would agree based on all the comments and the recent activity around
the site. Yeah, it backs up to other industrial and things but I’m sure that it doesn’t, I can’t
support putting that type of a structure up there. Also for a point of clarification then on
condition 40, where it talks about the 6 foot high opaque fence shall be included in the landscape
island around the storage area, does that, Bob the intention of that, was that to screen some sort
of a structure like was on here or would it be your point that we should put that on regardless of
whether there’s any structure or not any structure on there?
Bob Generous: That was the intent so that they would have a storage area, whether there is a
structure there or not.
Councilman Lundquist: Fair enough.
25
City Council Meeting – September 29, 2005
Bob Generous: And like I stated before, they could, it says a minimum 6 foot. They can go up
to 8 feet if they need to go create a hiding spot.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay, fair enough.
Mayor Furlong: Is that within, just to follow up on that. Is that within the outline of the PUD?
Bob Generous: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: Okay what’s described here for item 40?
Bob Generous: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. So this condition is, if they put up a fence it has to be at least 6
feet is this condition?
Bob Generous: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: It doesn’t require them to put up a fence.
Councilman Lundquist: But what I’m looking at is it says it does require.
Bob Generous: No, it would require them to put up a fence around the storage area.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, so anyplace.
Bob Generous: Because that’s where, if they’re going to have outdoor storage, that’s where
we’d allow them to do it.
Mayor Furlong: In that northwest corner?
Bob Generous: Right.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And so they require a fence there around the storage area. That
answered my question. Did it answer your question? What are your thoughts? I mean, thoughts.
Councilman Lundquist: Well, if they decide not to, if this tenant decides to do something else or
they work on an agreement or whatever it is that there’s, the storage area isn’t used then, you’ve
got a big area out there with a fence around it that’s just growing grass or whatever you’ve got
and then it becomes a pain but I guess if they’re going to ask for the storage area, designate it at
this time, this would be our only time to put a fence in so if that’s going to be on the plat then.
And if that needs to be there.
Mayor Furlong: So is it your thought to make it conditional on if they have a storage area,
include the fence?
26
City Council Meeting – September 29, 2005
Councilman Lundquist: Well yeah, but then we’re going to have, somebody’s going to have to
go figure out you know what defines a storage area and is it just a temporary spot where they’re
going to put this trailer, you know while the Bobcat’s in the shop or something or. So okay, I’m
okay with it.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. My thoughts are similar. I’m not going to repeat what’s been
said except just to emphasize that this was a well discussed and thought out PUD over the last
few months and I think to change it right now is just the wrong thing to do. So while I fully
appreciate the desire to minimize cost, I think we need to hold to the standards that exist within
the PUD with regard to the storage buildings. Any other thoughts or comments? If not, is there
a motion? Page 8.
Councilman Lundquist: I would move the City Council approves Site Plan Planning Case 05-27
for a 46,152 square foot office warehouse building, plans prepared by Schoell & Madsen dated
th
August 5th ‘05, revised September 12 ’05 , subject to conditions 1 through 40.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion?
Todd Gerhardt: Did the motion include the.
Bob Generous: Stipulation prohibiting the tent structure.
Todd Gerhardt: Okay.
Mayor Furlong: Is that already in the staff report and conditions?
Bob Generous: Not in the conditions. It’s part of the recommendation on the cover memo and
probably should have been added onto.
Councilman Lundquist: I guess my understanding was, I didn’t, the fact that we didn’t allow it
specifically in the conditions was that that.
Mayor Furlong: The PUD would hold.
Councilman Lundquist: The PUD standards do not allow that, so if that’s not the case then we
can clarify.
Mayor Furlong: Should we clarify anyway?
Roger Knutson: I think it’s always best to be, clarify it.
27
City Council Meeting – September 29, 2005
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Why don’t we take an amendment to the motion, condition number 41.
Do we have some specific language?
Bob Generous: Well just the fabric storage building is prohibited.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Is that sufficient? I’ll offer that as an amendment. Is there a second?
Councilman Lundquist: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Any discussion on the amendment? Adding condition 41.
Mayor Furlong moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to amend the motion to include
condition 41. A fabric storage building is prohibited. All voted in favor and the motion for
the amendment carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Mayor Furlong: Now is there any further discussion on the amended motion?
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council
approves Site Plan, Planning Case #05-27 for a 46,152 square foot office warehouse
building, plans prepared by Schoell and Madson, Inc., dated August 5, 2005, revised
September 12, 2005, subject to the following conditions:
1.The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary
security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping.
2.The building is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system.
3.The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of
Minnesota.
4.PIV is required on the building water service.
5.No burning permits will be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either be
removed from site or chipped.
6.Fire apparatus access road 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.
7.A fire apparatus access road shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed load of
fire apparatus and shall be serviced so as to provide all weather driving capabilities. Pursuant
to Minnesota Fire Code Section 503.2.3.
8.Temporary street signs shall be installed on street intersections once construction of the new
roadway allows passage of vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota Fire code Section 501.4.
28
City Council Meeting – September 29, 2005
9.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.
10.An additional fire hydrant will be required in the island off the northeast corner of the
building. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location.
11.Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy #29-1991 regarding
premise identification.
12.Revise the lighting plan to incorporate shielded light fixtures. Lighting shall be high-
pressure sodium.
13.Space for recycling shall be provided in the interior of all principal structures or within an
enclosure for each lotdeveloped in the Business Park.
14.All wetland impacts shall be mitigated in accordance with the Wetland Alteration Permit for
Chanhassen West Business Park.
15.All wetlands and proposed mitigation areas shall maintain a 16.5 – 20-foot buffer strip
around the perimeter of the wetlands.
16.Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City’s
wetland ordinance.
17.The applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before
construction begins and must pay the City $20 per sign.
18.All structures (including parking lots) shall maintain a 40-foot setback from the edge of the
wetland buffer.
19.Silt fence shall be installed along west property edge behind retaining wall near flared end
section to minimize sediment erosion.
20.Silt fence shall be installed outside of wetland buffer edges.
21.The contractor shall use a Wimco or similar catch basin erosion control BMP.
22.All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year
round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames:
Type of Slope Time (Maximum time an area can
Steeper than 3:1 7 days remain open when the area
10:1 to 3:1 14 days is not actively being worked.)
Flatter than 10:1 21 days
29
City Council Meeting – September 29, 2005
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.
23.All erosion control measures shall be installed and maintained in accordance with City, Carver
County Water Resource Management Area and MPCA permit requirements.
24.A NPDES permit will be needed for the site and a completed SWPPP is needed for the site
and should be available at the preconstruction meeting and on site during construction.
25.The contractor shall inspect daily all erosion control measures and perform maintenance on
BMPs as needed or required.
26.The storm water pond on Outlot A shall be constructed prior to or concurrent with the
development of this site. All storm sewer infrastructure between this site and the outlet into the
storm water pond on Outlot A shall be installed prior to or concurrent with this development.
27.The applicant shall increase the number of trees and islands/peninsulas in the parking lot to
meet minimum landscape requirements.
28.Tree protection fencing shall be installed at the grading limits prior to any construction and
remain until construction is completed.
29.The applicant shall locate additional landscaping at the southern end of the property. Native
species shall be used.
30.The existing swale west of the parking lot shall be filled in to eliminate or reduce the height
of the proposed retaining wall.
31.Retaining walls that exceed four feet in height must be designed by an Engineer registered in
the State of Minnesota and require a building permit.
32.If feasible, the proposed storm sewer west of the parking area shall be eliminated and
rerouted to the storm sewer system to the east.
33.Disturbed areas must be restored to a minimum 3:1 grade.
34.Pipe bollards must be installed around all locations where the pavement grade exceeds 5%.
35.The eastern access to Lot 4 must align with the eastern access to Lot 5. The radius of the
access to Lot 4 must accommodate the turning movement for a small delivery truck.
36.The grey line type shown in the legend should be labeled “by others”, not “existing”.
30
City Council Meeting – September 29, 2005
37.Verify that the storm sewer on the west side of Lot 4 will be constructed with the site plan
improvements for Lot 5 or adjust the line type accordingly.
38.The main drive aisle through the site will be a private street since it serves multiple lots. As
such, the road must be a minimum of 26 feet wide, built to a 9-ton design, and enclosed
within a 40-foot wide private easement. A cross-access easement must be obtained and
recorded before building permit issuance. The developer must submit testing reports
verifying that the driveway is built to a 9-ton design.
39. A sidewalk connection to the public street must be constructed. The sidewalk shall be
installed on the west side of the eastern site access and on the south side of the private drive.
The sidewalk shall include pedestrian ramps at all curbs.
40. A minimum 6 foot high opaque fence shall be included in the landscape island around the
storage area.
41. A fabric storage building is prohibited.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
OLD TOWN PLAZA, AWARD OF BID.
Todd Hoffman: Mayor, City Council members. I placed at your desk, and I’ve put additional
copies back here. The letter of recommendation for the award. Quotes were accepted last Friday
after you received your preliminary packet information. I’d like to briefly go over the site plan
and explain a little bit about the project. Old Village Hall was constructed, or moved from it’s
location just across the street to it’s present location in 1987 and so the plan on the left here
shows the building and the plaza which was completed at that time. With 18 years of age, the
plaza had a paver with a hard surface application, if you’ve been down there where the pavers
sank over time and the concrete back. It was in need of some restoration with the building, the
Goddard School going next door and a fairly permanent tenant being the Chamber of Commerce
we felt that it would be appropriate to upgrade the location and beautify this public plaza. So the
proposed plan is to take out the existing hard surface materials and replace it with a paver
material identical to what we have at City Center Park, the new park here in front of City Hall.
Same type of material. Same look. Same medallion and then include 4 trees instead of the 2 that
are currently planted there. We had 4 contractors out to a pre-site meeting for this work. 3 of the
4 chose to submit a bid. The project budget is $50,000 and we received a low bid from Glacial
Ridge Contracting out of Willmar, Minnesota of $44,932.21. The other two quotes were
$54,900 and then $64,300. The primary difference in all three of those quotations is in the
paving and surface preparation, the 6 inches of gravel. Those prices range from $6.90 a square
foot at the low up to $11.95 for a high. So that’s the primary difference in the cost. It would be
staff’s recommendation that the council award the Chanhassen Old Village Hall Plaza project to
Glacial Ridge in the amount of $44,932.21. And if you do so they anticipate that they’ll start
th
work the week of October 10.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff.
31
City Council Meeting – September 29, 2005
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Todd, do we have any experience with the Glacial Ridge Company
in Willmar?
Todd Hoffman: As a city we do not but they do many projects in the metropolitan area. They’re
a long standing firm so, I’ve not found any negative comments or heard any negative comments
around them.
Councilman Lundquist: Todd did we have a specification as a part of the bid to talk about the
minimum standards or something for the, what type of base and preparation that we were
requiring?
Todd Hoffman: Yeah, we’ve got a 60 or 90 page spec package that went along with the.
Councilman Lundquist: So all of the prices, or the quotes meet that minimum standard? I just
want to make sure that it’s not, you know somebody’s giving you something less or something.
Todd Hoffman: They have a spec book. They all met the same qualifications.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a, I mean this is part of our historic part of town. Are there
additional improvements or things going on here as well rather than just the paver stones Mr.
Gerhardt? Or Mr. Hoffman.
Todd Gerhardt: Mr. Hoffman can give you some of the details of the additional landscaping.
Planter boxes. Benches.
Mayor Furlong: We’re adding a couple trees I know but there were some other things I thought
too.
Todd Hoffman: The building will be repainted. Not under this contract but under a separate
contract. The building is peeling. Paint is peeling. And then as a part of this proposal there will
be new site furniture. Trash receptacles. Bike bollards and then benches identical to the ones
that we have here at City Hall. And then our crews are undertaking a landscaping project and
removing some of the landscaping that has been there and aged and over grown it’s location, and
then they’ll replace and beautify the landscaping as well.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. We talked at one point, or thought about a display board of the old
village.
Todd Hoffman: That’s included. Installation of it. The preparation. Karen Engelhardt, our
Office Manager is working on that along with.
Mayor Furlong: Explain that a little bit. What that entails.
32
City Council Meeting – September 29, 2005
Todd Hoffman: It’s going to be like a historic sign. So if you go to a national monument where
you can read about what’s going on at the location, this will explain what’s going on in our
downtown historic district with the old village hall and then the old St. Hubert’s church. So it
will be located off of the front sidewalk, right at this location. It will be approximately 2 feet by
4 feet long and sit out in front so you can look at it and read. Look at the buildings and read this
sign about when the downtown was founded and those type of things.
Todd Gerhardt: We still haven’t gotten the final design on that. Sharmeen Al-Jaff, our Senior
Planner is going to be working with the Senior Commission to get their input on the final design.
Karen has roughed up an air photo of the area and identified some of the older buildings but we
also want to get some input from the Senior Commission. Some of our long term residents and
get some direction on that from them.
Mayor Furlong: I think that’s good. We’ve had periodic some residents have come forward
here…and this might be an opportunity to address their concerns. Any further questions for
staff? Okay, thank you. Bring it back to council then for discussion. Thoughts, comments.
Councilman Lundquist: Is this CIP?
Mayor Furlong: It is one on the CIP. It’s coming in at less, at least for this portion of the
budget, and Councilman Lundquist your question, if they’re quoting the same, that was my
concern and that will be up to us to make sure that they follow the spec plan so.
Todd Hoffman: Same…
Mayor Furlong: Well it’s the difference in the price of the same item that they followed the spec
so. Very good. Any other thoughts or comments?
Councilman Labatt: No.
Mayor Furlong: If not, is there a motion to approve?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Motion to approve.
Councilman Lundquist: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion?
Resolution#2005-86: Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded
that the City Council award the bid for the Chanhassen Old Village Hall Plaza project to
Glacial Ridge, Inc. in the amount of $44,932.21. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
33
City Council Meeting – September 29, 2005
CONSENT AGENDA: AMENDMENT TO THE CITY’S SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE
CONCERNING ARTERIAL AND COLLECTOR ROADWAYS, PROJECT 04-05.
Mayor Furlong: We’ll move now to item 1(d) that was pulled from the consent agenda which is
consideration of amendment to city subdivision ordinance. You had a question.
Rick Dorsey: Your Honor, Council. My name’s Rick Dorsey, 1551 Lyman Boulevard. I have
several questions and comments first. First I’d like to ask staff to define what the current
assessment practice is for arterial and collector roads.
Paul Oehme: Well for example on collector roadways, Lake Lucy Road is a collector roadway
that we just resurfaced this year and our standard practice is to assess 40% of that roadway back
to the benefiting property owners.
Rick Dorsey: Is that widening? That’s a resurfacing. Is that reconstruction of the road?
Paul Oehme: It was resurfacing. We also apply it to reconstruction projects as well. We did
narrow the roadway down in that particular project so there was some change of the roadway.
Rick Dorsey: Can I ask how is the cost divided on Lyman Boulevard east of Powers Boulevard.
For the project that’s going to be worked on currently. Between Powers and going east.
Paul Oehme: Well the County, the State and the City are participating in the improvement cost
of that particular roadway.
Rick Dorsey: What percentages?
Paul Oehme: I don’t know that off the top of my head.
Rick Dorsey: I think we need to check into that. I believe they’re paying 80%, if I’m not
mistaken. I guess the next question would be, why at this point in time with the large percentage
of Chanhassen already developed are we looking to change the ordinance?
Paul Oehme: Well, again I think the background that council has before them kind of addresses
that issue. There is an agreement between Carver County, the City of Chaska and the City of
Chanhassen which identifies the cost participation between the 3 agencies, and we’re just trying
to be consistent with, we’re being consistent with that agreement in funding sources, so that’s the
agreement that we’re, that’s on the books and that’s the agreement that we are currently looking
to try to fund.
Rick Dorsey: Okay. Could you explain that agreement from 1994.
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, I mean basically what we’re doing here is you know we’re not assessing
40% of the collector road. It’s probably going to be under that substantially. When you’re
looking at trying to rebuild county roads, collector roads like this you always try to find every
possibility of revenue source to help do that, and one way of doing that is going back and
34
City Council Meeting – September 29, 2005
assessing benefiting properties. In this case we’re looking at a collector fee on this. It doesn’t
have anything to do with the TIF agreement regarding the roads. You have a resolution that this
City Council passed referencing that.
Rick Dorsey: I believe back in ’94 normal practice was 80% was paid by the County and 20%
by the City. And Chanhassen as a city entered into an agreement with the County and with
Chaska that changed that for the road, and in particular Lyman Boulevard, if my understanding is
correct.
Todd Gerhardt: Well the TIF agreement called out for the upgrade of Galpin south of Highway
5, Powers Boulevard south of Highway 5, Lyman Boulevard from 101 to Highway 41 and that
Chaska would upgrade Audubon and their county roads within their community. It was
somewhere where the City would pay roughly 80% and the County would pay 20% with the City
under our belief was to use tax increment for that portion. However we’ve run out of tax
increment in that district to cover the cost of Lyman from 101 to Highway 41. And so we
believe that that agreement you know is that this body must approve the roadway, and if you
don’t approve the roadway upgrade, we shouldn’t have to fund it. Is our opinion on that.
Rick Dorsey: I guess going back though at the point in time in 1994 the County was willing to
pay 80%. And the City would have been obligated for 20%.
Todd Gerhardt: No, other way around.
Councilman Lundquist: The other way around.
Rick Dorsey: The City was going to pay 80?
Todd Gerhardt: Correct.
Councilman Lundquist: The City did pay 80.
Rick Dorsey: No I’m talking about for, if we would have done Lyman Boulevard at that point in
time.
Todd Gerhardt: The City would have had to pay 80%.
Councilman Lundquist: What’s happening now is that the County is going to come in and do a
portion of the road for Lyman and they want us to pay 80%. Due to that old agreement.
Todd Gerhardt: Under the old agreement is what they.
Councilman Lundquist: So what we’re trying to do now is make, is to help avoid.
Rick Dorsey: I think I’d like to have the information brought up on that ’94 agreement. My
understanding was the County paid a much larger percentage for arterial roads and that’s normal
practice. Arterial roads are collector roads. There’s multiple areas and the idea is to spread the
35
City Council Meeting – September 29, 2005
cost over those. We do, I mean I could put it an example. It’d be like the State coming in right
now and saying Chanhassen should pay the cost for 212 that’s going through Chanhassen. It
would never get done so bigger entities, in this case the State would go in and do it. The County
for county roads would pay a larger share and the cities and the landholders would also pay a
portion of it. I don’t know that that’s correct that in the past that the County was paying 20%. I
know that’s what they want to pay now, but I’m talking about back in 1994 when the City struck
a deal with them.
Todd Gerhardt: It was 80/20. City pays 80. We paid 80% of Powers Boulevard. We paid 80%
of Galpin.
Rick Dorsey: Well my understanding is different. I’d like to check that out. It doesn’t make
sense that the City would be paying 80% for the county road.
Councilman Lundquist: We agree. That’s why.
Rick Dorsey: Well they were willing to go, I believe it was the east portion of Lyman
Boulevard, was there not discussion about that area and they agreed to go back to the old
agreement in which they were paying 80%? I believe that’s what the discussion was for east of
Powers on Lyman between there and 101. So I’d like to have that checked before you just go
ahead and approve this. It’s a significant amount of money put on a very small percentage of
current owners. We talk about us being developers. We’re really just putting it on the backs of
the new residents or businesses. And in fairness, you know I think major roads should be shared
by all. The amount of traffic according to the feasibility study that was done in the 2005 MUSA
area didn’t suggest anywhere near 50% increase in traffic on Lyman Boulevard for example from
this district we’re talking about in the 2005 area. And that’s what I’m understanding this
ordinance could do is, provide for 50% of the cost of widening Lyman Boulevard. The other
thing that concerns me is the last sentence of the ordinance. It says the money will be deposited
in dedicated, in a dedicated fund for purpose for which it was collected. You know it’s collected
for a dedication fee for road improvements. Is that going to go to Lyman Boulevard? Is it going
to go to Lake Lucy? Is it going to go to Kerber Boulevard? There’s nothing there that assures
that the monies will go for the spot they were as a fee, whereas if it’s assessed, it would be
specific to a project.
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, if we may have Roger Knutson, City Attorney kind of go through his
proposed resolution here explaining how this process would work. That would probably help
clarify a lot of issues.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Mr. Knutson.
Roger Knutson: Mr. Mayor, members of the council. This ordinance, being an amendment to
your subdivision ordinance. It’s not specific to Lyman or any other road in the community. It’s
an ordinance with general application. The way it works is first, it only applies to arterial and
collector roads if they are within your 5 year capital improvement plan. So if I come in as a
subdivider, and I’m abutting one of those roads, that you have scheduled for upgrade in the next
5 years, then it applies to me potentially. If that is not the case, it does not apply to me. Then the
36
City Council Meeting – September 29, 2005
next sentence is also critical. There must be a nexus between the need for the improvement and
the subdivision. That means the subdivision has to contribute to the need for that roadway. If
the subdivision isn’t creating a need for the roadway, then you can’t charge them. There has to
be that essential nexus between the roadway and your development. And then the cost must be
proportionally shared and this is how we think in most cases it would be an appropriate
proportion of the cost. And then the last sentence I read it differently. The fee shall be deposited
in a dedicated fund for the purpose for which it was collected. That means, it can always be
clearer I guess. That if the land next to someone said Lyman, and that road abuts my property
and you collect that money, it can only be used for Lyman at this location. That’s it. That’s why
you collected it. Deposited in the dedicated fund for the purpose for which it was collected.
That’s why it was collected. That’s the only way it can be used.
Rick Dorsey: Thank you. A couple comments back. The question I would ask is why then
collecting a fee versus not waiting until the improvement is needed and collect the assessment?
Number one, it puts a better number for everybody involved. Those first in developing. It would
pay a lower fee based on this scenario if it would be adjusted annually. The fairness of it is not
there. And as a practical manner, I mean if the road is needed and there’s a thought that a fee
should be collected, then perhaps it should be built. And the example of Lyman Boulevard, it’s
already part of a feasibility study suggesting that’s the case, and I understand the attorney’s
comment about it being general in this ordinance but I believe it is being pretty specific to the
2005 area when we’re talking about the way it’s being formulated off of 600 acre parcel which
there’s maybe two left in the city to be developed, so we’re not looking at small lots here. So I
mean I do look at this as being something that is a very big amount of money. That as owners of
the properties involved, there isn’t that much land left in Chanhassen that they should be
consulted as part of this. To get their viewpoint. I believe that it is disproportionate, the
east/west collector road that’s going to go through the MUSA area is not going to be
proportionately shared in those same numbers. It will be a new road that the landholders are
going to pay it looks like about 80% of it. You know so that’s taking the burden off of Lyman as
well. It’s a unique area. This tries to put everything into a glove and maybe everything doesn’t
fit. You know I’m talking right now without specifics. I don’t have the feasibility study in front
of me but they’re showing that this area will have about, I’m going to, my recollection was about
25% increase in the traffic on Lyman Boulevard. According to this it looks like then the funds
that would be collected or estimating the cost of that project and we’d be paying 50% of it. So
be paying more than the share. The east/west collector as an example, there, there’s going to be
traffic coming through from Chaska. Probably about 25% of the traffic. County’s not
participating. Chaska’s not participating. You know the owners of the property are and you can
call it developers and pass the cost along to developers. Ultimately it becomes homeowners, just
like you and me. I’ve paid taxes for 25 years in Chanhassen. I’ve contributed to the construction
of all the other roads and parks and schools in Chanhassen and you know I just want to see fair.
And this appears to me that with the knowledge that Audubon and Lyman Boulevard both need
attention right now based on current traffic, that this puts a disproportionate burden on
development that’s not even there so, those are my comments.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
37
City Council Meeting – September 29, 2005
Rick Dorsey: What I would ask is that the council shelf the request for this ordinance at this
time and study it in more detail. Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Roger Knutson: Just one brief comment in comparing special assessments to this methodology.
And again this is not written specific to a project. I mean I wrote it and it was not written with a
particular project in mind. It was just, was written as a methodology to collect money that is
proportionate to the demand created by the subdivision. Pay your own way is the idea. If
someone comes in with 200 acres, or 100 acres or whatever it is, and puts in a couple hundred
homes, it may be critical to be able to get to that plat and develop that plat, that that road be
upgraded. It’s critical to the plat as a whole. And that is at the time of platting this fee kicks in.
Or they require them to construct. But once the homes are built and you typically do not allow
driveways directly onto the collector and arterial roads, each individual lot, and they could be
quite a ways away, are not necessarily benefited by. The whole is, but each individual piece is
not, so the assessment methodology doesn’t work very well at that point.
Councilman Lundquist: So Roger for clarification, this fee is collected at time of final plat?
Roger Knutson: That is correct.
Councilman Lundquist: So as long as the, as any of these properties, larger properties anywhere
within the city remain as is and don’t subdivide and don’t do anything like that, then the
methodology doesn’t kick in. There’s nothing there for any of those properties.
Roger Knutson: That’s correct, and it’s also correct that you know you decide not to develop
your property for some time and the road gets constructed first but the road’s already constructed
when you come in to plat, this doesn’t apply.
Councilman Lundquist: Right. Okay.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other questions for staff? Is there any discussion based upon the
comments made? Or staff.
Councilman Peterson: I, I’m pretty confident that the 80/20 is kind of where we’re at. It was
80% for the city as I recall having this discussion numerous times over the last few years so I’m
comfortable that the numbers are accurate and I think this just seems like a fairer way to build
and upgrade the arterials than the previous way, so are we changing direction on behalf of the
City? Yes, we are. We do that a lot. Hoping to get things better and more fair. I think that’s
what we’re trying to accomplish here and I think that’s what this, what this new ordinance does.
I’m comfortable with it as it’s been discussed.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other comments? Okay.
Councilman Lundquist: I would concur as well. I think the key point is that final plat piece as
well, in addition to the other things that Mr. Knutson talked about and also that are written into
38
City Council Meeting – September 29, 2005
this. I mean are you looking at sometimes in lieu of special assessments so, as Mr. Peterson said,
I think this is a better, more effective and fair way of getting to those things and if those
particular, the choice is still a lot up to the landowner in these as well, depending on the time of
their development as well so it still leaves a lot of ways that those developers or landowners for
subdivisions could wait on different things as well and have it go a different route as well, so I’m
comfortable the way it’s worded and I think it’s a good clarification and good way to move
forward for those development of those as we know there’s going to be several of them coming
up as well in the future.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any other comments?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: No.
Mayor Furlong: No? Yeah, I think I appreciate Mr. Dorsey’s comments. The issue to me,
anytime we pass an ordinance it’s fairness and as I look at this, we’re dealing with collecting
money that requires expansion of our infrastructure because of growth and because of
development and trying to, as Councilman Peterson said, look for a fair way to have the people
that are causing that increased cost in terms of expansion of our infrastructure, to pay a
reasonable portion of that. I think that this is fair and reasonable so I would concur with it as
well. I do appreciate the comments made and I’m comfortable with the questions, or excuse me,
the answers to the questions that we heard tonight. If there are any other comments, be happy to
listen to those. Otherwise is there a motion to approve.
Councilman Peterson: Motion to approve as submitted by staff.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilman Labatt: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none we'll
proceed with the vote.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to approve an amendment to
the City’s Subdivision Ordinance Concerning Arterial and Collector Roadways, Project
04-05. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
Mayor Furlong: I had the pleasure of presenting a State of the City address to the Chamber of
Commerce this last Tuesday and it was a lot of fun. Good turn out and always a good group.
We had a good story to tell so it was a fun presentation to make in terms of the developments
that have taken place and how things have progressed in the city over the last year and last few
years in fact so, it was a lot of fun. Anything else for council presentations? If not, Mr.
Gerhardt.
39
City Council Meeting – September 29, 2005
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
Todd Gerhardt: I just want to compliment the mayor on his State of the City address. I think it
was very well received. I think the biggest comment was, that I heard from people is that you’re
getting things done in the community. Water treatment’s moving ahead. We’re doing a
reconstruction on our roads. We’re getting our financial budgets in line and we have a plan to
attack that down the line, both from a debt service and operation side. So I think it was very well
received by everybody in the audience. Bethany was there. Councilwoman Tjornhom was there,
and so I thought it was great representatives from the city, staff. So well received. We’re still
cleaning up after the storm. I think we’ve got maybe 2-3 claims that the City may have some
responsibility on so we’re moving ahead on those items. We did meet with the 276 leaders
group, which is the Lake Minnetonka cities. It was nice to see Minnetonka does have their
budget out of the red for the next 2 years and that wasn’t the case probably 6 months ago where
they were looking at million dollar deficits for the next 2 years so, they’ve got a good plan.
They’ve also signed on as a part of the State’s program to try to incentify teachers salaries so it
will be interesting to see how that program works over the next few years. Other than that, that’s
all I have.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Gerhardt? No? Very good. Any discussion
on the correspondence packet?
CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION.
None.
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to adjourn the meeting.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at
9:00 p.m..
Submitted by Todd Gerhardt
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
40