CC 2006 08 28
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 28, 2006
Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was opened with the
Pledge to the flag.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mayor Furlong, Councilwoman Tjornhom, Councilman
Peterson and Councilman Lundquist
STAFF PRESENT:
Todd Gerhardt, Roger Knutson, Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Lori Haak, and Paul
Oehme
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS.
Debbie Larson Planning Commission
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Mayor Furlong: Thank you and good evening. Welcome to everybody here in our council
chambers and those watching at home. We're glad that you joined us. I would ask at this time if
there are any modifications or amendments to the agenda. If not, we'll proceed with the agenda
that was distributed with the packet. Hearing none, we'll proceed in that manner. I'd like to
make one public announcement this evening. The regular City Council meeting scheduled for
Monday, September 11, 2006 will be cancelled due to lack of agenda items for the council to
consider. The next meeting will be on Monday, September 25, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. in these
council chambers. The cancellation notice will be posted at City Hall, on the city's web site and
likely in the local paper as well. We apologize for any inconvenience that causes anyone.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Lundquist 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 August 14, 2006
-City Council Verbatim and Summary Minutes dated August 14, 2006
Receive Commission Minutes:
-Planning Commission Verbatim and Summary Minutes dated August 15, 2006
rd
b. Lot 1, Block 1, Chan Haven Plaza 3 Addition: Release from Development Contract and
Statement Regarding Claims.
Resolution #2006-62:
c. 2007 Street Improvement Project No. 07-02: Approve Consultant
Contract.
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
d. Approve Joint Powers Agreement with the City of Shorewood for Watermain
Interconnect.
f. Set Date for Truth in Taxation Hearing.
g. Thomas Schwartz, 7376 Bent Bow Trail: Approval of a Variance to Allow Structures
within the 40 foot Wetland Buffer Setback.
nd
h. Gary Carlson, 3891 West 62 Street: Approval of Variance Request for Relief from the
30 foot Front Yard Setback Requirement for the Construction of an Existing Four Stall
Garage and Relief from the 1,000 square foot Detached Accessory Structure Restriction
for the RSF District.
i. Approve Quote for Recreation Center Hockey Rink Resurfacing.
j. Set Special Meeting Date, September 14, Joint meeting with Commissions.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Item 1(e), Approval of Conservation Easement for Wetland Mitigation Site OF-5, MnDot was
tabled per staff's request.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
None.
LAW ENFORCEMENT/FIRE DEPARTMENT UPDATE.
Sgt. Ross Gullickson: Good evening Mr. Mayor, members of the council. Another month has
gone by. Pleasure to see everybody again. Sheriff's report, monthly statistics for the month of
July, 2006. There were 160 criminal calls for service last month, consisting of 80 Part I crimes
and 80 Part II crimes. Part I offenses for the month of July were broken down into the following.
We had 5 burglaries reported in July, which is an error from what was reported on the monthly
crime stat packet. The packet given out a report of 6 when again there was only 5. Of those 5, 2
were burglaries of garages and 3 were from businesses. One of the business burglaries was just
an attempt. Nothing was actually taken and an entry was not gained into that business. The
biggest increase that we saw in July was in theft reports with 68 reported in July, compared to 50
in June. Upon looking at the yearly stats for theft reports, I saw that there were 27 incidents
reported last July. Because of the rather large increase I did speak with our Crime Prevention
Specialist and was informed that last summer was an unusually slow summer crime wise. This
year was more standard in relation to calls, whether they be theft, damage to property, etc..
However, because they were a little high I did do a little bit more research and found out the
thefts were broken down into the following. There were 14 gas drive off's. 9 of the reported
thefts were unfounded, meaning that there was no basis for the actual theft. It was an unfounded
report, and there were 45 actual incidents of theft last month. There were also 6 vehicle thefts
reported last month. However through the course of research I learned that of the 6, only 2 were
actual vehicle thefts. The remaining 4 consisted of vehicles being repossessed, family members
using vehicles without the permission of the owners, so on and so forth. So again there were
2
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
actually only 2. Part II offenses remain fairly consistent from June to July. I still saw a rather
large number of property damage incidents with 31 property damage incidents reported in July.
Further research indicated 27 actual property damage incidents were actually had occurred. The
culprit for the increase were mailbox vandalisms. We had a streak of those that contributed to a
little bit of an increase with 8. 8 of those increasing our numbers. There were 1,191 non-
criminal calls for service last month, which compares to 1,469 last year, so we're down a little bit
but we were up 92 non-criminal calls from last month. So what all that boils down to is grand
totals, we had 1,351 calls for service last month. 349 traffic stops and 222 citations issued city
wide, and those were for traffic, boat and water, ordinance violations, all citations. 222. Also
last month we had 2 public safety notices go out that I sent out also in the council packets. One
was for a solicitor complaints as we were receiving large numbers of complaints due to solicitor
conduct and rudeness towards citizens when they were going door to door. As a follow up
measure to this, I did meet with the owner of one of the companies in town and relayed my
concerns to him and he seemed very supportive of those and since then we've had no complaints
from that particular company. However this last weekend we have had a couple more so I think
that there is another company doing business in Chan. We're following up as best we can with
those. Another notice was sent out regarding a suspicious incident in which an adult male
approached a young child asking the child to come over to a car. The child ran inside and told
his parents and then the person ended up driving away. Deputies did search the area within
moments but the suspect vehicle was not located. We suspect this to be an isolated incident and
do not know the intentions of the person. The intentions may have been innocent or otherwise.
We have had no other reports of similar conduct in the city but regardless we did send out a
notice to the public to use this as an opportunity for parents to stress to their children, or teach
their children what to do in case a stranger should approach them. National Night Out also
happened last month. It was a huge success thanks to the hard work and organization of our
Crime Prevention Specialist Beth Hoiseth. Although we got a bit wet because of the weather, we
all had a really good time and enjoyed meeting with the various community members and
leaders. We really enjoyed it and had a good time. It was the posse, fire department, full time
staff. We had a real good time. Miracles for Mitch and the Tour de Tonka also happened last
month. There were over 900 participants between the two events and all went well. We had a
major road closure for Miracles for Mitch, having Powers Boulevard closed and the Tour de
Tonka was held on one of the most narrow and windy roads in the city up on Pleasant View. But
all went well. We had nothing but compliments regarding that. Lastly I wanted to share with the
council and those at home what we're doing to proactively seek the car prowlers that we've had
in the city. We've begun using a bait car in the city which is armed with an automatic alarm to
alert deputies via radio as soon as the car is tampered with. Deputies that are in the area and
monitoring this alarm will respond within moments and it's a proactive measure just to, we
placed it out in business districts, residential neighborhoods, and we bait it with valuable items
that a possible car prowler may want to put their hands on and as soon as the car is tampered
with, the alarm goes off and alerts us. We've also begun to use some undercover surveillance of
some neighborhoods and some possible suspected leads. With that, that's all that I have for the
month of July folks. I now turn it over to you for any questions, comments or concerns from the
council.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I just want to commend you for how you're handling the solicitors
that come to the doors...for a long time and so thank you for meeting with the business leaders
3
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
and trying to get a handle on some of the people that won't leave your doorstep and…so thank
you.
Sgt. Ross Gullickson: You're welcome.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other questions or comments? No? Very good. Appreciate
the thorough report. Thank you.
Sgt. Ross Gullickson: Have a good evening folks.
Mayor Furlong: Chief Geske's here this evening. Good evening Chief.
Chief Greg Geske: Good evening Council, Mayor. Rather short report again tonight, which is
good. You see our numbers continue to be down. We did add 3 probationary fire fighters that
we took on. They started Fire Fighter I classes last week and they'll start doing Fire Fighter I,
Fire Fighter II. They go through a HAZMET ops class and then also take the First Responder
class or EMT class in the first year, so they'll be busy for the next year here taking those classes
and we're glad to have the additional 3 members on the department. Fire Prevention Week
th
planning has started. We'll have our open house on October 15. I'll give you an update again
with times and such next council meeting, but we started planning for that already. Again our
biggest function that we have where we're able to meet the public in a nice atmosphere or
friendly atmosphere and give fire truck rides and such so we get pretty excited for it, and we
always have a good number of members that sign up for classes to teach the fire ed classes
during Fire Prevention Week too, so gearing up for that and getting excited for that. Ross
mentioned, we also participated in National Night Out. We had several people and 3 fire trucks
that we sent out so thankful for the people that took the night out to take the trucks out that night.
And we also participated in the Miracles for Mitch. We had a few scraped knees and such that
we had on a couple of sharp corners but other than that, we had no major injuries or anything that
we attended to so that was our primary was medical responses. Give out a few Band-Aids but
that was about it so. About all I have to report tonight.
Mayor Furlong: Very good, thank you. Any questions for the Chief? Things are going well?
No? Very good. Thank you.
Chief Greg Geske: Good night.
ADOPTION OF SECOND GENERATION SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN.
Lori Haak: Good evening Mayor Furlong and council members. As you are aware, November
of 2004 the City Council approved the contract with Short-Elliott-Hendrickson for the
completion of the Surface Water Management Plan update. Since then staff has been working
very hard with the help of the consultant and other organizations and members of the public to
address an updated plan that will really guide surface water management and the management of
our lakes, creeks and storm water ponds into the next decade really. This will actually be one
component of our updated comprehensive plan that the planning department, community
development department will be working on in the next, in the coming few years. The final step
in the Surface Water Management Plan update process is for the plan to receive approval from
4
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
the City Council. Upon that approval the plan will be printed and distributed. It looks right now
like this. It's a rather weighty document, and but it provides a wealth of information, both to
staff and to the public for our water resource management decisions. As a result of this, and kind
of in combination with this, the staff will be looking at the city's ordinances. Making sure those
do comply and reflect what the procedures that are set forth in the plan. Now the plan doesn't
prescribe any of those updates but it does suggest some areas that the city is currently lacking
and needs to really update it's strategies, but those ordinance updates will be provided to both the
Planning Commission and the City Council in the future. They're not part of this consideration
this evening. So with that, we do anticipate having those updates before the Planning
Commission and the City Council by December 31, 2006 so we can get those up and running.
So hopefully I will be back in front of you in the near future for that. With that, I'd like to turn it
over to Ron Leaf from SEH who will give you a short summary of exactly what's been going on
since I saw you last and since we've seen you last regarding some of the comments we've
received from the public and from some water management organizations.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Ron Leaf: Thank you Lori. Mr. Mayor, members of the council. Pleasure to be here and to put
a close on this project that Lori mentioned has a wealth of information available in the plan itself
to guide future surface water management. And the last time we talked in oh, about March-April
timeframe as a joint Planning Commission/Council meeting, the plan was very draft at that point
and one of the things I'm going to go over here is just some of the comments that were received
from agencies. A number of comments were also received both from Planning Commission,
Council and staff. From the City of Chanhassen and those comments were also incorporated. So
the plan has really come a long ways since the last time you saw it or were given an overview of
it and that's why we're here tonight to…approval of the plan. So with that I will go over a brief
summary of some of the things that have taken place over the course of the project. Some of the
milestones include a total of 7 task force meetings taking place between August of 2005 and
February of 2006. Great input through that process. The task force members were very involved
and guided the development of the plan in a very significant way. The first draft was provided to
staff internally in January. That resulted in a second draft that was distributed to a number of
review agencies and that's where we focus our comments on the review agencies. Required
public hearing. Agency review period. We're past the agency review period. Actually it took a
little longer than 60 days because Minnehaha Creek requested an extension so that they could
more thoroughly review the plan and that was granted. So that brought us to responding to the
agency comments to gain approvals and that's what I'm going to touch mostly on tonight. Final
th
Planning Commission public meeting was held on August 15 and here we are tonight, August
th
28 to get your approval, adoption of the plan. And as Lori mentioned, following that step then,
the plan would be printed and final delivered in both paper and electronic formats for city staff
residents, developers to use on a day to day basis. So what were some of the watershed
organizations, state agency comments. Really broken down into several groups here. Carver
County, Hennepin County, Metropolitan Council and the 3 watershed districts. And we'll go
here, you can't really see but again a really significant part of the comments and response process
was the internal comments from city staff. All the comments from staff were taken and
incorporated into the plan because it is the city's plan. It's not the plan of the agencies. It's not
the plan of the watershed district. It's really the city's plan… most important comments that
5
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
incorporate and that was done. Very good comments, as I mentioned earlier, to really guide the
planning project that has a lot of good information in it. With that…focus on the review
agencies. First, Carver County. Not a lot of comments but they did have a couple comments
related to better identifying and clarifying jurisdictional boundaries that relate to Carver County
versus the other watershed districts, and what that means is there's both a jurisdictional
boundaries and hydrologic boundaries. We presented the hydrologic boundaries in the plan but
really from a jurisdictional standpoint, it's a different boundary. If you think of it as water
doesn't know where a property line is. It's looking at the high and low points and so those two
boundaries are different based on parcels or based on the flow paths throughout the city. We
added a map. We have one map that has jurisdictional boundaries, and one map that has a
hydrologic boundaries. ISTS clarification really was just a simple comment related to does the
city's ISTS, individual sewage treatment systems ordinance comply with the county's
requirements? And the response was yes, it does when we did some review to ensure that that
nd
was the case. Ultimately Carver County approved the plan on August 22 so fairly recently but
Carver County did approve the plan. Second entity, Hennepin County. Did not receive
comments from them so it was in effect…approved by them not providing any comments. Also
could mean that it's a small part of Chanhassen and it's not that significant to them, but we did
not receive comments from Hennepin County. Metropolitan Council did provide some
comments, mostly suggestions and some comments were incorporated into the plan. Ultimately
what Met Council said was…providing an excellent framework to manage stormwater within the
city. They were very appreciative of what the plan does. Getting into the watershed districts, the
Lower Minnesota River Watershed District wanted to see some more detail on the water quality
in Rice Lake and that information was incorporated into the plan. We wanted a little more detail
on some of the things related to bank erosion in the lower parts, the southern parts of the city and
that information was also added to the plan. For example, erosion at some of the key…from
city's storm systems into the Lower Minnesota River watershed area. Also wanted some
clarification of the city's permitting process, as far as what the city was responsible for and what
was the responsibility of the watershed, and that again was incorporated. Again the watershed
th
district in this case approved the plan at their August 16 board meeting. Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District probably provided the most comprehensive and detailed comments and that
reflected the request for an extension in the comment period. We worked very closely with them
to address a number of comments, and I've just put 3 of them down as highlights of maybe some
of the more significant things. The first one, the McRAM's or Minnehaha Creek routine
assessment method for wetland identifications versus the MnRAM's, the Minnesota routine
assessment method for wetlands. Minnehaha Creek recognized that there were differences in
what our staff identified an appeal for some wetland areas versus what their assessments
identified. Relatively minor differences but Minnehaha Creek really wanted to see that the city
was going to adopt the McRAM's as a part of this plan update. And the city will do that. Has
two sets of data for that area of Minnehaha Creek but the city will in effect, as part of the
ordinance updates that Lori touched on, will adopt the McRAM's as a part of the ongoing
management practice for the city. So the city, they also commented that the city's wetland
ordinance must be as strict as Minnehaha Creek wetland standards for those wetlands, and again
suggested some language to be included into the wetland ordinance recommendations, which are
included in the plan appendix. Minnehaha Creek also had set some phosphorus loading limits
for lakes within their jurisdiction. For example, Minnewashta and Christmas Lake and the
response to that comment was, a little more effort to do some modeling and some calculations on
6
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
how that loading reduction is going to be achieved, and as a result some of the ponds that were
recommended were really pulled up higher into the priority system so that those ponds would
meet those expectations. For example, Minnehaha Creek said for Lake Minnewashta we want to
see a loading reduction of 7 pounds of phosphorus per year. I think that's generally what they
said, and so we were able to pull in for example 3 ponds that said, if the city incorporates these 3
ponds into the watershed within the next 3 to 5 years, then that load reduction requirement would
be met. So it gives them something concrete that if the city does 3 ponds. Also gives the city
something a little better to hang your hat on as far as we can achieve it if we do these 3 ponds as
a priority. And the city has obtained conditional approval from Minnehaha Creek of the plan.
Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek also had some comments related to some use attainability analysis
for lakes within Chanhassen. They wanted to see more details. Even though their plan addresses
some of these things in great detail, the draft plan really just referenced their plan. They wanted
to see it actually cut and paste to this plan so it was incorporated. Pretty simple fix. They also
wanted a similar inclusion to the plan on stream classifications. Again just a cut and paste so
that it was within this plan instead of just incorporated by referenced. So then they also had
some comments about the Bluff Creek plan, which I think you're familiar with from some other
discussions about Bluff Creek in general. So that really summarizes the key comments. Not a
lot of really major comments from the watershed agencies, although it did take some time to get
through the comments and resolve some of the things that Minnehaha Creek. Want to touch just
briefly on one final thing, a key comment from council at the Planning Commission work
session. Not that you're going to be able to read this on the overhead but it is the plan that was
added to the table looking for, give us some projects. You've got a lot of recommendations in
the plan for some things but what are the top priorities? What should we really focus on in the
near term or really get some improvements within the city in the short term? And so we did that.
We looked through the plan again and pulled out 12 projects, a combination of updating
ordinances. Again as Lori mentioned, it was a pretty key thing to meet some of those Watershed
District requirements. They also felt…NPDES storm water funded program by updating
ordinances. And then some other efforts to look at some of the stream being protection areas at
storm system outlets. And then a series of ponds. We have about 7 priority pond projects that
should be done as the opportunity arises for, in many cases as part of some street reconstruction
projects that are already scheduled to take place over the next several years so, again a key piece
that was a comment that we heard from council to incorporate a little more detail on what
inground practices need to take place. So with that, I again just wanted to, thanks for the
opportunity to work with you. We appreciated working with staff and be happy to answer any
questions or comments you have at this point.
Lori Haak: Yeah just very quickly if I might. Again the request before council this evening is to
adopt the motion approving the resolution adopting the plan. That always sounds so difficult.
But with the things that we've presented we believe that this plan is ready to go and we're excited
to get it, it's recommendations implemented to improve the quality and just the overall function
of the water resources and infrastructure in Chanhassen. So with that, Ron and I would be more
than happy to answer any questions you might have.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions? I guess just a couple quick comments. One, appreciate
all the effort that went into this. It's a very weighty document, as you said, and I know that there
was a lot of time and effort by staff and SEH and with all the other agencies that provided
7
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
comments so our thanks and appreciation for that, because it needed to be done. Needed to be
updated and we appreciate all your efforts in doing that. Also appreciate the extra step to
identify and look for priorities to make this as much an action plan as it is just a collection of
comments but to turn that then into action so I think that's obviously the next step for us as a city
is to take the steps where we can. And I guess in you know, we got into a question and that is
one of funding. I know we have money set aside but is it your sense, I mean from the various
watershed districts, I know one watershed district in particular, Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek I
think, if I've got that right. I forgot the acronym so had to say the words but I know they're doing
a number of, or some major projects in Chanhassen right now to help their watershed. I assume
with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed, I know that they've looked at that. Are those
opportunities with working with watersheds to fund some of these priorities?
Lori Haak: Absolutely. As we move forward staff will be looking into those projects and where
possible trying to get our priorities to sync up a little bit better with their priorities. Sometimes
it's a little bit difficult because they do have larger areas, for example Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District goes all the way from I believe Mound all the way down to where the creek
enters into the Mississippi River. So it's quite a large area and we're you know jockeying for
funding with everyone else so, but where that's possible staff is certainly looking into that.
Mayor Furlong: Well it sounds like they took some interest in what we're doing here and
appreciate the efforts that you put together so hopefully they had an opportunity. Sir.
Ron Leaf: Can I just point out, Mr. Mayor, council that Lori's well familiar with this too. The
Clean Water Legacy Act dollars that have come from last year's legislative session are also
available to cities on a competitive basis, and the priority goes to those water bodies which are
listed as impaired. Chanhassen has some of those so at least there's a potential for some funding
opportunity there as well to help all those water bodies out that have impaired watershed.
Mayor Furlong: Good. Any other questions? No? Very good, thank you. Any comments or
discussion on this?
Councilman Peterson: No, I think you articulated my thoughts well Mr. Mayor. …now let's put
it to use.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Good. There's a motion that the council approve the resolution adopting
the second generation surface water management plan. Is there a motion to that effect?
Councilman Peterson: So moved.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. All in favor. Any discussion on the motion before I
proceed?
8
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
Resolution #2006-63: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded
that the City Council approves the resolution adopting the Second Generation Surface
Water Management Plan. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a
vote of 4 to 0.
BOULDER COVE: REQUEST FOR REZONING OF PROPERTY FROM
RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY (RSF) TO RESIDENTIAL LOW & MEDIUM (RLM),
SUBDIVISION WITH VARIANCES AND A SITE PLAN FOR A ONE, TWO AND
THREE UNIT TOWN HOME COMMUNITY, LOCATED ON PROPERTY NORTH OF
ND
HIGHWAY 7, EAST OF CHURCH ROAD AND SOUTH OF WEST 62 STREET,
APPLICANT ROGER DERRICK, COTTAGE HOMESTEADS AT BOULDER COVE,
LLC.
Public Present:
Name Address
Cara Otto Otto Associates
Dan French Coldwell Banker Burnet
Roger Derrick Cottage Homesteads at Boulder Cove, LLC
Marc Hoffmann 6195 Strawberry Lane
Brenda Hugo 26110 Oak Leaf Trail
Jamee Tuttle 26245 Oak Leaf Trail
Julia Gagnon 26125 Oak Leaf Trail
Todd Wagner 26145 Oak Leaf Trail
nd
Gwen & Wade Navratil 3751 West 62 Street
Paul Steffens 26250 Oak Leaf Trail
Sharmeen Al-Jaff: Good evening Honorable Mayor Furlong, members of the City Council. Just
going over the location of the site, it is located north of Highway 7, west of Church Road and
nd
south of 62 Street. It is also south of the city of Shorewood. This project contains multiple
applications. The first one being the rezoning of the property from Residential Single Family to
Residential Low Medium Density. This is the primary decision that the City Council has to
make. If the rezoning is approved, you can carry on with the subdivision and site plan request.
If you choose to deny the rezoning, the rest of the application is moot since the product the
applicant is proposing will not meet the residential single family district requirements. With that
said, the comprehensive plan guides this site for residential low density, which permits 1.2 to 4
units per acre. The applicant is requesting to rezone it to Residential Low Medium Density, and
with this specific project, this specific request, the density on the site is 2.8 units per acre. That's
the gross density, and 3.32 units per acre. That would be the net density after removing the street
or the right-of-way. They were still under the low density which is maximum of 4 units per acre.
Staff views this site as a classic case of a transition zone. It provides single family units,
duplexes next to the single family units that you have to the north of the site, and I think this will
show it better. Single family and duplexes along here. Wherever he has a buffer, we've
permitted the three plexes and then along Highway 7 you have more three plexes. There were
some questions raised regarding the hard surface coverage on this site. If it was rezoned to
9
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
RLM, this district allows for higher numbers, higher percentages of hard surface coverage
compared to our residential single family district that permits a maximum hard surface coverage
of 25%. What we did is we took each individual parcel and assumed the largest possible unit
that you can have on each of the single family, the duplexes, with exception of the middle unit of
the three plexes. Those, the size of those units is set and you can't really enlarge them or make
them any smaller than what you see on the plan here. With that assumption we also added a 20
foot wide driveway, a sidewalk to the front door of each unit, and a patio. So worst case scenario
for the entire project is 24.9%, which is comparable to a single family development as far as hard
surface coverage. The next request before the City Council is the subdivision. All of the lots in
this district meet the minimum requirements of area width and depth of the city code. All right-
nd
of-way is being dedicated on the plat. Additional right-of-way for 62 Street is also being
dedicated. Drainage and utility easements are also part of this application. There are 2 variances
attached to this subdivision. The first one being the length of the cul-de-sac and the second deals
with the building of a private street. Our ordinance requires any 2 homes that share a driveway
to go through the subdivision variance process. Both of those variances deal with safety issues
and our City Engineer Paul Oehme will be addressing those two issues later. As well as some
additional traffic and drainage issues. The third request deals with a site plan, and all three…are
required by city code to go through the site plan procedure. The applicant is proposing to utilize
Hardie board as one of the materials on the exterior as well as a variation of different types of
stone. In either case, whether it's the Hardie board or the stone, these elements would continue
along the entire façade rather than just be cut off at a, below a window or half way on an
elevation. Staff is recommending approval of this application with conditions outlined in the
staff report and at this point if I may, I would like to turn it over to Paul Oehme to address some
issues dealing with drainage and traffic.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Paul Oehme: Thank you Mayor, City Council members. This application was received by staff I
think back in February of this year. When we received it we did have some concerns about
traffic and the drainage, and since then we've been working with the developer and their
engineers and we actually, the city staff, city did hire another outside engineering firm to
evaluate the ground water issues and drainage off the site too so, since then we've been working
through these issues and we think we've come up with a reasonable design that we think can
benefit some of the existing property owners in this area as well. I'd first like to touch on
drainage for the development. That was one of the biggest concerns that was raised at the public
hearing at the Planning Commission. This drawing here of the development shows existing
drainage patterns. The yellow areas, E1 and E2 currently drain to the north to the city of
Shorewood residents. The green area currently drains west, and this is again based on existing
topography and the red or pink area drains south of the Highway 5 ditch and to the MnDot right-
of-way. With the proposed development, this is the new drainage pattern. We have decreased
the amount of drainage area to the north…which is now shown in yellow. The area now in blue
is currently will be draining to the existing, to a proposed pond on the development. Treated and
in the area in pink again is in the MnDot right-of-way which really hasn't changed and the green
still flows to the west, and that mainly is captured again by the ditch. So where we are, we have
considered the existing property owners adjacent to the development. The, can I have the map or
the drawing? One of the biggest concerns for, especially the property owners to the north and to
10
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
the west was the ground water. Staff and the engineering team have come up with several
improvements that we think will help this current situation. The proposed improvements include
a French drain which is basically a drain tile wrapped in rock to help capture some existing
ground water in this area. This drain tile, or this French drain is proposed along the west
property line here… into the existing MnDot ditch out here. The property owners on the west,
the existing property owners on the west would have the opportunity to tie into that drain with
their sump pumps and we understand that there is a, there's a significant amount of sump pump
discharge on these properties and over…would have the opportunity to tie into those which
would be a city improvement or city infrastructure. To the north, there will be storm water catch
basins on the back yards here, and we are, have talked to the developer about making those more
of a drain tile situation as well to capture, try to capture some more drain, ground water in this
area. Make it perforated and try to capture as much drainage, ground water as possible in the
back yards here. Again all the impervious surface and all the development areas are, as much as
possible, will be treated in the proposed pond. The, let's see. One of the issues that was raised at
the Planning Commission public hearing was the current drainage south of Highway 5. We feel
that, staff feels that it's somewhat out of the scope of this project. We understand that there is an
existing drainage issue with that development just south of there. In the staff report we have
included the report from an engineering firm that gives 4 improvement opportunities.
Improvement options that staff is looking at incorporating into the 2007 CIP to address those
issues so we are looking and trying to make those improvements at this time as well. I'd like to
move onto traffic. Some of the issues regarding this development. Now the main issue that staff
has heard from the property owners was access to the site. Their request has been to include
another access onto Highway 7. Currently there is 2 access points. Maybe I can show you on
this drawing here. Currently 2 access points. One at the westerly part of the development and
one on the center part of the proposed development. There are 2 existing driveways that
currently access 7. As Sharmeen had indicated, we are trying to incorporate those access, or
eliminate those access points off of 7 with existing ones, for existing homes and bring those into
the development. I did hand out a current, an email that MnDot recently sent to us regarding
access and potential, request for additional access off of 7 by some of the property owners. We
have considered those requests. MnDot is the jurisdiction, jurisdictional party of Highway 7 so
they have the last say on what kind of access is provided for the development. Currently
Highway 7 is a high priority regional corridor and for example a right-in/right-out access, quarter
mile spacing would be required. And for full access MnDot requires a half mile spacing. This
exhibit shows current access points. This is the proposed development area right now. A
couple, this is where the existing property, the houses are currently located. For a quarter mile
spacing it really doesn't meet MnDot's requirements. Church Road, between Church Road and in
Shorewood Drive would be less than a quarter mile spacing that would be required so right-
in/right-out would not work, nor would a full access. Other developments that council has
approved in the past, which are just west of here. Boyer I believe is one and Hidden Creek
Meadows. We have eliminated access points along 7 as MnDot has required us to. So enough
with the access point on 7. The access off of 62 that is currently proposed, staff has reviewed
this access point currently shown here. We feel that this is the best access and sight line distance
location for this type of development. We feel that it's good sight lines both north and west to
accommodate the existing and proposed traffic in this area. One other item that was discussed
was cut through traffic to the north through Shorewood. Again referring back to this overall
map. The concern was that the proposed development, traffic would head into Shorewood off of
11
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
Strawberry Lane and potentially access off of Shorewood Oaks Drive to gain access off of, onto
7. Staff does not feel like that's a logical route because of the road there is a little bit narrow. It's
circuitous. It's actually a longer route to take than off of 62 and Church Road. So we feel that
that's the best access. We have been talking, staff has been talking with MnDot about gaining
the traffic signal at this intersection as well. We just had a recent conversation with them. Again
it does not currently meet MnDot's warrants for a signal but the more traffic at that intersection,
the more likelihood that in the future that intersection will meet warrants for a signal, so we are
working with MnDot and trying to encourage them, making sure that they look at this
intersection for future signals. The, staff did include traffic analysis to, from the townhouse
development to a single family development too and we did not find any significant amount of
traffic increases based upon the these two transportation engineering trip generation manual that
is currently the engineering standard for this type of destinations and…
Councilman Lundquist: Paul, when was the traffic study done? For the piece where you
collected, you guys collected actual information?
Paul Oehme: Yeah.
Councilman Lundquist: Traffic piece or you used the standards book?
Paul Oehme: Just the standards book, and that's based upon national averages for townhome
type of units versus, and single family. Those are the numbers that we plugged into this analysis.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay.
Paul Oehme: At this time if you have any questions about those issues or any other questions, I'd
be more than willing to try to answer them.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Questions for staff. Councilman Lundquist, you jumped
ahead. Okay. Councilwoman Tjornhom, any questions?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: No.
Mayor Furlong: Councilman Peterson.
Councilman Peterson: No.
Mayor Furlong: I have a couple. Paul, first with regard to traffic and maybe we can show the
colored map for the site plan, if we have that close by. Is that alignment of the road
nd
perpendicular to West 62 and in line with Strawberry or is it offset?
Paul Oehme: It's offset from Strawberry Lane. We wanted to try to gain as much sight distance
nd
along Strawberry and 62 as possible. And also we wanted to try to keep the road a little bit
away from existing properties here so it's not more or less a through street as well. It's part of a
stop condition here.
12
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
Mayor Furlong: I guess that's my question. Typically where we see roads line up perpendicular
and in line with other roads. So that one looks like it's coming in at an angle, is that correct?
Paul Oehme: Yeah, it's coming in at, like at an angle. It's not coming in in line with Strawberry
nd
nor is it coming in line with 62 Street. But we feel that that location gains as much sight
nd
distance as possible for both 62 Street and Strawberry Lane.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. With regard to the storm pond, and one of the questions raised,
I think was, and you addressed it Ms. Al-Jaff is impervious surface coverage and differences in
what was calculated tonight. Saw that information but when I was, in terms of sizing of the
storm pond here, is that sized based upon the allowable impervious surface coverage for the
zoning or is it based upon the estimated impervious surface of this site plan? Because the zoning
is higher allowable within the zoning is higher than what they're showing here, correct?
Paul Oehme: Actually the applicant's engineer can clarify that issue.
Cara Otto: Good evening. I'm Cara Schwann Otto with Otto Associates. What we originally
had was a house pad that was 80 feet deep by 40 wide. The buildings are actually quite smaller.
These are close to the 40 wide but more the 60 to 65 feet deep, so we were taking a larger
percentage of impervious to include, and because of some of the drainage issues and history that
we've found out since we started the project, we never really went back and recalculated that
based on the buildings they're proposing, just because it would be a conservation measure to
leave that. So to answer your question, the pond would be a conservative or larger size than
what is currently being proposed on the site plan. And the site plan is holding them to some
standards as far as what they need to do so, it is being covered in the larger pond.
Mayor Furlong: I guess my question, and that's, I appreciate that. What is allowed within
impervious coverage within the zoning? And you said, as I saw in the staff report, it's about 25%
or just under that's being calculated.
Cara Otto: With the proposed site.
Mayor Furlong: I exaggerated at 25.
Sharmeen Al-Jaff: With the proposed plan it is 24.9. However, within this district, depending
upon whether it's a single, a duplex or a three plex, those numbers could potentially go up. The
percentages.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Councilman Lundquist: Percentage allowed or the actual?
Sharmeen Al-Jaff: Percentage allowed could potentially go up. However, the site plan that the
applicant is proposing is going to keep them under 25%.
13
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
Mayor Furlong: And I think that's a safety check or balance there, and I guess I'm sorry Ms.
Otto, based upon your calculations, you said the pond will cover more than what's currently here,
which is the 24.9.
Sharmeen Al-Jaff: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: About what impervious surface coverage would the pond cover?
Cara Otto: Well if you give me a calculator, maybe I can. I don't know that off hand but…an
idea.
Mayor Furlong: That'd be fine. That'd be fine. And while she's doing that, I guess, let me see if
I have anything else at this point. Otherwise we'll keep moving on. The variance request is one
of a cul-de-sac longer than ordinance allows.
Sharmeen Al-Jaff: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: And the reason for that is, because there's no access to Highway 7, is that
correct? It's a restriction being placed on the property?
Sharmeen Al-Jaff: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: By the City and by MnDot.
Sharmeen Al-Jaff: Correct, and we looked at all the different options. Property to the north is
completely developed so we have no access to the road to the north of the subject site. Access is
limited off of Highway 7 based upon MnDot's requirements. We really don't have any other
choice.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And then with regard to the private street variance, that, any private
street requires a variance, is that correct?
Sharmeen Al-Jaff: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Sharmeen Al-Jaff: And it was a request from the property owners. We received a call from her.
From the homeowner requesting that we talk to the developer and see if we can close off their
access onto Highway 7 and have them share a driveway or a private street. We contacted the
developer and they agreed to do so.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And this plan, including the private street with the cul-de-sac takes 4
private accesses off Highway 7 right now? Is that right? Or 3.
Sharmeen Al-Jaff: That's correct. Four. We're closing off 4 driveways off of 7.
14
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. That's all the questions I have. How'd the calculator work?
Cara Otto: Well you put me on the spot but generally, it's about, what my plan tells us is about
20% more than what they're building. That probably equates to somewhere around 30, low 30's
percent for cumulative. So but the difference sort of between the building pads shown and the
buildings they're proposing is about a 20% decrease.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Okay, and within the zoning district you said it varied by type of
structure. Number of units per structure.
Sharmeen Al-Jaff: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And they range from 30 to 40?
Sharmeen Al-Jaff: From 30 to, 34 single. 35 for a duplex and 50% for the three plex. The
middle, yes.
Mayor Furlong: The middle unit, okay. Okay. That's it. Any other questions at this time?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I had a thought. You showed, we saw a rendering of the building.
Sharmeen Al-Jaff: Yes.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: That building is going to be the three plex, the whole thing? Just
different modifications of it?
Sharmeen Al-Jaff: That's correct. As well as, so basically what we're looking at is a difference
in the type of material that is used. The stone that is used on these garages versus this area. Staff
is also recommending that they add a pitched element above the roof leading to each entryway as
a way of defining the entrances into each one of those units. They're also using the Hardie
board, and there is a variation. I was talking to the applicant requesting more variation in the
colors and materials and this is what they came up with.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Do you think there's a need for, is there any visitor parking allotted?
Sharmeen Al-Jaff: No. Each unit, this maintains a setback of 16, 30 feet and each driveway is
20 feet. They also have a public street. 60 foot right-of-way so there is plenty of parking in each
driveway. Very similar to a single family development. There's plenty of parking on the street
as well.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other questions at this point for staff? If not, I know the applicant
is here. If there's anything you'd like to address to the council.
Roger Derrick: Good evening. My name is Roger Derrick. I'm representing Cottage
Homesteads tonight for the Boulder Cove development. I think the staff has really covered just
about everything I wanted to say except that, we've been building one level townhomes
15
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
throughout the state for the past 16 years and have built many developments. This one we're
really looking forward to because in working with Sharmeen and the planning department, we
think that we've got a beautiful building. We've never built this particular one before but it's got
the cement board. Doesn't have any vinyl. It's got stone. We're going to vary the colors of the
cement board and the stone very subtly. It's got a very high pitched roof. Some gables.
Concrete driveways. It's going to be very nice. And of course it's a cul-de-sac which you know
adds to the flavor I think of the neighborhood. And it's one level. I know that just in thinking
about townhouse developments, you know their thoughts have gone through people's minds.
We've got enough townhouse developments. We don't need any more, but this one being one
level, it really caters to the empty nester. The senior and what we found in the past, and in more
than 80% of everything we build is one level so we're really familiar with it. And almost
everybody comes from a very small area around the development because there are people that
want to sell the big house. They want a different lifestyle. They want to get rid of the stairs and
the bedrooms they're not using and get some usable space so, what happens is, they're going to
get people from the area. They're going to sell their single family house and they're going to
move to a maintenance free, one level development. We're excited about it and anxious to start.
Can I answer any questions?
Mayor Furlong: Questions. I guess just one for point of clarification. The materials and design
that you're showing here, I know our ordinance requires that for the three plexes, if I'm correct,
but it's your plan to use that for the duplexes and the single.
Roger Derrick: Oh yes, everything.
Mayor Furlong: So it will be consistent with what we've seen here this evening?
Roger Derrick: That's right, and the floorplans, we have two basic floorplans, and those will be
available in the single, twin or the triple. The only difference of course the middle unit of the
triple will definitely have the smaller plan because that's the only thing that fits there but the
other ones, you can either use either one. But the outside will be the same as what you've seen in
the rendering and will vary the materials with each building and the colors subtly so that when
you drive down the street, it's not going to be the same building repeated. In fact, not only will
that part be different but because you have the 1, 2 and 3, the masking is different too. And that's
something you don't notice consciously but subconsciously you do when you're driving down the
street.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Alright. We did have a public hearing at the Planning
Commission. I do appreciate staff's update of the report addressing the many questions that were
raised at the Planning Commission also. And then preparing responses to those. It was easier to
read in a summarized form like that with the details. Again, we did have a public hearing at the
Planning Commission. And there may be some people though that based upon either staff's
responses to questions raised or, I don't know that there were material changes between Planning
Commission and coming to the council in the plan but there was some additional information
prepared and included in the staff report based upon the Planning Commission public comments
so, if there's, if there are some limited comments by the public and like to make sure the council
is aware of before we start discussing it ourselves, I would certainly invite those parties to come
16
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
forward at this time. We'd like to keep the conversations again limited. We don't repeat at the
Planning Commission meetings. We've got copies of those comments and a number of residents
have sent letters and emails and made phone calls and stuff as well, but certainly invite people to
come forward at this time and provide comments as well.
Marcus Hoffmann: Thank you Mayor Furlong and members of the council. My name is Marcus
Hoffmann. I live at 6195 Strawberry Lane in Shorewood. I'd like to take this opportunity to
thank the council for allowing me to speak on behalf of my constituents and address real issues
that will have an adverse effect on our community as a result of the proposed Boulder Cove
development. Our platform is not that of anti development but more along the lines of cautious
development. We are appreciative to the Planning Commission for their efforts in addressing a
couple of our most serious concerns, mainly drainage and traffic. Having listened to the
st
proposal on August 1, there continues to be a myriad of great concerns relating to this
development that need to be addressed. Our goal is to make you aware of these concerns to slow
the process enough that unnecessary losses are avoided and good compromises are made. In an
economy where dollars are tight and appropriations are limited, it is easy to be overly pro
development to bring a new tax base to supplement cash shortfalls. Our greatest concern
continues to be that of drainage. Our primary goal is to have the developer make some
concessions and take a more conservative approach to coming up with a suitable remedy. Rather
than trying to shoehorn too many units into a moderate parcel of land, ponding on the north end
of the development should alleviate unnecessary flooding to their neighbors in the Shorewood
Oaks development. This ponding would also reduce the stress of the water flow moving to the
sole drainage pond as set forth in the current site plan. The implementation of our proposal,
proposed ponding could most likely be done without the loss of any units by the developer.
Current plans for drainage have been addressed by several expert engineers but only minimal
standards are being... Two developers of Chanhassen addressed the drainage problems at the
Planning Commission meeting only to be overlooked and ignored. Errors made by engineers
have propagated flooding to the neighboring development south of Highway 7 at Minnewashta
Landings. Errors which have caused the flooding out of a beach on Lake Minnewashta 3 times
in the previous 8 years. The current drainage plans for this developer and his expert engineers
will only cause serious hardship to stress drains currently located beneath Highway 7. Current
drainage plans are also accounting for a clay liner to the sole drainage pond. Given the minimum
guidelines being met, this leaves the door open to additional flooding to newly constructed
townhomes and more importantly existing homes that have been part of the community for over
40 years. Our next concern is that of traffic. We are requesting that an accurate traffic analysis
be conducted after the school year commences. Minnewashta Elementary School utilizes West
nd
62 and Strawberry Lane as it's primary route for school staff and more importantly bus traffic.
…substantiations could not possibly account for the additional stress on our local roads. The
current TDI report, which is in the staff report, only accounts for neighborhood hypothetical's
and not actual traffic counts. The developer is proposing this townhome community be
predominantly senior living. However there will be no covenants to back up their intent. The
TDI report accounts for senior citizen traffic, which is not entirely accurate. The developer is
creating a land locked situation by giving concessions to the existing access points. I spoke
directly with the MnDot supervisor representing the Highway 7 corridor. Their intent is to
alleviate traffic by reducing access points along this route. However they cannot legally deny
access to any existing driveways. MnDot can also only comment on an approved proposal
17
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
submitted to them. At no point have they reviewed a building plan that incorporated the use of a
single access point on Highway 7. We would be more comfortable with their site plan if it
incorporated at minimum a right-in only entrance off Highway 7. This would reduce traffic
contributable to this development on our local, substandard roads by almost half. Let it be
known that it is the developer's intent to use their current access points to accommodate all of the
nd
heavy equipment needed to bring the site to grade. Currently Church Road, West 62 and
Strawberry Lane have weight restrictions that would not allow access to the development for this
purpose. Our community is very concerned about future assessments to the homeowners for
road upgrades as a direct result of the additional traffic. Again we are reasonable people with
reasonable concerns. We are asking the City Council members to take our concerns to heart and
take some time in considering development because once the development begins, it is
permanent. Thank you for your time.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Sir.
Wade Navratil: Mayor Furlong, councilmen. My name is Wade Navratil. I live on 3751 West
ndnd
62 Street. The only address on West 62 adjacent to this development and it lines up to about
2/3 of my property. If this was being developed as residential single family, I'd be here anyway
to address to you the drainage issue that is out there. There currently is a drainage pipe that is
running into the Highway 7 road ditch and it percolates up. So if this drainage plan is consistent
to hopefully alleviate that, that ditch will have to be excavated in order for that to happen
because we're there talking about draining the pond to. That pond drain will be higher than the
existing drain pipe, and as we all know water takes the path of least resistance so it will be
coming back towards me, up a drain pipe that has been there for 40 plus years. No one has been
out even to evaluate that drain pipe that is out there. And we have brought that up to staff before.
nd
And to address the traffic, since I'm the only one that lives on West 62, next to that
development, it is very tough. It is a substandard road. Especially with school traffic. Number
two, Shorewood Oaks is a cut through. I use it myself. No matter what the computers say or
what people say about it being a longer distance or not. By the light being installed at
Smithtown Road, Highway 7 backs all the way up. I can hit Shorewood Oaks. I can go around.
I can be in my driveway inside of a minute as opposed to waiting in traffic for 5. So it is a very
good cut through. So it will increase the traffic by Marcus going on Strawberry. It will increase
the traffic on the school thoroughfare, and this development is inbetween two highly used city
parks. Cathcart and Freeman. And right up the road, up Strawberry at Minnewashta which is a
grade school. …that these are in there, it'd be very easy for single family to move in there, and it
would be great for young children because across the way you have a park. Across the other
way you have another park and they're both highly used Little League fields. And additionally,
in the 2020 plan to put the medium nomenclature on this development, I believe there has to be a
barrier of some sort of road, park or something in there. This development is surrounded by
single family everywhere. There's no townhouse around there without a barrier. And the only
barrier there is is a single road of cedar trees. There is no other park. There's no road. There's
nothing dividing it from the Shorewood residents as well as the Chan residents. Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Quick question sir. A barrier? Help me understand.
Wade Navratil: No, a natural barrier, buffer zone.
18
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
Mayor Furlong: A buffer zone, okay. Okay. No, I just wanted to clarify that I was
understanding your point. Thank you. Okay.
Todd Wagner: Mayor, council. Thanks for a little bit of time this evening. My name's Todd
Wagner. I live at 26145 Oak Leaf Trail in Shorewood. The key point I'd like to make, and it's
one that's easily lost in the discussion is the initial point that Sharmeen said that she's asking to
approve which is the initial rezoning of this property from Residential Single Family to a higher
density zoning. I sent a letter to I think all of you, or at least the Mayor and Sharmeen back in
March with that as my key point and question is to why does this property need to be rezoned.
Here I am sitting 4 months later and I still don't have an answer on why this property has to be
rezoned. Other than the fact that you had one developer come in with a very specific plan that
has many, many hours of engineering to deal with the stresses caused by that plan without
consideration of the fact that there's been a lot of other developers that have come in with similar
parcels nearby and have successfully and profitably put in single family homes. I think you
might find if you consider a single family development under the existing zoning, that a lot of the
stresses and issues that the engineers and Planning Commission have had to deal with become
less. Become less serious. So I think the point was made by Marcus that rushing to develop a
good plan that increases your tax base and helps out a developer, I think you've got to take a little
bit more time to think about are there other options for how you can develop this property. I'm
not against it being developed, but I think it could be developed very successfully as single
family homes just as all the surrounding areas are. Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Okay. Appreciate those. …no I want to try to address these
questions so that's fine.
Cara Otto: Okay. Cara Otto again, Otto Associates. A couple of the items that I just did want
to mention regarding the drainage. One was the inclusion of a clay liner was mentioned. We did
look at that through staff and both the geotechnical engineer for the city that they had and also
the one that the consultants had did say that that had very little effect so we were not including
that because really it is clay out there right now so in effect we're doing just using the soil that is
out there. So that is not worsening any condition that is out there, so that was just a comment
that I wanted to make. The other thing I wanted to mention is MnDot does require a drainage
permit because of the drainage going into the county 7, or Highway 7 ditch. That has been
approved by the MnDot hydrologist. I think that's an important point based on the fact that they
do look at a lot of regional, the regional area. Finally I did want to mention, as far as stresses the
plan, whether really the stresses of this plan have nothing to do with the density. Whether they
come in with any sort of development, the drainage issues are an existing drainage problem that
is out there and we will have in effect the same sort of drainage issues that are for single family
with a pond or a bunch of apartment buildings because there is such a…and there is ground
water concerns. And then finally the other stress that, at least when people bring up what they
have for issues with this is the idea of the cul-de-sac and the MnDot not allowing access. We
spoke with MnDot from the very start of, well actually 20 months ago and yes, they cannot deny
a driveway but they will not allow a public street and we had given them several different
opportunities to allow a public street and that just is not allowed so, we have looked into those
extensively since January of 2005.
19
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Quick clarification. You mentioned something about clay. Was
that the old tile during the, I think it was…
Cara Otto: I think the clay was regarding a clay liner in the pond.
Mayor Furlong: Right, that's what I thought.
Cara Otto: There was some discussion about some old clay drain tile that's not on this property
but that was possibly abandoned and maybe staff can, there's really no one that knows where it is
but it's lower than the elevation of this property. It's an existing condition not on this property
and so what we're doing is we're effectively taking our site. Draining it to a pond rather than
allowing any water to get towards the west. The other thing is the, there is a good deal of water
that goes to the west and down the ditch of Highway 7. The pond that we're proposing is
actually going to be discharged into the ditch and then head south, so there will be quite a bit of
discharge that is taken away from that western ditch. So some of the issues as far as backing up
and stuff, there will be less volume going to that ditch than there is currently in some of those
larger storms so there still will be, we're not saying that we're going to fix every problem that
there is but we're saying we recognize what the history is there and we're trying to handle our
water in an appropriate manner to not further effect that. And in fact we think we're going to
improve it by, especially some of the Shorewood people. I would like to be in Shorewood now
there because they really, we're really taking a lot of their drainage by having storm sewer up
there and not having a drain. That way they really right now that water has nowhere to go. They
do not have catch basins in their back yard in some of the low points. Now we're putting catch
basins on our site so that that can't get that way so.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Excuse me. Some of the other issues raised, the issue of dealing
with storm water after it leaves the development. Issues across Highway 7 and is that something
that, that's an issue that may have been raised as part of this discussion but is that something that
the developer's responsible for here?
Paul Oehme: It's staff's perspective that it's an existing issue, as one of the property owners has
already addressed, or discussed. You know there is an existing drainage issue out there, yet there
will be under normal flows, some more water coming across Highway 7 into these existing
ponds there, but it is an existing condition. It's something that the City really needs to address
because it is more of a regional issue than just the local development issue.
Mayor Furlong: From I was reading, that would be something that the City would address
regardless of whether this development goes forward.
Paul Oehme: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: Because those are issues that have to be addressed.
Paul Oehme: Exactly.
20
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
Mayor Furlong: Alright. Thank you. The issue of traffic I think was raised. Any other
comments or responses from the staff with regard to the comments we just heard? Some of them
were sent in our staff report but anything you'd like to comment or question follow up? Sure.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Mr. Navratil, is that correct? He had concerns that he stated about his
drainage issues on the property. And the fact that they weren't, they hadn't been addressed with
him. Does staff have any comment about that?
Sharmeen Al-Jaff: There is a French drain that's being introduced along the westerly edge of this
overall site, and I don't know Paul, you might want to elaborate on that.
Paul Oehme: Yeah, I think we're benefiting the westerly properties by including that French
drain in there as the developer's engineer had indicated. We anticipate there will be less runoff to
the west through that MnDot ditch so we don't feel that there'd be any significant impacts to the
existing drain tile that's already out there. So it's a private system. We don't have anything on
record on that. It was brought to our attention I think at the last, at the Planning Commission so
we really haven't had a good opportunity to review that existing drain tile that evidently that is
out there, but nevertheless we don't think it's an issue based upon the development that's being
proposed tonight.
Wade Navratil: Excuse me, may I address that?
Mayor Furlong: Sure.
Wade Navratil: Can I see your drainage pond there? Or Sharmeen. This has been brought up
before. I live down here and I went down to city hall in June to drop this off. The drain tile that
was…ends right here in the corner. Their pond is going to drain right into that, so even if I
hooked into this French drain right here, it's just going to pump it in a nice big circle…because
this drain is lower right here on Highway 7 ditch than what the drain of the pond would be.
Cara Otto: The drain of the pond actually goes south.
Wade Navratil: It will flow this way.
Cara Otto: No. The outlet of the pond goes on this side. There will be, through here, it will go
through the culvert. So our outlet control structure will actually be directed into this ditch
system which will come south…
Wade Navratil: Are you going to install that culvert because I don't believe there's one.
Cara Otto: Our survey crew actually shot the ends of these culverts, and it's also showed on the
Minnewashta Landings ponding plan.
Wade Navratil: Because we were always told this was going to come down the road section.
21
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
Cara Otto: Nope. The only, what will come down that road ditch would be further down the
line. The French drain will all run into that.
Wade Navratil: The French drain will come out right here.
Cara Otto: No, the French drain will come out along here and then discharge out here. And then
if there's emergency events, the emergency overflow may come into this ditch as well as the
discharge but the design of the pond is to have an outlet control structure that would discharge
into the ditch here and will come through the culvert under Highway 7.
Mayor Furlong: Okay?
Wade Navratil: Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you.
Sharmeen Al-Jaff: Mayor Furlong?
Mayor Furlong: Yes.
Sharmeen Al-Jaff: One other issue that was raised by the property owner to the west dealt with
buffers. This is a low density residential development. Typically there isn't a buffer required by
ordinance. However when we reviewed this application we treated it the same as a medium
density development which requires a higher number of buffer or trees along property lines and
that was the standard we held it to. So they are providing more than a typical low density
residential development would.
Mayor Furlong: So there is a buffer there?
Sharmeen Al-Jaff: There is a buffer.
Mayor Furlong: That would be the equivalent if this was a medium density development.
Sharmeen Al-Jaff: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: Even though it's low density.
Sharmeen Al-Jaff: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: From an actual density standpoint. Okay.
Sharmeen Al-Jaff: And that surrounds the entire site. Properties to the north along the highway
and properties to the west.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Any other follow up questions?
22
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
Councilman Peterson: Sharmeen one of the questions that came out of the Planning Commission
was, they cited 79 livable units. Where does that come from or is that just an error in numbers?
Sharmeen Al-Jaff: I believe that, in that instance there was some miscalculation. There are a
total of 38 units that are proposed on this site.
Councilman Peterson: And is it accurate then, is the 24 accurate that single family would have
allowed 24?
Sharmeen Al-Jaff: Correct.
Councilman Peterson: Okay.
Mayor Furlong: Any other questions? Clarifications at this point. If not then, appreciate
everybody's comments and information. At this point I'd like to open it up for council discussion
on the matter before us and during the process of our discussion, points of interest, our thoughts
on some of the issues that have been raised tonight and earlier in the Planning Commission
process. Councilwoman Tjornhom or Councilman Peterson?
Councilman Peterson: You know I think that number one, I like the project. My question is, is it
the most appropriate for that space. You know it brings a type of housing stock into our
community that we don't have a lot of. And Councilwoman Tjornhom has talked about it a lot.
The single family townhouse side. And rezoning is a big deal to me. It always has. I mean
we've talked about it and the magic word, is there a compelling reason to rezone, and that's what
I looked at as I looked at the minutes of the Planning Commission and looked at what's in front
of us this evening and I really think that there is a compelling reason to rezone. I don't, you
know I read all of the issues that, that the neighbors had and you know I think that we can, I
think we can and have addressed them and we can probably continue to tweak them and make it
a better development for the neighbors also. So going back to my point, I do think there's a
compelling reason here because it brings a different housing stock to our community and to the
area that I think is an asset to the neighborhood. Some of the neighbors will disagree with that.
Some wouldn't disagree with it so, you know tonight I'm asked to rezone and you know I'm
comfortable with that. The access to, the access to Highway 7 I think is, you know we want to
make everybody understand that the less access to Highway 7 you know is to increase safety.
You know obviously you balance that against is there increased danger on the streets and getting
more traffic on the streets but the probability of accidents are certainly a lot more on Highway 7
than in a neighborhood. So is it more reasonable to put more traffic on the residential street than
trying to access in and out of Highway 7? Probably. So where I'm at is that I'm comfortable
with the development. I think it's well thought out. I think we tried to address as many of the
neighbors concerns as we can and I think we should move ahead.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Other thoughts.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: You know I'll just give you my thoughts…issues, obviously the
neighbors have concerns with drainage issues but I think those are pre-existing. I don't think this
development has caused or would cause these issues…and made a plan to make sure that maybe
23
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
you have drier yards and streets, and I think that's a positive. Obviously a positive reason for
approving this development. And I'd be crazy if I said that this isn't what I want. What I would
want. I've always been preaching that I want to keep our residents that normally probably would
move to Eden Prairie or somewhere else that has this type of housing. I want to keep them here
and I think that we're giving them a chance to do that, and I think it fits in well with the
neighborhood. I go to Freeman Park frequently to drop off my child for baseball and I drive by a
neighborhood all the time that's single story, I don't know if they're townhouses or condos, what
they are but, so that type of housing is in the neighborhood, or in the area and actually when it
comes down to traffic counts, I think your traffic count was there are less cars going to be
coming from this type of residence rather than a single family neighborhood and so that also was
a positive thing. The long cul-de-sac, you know Highway 7's a risky highway to get on if you're
going east or west. No matter what direction it is. So I think the less probability of having
accidents you know, that also is a positive, a positive change for Highway 7 and so with that I
think all I can say is that I'll be voting to approve this tonight.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman Lundquist, thoughts.
Councilman Lundquist: My comments would be similar to what's said before. Primarily with,
as I look for a compelling reason to rezone, I think this is a unique housing stock product that we
don't have much of now, and one that we've looked for opportunities to do and to provide. The
access on Highway 7, I look at that as a positive for taking some of those out of there. The
drainage I think is only, you know we look to control these sites and developments the best we
can to not affect everyone else but potential, you know can't fix all of it and it seems like this one
may actually help in the area as well so, for the reason of providing that you new housing stock
out there, I don't see it as a, it is a small step up in density but not one that's a major step and to
provide that stock of housing in the city, I'm willing to go ahead.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. I think I first learned of this development probably back in
January, perhaps even December of last year. This project was originally scheduled I believe to
come, if memory serves, to the Planning Commission early March timeframe. There were a
number of issues raised by neighboring property owners, through email and phone calls at the
time and I know I had conversations with the City Manager and development staff about those
issues and those issues were the same ones we heard tonight and at the Planning Commission. It
was traffic flow, storm water, and density. At the time, January-February timeframe earlier this
year, I encouraged staff to make sure that we had good answers, whatever those answers are.
Not directing staff to come up with answers that serve one purpose or another, but to answer the
questions that are being raised. Now we're sitting here at the end of August and the reason for
that is it took some time to get some answers, specifically on ground water. When it was first
proposed in January and February, the ground was frozen and we couldn't get information that
the engineers needed to make some valid calculations in terms of that. This area has high ground
water, that's clear. I think Councilwoman Tjornhom spoke about pre-existing condition, and that
was one of the things that took some time so, in terms of how this process has gone, some people
have commented this evening, and I know at the Planning Commission about slowing the
process down. I think we, the process has moved at a fair pace, and in fact in some cases
perhaps some people might think slow already, but the key is whether we're moving fast or slow,
are we getting the questions answered? And are we getting the information we need to make a
24
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
sound decision? With regard to the rezoning, which is the primary question before the council
this evening, this again while it is a rezoning, it is consistent with our comprehensive plan.
We're not, sometimes we get requests to change from our low density to high density or a large
lot to medium or other types of requests which may be inconsistent with the comprehensive plan.
This question is not. It is based upon the information I see. It is consistent with the
comprehensive plan and that's important. Are there more units here than would be here if a
different type of low density development occurred? Yeah. There are, but that doesn't make it
inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. I think the issues of traffic that we've discussed and
have been raised, there have been some options including right-in only access off Highway 7. I
think my concern with that, and we could sit back and say well if MnDot doesn't let us, then
we're done. But just looking at the map and the site plan and there's been comments about the
traffic going up to the elementary school and others, by creating that we'd be just creating
another cut through opportunity I think as well through the neighborhood, and I don't think that's
fair to anyone. I think the more opportunity we have in our development process to concentrate
traffic at intersections that eventually will provide a safer crossing, such as the Church Road and
Minnewashta Parkway, Highway 7 intersection, we should do that. Because as soon as we can
get a stop light there, a safer access for everybody. Not only people on Highway 7 but also our
residents north and south of Highway 7. I say our residents. We're all neighbors. It's going to
be safer for everybody. So you know as we look at the issues, the stormwater issues, I think
those have been well thought out. I'm glad to hear, and we got some more information even this
evening that there seemed to be some misinformation about the flow of the water and I think
that's helpful that we were able to do that and address the resident's concern but hearing tonight
that the pond is actually over sized for the density that will be there, gives me some comfort as
well. And we have other issues. Earlier tonight we approved a comprehensive stormwater
management plan for the city and in there were a number of priorities, a number of issues around
the system in terms of managing stormwater in Chanhassen, that we know we need to address
and there are ways to do that and we heard about another one tonight, just south of Highway 7.
Not tonight but through this process, and that's what we need to do. When those are identified,
then we need to try to address them as best we can so, I think the overall, with regard to
rezoning, I think it's consistent with the comprehensive plan. I think it's a reasonable request
tonight and there is compelling reasons, I agree with earlier comments made in terms of this
property and I believe the development's a good one and I think that the issues that have been
raised have been addressed. Fairly, objectively and in a reasonable way and to the extent that it
actually in some cases, such as with the stormwater, I suspect will improve the stormwater that's
currently coming off of this property into neighboring properties, both north and west. It's my
understanding and expectations this will actually improve that so, with that I think I appreciate
everybody's involvement, especially the residents around this property for raising these issues
early on in the process so that they can be addressed and taking time throughout the process to
address them. And I appreciate, as I said, everybody's involvement. Any other thoughts or
comments? Concerns?
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor I'd just like to thank Sharmeen and Paul for the effort that they put into
this project. I challenge my staff constantly to look at alternatives to each development that
comes in, and that's why we have the variance process. Or the rezoning process in this case.
And to run it up a ladder to see you know is this a project that would be a project that would be
acceptable to this community. And it does provide an alternative housing to typically what
25
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
would be a single family. You have both single family, twin and townhome development here
that is under traditional planning standards a buffer from a major collector like 7 to single family.
So you know this is following typical planning standards and Sharmeen has done an excellent
job in working with the developer on this project and I think it's a great project for the city and I
just want to thank Sharmeen and her efforts on working on this.
Mayor Furlong: Good, thank you. Any other thoughts or discussion? If not, the motions begin
on page 22 of the staff report or 47 of the electronic packet. Is there someone that would like to
make a motion?
Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor, I'd move that the City Council approve Case 06-10 to rezone
12.99 acres of property zoned RSF into Residential Single Family. In addition I also make
recommendation the City Council approve preliminary plat for the subdivision, Case 06-10 for
Boulder Cove and 39 lots and one outlot shown on plans received July 7, 2006, subject to the
conditions set forth into the staff report, along with the Findings of Facts as attached.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all vote with
complete as far as attaching the Findings of Fact and we got everything in there with the
variances?
Roger Knutson: You know I hate it when he does that.
Councilman Peterson: It's only taken me about 18 years.
Mayor Furlong: After so many years he's finally learned. Hearing no discussion.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council
approves Case #06-10 to rezone 12.99 acres of property zoned RSF, Residential Single
Family to RLM, Residential Low and Medium Density District for the Boulder Cove as
shown on the plans dated received July 7, 2006, and revised July 25, 2006, subject to the
following condition:
1.Lot 22, Block 1, Boulder Cover shall remain under the Residential Single Family zoning
district.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council
approves the preliminary plat for Subdivision Case #06-10 for Boulder Cove for 39 lots and
1 outlot as shown on the plans received July 7, 2006 and revised July 25, 2006,
incorporating the Findings of Fact as attached, and subject to the following conditions:
26
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
1.Hydraulic calculations must be submitted with the final plat application for staff review. The
revised calculations should include the entire area drained by the north ditch of Trunk
Highway 7 since concentration points have been established at the inlets of the two existing
culverts heading south underneath Trunk Highway 7.
2.The top and bottom of wall elevations must be shown on the final grading plan.
3.The developer will reimburse the City the cost of the Barr analysis upon final plat approval.
4.Any retaining wall four feet high or taller must be designed by an engineer registered in the
State of Minnesota and requires a building permit.
5.The developer is required to obtain any necessary permits for the sanitary sewer extension
from the Metropolitan Council (sewer connection permit) and the City of Shorewood (work
nd
in right-of-way permit) and West 62 Street must be restored.
6.Rim and invert elevations of all sanitary and storm sewers must be shown on the final utility
plan.
7.The utility plan must show the existing drainage and utility easements on the Miller and
Navratil properties.
8.The developer shall be responsible for any damage to the Miller’s fence as a result of the
watermain installation.
9.The existing wells and septic systems must be properly removed/abandoned.
10.Public utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's
latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and
specifications must be submitted at time of final plat.
11.The private street must be constructed to a 7-ton design.
12.The developer shall be responsible for installing all landscape materials proposed in rear yard
areas and bufferyards.
13.Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the dripline for tree #71 or as close to
that location as possible. All other tree preservation fencing shall be installed at the edge of
the grading limits prior to any construction.
14.All landscape planting shall be field located. No plantings will be allowed within the
dripline of tree #71 or below the NWL of the proposed pond.
15.No evergreens shall be planted in the front yards within a space less than 40 feet in width
between driveways.
27
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
16.The grading and the storm sewer alignment shall be shifted as far east as needed in order to
protect and save the evergreens along the westerly property line.
17.Payment of park fees at the rate in force at the time of platting shall be required as a
condition of approval. The 2006 park dedication fees are $5,800 per single family dwelling,
$5,000 for each unit in a duplex, and $3,800 for each unit within a three-plex.
18.Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all storm water ponds and storm water
conveyance features outside of the public ROW.
19.The future storm water pond shall be constructed prior to mass grading of the site and shall
be used as a temporary sediment basin. A temporary outlet shall be installed (perforated
standpipe with rock cone) in the temporary sediment basin. A detail shall be provided within
the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).
20.Energy dissipation shall be installed at the flared-end section outlet of the storm water basin
within 24 hours of outlet installation.
21.Area inlets and curbside inlet control (Wimco or similar) shall be installed within 24 hours of
inlet installation. A detail shall be provided in the SWPPP.
22.The proposed rock construction entrance shall be a minimum 20 feet in width and 75 feet in
length with a filter fabric installed under the rock.
23.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
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.
24.Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street
sweeping as needed. A pickup broom shall be used at a minimum of once per week or as
conditions warrant.
25.The plans shall be revised to include a typical erosion control detail for individual lots and
multifamily lots.
26.At this time the total estimated SWMP fees payable upon approval of the final plat are
estimated at $67,384. The applicant will receive a water quality credit of 50% of the per-acre
28
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
water quality charge for each acre treated by the on-site pond.
27.The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g.,
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES Phase II Construction Permit), Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering)) and comply with their conditions of
approval.
28.Building Department conditions:
a.Accessibility must be provided to all portions of the development and a percentage of the
units may also be required to be accessible or adaptable in accordance with Minnesota
State Building Code Chapter 1341. Further information is needed to determine these
requirements.
b.Buildings over 8500 square feet of floor area are required to be protected with an
automatic sprinkler system. For the purposes of this requirement property lines do not
constitute separate buildings and the areas of basements and garages are included in the
floor area threshold.
c.The buildings will be required to be designed by an architect and engineer as determined
by the Building Official.
d.The developer must submit a list of proposed street name(s) and an addressing plan for
review and approval prior to final plat of the property.
e.Demolition permits must be obtained before demolishing any structures on the site.
Application for such permits must include hazardous substances investigative and
proposed mitigation reports. Existing wells and on-site sewage treatment systems but be
abandoned in accordance with State Law and City Code.
f.A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before
permits can be issued.
g.Walls and projections within 3 feet of property lines are required to be of one-hour fire-
resistive construction.
h.Retaining walls over four feet high require a permit and must be designed by a
professional engineer.
i.Each lot must be provided with separate sewer and water services.
j.The developer and or their agent shall meet with the Inspections Division as early as
possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
29
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
k.The developer must coordinate the address changes of the two existing homes with the
construction of the development and provide access for emergency vehicles at all times.
29.Fire Marshal conditions:
a.A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees,
shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure
that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to
Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1.
b.Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be
installed. Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the
time of construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided.
c.Temporary street signs shall be installed at street intersections once construction of the
new roadway allows passage of vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota Fire Code Section
501.4.
d.Fire apparatus access roads 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.
e.No burning permits shall be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either
be removed from site or chipped.
f.Fire hydrant spacing is acceptable.
30.All existing buildings on the site, with the exception of the house and garage on lot 22, block 1,
shall be removed.
31.Lot 22, Block 1, shall maintain a maximum hard surface coverage of 25%.
32.Sheets 2, 3, 4 and 5 shall be modified to reflect the new layout of Outlot A.
33.A cross-access easement agreement shall be granted in favor of the property located at 3520
Highway 7.”
34.Work with the developer to resolve the back flow on the drain tile at the vicinity of the
French tile outlet.
35. Work with the developer to see if the additional significant trees can be saved.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council
approves Site Plan Case #06-10 to construct four three-plexes as shown on the plans dated
received July 7, 2006 and revised July 25, 2006, with the following conditions:
30
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
1. The applicant shall evaluate the potential for wing walls between the patios on the three-
plexes.
2. The single family, two-plexes and three-plexes shall be built as shown on the elevations and
floor plans dated received August 18, 2006.
3. The applicant shall submit two additional colors for the Hardie Board siding.
4. The applicant shall add a pitched element above each entryway to further add to the
articulation of the roof line.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Councilman Lundquist: Did we do the site plan too?
Mayor Furlong: Did he get the site plan in there? I thought he did. You got all of them didn't
you?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: That's what I thought. Very good.
REQUEST FOR INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR OFF-SITE GRADING FOR THE
DISPOSAL OF DIRT FROM THE HIGHWAY 312 CORRIDOR ON PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 1560 BLUFF CREEK DRIVE AND 1425 BLUFF CREEK DRIVE AND
SOUTH OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY REGIONAL RAIL CORRIDOR AND BLUFF
CREEK DRIVE, APPLICANT ZUMBRO RIVER CONSTRUCTORS.
Paul Oehme: Mayor, City Council members. Zumbro River Constructors is, are the contractor
for the 212 improvements and they're looking at additional site disposal for excess material for
this project. They have discussed several opportunities with existing property owners out here
for disposal of excess material and they have requested that the City Council consider Interim
Use Permits for this grading. Staff has reviewed these applications. We are in favor of one site.
And the other two, we're requesting that the council consider denial. The sites are all located on
Bluff Creek Drive. One off of Hesse Farms Road and two off of Bluff Creek Drive as shown
here. The new 212 alignment is shown. The first I'd like to just go through each of these sites
real briefly. The first site is the site off of Hesse Farms Road.
Mayor Furlong: Is this Site #1 in the staff report? You're going to take them in order? Thank
you.
Paul Oehme: Yes, I'll try to do them in order.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
31
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
Paul Oehme: The actual site is just off of Bluff Creek Drive, like I said, by Hesse Farm Road,
right at the corner here. Approximately 35,000 cubic yards of material are requested to be
brought to this site. Graded and approximately 22 feet of material will be placed in this location.
Currently the site is kind of a low lying area. There's existing I think water and fence line up
here. If this application is approved, several trees would have to be removed and either topsoil
taken off and stock piled and re-graded out here. The site would be restored, seeded I believe
and restored in that fashion. Two issues that the staff has concerns with. One is traffic along
Bluff Creek Drive. The other is still drainage. In the background we put together, the main issue
that was raised there was the access. The truck traffic on Bluff Creek Drive. If this application
was to move forward, we'd request that the items 1 through 9 be considered for approval as well.
With 35,000 cubic yards of material, we're estimating about 3,500 trips per truck. 3,500 truck
trips out here to deliver the material, which is fairly significant on Bluff Creek Drive. Bluff
Creek is a collector roadway. It does have the structural capacity to handle those type of trips.
However there would be some degradation associated with those trips. We would request that
access, if approved, be brought off on Hesse Farm Road and not off of Bluff Creek Drive since
that is an urban section, curb and gutter which potentially damage the street. The other issue is
drainage. Again this is kind of a low lying site. Most of the existing site does drain to kind of
the west, southwest area and more or less sits here. I don't believe there's a culvert underneath
West Farm Road to drain this area right now. The applicant has shown preliminary drainage
patterns in this area that do show the water running more or less existing location but they also
do show drainage off to the east into West Farm Road. The West Farm Road is a private drive.
However there is no culvert at this location, basically at Bluff Creek Drive and West Farm Road
to handle some of the drainage that the applicant is proposing to drainage way. Naturally this is
one of the higher points of the whole area as well. Another issue that we feel would negatively,
could potentially negatively affect the property owner to the west. This is low lying area. I
mentioned water does sit here from time to time. However this area is being built up. All the
drainage now is being forced on the adjacent property with no outlet, which does raise some
concerns for staff. I do not know if the property owner has discussed that with the adjacent
property owner but it's an issue that has been raised and staff continues to feel it is an important
issue that has not been addressed at this time. The second area, or interim use permit area is #2
in your background. It is off of Bluff Creek Drive. This area is proposed to place 90,000 cubic
yards of material into a relatively flat area. The area does slope generally to the south,
southwest. Bluff Creek Drive is the higher elevation area. Approximately 27 feet of fill would
be brought to the site. Kind of a cross sectional area. What potentially that will look like
looking from north to south, actually from, this is the south location and this is the north so the
area will be brought up significantly from it's current condition right now. It's a corn field but
there is an existing property just to the south of here, Bed and Breakfast that potentially could
receive some negative impacts because of the fill in this area. It's being proposed to be placed.
If council does think this application should move forward there are 9 items in the background
that staff would recommend you'd include in the application if it were to move forward. Again
drainage is an issue out here too. They are showing a tow ditch on their property, on the south
side of the, south side to handle drainage currently here, I'm showing the Bed and Breakfast right
here. There is no other structures that are out here. Another issue that was raised, a matter by
our water resource department is the Seminary Fen is potentially is a recharge area so those
issues should really be addressed before any material would be brought to the site. The third and
final site is the very north site, along Bluff Creek Drive. This site is proposed to be, this has
32
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
30,000 cubic yards of material brought in. Currently the topography does drain to the west
towards Bluff Creek Drive. With the 30,000 yards of material to be brought in, about 27 feet in
some areas. The grading would cross section would look similar to this. Again this being the
existing contours and the proposed grading is shown here so. Staff has looked at the drainage in
this area and traffic. There's a lot, for construction purposes, material be brought in. ZRC is
proposing to bring in this material, off Bluff Creek Boulevard so we will not have any
other…our collector roadway out here. Drainage wise we have looked at that again and we don't
see any potential negative effects because…so we are in support of approving this site 3. At this
time, if council has any questions, I stand to try to answer them.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff.
Councilman Lundquist: Paul, in looking, if I did the math, you've got 150,000 cubic yards you're
looking to put somewhere, right?
Paul Oehme: Correct.
Councilman Lundquist: And staff is supporting one site at 30,000.
Paul Oehme: That's correct.
Councilman Lundquist: So where's the other 120 going to go? Find another place to haul it to?
Paul Oehme: Find another place to haul it. The applicant can address that but they are hauling a
large volume of material off site. They are looking at other sites throughout the corridor to
deposit this material so any of these type of grading…by ZRC, they would have to go through
the same process as they're talking here tonight, unless they are wanting a corridor.
Councilman Lundquist: You call it an interim use permit but they don't ever intend to take that
material back out of there do they?
Paul Oehme: That's correct, no.
Councilman Peterson: Good point.
Councilman Lundquist: And is this typical as we do road projects to be doing this as you go
along or is this driven by some other change that came up with a design build project and these
are the details you hit when you get that far along?
Paul Oehme: These are the details that they have with this size of a project. I believe when we
started a project, there was approximately 2 million cubic yards of excess material that had to be
hauled off site, so it's in the best interest of both MnDot and the contractor to find sites close to
or at one of the corridors to deposit this material. They are building noise berms, or berms, sight
berms along the corridor currently right now to deposit some of this extra material too, so they
are looking for sites specifically along the 212 corridor and now we're getting into other areas off
33
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
the corridor in residential or private areas, or potentially that will benefit both the contractor and
the project.
Councilman Lundquist: Then the owners out there by the Hesse Farms, have you spoken, or
have you gotten feedback from them at all? We've got some from the bed and breakfast, gotten
feedback but the other site. Have you gotten any feedback from them at all?
Paul Oehme: Just in your background. I've not received any other feedback from the property
owners on Hesse Farms in the last week. If we would have received any additional comments,
we would have put them in your packet earlier or included them at this time.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay.
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, council members. The two sites, the 90,000 cubic yard site next to the
fen, our biggest concern there is the impact on the fen itself and it is a very sensitive area and the
amount of fill going in there, you know not having an environmental study in front of us, that's a
question of concern. Whatever you do, activity in that area, we see red flags going up so that's
our number one concern there. As to the Hesse Farms site. We have not contacted the property
owners to let them know that we are, staff, recommending denial of that site which is contrary to
what the Planning Commission recommended. There is drainage concerns, that Paul mentioned
there, and the possibility of pushing water onto a neighboring property. Until those issues can be
resolved, staff is recommending denial of that site. And as to the site to the north, that one looks
as if we can accommodate them on that location.
Councilman Lundquist: So would it be staff's intention to look further at that other site on West
Farm Road and look at that more? Or would you say that they'll find another…
Todd Gerhardt: We'll work with ZRC like we have on all their projects. We've looked at a
variety of different berms along the corridor but you know, I give credit to Paul for going out
there today and checking this site out. Concerned where's this water going to go? It's flowing
one direction. They're showing it back flowing in another. Can that culvert handle it? Pushing
the water onto the neighbor. Better to address the issue now until the neighbor has a pond in his
back yard that he's never had before.
Councilman Lundquist: So better to address the issue by denial or address the issue by not
making a decision on that one and looking at it more?
Todd Gerhardt: You can deny it. Table that one and we'll work with ZRC on that site. There is
a benefit to the land owner to give him a more usable piece of property with the fill in there
versus the hole he has now. But we'll work with them. You know we're not trying to have then
push the dirt someplace else but we want to make sure that we know where the water's going and
that it can handle it.
Mayor Furlong: Any questions? Mr. Oehme, you mentioned the number of truck trips, and I
believe I wrote down accurate for the number 1 site is 3,500. So you're assuming about 10 cubic
yards per trip. Okay. And it's staff's recommendation that if that one was approved. I know
34
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
you're recommending denial but if it was approved, that the access to the site be made off West
Farm Road, is that correct?
Paul Oehme: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: So you'd have trucks turning off. So the 3,500 is really 3,500 coming down
Bluff Creek and turning onto West Farm. Another 3,500 coming off West Farm onto Bluff
Creek.
Paul Oehme: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: So in terms of traffic impact you've got, it's a round trip. There's 3,500 round
trips as opposed to one ways.
Paul Oehme: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: Which would be 7,000. And I don't know if you mentioned it but in Site #2, am
I right that that's about 90,000 so for, so that would be 9,000 trips coming in and another 9,000
coming back onto Bluff Creek? Okay. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? For staff.
Okay. Thank you. Appreciate it. Is the applicant here this evening?
Applicant: Yeah.
Mayor Furlong: Anything you'd like to address to the council or comments?
Applicant: No, I appreciate you listening to the issue and if we do want to move forward with
the other site down there off of Farm Road, drainage issues until a later date.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any questions for the applicant from council? No? Okay,
thank you. Appreciate you being here. Any questions or, we have a representative from the
Planning Commission here. Anything you'd like to address the council in terms of sense from
the Planning Commission what's different I think on one of the sites. Number 1…
Debbie Larson: Well one of the things.
Mayor Furlong: Why don't you come on up to the microphone so we can get you on. Thanks
Debbie.
Debbie Larson: I'm Debbie Larson, Planning Commissioner. One of the issues that was
brought up, and I didn't hear it tonight was the timing of the trucks. The school bus. So I don't
know if that is something that needs to be discussed further or not. That's really.
Mayor Furlong: Yeah, and I think that issue, and thanks for raising that. The issue was the
timing of this project would be, obviously with school starting next week, during the first part of
the school year and a number of weeks through September, October, November.
35
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
Debbie Larson: More like during the day you know. Like the trucks…before buses or during
the day when the buses aren't running just because of the, you know and I don't know what age
groups are in those neighborhoods and what.
Mayor Furlong: Alright. Mr. Gerhardt, you have some information?
Todd Gerhardt: Yeah. Mayor, council members. In the Findings of Fact there's a summary
table that took into account the bus traffic, and the one that we're recommending was to have the
trucks Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.. We thought that would be a 6 hour
window that they could haul when the buses and everybody could get to work without the
interruption.
Debbie Larson: So there's no kindergarten traffic that would be going on…
Todd Gerhardt: There may be in the afternoon. You know I guess we were assuming the middle
school, high school kids coming home but usually there's a noon hour in there and when the first
part of morning kindergarten…
Debbie Larson: And I don't know what the dynamics for that neighborhood are. Maybe it's not
even an issue but.
Todd Gerhardt: I'm sure there's a bus stop there. I don't know how many kids are there but that's
how we addressed it from a staff level was to give them a 6 hour window sort of the afternoon.
Stopping.
Debbie Larson: That's all I have.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Since there's nobody else in the council chambers, I won't ask
for public comment. But bring it to council for discussion or other questions or comments.
Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Mayor, I would agree with staff on, the northern most site.
Mayor Furlong: Site #3.
Councilman Lundquist: It's close to the action so to speak, where things are going. The one at
the bottom of the hill, I think that one, there's a lot of reasons, not just the fen but a lot of
reasons, unfortunately happens to be the biggest one. So that will be a lot of dirt we'll have to
find a spot for I guess. The second one, or the other one on West Farm, I would I guess like to
see a table on that action and then let's look at it more if that's what we want to do for that. I am
pretty concerned about the traffic on Bluff Creek. I know it's a collector road but it's only a 30
miles per hour road and in addition to the Hesse Farms on the east and west side, they've also got
oh half a dozen or a dozen properties that access directly onto Bluff Creek as well, and that's a 30
miles per hour road. I know it's one that our deputies like to sit on as well and you know trucks
running on there as well. I'm not sure it's the best use but if you wanted to look at that more. If
we wanted…so I would be in favor of the northern and table the middle one and no to the south
one.
36
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Are you saying?
Mayor Furlong: He'd be in favor of #3.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay. That's…
Mayor Furlong: Opposed to #2. Site 2 in the staff report and open to other information on #1.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: And I think I'd ditto.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Councilman Peterson. Any other comments Councilwoman
Tjornhom?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: No. I think he said it all.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Thank you. Councilman Peterson.
Councilman Peterson: Isn't there a movie about that where you aren't supposed to say ditto?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I don't know.
Councilman Peterson: I won't ditto that. I'm comfortable with 3. 1 and 2, you know it seems as
though our roads would be used extensively and you know I don't know how much damage all
that many trucks, that much weight has on the roads but I know it's not, it's better not to do it
than just do it. I know that. That being said, the only people that are benefited by that are ZRC
and I can respect their request, and the landowner potentially. And the City isn't getting anything
out of the deal except roads that are deteriorating. So you know as far as 1, why? And we aren't
responsible for getting rid of the dirt. You know. I like to be helpful when we can, but it's
costing us. And it's going to cost the citizens something down the road. And I don't think we're
getting anything for it. So 3, yes. 1, 2, no.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: And this is.
Mayor Furlong: Councilwoman Tjornhom.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: This is worth discussing this. This dirt has to leave obviously. It has
to go somewhere so what route will it take?
Paul Oehme: Well not a city collector road or city street. Right now ZRC is required, their haul
route off of MnDot, trunk highways or country roads. So there's no truck hauling on city streets.
37
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
Councilman Lundquist: A lot of that stuff's been going out Pioneer and then down Audubon out
to Shakopee.
Paul Oehme: Yeah, across the river. There's a dump right now.
Councilman Peterson: So I'd be interested to hear you guys' thoughts as it relates to you know,
what are we getting for it?
Councilman Lundquist: Well I don't disagree with you. But you know in the spirit of trying to
work with that, I mean I'm not a huge fan of having dump trucks driving up and down Bluff
Creek either… That road is yeah, it's built for, as a collector road. It can probably support it and
all that stuff but you know, I mean it's just not the road that I would envision having 7,000 trips
by dump trucks driving up and down it. No, but what I heard tonight is you know, if we want to
look at it more and see what the impacts on the drainage and some of the other stuff is, if the
contractor wants to look at it and staff wants to look at it, I'm willing to look at it. That doesn't
mean that when it comes back up I wouldn't say no anyway but at least willing to look at it in the
spirit of trying to find a place to put the dirt somewhere.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: With this issue I don't think that was, was that brought up in our
report. The wear and tear on the roads.
Mayor Furlong: I think traffic.
Paul Oehme: Traffic was the issue.
Mayor Furlong: Number of trips.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay.
Mayor Furlong: In fact I think there was a request for some escrow funds as well. For possible
damage. And I guess my comments would be similar to, you know on number 2 and on number
3, I think we're all on agreement there. On number 3, that makes sense. It works. It takes, there
is no traffic. Any requested off of city streets that really don't, it doesn't fit. There's no storm
water drainage on neighboring property owners, so we're not creating some problems for
someone else who would benefit. I think we're all comfortable on number 3. Number 2. Yes,
the fen is in the proximity and when your, storm water drainage will be an issue there. I think
there's going to be an issue there as well to the property to the south and east. To the bed and
breakfast. If you look at those topography lines, they're going to build it up, and that's the way
it's going to go. It's going to go south and it's going to go east, and that's a significant change in
storm water drainage. And there, I mean 90,000 cubic yards. 9,000 trucks one way. 9,000 the
other way, and the topography of that land right off of just to the south of Bluff Creek falls off
pretty quickly so you're going to have trucks coming up the hill trying to get enough power to
make that turn, both coming in. Coming out. I just think it's going to mess up traffic
significantly, and that ultimately is my concern with number 1. The traffic counts. You know
with these number of trucks on that road, even if you're turning onto West Farm Road, you're
still going to have the trucks slowing down to a virtual stop or swinging out in front of the
38
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
oncoming traffic to get on there. Do the same thing coming back out because of the width of
Bluff Creek. It's just, they're going to have to use the whole width.
Councilman Lundquist: Well…
Mayor Furlong: And you know, we don't have control over West Farm but I don't know how
that road is going to handle it either, so. Really the drainage obviously is an issue. If they, if staff
can get comfortable with the drainage, I don't if that's going to do anything about the number of
trips, and I think that's a reasonable issue as a council to look at is where does the, I mean there's
a cost effect on the wear and tear on the roads, which Councilman Peterson appropriately raised.
There's also an indirect cost of just virtually shutting down that road with the staff report said
every 2 to 3 minutes in some cases. It would be, the road, traffic would be stopped for the trucks
to get in and out. I mean to do that for a number of weeks, I just think that's beyond a reasonable
request given the volume that they're bringing in. Number 3 works because it isn't affecting
traffic on any of our roads. Not creating any drainage problems to somebody else. So I think
number 1, or excuse me, number 2 and 3, we're all in agreement on that. I get back to number 1
and again, Councilman Lundquist to your point. If they want to work on it, I think they're
willing to do it and I always appreciate their willingness to do it, but I don't know if that's going
to get us over the traffic count in the end so. If there's a desire to, and I guess I would not be
opposed to tabling number 1 for the simple reason that Mr. Gerhardt said that they haven't
informed the property owner that staff was recommending against the Planning Commission. I
don't see anybody here. I'm surprised that they're not here but that to me would be the reason to
do it, just for fairness to them. To make sure they're aware of what we're doing. But at the same
time, and if they can work with some of the stormwater, and at least either confirm staff's fears
or alleviate it, but that's only one half of the concerns that I think I've heard tonight and that's the
truck traffic so. So I'd be comfortable tabling for the reason that we want to make sure that that
property owner knows what's happening and not wake up and, on Thursday morning and read it
in the paper. You know I think we can take action on numbers 2 and 3 tonight. If there's a
desire to table, great but I don't think that's going to change. I don't know what information's
going to change on number 1 but for just letting him know and making him aware. If that makes
sense to.
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, I'd like the record to show that the Planning Commission did
recommend sites 1 and 2. However they were not aware of the drainage concerns that Paul
addressed when it came to them so.
Mayor Furlong: Right. On site number 1. …1 and 3, yeah. But I think you're right. There was
no drainage, stormwater drainage issue really raised as far as that. But it's clearly an issue with
all the dirt they're bringing in. It's going to change the flow of the water so.
Debbie Larson: But number 2, the other thing that was…
Mayor Furlong: Why don't you come on up. Just so people at home can hear you.
Debbie Larson: The other one, the one by the Seminary Fen, the property owner adjacent to it
was very concerned about the trees. I guess it's a very natural area around her and she felt that
39
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
all the trees that would be knocked down, which is currently on the land where all the dirt would
go. She said it's somewhat of a nature area and it would basically destroy the view and a lot of
her property values because it is part of the view that they have from her bed and breakfast.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright, thank you.
Todd Gerhardt: And one of the other things staff talked about with this yesterday and today was,
or today was that putting that much dirt in there, it's going to potentially change the hydrology of
the fen area and not having an environmental review on that, you know that was another reason
why we wanted to stay out of that area.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Let's take these site by site so that we can deal with them, and
let's just take them in reverse order. Is there a motion regarding number 3? Site number 3.
Councilman Peterson: I make a motion to approve as submitted by staff.
Mayor Furlong: Based on the findings of fact?
Councilman Peterson: No.
Mayor Furlong: I'm not even going to ask for a second then.
Councilman Peterson: Yes, I'll.
Mayor Furlong: Of course. Motion to approve.
Councilman Lundquist: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on site number 3?
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council
approves Planning Case #06-28 for Interim Use Permits to grade and fill Site 3 (1560 Bluff
Creek Drive) in conformance with the grading plans prepared by Zumbro River
Constructors for the site, subject to the following conditions:
1. Overland hauling must utilize the existing creek crossing for the Bluff Creek Drive
realignment.
2. No fill shall be placed within the Bluff Creek Drive right-of-way.
3. Hours of operations are 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. and
5:00 p.m. on Saturdays, with no work allowed on holidays.
4. Each site shall be examined by a professional wetland delineator to determine whether
jurisdictional wetlands exist on-site or within 150 feet of the proposed fill. Any wetlands that
are identified shall be delineated, then reviewed by the City prior to any work commencing
40
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
on-site. If the delineation shows the proposed project to include wetland impact, the applicant
shall obtain a wetland alteration permit from the City prior to wetland impacts occurring.
5. A wetland buffer 16.5 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 16.5 feet) shall be
maintained around any ag/urban wetlands. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed
and staked in accordance with the City’s wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install wetland
buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins and shall pay the
City $20 per sign. All structures shall maintain a setback of at least 40 feet from ag/urban
wetland buffer edges.
6. Wetland replacement, if necessary, shall occur in a manner consistent with the wetland
alteration permit and the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420).
7. 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 (Maximum time an area can
Steeper than 3:1 7 days remain open when the area
10:1 to 3:1 14 days is not actively being worked.)
Flatter than 10:1 21 days
These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any exposed
soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter
system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man
made systems that discharge to a surface water.
8. Silt fence shall be installed at the base of all proposed slopes in accordance with Chanhassen
Standard Detail Plates 5300. A rock construction entrance meeting the specifications of
Chanhassen Standard Detail Plate 5301 shall be installed where truck traffic will enter and exit
Bluff Creek Drive. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street
scraping and street sweeping as-needed. Wimco-type inlet protection shall be installed in
accordance with Chanhassen Standard Detail Plate 5302A in all catch basins within 200 feet of
the proposed project sites and maintained as needed. The construction plans shall be revised to
show the locations of the proposed silt fence, rock construction entrances and Wimco-type inlet
protection and to include Chanhassen Standard Detail Plates 5300, 5301 and 5302A.
9. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies
(e.g., Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(NPDES Phase II Construction Site Permit), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources,
Minnesota Department of Transportation) and comply with their conditions of approval.
Zumbro River Constructors shall apply for and receive an amendment to their existing
NPDES Phase II Construction Permit for the Trunk Highway 212 project from the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency to incorporate a storm water pollution prevention plan for these
sites.
41
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
10. The applicant should review proposed slopes and runoff velocities for the site and provide
additional rock checks as an erosion control mechanism if needed. Rock checks proposed
within the right-of-way for Bluff Creek Drive must be reviewed and approved by the City
prior to installation.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Mayor Furlong: Number 2.
Councilman Lundquist: Motion to deny, or deny Site number 2 as staff has pointed out in the
packet. And the Findings of Fact.
Mayor Furlong: I hear whispers from my left. Motion's been made to deny the request for Site
#2. Is there a second?
Councilman Peterson: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on that motion?
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that the City Council denies
Planning Case #06-28 for Interim Use Permits to grade and fill properties identified as Site
#2 located southwest of Bluff Creek Drive, south of the Hennepin County Regional Trail
Corridor, and north of the Bluff Creek Inn. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Mayor Furlong: That motion prevails. So Site #1. The issue here is potential more information.
Letting the resident know but again I guess there's a question, if there's a desire here to table for,
to our next meeting, I guess I would ask a question of staff. Do we have time with regard to the
permit to, are we either in the first 60 days or can we take another 60 days to table?
Roger Knutson: You can take another 60 days. Automatically.
Mayor Furlong: So our next meeting won't be until another 4 weeks, which is the end of
September. Will they still be, I know that's less than 60 days, if memory serves, but we're not
within that second 60 days yet.
Roger Knutson: Yeah we will be in 2 days. So in the next 2 days we have to send them a letter.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. So we'll take care of that if we proceed with the tabling. Staff will take
care of that letter to ensure the other 60 days and then I would suspect, question for staff. Will
they be able to bring it back by the end of September, in 4 weeks. And either have more
information on that and talk to the property owner.
Paul Oehme: We'll address both the drainage issues and the traffic issues…
Mayor Furlong: Alright. Is there a motion to table Site #1 to our next meeting?
42
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
Councilman Lundquist: Motion to table #1.
Mayor Furlong: Is there a second?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Any discussion?
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council
table action on Planning Case #06-28 for Interim Use Permits to grade and fill Site 1 (1425
Bluff Creek Drive). All voted in favor, except Councilman Peterson who opposed, and the
motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1.
Todd Gerhardt: We'll get the letter out tomorrow.
Mayor Furlong: Very good, thank you. Thank you.
APPROVAL/CERTIFICATION OF MAXIMUM PROPOSED LEVY TO THE CARVER
COUNTY AUDITOR.
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor and City Council members. Staff is asking the City Council to adopt the
2007 preliminary tax levy of $9,575,778. This is a $220,000 levy increase from the 2006 budget.
This increase will reflect a zero impact on those property owners who did not see a levy increase
th
in 2007. The maximum levy between now and December 11 meeting, the City Council can
look at reducing that levy down, and with that staff recommends approval of the attached
resolution.
Councilman Peterson: Chokes you up doesn't it?
Todd Gerhardt: Yeah. I wasn't ready for this one.
Mayor Furlong: Very good. This is an item that we've discussed at a few of our work sessions.
Received some preliminary information from the staff with regard to the anticipated budget for
next year and also information on how the City's performing financially during this year and I
guess at this point, again we're required by law to establish a preliminary budget prior to
th
September 15. This will be our last meeting prior to that time so that's why we're taking it up
now but I think we've made very good progress, even the last month or two in terms of the
council understanding the staff's position and request and issues so at this point I will open it up
for any questions to staff. If there are any points of clarification. Otherwise we'll proceed with
our discussion. Thoughts and comments.
Councilman Peterson: I'm just pleased that the citizens have enough confidence in us tonight
that the chambers are empty and I think that to medoes say a lot about the trust they have in staff
and us to deliver in what we've been trying to do over the years and we've been successful and
here's another year that we're going to have zero percent and I'm proud of that, as I assume you
all are. You've done great work, we have and I'm looking forward to another good year.
43
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilwoman Tjornhom.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I can't say ditto again? You know what, I look forward to the next
couple meetings where we really spend it with staff and go over budgets and find out what their
needs are and work together and make sure our city is run well as far as public safety goes and
our roads are, make sure they're, there's some planning and fore thought with that, and just the
whole figuring out how we can run our city as efficiently as we can.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman Lundquist.
Councilman Lundquist: I think I'm going to be the, like Mr. Peterson was in the last tabling
thing, and that's to be the lone nay but. Like Craig said, I think it's a good thing to be sitting, and
as we discussed in the work session, to be talking about a zero percent increase on the tax burden
but I think we've got some room to lean into it a little bit yet and there's a lot of things that we
can do, pavement management and other things as we discussed that I think we've got a couple
of easy ones out there that we can look at. As difficult as it is to say I would vote against a zero
percent tax increase, that's only because I think we've got room to lean into it and get it lower
than that now. And I understand the…and we've got nowhere to go but down. We can't raise it
up but we can certainly take it down. And so at the very least, I mean that's a wonderful thing.
But being as we've got room to go, I think I would have liked to have seen that overall, and I
think Todd and staff and everyone has done a nice job of putting this levy together and it
continues to be the fourth year in a row here of a well done process and not something that we're
all not proud of.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. I think with regards to some of the thoughts you just
mentioned. It was amazing, perhaps not so amazing but it is certainly enjoyable to see how
expectations have changed in terms of adopting levies, whether preliminary or final. In 2004 we
had a discussion about where to put the preliminary levy and where we ended up and we ended
up I know even lower than what we had hoped to do with the preliminary levy and in fact that
was the first year that we adopted a zero change in the levy. Whether we get there this year or
not, I don't know. I agree with Councilman Lundquist that there appears to be some easy…with
regards to some of the numbers already and I too, with Councilwoman Tjornhom will look
forward to working with staff as we have done to really understand what the needs are, and to
manage both the property tax policy as a council with staff and the spending policy. Knowing
that they're related but making sure that we manage both sides as well as we can. As was
mentioned here, we are the fourth year in a row, at this point adopting a preliminary levy that at
the most people will know their taxes aren't going up, and they might be going down. And I
know that there aren't a lot of cities in Minnesota that can say that. It's great to be a part of one
where we can say that, and I think a lot of credit goes to our staff and to the council and how all
of us have worked well together over the years to adopt good long range financial planning tools
with the financial planning process and to set expectations for ourselves of where we will be
overall, which makes it a lot easier on staff to manage the business side of the city. Even though
we're looking at you know a zero change, we're still looking at an operating budget that's
approaching $10 million dollars. I mean that's, there's a business aspect to running the city and
the staff does a good job of that and I think we've been able to do a very good job as well.
44
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
Really change in expectations. To Councilman Peterson's point, you know as we sit here in
empty council chambers, with something that's as significant as what the property taxes will be
next year, I think that it's nice to see how expectations have changed from where they were
before so. I will be supporting this because we need to support and adopt a levy prior to
th
September 15 and I think that clearly this is all good news. Could it be better? Perhaps, and
we're going to work hard to make it as good as it can be, but for the third year in a row to be
adopting a fourth year, to be adopting a levy that is flat or below, that's great news. That's great
news so, any other thoughts or comments?
Todd Gerhardt: Now that I have my composure here, I just want to make sure that the public
th
knows about the December 4 Truth in Taxation date.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Todd Gerhardt: That's when the public can come in and review the budget with my staff. We
make a formal presentation that will be aired over the public access, and then after that meeting
th
the City Council will consider December 11 meeting final adoption of the proposed 2007
budget. Again, right now we are establishing the preliminary tax levy of $9,575,778. The City
th
Council can reduce that number between now and the December 11 meeting so we'll probably
have 4 or 5 department head meetings with the City Council in a work session to discuss the
th
proposed levy increase from last year's budget and make recommendations at the December 11
meeting.
Mayor Furlong: Very good. Any follow up questions? Comments. If not, there was a
resolution included in our packet. Is there a motion to adopt that resolution?
Councilman Peterson: So moved.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on the resolution to adopt it setting the
preliminary levy?
Resolution #2006-64: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded
that the City Council approve the Resolution Adopting the Preliminary 2007 Budget and
Establishing Truth in Taxation Tax Levies for 2006, Collectible in 2007 in the amount of
$9,575,778. All voted in favor, except for Councilman Lundquist who opposed, and the
motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1.
Mayor Furlong: Motion prevails. Very good, thank you. And thank you everyone. We've got a
lot of work ahead of ourselves but there's already been a lot of work done and we appreciate
everyone's efforts.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
None.
45
City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
th
Todd Gerhardt: Just want to make sure that everybody saw, we set the date of September 14
for a joint meeting with the commissions. That will start at 5:30 and should conclude by 8:00.
And pretty quiet weekend. And really nothing last week.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Gerhardt or staff?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Todd, when can we interview again for the Planning Commission?
Todd Gerhardt: I believe we would do that in our first meeting in September. We'll schedule
that at a work session, and then you can consider adoption at that meeting. I think the Planning
Commission has 2 applicants. One that you've already interviewed, so you'll probably only have
one to interview, is the last I heard.
Mayor Furlong: And those applications are open, or are being accepted through the end of the
month, is that correct? So if other residents are interested, call City Hall and they'll get put in
touch with someone who can explain the position and the duties of a member of the Planning
Commission. Thank you.
Councilman Lundquist: Council, when do filings open? Tomorrow?
Mayor Furlong: Yes.
th
Todd Gerhardt: And close on September 12.
Mayor Furlong: Any other questions? Comments? None.
CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION.
None.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to adjourn the meeting. All
voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. The City Council
meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m.
Submitted by Todd Gerhardt
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
46