CC 2007 01 22
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 22, 2007
Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m.. The meeting was opened with the
Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mayor Furlong, Councilman Peterson, Councilman
Litsey, Councilwoman Ernst and Councilwoman Tjornhom
STAFF PRESENT:
Todd Gerhardt, Roger Knutson, Laurie Hokkanen, Kate Aanenson, Paul
Oehme, Todd Hoffman, and Greg Sticha
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
Kathleen Thomas Planning Commission
Glenn Stolar Park and Recreation Commission
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Mayor Furlong: Thank you and good evening and welcome to those joining us here in the
council chambers, as well as those watching at home. We are glad that you joined us. At this
time I'd ask if there's any additions or modifications to the agenda. Anyone on the council. If
not, we'll proceed with the agenda as published. I'd like to state this evening by making a public
announcement, an invitation to the City's February Festival. Each year the City of Chanhassen
sponsors, along with the Chanhassen Chamber of Commerce and in cooperation with our local
business community a number of special events. The February Festival will be held this year on
rdth
Saturday the 3 of February. This is our 14 annual February Festival. It's a lot of fun. I invite
and encourage residents or families, friends, invite your friends and neighbors, even from out of
town to join myself, my family and others out at Lake Ann. The event begins at noon. There
will be skating, sledding, bonfire on the ice, hot food, concessions, s'mores by the boy scout
troop #330. There'll be an ice fishing contest beginning at 1:00 through 3:00. Always a good
time. There are $2,500 in prizes. It says fish prizes. I'm sure that's not just fish, but prizes for
the fishing I think is the way that would read, and over $4,500 in door prizes. So evening you're
not fishing, it's a fun time. Come on out. The weather is always nice and the ice is guaranteed to
be thick, is that correct Mr. Hoffman?
Todd Hoffman: Yes sir.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Friends of the Library are sponsoring the medallion hunt again this
year, which we appreciate. The person who finds the medallion will receive a $1,500 prize. You
can get ice fishing and raffle tickets at City Hall, the Chanhassen Rec Center and a number of
local businesses. If you're looking for more information, please check out the City's web site. It
is a fun time. I would encourage people to put it on the calendar and join us for Feb Fest out at
rd
Lake Ann on February 3. At this time we'll move to our consent agenda.
City Council Meeting - January 22, 2007
CONSENT AGENDA:
Mayor Furlong: If there is a request or a desire by either members of the council or others
present to separately discuss an item, I would ask that you mention that or at this time we can
remove that item for separate discussion. So is there anyone on the council that wishes to
remove an item for separate discussion?
Councilman Litsey: I had one change I wanted to note. Item 1(a) on the council minutes.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, we'll pull that off. Any other items from members present tonight?
Okay. Was it a quick change?
Councilman Litsey: It is a quick change actually.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Councilman Litsey: You want me to address it now?
Mayor Furlong: Sure.
Councilman Litsey: Okay. It just had to deal with when we talked about the surface water
management plan and that was tabled. I actually had stepped out of the room at the time so I
didn't participate in the vote so the minutes should.
Mayor Furlong: So we can make that note of the minutes.
Councilman Litsey: That's the only change.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. With that then we'll proceed with item 1(a) as amended by
Councilman Litsey. If there are no other items, is there a motion to approve items 1(a) as
amended, b, c, and d?
Councilman Peterson: So moved.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded by Councilman Peterson and Councilwoman Tjornhom.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to approve the following
consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations:
a. Approval of Minutes:
-City Council Work Session Minutes dated January 8, 2007
-City Council Verbatim Minutes dated January 8, 2007 as amended on page 16.
-City Council Summary Minutes dated January 8, 2007 as amended on page 4.
2
City Council Meeting - January 22, 2007
Receive Commission Minutes:
-Planning Commission Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated January 2, 2007
-Planning Commission Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated January 16, 2007
b. Sewer and Water Comprehensive Plan Update, PW421 and Wellhead Protection Plan
Update, PW379A: Approve Consultant Contracts.
Resolution #2007-06:
c. Koehnen Area/Yosemite Avenue Street Reconstruction Project
07-01: Approve No Parking Zone on the West Side of Yosemite Avenue from Lake
Lucy Road to City Limits.
Resolution #2007-07:
d. TH 101 North Watermain Project 07-07: Authorize Preparation
of Plans & Specifications.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: PRESENTATION AND ACCEPTANCE OF $750
DONATION FOR USAGE OF CHANHASSEN PARK FACILITIES; DAVID DINES,
MINNETONKA YOUTH LACROSSE ASSOCIATION.
Mayor Furlong: We do have one scheduled item for visitor presentations but at this time I
would, before we get to that I would ask if there's anyone else that would like to come forward
and address the council on any matter. There's a question, yes?
Audience: I'd like to come forward at some point.
Mayor Furlong: To discuss what? Is it an item later on our agenda? What is it referring to
ma'am?
Audience: The Arbors…
Mayor Furlong: You know, how about if we take public comment at that time when we get to
that point. Okay, thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to address the council during
visitor presentations on another item that's not coming later tonight? That being said, I'd like at
this time to invite Mr. David Dines with the Minnetonka Youth Lacrosse Association.
David Dines: Thank you Mr. Mayor. My name is David Dines. I'm a, my residence is in
Deephaven. It's a privilege for me to be here tonight representing Minnetonka Youth Lacrosse.
We're making a $750 donation to the City for field improvements in appreciation for the use of
the Instant Web field during the 2006 lacrosse season. I have a letter from our association
president. It's a brief letter and I thought I would just read it if it's possible to the council.
Mayor Furlong: Certainly.
David Dines: It's addressed to Mr. Tom Furlong, Mr. Todd Hoffman and Mr. Glenn Stolar.
Dear Gentlemen, in appreciation for the use of Instant Web field during the summer of 2006, the
3
City Council Meeting - January 22, 2007
Minnetonka Lacrosse Association is pleased to donate $750 to the City of Chanhassen for field
improvements. On behalf of all the players, I want to thank you, the City of Chanhassen and the
Park and Recreation Commission for your support of Minnetonka Youth Lacrosse. Giving us
access to Instant Web certainly made the difference in the quality of our program offerings. I
want to offer a special thanks to Jerry Ruegemer for all his help in scheduling. Jerry has been a
big help to the organization. Thank you. Thank you again for your support of the fastest
growing sport in the United States. We look forward to working with you in 2007. Best regards,
Tom Lauer, President of Minnetonka Lacrosse Association. So with that I have a check for $750
and copies of the letter and should I give those to you?
Mayor Furlong: Sure, why don't I come down and we've got Mr. Hoffman and Mr. Stolar here.
Maybe we can just all gather quick. Why don't you just come on up.
(Mr. Dines made a formal presentation of the check to Mayor Furlong, Todd Hoffman and Glenn
Stolar.)
Mayor Furlong: At this point, just to follow our ordinance I would make a motion to formally
accept the donation from the Lacrosse Association, and ask for a second.
Councilman Peterson: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there any discussion?
Mayor Furlong moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to formally accept the $750
donation from the Minnetonka Lacrosse Association. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Mayor Furlong: At this point if there's nobody else that would like to make a presentation with
regards to visitor presentations we will move on.
LAW ENFORCEMENT/FIRE DEPARTMENT UPDATE.
Sgt. Ross Gullickson: Good evening Mr. Mayor, members of the council. City staff. Again
please to see you all. Sheriff's report and monthly statistics for the month of December, 2006
and our year end statistics for 2006. Fortunately December was a rather slow month for us here
at the sheriff's office. January is proving to be a bit more difficult, which I will explain in greater
detail shortly. In December there were 87 criminal calls for service consisting of 35 Part I
crimes and 52 Part II crimes. One burglary was reported in December. This was actually a
burglary attempt to a local business. Entry was not gained and nothing was taken. There were
33 theft reports in December. Upon further investigation and digging a little deeper into these
incidents, I found that 20 of those were thefts of gas or gas drive off's. I found that rather
surprising as usually we see these types of crimes when gas prices are going up. We're going
down but we still had 20 reports of gas drive off's. Of the remaining 13 incidents were incidents
of thefts from vehicles, employee thefts, shoplifting, etc.. There was also 1 vehicle theft reported
in December which was found to be an actual civil matter between two parties so it was not
actually a vehicle theft. Of the Part II offenses in December, the most common reports were
4
City Council Meeting - January 22, 2007
incidents of property damage, theft related calls which are defined as incidents of fraud, credit
card thefts, identity thefts, etc.. There were 1,082 non-criminal calls for service last month.
There were 391 traffic stops and 265 citations issued in December. For a grand total,
Chanhassen deputies handled 1,265 calls for service last month. Finally I wanted to update the
council on our year end statistics to give you an idea of the numbers of calls for service that we
handled in Chanhassen this last year, and the types of calls that seem to take most of our time.
Of our Part I crimes, incidents of theft and burglary top the list as the biggest incidents of crime
in Chanhassen. There were 401 thefts reported and 61 burglaries reported in 2006. This
compares to 304 thefts and 58 burglaries reported in 2005. I'd like to take this time to touch a bit
on the recent burglary incidents that we have had. We did have a streak of burglaries that
th
occurred over the weekend of the 6 in which several businesses in our local strip malls were
broken into. As we have seen with these incidents and those reported in the past is that they
usually occurred in streaks. We will have a bad weekend or an overnight where we will have a
few and then there will be none for some time. It is my absolute pleasure to report to the council
this evening and those at home that we have made 3 arrests for burglary over this last weekend.
On Saturday morning at approximately 3:30 a.m. a Chanhassen deputy doing business checks
observed the suspicious vehicle leaving the strip mall located at Highway 7 and Highway 41.
The deputy stopped the vehicle and made contact with 3 adult male passengers. Another deputy
immediately checked the mall and observed that a business had been broken into, and several
others had fresh pry marks on the doors. Through the course of investigation it was learned that
the suspects had burglary tools such as pry bars in the vehicle. All 3 parties were arrested and
are currently being held at the Carver County detention facility pending charges of burglary that
could come as early as tomorrow. Investigators are continuing to work on this case and others to
determine if a possible link exists amongst these incidents and the several other burglaries that
have been reported in Chanhassen over the past several months. We as law enforcement here in
Chanhassen often take it personally when somebody commits these type of crimes in our
community. My staff and I are continuing to do business checks during the day and night, as
staffing levels and call loads allow. I would also like to urge everybody here and those at home
that this is not a proper time to "let your guard down", even though arrests have been made.
Crime can and still does happen. To continue with the year end statistics, as far as our Part II
crimes go, incidents of theft related crimes and as I spoke of earlier, consist of fraud, identity
theft, worthless checks, so on and so forth, and property damage topped the list as the largest
reports. We had 279 reports of property damage and 113 reports of theft related calls in 2006.
This compares to 223 property damage complaints and 88 theft related calls in 2005. In all there
was an increase of 232 criminal calls for service in 2006. Our non-criminal calls seem to be the
most work load for us here in Chanhassen. We handled 12,951 non-criminal calls for service.
The majority of these calls consisted of alarms, animal complaints, property damage accidents,
disturbing the peace calls such as fireworks, loud music complaints and so forth, driving
complaints, fire calls, medicals, motorist assists, suspicious activity complaints and traffic stops.
Now I apologize for bombarding you with more figures and statistics. I fully understand as
members of the council you are often times supplied with mass amounts of information on
statistics and figures and the last thing you need is for me to supply you with even more. So the
bottom line is, what does all this mean and are we seeing any trends here in Chanhassen? In
short what these figures are indicating is that in Chanhassen our criminal calls are targeted
against property. Thefts, vandalisms, burglaries, etc.. At this point I would also like to mention
the efforts of our Community Service Officer staff. The CSO's saw 9% increase in their calls for
5
City Council Meeting - January 22, 2007
service responding to 1,586 calls for service. We at Chanhassen rely heavily upon the CSO
service and what they give us on a daily basis. They often times are able to free up full time
patrol staff by taking tasks that can be very time consuming. Directing traffic, waiting for tow
trucks, etc.. They do an excellent job and they work very well with the sheriff's office staff here
in Chanhassen. Mr. Mayor, members of the council, city staff, that concludes my monthly
statistics report and year end figures. I would be happy to entertain any comments, questions, or
concerns from the council.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for the Sergeant?
Councilman Litsey: I have a couple comments and questions.
Mayor Furlong: Councilman Litsey.
Councilman Litsey: Go first. First of all, my understanding of what occurred here the other
night was the capture of the 3 suspects and the burglary over at 41 and 7 at the strip mall. I just
want to commend the deputies involved in that. That was real heads up police work and I know
you've been working hard to identify the culprits and hopefully it will lead to a connection with
some of the other burglaries in Chanhassen, but good job.
Sgt. Ross Gullickson: Thank you.
Councilman Litsey: Very much appreciated. It makes I'm sure the community feel a little more
at ease now that there's been some closure to some of that anyway so appreciate that. When we
look at these crime trends in Chanhassen, we've talked and I know there's been talk before about
where we're at with staffing levels and things like that. Do you feel like you're able to keep up
with the call loads and are we stacking calls sometimes? Prioritizing calls. Having to wait,
people having to wait.
Sgt. Ross Gullickson: At times there are periods in which calls have to be stacked or prioritized
down the call for service type of basis. Which one's more emergent than the other. We are,
we're doing our job here in Chanhassen to the best of our ability with the staffing that we have.
Councilman Litsey: I truly believe that you are. One of the things that I hope to work on and
hopefully can provide some guidance on is I think that over the years the council's under valued
the need for law enforcement and I don't think we're giving you the staffing that you need to
adequately do the job, so I'm looking forward to some dialogue on that. I've had a chance to
converse with you on numerous occasions and I'm very pleased with how you've handled things
and I think you can provide us with some good direction and I hope that we listen to that
direction this time around. One of the other things that I'd just like to comment on, or get your
feedback on is the Chanhassen Villager had an article about the Dodge Charger being pulled out
of service, and what I consider to be some interference by the city and some police practices that
I think were sound and doing an effective job, and where does that stand now? I think the
residents deserve to know where that stands and maybe what we'll be doing in the future with
that.
6
City Council Meeting - January 22, 2007
Sgt. Ross Gullickson: The unmarked Dodge Charger, traffic car has been removed from the city
of Chanhassen. The decision's been made and we've moved forward with that. That decision
was made at an office or a position higher than mine. My position is we are continuing to do our
job here in Chanhassen. I want to stress to everybody that traffic enforcement is a priority of
mine as the district supervisor end of my staff. My staff has been directed quite clearly to
continue with the mission of proactive traffic enforcement, and we are continuing to do our
mission given our resources.
Councilman Litsey: Being the use of an unmarked vehicle, I know there's still markings on it so,
but being that it's an effective tool and that's been removed from traffic enforcement in the city,
are there any plans down the road that we may add another unmarked vehicle to the fleet?
Sgt. Ross Gullickson: We will definitely entertain those ideas. The patrol fleet deployment is
the responsibility of our patrol lieutenant and as we look forward to ordering cars and entertain
that option or idea but again that would have to come from a position that is higher than me.
Councilman Litsey: Behind that decision, I understand that it was made at different levels and
I'm just trying to let the public know that there was some kind of a decision making process on
that but, my understanding is there was some unsubstantiated and undocumented complaints
driving that decision and I'm concerned about that because I hate to see good police practices
being driven by some, a select few in the community. When I went campaigning you know door
to door, the issue never came up with the Dodge Charger being anything but a positive thing and
traffic enforcement. People are very appreciative of what the sheriff's department's done in terms
of stepping that up, and now we've taken a tool away from you that had a lot of public support
and was very effective. I'm concerned about that and I don't expect you to answer it tonight but
just that I would like you to take that back to the administration and I think I would like to see us
as a council talk about that in the future and put it on as an agenda item that maybe you could
help us with. Thank you.
Sgt. Ross Gullickson: Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Any other questions?
Councilwoman Ernst: I just have a comment.
Mayor Furlong: Councilwoman Ernst.
Councilwoman Ernst: Just to address some of Councilman Litsey's comments earlier in regards
to staffing. In one of our work sessions we talked about a study and analysis that I think you're
going to be doing and you're going to be bringing that back to council to find out how many cars
are out and what's the purpose. Where are they? What are the locations and that sort of thing
and I think that that will give us some good information at that time. Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other questions? Sergeant, on the statistics you had mentioned this
evening about the drive off's for the gas and we've heard that time and again and I too am
surprised with gas prices going down, I guess they're anticipating problems in the future. Thefts,
7
City Council Meeting - January 22, 2007
if I'm looking at the Part I crimes increased by about 100. Do you have or do you know about
how many of those were drive off's? Over the year.
Sgt. Ross Gullickson: Are you referring specifically to last month's Mr. Mayor or?
Mayor Furlong: I'm looking at the over the year. Last month's were up 13 over the prior year
numbers but over the year they were, and they contributed to most of the increase, if not all of it,
of the Part I crimes.
Sgt. Ross Gullickson: And how many of those are specific to gas drive off's?
Mayor Furlong: Right.
Sgt. Ross Gullickson: I do not have that information with me tonight. I can get it for you but I
don't have it.
Mayor Furlong: I would appreciate that. Thank you. Any other questions for the sergeant? If
not, very good. Thank you very much.
Sgt. Ross Gullickson: Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: For the report and again congratulations on the arrests. We're all very pleased
for that.
Sgt. Ross Gullickson: Good night.
Mayor Furlong: Well done. Is Chief Geske here this evening or anyone from the fire
department?
Sgt. Ross Gullickson: I haven't seen him tonight.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. I expected him but something must have come up. Hopefully it's not
serious and we will defer that report to the next meeting.
Todd Gerhardt: I think I saw a message on my email that I didn't get to, so me may have left me
a message and I didn't get it so.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Something may have come up but I know that they were planning to. If
there are any questions, does anybody have any questions from the written report that Mr.
Gerhardt can relay onto the Chief? Okay, if not we'll defer that report to a future meeting.
8
City Council Meeting - January 22, 2007
2007 REHABILITATION PROJECT 07-02: PUBLIC HEARING AND
AUTHORIZATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS.
Public Present:
Name Address
Chadd Larson Kimley-Horn and Associates
Larry Koch 471 Bighorn Drive
Brad Blomquist 7141 Derby Drive
Brian Tuomala 7151 Derby Drive
Chris Kimsal 7040 Derby Drive
L. J. Anderson 400 Cimarron Circle
F. Ernst 840 Cree Drive
Note: Councilman Litsey removed himself from the vote and discussion on this item
because he lives in one of the affected neighborhoods.
Mayor Furlong: This will be a public hearing so we will start with a staff report and follow it up
by the opportunity for interested parties to speak to the council, or raise questions with regard to
this project.
Councilman Litsey: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Furlong: Yes.
Councilman Litsey: Since this project affects me in terms of I'm a property owner that's affected
by this, I would suspect it would be best if I not participate in either the discussion or the vote
and sit down in the audience.
Mayor Furlong: That'd be fine, thank you. Yep. Staff report please.
Paul Oehme: Good, thank you Mr. Mayor, City Council members. Tonight staff is requesting
that the council hold a public hearing to consider authorization of the preparation of the plans
and specs for the 2007 street project. Tonight I have with me Chadd Larson with Kimley-Horn
and Associates. They have assisted us in the preparation of the feasibility study. Some of the
comments that we've received from the property owners have been included in your packet. I
believe one…to the council as well. Annually the City considers street projects during the life of
city streets. Streets proposed for improvement are selected using our pavement management
program. Also staff visually inspects each street prior to being proposed for improvements that
year. Streets on this year's project can no longer be maintained cost effectively using
maintenance techniques such as sealcoating and crack filling and those type of applications. The
street conditions are to the point where rehabilitation should be taking place. Streets, if
postponed longer will fall into more of the reconstruction category. It would be more,
significantly more expensive of a project later on. Approximately 9,200 lineal feet of streets are
proposed to be milled and overlaid. Showing more or less the project area. We see the Kerber
9
City Council Meeting - January 22, 2007
Boulevard stretch through here. Powers Boulevard. North and south there. The streets proposed
for rehabilitation, in no particular order are Pleasant View Cove, Bighorn Drive, Shadowmere
Terrace, Hill Street, Pimlico Lane, Preakness Lane, Derby Drive, Canterbury Circle, Belmount
Lane, South Shore Drive and South Shore Court. The recommended rehabilitation is…most of
the streets and shown generally here. The rehabilitation includes removal of damaged pavement
areas and distressed areas. The alligatored areas. The settled areas. The…paving sections and
the base aggregate along with that, replacing that. Crack filling as needed. Replacing severely
damaged concrete curb and gutter. Installation of drain tile and some storm sewer improvements
in the South Shore area. Sanitary sewer manhole adjustments and improvements are also
proposed in various areas throughout the project area to help produce inflow and infiltration that
the city is trying to reduce throughout the community. And in general the streets are proposed to
be milled down approximately 2 inches, engineered and re-pave the entire surface. Hill Street is
proposed to include some additional street improvements along with storm sewer improvements.
th
A neighborhood meeting was held on November 6. At that meeting 12 property owners
representing 11 properties attended that meeting. For tonight's meeting, 173 notices had been
sent out. The special assessments are proposed to be levied against the benefiting property
owners for the improvements included in this year's project. The assessments were calculated
using the city's assessment practice assessing 40% of the street costs back to the benefiting
property owners. The cost for the improvements are proposed to be assessed to the benefiting
property at a per unit basis. The assessment practice assesses the cost based on access to the
street…being improved and not based upon city traffic, amount of traffic or any other criteria.
The city is also proposing to pay 100% of the utility costs. That's the sanitary sewer portion of
the project, and storm sewer improvements as well, consistent with our practice. The project
costs, the whole project cost is estimated right now of $974,600. And breaking that down to
assessment amounts for the street portion, the roads, the preliminary assessment amount right
now is approximately $2,254 per unit, and that assessment would be proposed over an 8 year
period at 6% interest rate, which is consistent with other mill and overlay projects that we
completed here in the last few years. The bids that are received, staff will calculate the final
assessment amounts based on the recommended bid. Consistent with other street projects staff
will also break out the cost per major street area. The proposed assessments for each of these
areas as well, so each street, for each project area will have it's own assessment amount. All the
utility costs again will be paid for by the city. The preliminary schedule shown here. If we
move forward with the project, we would anticipate opening bids in March and holding another
neighborhood meeting in, let's see it was April. And date of construction in May sometime and
hopefully have the project completed in August sometime. Briefly that's the overview of the
project itself and the feasibility study. I stand for questions at this time and request that the
public hearing be opened.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for staff? Okay. Mr. Oehme, I guess the one
question I have, and we, this comes up all the time so I'll just get out on the floor. Why these
neighborhoods and why now? You talk about pavement management. I know there's an
objective measure that you use to grade streets throughout the city. Where do these, where's the
typical mill and overlay range in terms of that grading system and where do these roads…
Paul Oehme: We have a rating system that's a pavement condition index that we use and every
year we survey the city and update these numbers. We…every street but we survey one or two
10
City Council Meeting - January 22, 2007
of the city streets every year and based upon the survey, the amount of distressed pavement areas
and the cracks and everything else associated with the survey, we rate those streets. And the
breakdown is approximately from 60 on up is considered fairly good condition. We're looking at
more of a sealcoat or minor maintenance and any improvements. Below 60 down to let's say
about 40 we look at yeah we need, there's something going on here that we need to take a closer
look at and that's the mill and overlay portion. Streets are starting to break up a little bit. They're
alligatoring. The cracks are getting pretty wide. It's not cost effective to do a sealcoat and those
type of applications, so that's the range that we use. And anything below 40 is simply a
reconstruction area. We do look at utilities for all of our project areas, but in terms of this
project, specifically tonight all the streets have been rated. They were rated in 2004 so the data is
a little bit older. We are proposing to rate these, this area again this year but all the streets are
below that 60 threshold. The highest one we have is 57 right now and there is a little bit of, and
that's 3 year old data so typically you've got about a 3%, or 3 point drop every year so I would
imagine that, Acorn Drive would be down into the 50 mark right range right now so we rate
streets. We assign a number, based upon our visual inspection too, we are recommending these
streets for improvements this year. We do have, you know what we do look long term and other
parts of the city and have established other neighborhoods for mill and overlay and
reconstruction. These streets are recommended for improvements at this time.
Mayor Furlong: Very good, thank you. Any other questions? If not then at this time I will open
up the public hearing and invite interested parties to come forward to the podium. Please state
your name and address and address the council with your concerns or questions and we'll try to
get as many questions answered as we can. Good evening sir.
Larry Cook: Good evening. My name's Larry Cook. I live at 471 Bighorn Drive and I'm here to
address this project, and I apologize I wasn't able to attend the neighborhood meeting but I live, I
have lived at 471 Bighorn Drive since 1990 and it's my purpose here to at least question if not
object to the project as it pertains to at least the newest part of Bighorn Drive in which I live, and
that begins just basically off of, there's a big cul-de-sac that was in there where Bighorn Drive
used to end was now extended and my guess is that wasn't there when… My guess is it's been
not more than 20 years, and I drive it every day. I walk it or bike it pretty much every other day
during the summer so I believe I am very well acquainted with that street, and I guess I would
have to say that I can't see the need to go through an extensive remilling of that street in light of
the fact that my view of the condition. The fact that it's not much more than 20 years old, and
that may be two exceptions to that, and I know where those exceptions are. I believe the reason
they have a problem there is because of maintenance, or lack thereof in the past. I also believe
it's not much more than 100 feet by 100 feet given the total area that could be fixed at
substantially less cost. And I'm sure my belief is the dollars spent on that street could be better
spent on other streets in this town that I drive. And I would ask at least that that be re-looked at
because I believe that it's a waste of resources. I know oil prices and everything are going down
right now. I know they're going to go back up. I think everybody knows that. I just think those
resources could be put in a better place than on at least that part of Bighorn Drive. I believe the
same as for all of Bighorn Drive. It's only 20 years old. It's got the gutters. It's got the sewer
and the water. If there's something wrong with it, than we all made a mistake when we you
know approved that subdivision because I think that was the last subdivision in that area.
11
City Council Meeting - January 22, 2007
Mayor Furlong: Mr. Cook just a clarifying question. You said the newer part of Bighorn.
Could you, is there a, was it at Frontier Trail or where…
Larry Cook: If you start with Frontier Trail and where Frontier Trail and Bighorn Drive
intersect, there's just about you know maybe it's 100 feet to the east of that, there's this big cul-
de-sac. That's where it was ended, and I believe the Kerber's owned that property going down
Bighorn Drive down to Lotus Lake at one time, and that was developed I believe in the mid 80's,
is my best guess. I moved there in 1990 so I mean in my view it's relatively recent and I believe
it's in good shape and that at least that part, some filling of the cracks and some, and another
sealcoat would be more effective, and I'm not saying that we…the way to go but I believe some
crack maintenance, but there are two areas, and basically they're at the, the first one is where you
go from that cul-de-sac onto Bighorn Drive. That north part of Bighorn Drive. It's an uphill
grade. It's all the impact, but you know it's no more than about 25 to 30 feet. That could be
fixed I think very easily. The other one is, you go down this hill, the huge cul-de-sac that was at
the end of that. I mean you could have a football field there. At the bottom of that again, you're
coming down the grade. The water is there. There's a spot again. No more than 50 by 50.
Could very easily be fixed and I think that road would be serviceable for another 10 years.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Mr. Oehme, any comments at this point?
Paul Oehme: Well we'll take a look at it again to see what we find out.
Mayor Furlong: Alright. Thank you. Anybody else that would like to speak at the public
hearing? If not, then is there a motion to close the public hearing?
Councilman Peterson: So moved.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilwoman Ernst: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Any discussion on that?
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Ernst seconded to close the public hearing.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The public
hearing was closed.
Mayor Furlong: Let's bring it back to council now for comments or discussion.
Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor, I think whenever we have any kind of assessments I feel as
though my character gets maligned more on these than anything else we do. I got kind of used to
it and I do empathize and appreciate all of the residents that submitted and commented here
tonight. I think philosophically what I have done over the last few years is, and once you get
over the fact, I agree with the pavement management system. We've invested a lot of time and
effort in that, and if you believe in the pavement management system that we have, then we have
staff experts and we have outside experts that say it is the best predictor of road failure that we
12
City Council Meeting - January 22, 2007
have. If you believe in that then these assessments and the roads that we've chosen are correct.
And as staff has shared, looks can be deceiving. You know roads last about 20 years. And Paul
you can start shaking your head and agreeing if you agree with me. But you have to trust the
pavement management system. If we don't trust that, then we've got a whole different decision
to make, but right now I have no reason not to believe the pavement management system that I
believe is accurate. So with that said then what we have in front of us tonight is the best estimate
from our experts saying these are the roads that if we delay them it's going to cost a whole hell of
a lot more 5 years from now. Because then we'll have to do a total reconstruction and the
comparison between reconstruct and a mill and overlay is big. And that's, this is the same kind
of question that we've had over the years is, we could wait on this. But then it's likely that we'll
have a full reconstruction that the assessment will be double or triple, and that's really what we're
balancing here and even though the road looks good, it's what underneath that is part of the issue.
So to that end, you know I believe in the system and in hence I think it's reasonable to go ahead
with this.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other comments?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Well as a council person this is my third year I think with sewer
assessments and I decided that there's a myth that there's only two seasons in Minnesota which is
winter and road construction. I think it's winter, road construction and assessments for roads.
Unfortunately we do live in a climate where our roads do take a beating with our weather and I
don't know, I think we've all driven on roads in cities around us that don't practice the same
stewardship that we do with our roads. They don't keep them up. They don't necessarily have a
plan like we do have to maintain our streets and as Councilman Peterson said, we have to trust
that our engineers and our city planners are doing the right thing by improving our roads and that
these assessments, while they're hard to swallow, in the end they are something that comes along
with Minnesota weather and our traffic and our roads so that being said, that's it.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilwoman Ernst.
Councilwoman Ernst: I have no comments.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. My thoughts are similar. I think especially with regard to
two components here that we're really looking at. One is, should we fix the roads or not? And
second is, how do we pay for it? With regard to should we fix the roads or not, I agree with
Councilman Peterson and Councilwoman Tjornhom, but especially with regard to the pavement
management system that we have. It is a very effective tool in it's objectivity. We remove some
of the subjectivity associated with that. Now we realize that conditions along a single street may
vary up and down and conditions between streets in different neighborhoods may also vary up
and down, but there is, there's efficiencies to be made at some point where if enough of the street
needs to be upgraded, replaced or repaired, it's efficient to do the whole street. Now I'm glad that
staff will revisit Mr. Cook's request with regard to one section of Bighorn, but again I think if the
information comes back that this area should be done now, because otherwise if the rest of the
street is done and to do a little section may be not cost efficient so, but I think we have to look at.
I'm not in favor of paying taxpayers dollars or property owner's dollars on something that doesn't
need to be done so I'll be very clear on that, but I think let's take another look at it. That's what
13
City Council Meeting - January 22, 2007
these public hearings are for. Let's revisit the numbers and see what they tell us. And with
regard to Councilwoman Tjornhom's thoughts on the assessments, they're never fun but I think
that they have become a practice that this city has followed over the last few years. I think it is
the fairest practice for a variety of reasons. Nothing is perfect, but it provides a good balance
between and I think fairly recognizes that if property values are being improved by a project,
similar to us extending utility or streets to an undeveloped area, the property owner's benefiting
from it should pay the portion that they benefit. So I think we've got a good practice there and a
good balance and I agree with Councilwoman Tjornhom that it's important that we continue to
methodically and regularly look at improving streets within the city rather than letting them sit
and not go. That is not prudent management. Not being good stewards of our public assets so I
think for purposes of tonight, the request here is to authorize the plans and specifications, is that
correct Mr. Oehme?
Paul Oehme: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: And then at a future date, once those bids come back and we know an idea of
what the exact costs are, at that point we'll actually deal with the assessment hearing at that time,
is that correct?
Paul Oehme: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay so, if there are any other comments, be happy to listen to those now.
Otherwise, we should have a motion.
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, can the motion include to order the project and authorize preparation of
plans and specs?
Mayor Furlong: I'm sure it can.
Todd Gerhardt: Thank you.
Councilman Peterson: As it does.
Mayor Furlong: With that, is there a motion to authorize the project and approve preparation of
plans and specifications?
Councilman Peterson: That was my as it does.
Mayor Furlong: So I'll take that as a motion.
Councilman Peterson: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second then?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second.
14
City Council Meeting - January 22, 2007
Mayor Furlong: Trying to catch up to the rest of the council here. Made and seconded. Any
discussion?
Resolution #2007-08: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded
that the City Council order the 2007 Rehabilitation Project 07-02 and authorize the
preparation of plans and specifications. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
ST
THE ARBORS, LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 1, ZIMMERMAN FARM 1 ADDITION (7537
AND 7570 DOGWOOD ROAD); APPLICANT CARLSON CUSTOM HOMES, INC.;
PLANNING CASE 07-01: REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM RR, RURAL
RESIDENTIAL TO RSF, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL; COMPREHENSIVE
LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT FROM RESIDENTIAL LARGE LOT TO
RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY; SUBDIVISION OF 20 ACRES INTO 22 LOTS AND 3
OUTLOTS.
Public Present:
Name Address
th
Donald Peterson 15725 15 Place No., Plymouth
Bruce Carlson 1440 Bavarian Shores Drive, Chaska
Deanna Brandt 7570 Dogwood Road, Excelsior
Marjorie Getsch 7530 Dogwood Road, Excelsior
John & Adella Getsch 7500 Dogwood Road, Excelsior
Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor. As you indicated, the applicant Carlson Custom Homes and
Peter and Dee Brandt are requesting three actions tonight. One is for a land use amendment.
The other is a rezoning and the third action is a subdivision. This subject site is located, access
via…41, off of Dogwood. There are two existing homes on the site. The current zoning on the
property is… So this would be the Westwood Church…I'm not showing you 41 so the
continuation of the road would just…and then the Dogwood Road access. Also wanted to tie
that…comprehensive plan. This property is guided, part of it is guided for low density and part
of it is guided for large lot. In the staff report, the section that deals with the land use
amendment, which is on page 4. In 2000 the staff updated the comprehensive plan…zoning
ordinance is required. In this circumstance, because there was no utilities to the subject site, the
Planning Commission felt at that time not to proceed with that… As also noted in the, back on
the project, that in order for this project to go through there needs to be a sewer and water up
there to Dogwood Road which is being pursued with the engineering project, so this project…it
will not be final platted unless the sewer and water project for Dogwood Road is approved. So
the two are tied together. With that, when that comes back…there is a road easement on the
northern portion of the plat. When that comes back for final plat, a vacation of the road…
Having said that I want to spend a few minutes going through the…and talk about what
happened at the Planning Commission. …staff report itself, the number of lots, it's 20 acres and
22 lots and 3 outlots. The site itself, as I indicated is bordered by the Arboretum on the south.
There is a substantial…on the site. The existing home. The Brandt home and this existing
15
City Council Meeting - January 22, 2007
home. Those were going to stay. Currently access to the property would come off the temporary
cul-de-sac on the Westwood Church property. They did that road as public street and the
intention for that was to provide access to the back of this property at this time. We're also
requesting with this plat utility and drainage easements…provide access, some time in the future
a minimum utility easement to the Crimson Bay Road. That is not being done at this time but in
the future we see that as an opportunity to provide utilities to that area. There's 3 wetlands on the
site, all shown in pink, and then the lakeshore lots, and there are setbacks as required by
ordinance… When this plat was first reviewed at the Planning Commission, some of the lots
regarding the setbacks from the wetlands…making those work better because they'll have
driveways coming around to the rear side, working with the grade of the site so the lot,
subdivision itself is in compliance with… Again the street cross section, which that will be a part
of the discussion later, meets the city's current standards. So then I'd like to go back and talk a
little bit about what happened at the Planning Commission. This item was tabled at the Planning
nd
Commission for a couple different reasons. The first one on January 2, the Arboretum had
some concerns regarding visibility and access to their property. Currently there's an electric
fence that's offset. As noted in the staff report it's 15 to 22 feet off the property. The Arboretum
was concerned about access to the property and for security and the electric fence itself. So with
that we have requested, if you can zoom in on this. We went to the web site of a fixed knot
fence, so that's what you're looking at here. This is a 6 inch grid. The concern that the Planning
Commission had, as well as the staff and the developer was actually the size and height of the
fence. The fence being 8 feet high. The city's ordinance only allows 6 1/2 foot. Obviously
some of the amenities on this lot would be adjacent to the Arboretum itself. If you look at the lot
layout of Lot C, so not all of these lots abut the Arboretum property…so those are the only two
lots that have direct access, and because electrical fence is offset, the Planning Commission and
staff as well as the developer agreed to mark that, that there is an electric fence. Private
property. And also part of the testimony that the folks on Crimson Bay…similar circumstance
with the electric fence along their property line, which also abuts the Arboretum, which would be
typical… That would be this property. Crimson Bay Road, which also abuts the Arboretum…
that they haven't had a problem with that, and that also…. Certainly we want these people to be
respectful of the Arboretum property but we haven't had a nuisance fence issues or spraying
issues…Arboretum as far as that facility. Again as stated in the staff report and then also noted
by the city attorney that agricultural operations are exempt from the nuisance ordinance so
anybody buying there… Then the other issue was the storm water pond itself. The storm water
itself was oversized, that's in this area here to accommodate additional runoff. That was a
ndth
concern. We believe that has been addressed. So after the tabling on January 2…the 16 and
the commission again did recommend approval with the modified conditions in the staff report.
So again…subdivision regulation requirements, attached conditions and they start on page 13.
There's 3 motions. Again one for the land use amendment, one for the rezoning and the other
one would be the third motion would be to address the subdivision regulations. So with that I'd
be happy to answer any questions that you have.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff.
Councilman Peterson: Kate, the only thing that I had that was confusing to me was, there was
some discussion that the Arboretum wanted the developer to replace the fence. Why are we
taking out, why is the fence being taken out in the first place?
16
City Council Meeting - January 22, 2007
Kate Aanenson: Well, it's 15, as stated in the staff report and you can see in the site plan itself,
it's 15 to 22 feet. Typically we don't have people go onto other people's property. I'm not sure
how that would work. Again for aesthetics we felt that going that 3 foot fence along here…they
could get around it. We'd have to fence more of that.
Councilman Peterson: Okay, so we're not saying replace the, they're saying add another fence?
Not replace the existing electric fence?
Kate Aanenson: Oh I think that was their original intent. To replace, and then probably would
take down the electrical fence…attractive nuisance that that may be. So I think the goal was to
post it private property, because you have enough buffer there, the 15-20 feet and the buyer will
be apprised of that. And again the testimony with Crimson Bay…
Mayor Furlong: I guess just to clarify that if I could. That was a request from the Arboretum,
but the Planning Commission and the staff, this report with the conditions do not require the
developer to put, to do anything with regard to a fence on that property.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: It is only to put up the signs and notification.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Other questions? Councilman Peterson, anything else at this time?
Councilwoman Tjornhom, questions? Questions?
Councilman Litsey: Just so I'm clear on this fence issue. Once the fence is put in place, is the
electric fence coming down?
Kate Aanenson: No, we're not recommending the additional fence so the electric fence would
stay in place, as it is currently on Crimson Bay Road. The goal is to post it private property and
electrical fence and that would be it.
Councilman Litsey: Are there any alternatives to the electric fence that would be viable?
Kate Aanenson: Well that was, the electrical fence, as stated by the Arboretum was to manage
the deer and that sort of thing because they have experimental things on their property.
Councilman Litsey: Right.
Kate Aanenson: So this was an alternative that was recommended by the DNR, was to use that
type of fence. Again for aesthetic reasons, we don't allow that fence, and they felt that would
be… Would some of those property owners put their own wooden fences up? That may happen
but that's on an individual case by case basis, depending on what they do with their property and
it depends on… Again I think the best testimony is from Crimson Bay…
17
City Council Meeting - January 22, 2007
Councilman Litsey: They're okay with it.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah.
Councilman Litsey: Yeah. Okay, thanks.
Mayor Furlong: Any other questions? Ms. Aanenson, a couple. On the, you said that this
project's tied to or contingent upon the street projects for Dogwood. Help me, I couldn't see that.
Is that one of the conditions? I saw it referenced in the findings of fact, but is it specific? Are
any of these specific conditions on that? Or do we just need to do that because I think.
Kate Aanenson: I believe that's…
Councilman Peterson: If you look at page 298, it says no development shall occur on either 5
acre lots until the completion of the feasibility study and plans for the road are determined.
Mayor Furlong: Is that in the staff report or the conditions of the motion?
Councilman Peterson: Staff report. It's not in the.
Kate Aanenson: …and what we're doing tonight is preliminary plat which is…for one year. It
would not come to final plat…
Roger Knutson: If that's a condition, it should be listed as a condition, yes.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And then the other question I had with regard to, if we could put up the
map of the site plan. You mentioned extending Dogwood to the, that line to the south. You
mentioned utility easement. Is that also a right-of-way easement that will not be extended at this
time?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, so there is a right-of-way and utility easement, both.
Kate Aanenson: ...on the plat.
Mayor Furlong: Yeah. Yeah, that right there. Just look at where I'm pointing on my screen.
Yep, that's a perfect picture. That section below the elbow. Right where your hand is.
Kate Aanenson: Right through there, correct.
Mayor Furlong: Yep. So preserving right-of-way as well as utility easements through that
section.
18
City Council Meeting - January 22, 2007
Kate Aanenson: Correct. Correct, and it will not be done at this time. That's a future decision.
We're showing how the Brandt property on this portion could be subdivided in the future. It'd
have to come back through the subdivision…
Mayor Furlong: So those 3, on Lot 3, are those part of this preliminary plat?
Kate Aanenson: All this is owned by the Brandt's, so they're showing how this can be
subdivided, which was our request. One of the concerns that we had.
Mayor Furlong: But at this time it's not subdivided?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, because I see the 1, 2, 3 there on Block 3. So is it just Blocks 1 and 2
that are being subdivided at this time?
Kate Aanenson: Correct. And that will show up on the final plat. The preliminary plat
has…when it comes back for final plat. Again he needs to show that Crimson Bay, Crimson Bay
had septic to it and also has a substandard access onto Highway 5, so what we want to do as
planners, as city engineers, our goal is to provide alternatives some time down the road for
additional access to the property. It may be a right-in/right-out only but. Then I also wanted to
mention too that when…land use amendment, while we're changing this lot, these lots, to be
consistent. The rest of Dogwood, it will come back when that project is ordered to make that
also consistent to be low density because right now it's still in large lot. So the only thing that
would still be large lot is going to be the Crimson Bay area. So that's…some of the folks on the
Dogwood Circle, both sewer and water is available and they subdivide, so we changed that to be
consistent too. When that project's ordered, there'll be future access.
Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. Any other questions at this time? If not there was a request
for some public comments. At this time I will open up the podium and invite interested parties
to come up and make some public comment. There was a public hearing at the planning
commission I know but certainly please come forward and. If you can start by stating your name
and address for the record.
Deanna Brandt: My name is Deanna Brandt. I'm a co-applicant of the subdivision, along with
my husband Peter and Carlson Custom. Good evening Mr. Mayor and city council members and
city staff. I've been a Dogwood Road resident for over 15 years, owning the property for 18
years. My husband's in Switzerland. He would be talking right now. We've got, can you zoom
into this part here? Okay. This entire piece that you're seeing on your entire map that I gave to
each of you shows the, exactly the same thing that Kate had shown you. The orange road, the
orange solid line shows you the proposed 31 foot wide road that will be an extension of West
th
78 Street, and the dotted orange line, running across here, shows the continuation of the
proposed 31 foot wide road. And as Paul explained it to me, this is the city standard for new
subdivisions. It's, this is the way it is. I understand that. The green area down below is part of
the properties that are not part of, there's land and homes there that are not part of the new
subdivision. The blue line is what we are, we on Dogwood Road would like to see continued as
19
City Council Meeting - January 22, 2007
a 24 foot wide road that the Planning Commission, or I mean excuse me, the planners and
engineers have already got Dogwood Road as a 24 foot wide road but all of a sudden when it hits
that magic point right there, because that, because of this land being in the new proposed
subdivision, all of a sudden it goes 31 foot wide. It just balloons up. For the reason that because
half of this, or you know on one side of it is new subdivision and that's following the rules. Well
the other half of it in the green is not new subdivision, so we're trying to maintain, those of us
that live on Dogwood Road, our goal is to maintain the Dogwood Road experience if you will.
It's horrendously skinny in some places and, but we've always been able to pass each other. It's a
pretty long dead end road. We've made due. Ambulances have come up. Fire trucks have come
up. Everybody's come up, and we are widening it to the 24 foot wide road. So now 24 foot wide
is good enough for the rest of Dogwood Road and it's a perfectly functional 24 foot wide that's
already accepted. Why can't the other approximate 550 feet of orange dashed line continue to be
the 24 foot wide road? And then it can change once it takes that sharp perpendicular 90 degree
th
turn into West 78 Street. What we're trying to do is preserve as much as we can. The loads of
mature trees that we have in there, it's just what we're trying to preserve. And for the record,
working with Paul and Alyson and Bob has been phenomenal. Our Dogwood Road family, and
you can call us that because we pretty much are all here. We show up to these things big time.
We are all very appreciative of the work that they have done. It's been nothing short of
exemplary. Really. So whether this goes through or not, we're still happy campers.
Mayor Furlong: Very good, thank you. Mr. Oehme, comments. Thoughts.
Paul Oehme: Sure…what our standards are. They're typically larger lot developments, larger
homes, larger lots. Typically bigger vehicles pass through. These neighborhoods are owned…
We've had comments that 31 foot wide roads aren't wide enough for some neighborhoods now
but this is our standard that we've adopted. That the council has, can make to change that to
something narrower but under this type of development it's our recommendation to stick with the
31 foot wide road. If granted, we are narrowing the road down on the Dogwood side under the
06-06 project. That's due to the right-of-way constraints that we have out there. But in…with
other street reconstruction projects that we've… In new developments we try to stay to the 31
foot wide road.
Kate Aanenson: I was just going to add to that.
Mayor Furlong: Yes.
Kate Aanenson: As Mrs. Brandt…this project's been on and off, on and off so I think we've all
kind of gotten to know the…but I just want to make sure, if you look, the current road right-of-
way, it's a temporary cul-de-sac. And the road is actually moving so with this project we're
trying to work with Westwood. Maybe moving it. We've had numerous meetings trying to find
the right right-of-way but certainly the road width and how it moves affects people's ability to
get, not only preserve trees but additional…public property. But just to be clear again, this is the
31 foot here, and…as it goes past this plat, then it would actually tie back in with the old
Dogwood…
20
City Council Meeting - January 22, 2007
Councilman Peterson: So on that map Kate, walk me through this. You said 31 but where does
the 24 start and end?
Kate Aanenson: Right at this plat, because you're stretching.
Mayor Furlong: 24 goes north, right?
Kate Aanenson: Correct. So they stretch it from…where the city engineer's trying to retrofit.
Bring utilities down to the existing right-of-way and preserving some of those trees.
Paul Oehme: It wouldn't be an abrupt change. It'd be a 15 to 1 taper so the…30 feet tapering
down to a narrower section.
th
Councilman Peterson: So it starts, when you do 78 it's 31. And that's Dogwood there, right?
Your bend at Dogwood.
Kate Aanenson: Correct. New Dogwood.
Councilman Peterson: The new Dogwood, so it tapers down to 24 there.
Kate Aanenson: Right at the end of that…
Mayor Furlong: One of the questions you said is when you utility services are provided along
Dogwood. There's an opportunity for additional subdivision of the existing properties. How
many homes are currently along the lakeshore there and what's the potential for additional?
Paul Oehme: I believe there's an additional 2 properties along Dogwood that can potentially be
subdivided.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Plus these 3 that we're seeing here?
Paul Oehme: Correct.
Kate Aanenson: Some time in the future, correct.
Mayor Furlong: So, okay. Additional lots. Alright.
John Getsch: Can I make a comment?
Mayor Furlong: Please.
John Getsch: My name is John Getsch and I have property that is, it actually goes right down
here. If you take off this corner, go right towards the lake. One of my concerns with the road
th
narrowing down there is people will come around the corner here on 78, come around here
thinking that this is you know a full width street. Come down that stretch will narrow down
gets…and say okay we need to turn around. Set back in driveways and then turn around and
21
City Council Meeting - January 22, 2007
head back up. And the idea was to try and keep this consistent along here with, because this is
all trees coming along narrow, and it would keep that all the way to here and here would be
where it would widen out and with the grading and stuff that's going on here, this is one of the
trees that are going to be gone. So when this area, and part of what the property owners did here.
Carlson…are trying to preserve trees by using the existing…power line route. And trying to
keep it narrow with the trees in there so you have that kind of almost a north woods feeling going
through there. And that's my comment on that we'd like to try and save that. Kept this narrow
as, makes sense and consistent with the rest of Dogwood Road. Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other public comment? Thank you for coming up sir. Yes.
Donald Peterson: Mr. Mayor and members of the City Council. My name is Donald Peterson
and I'm here representing Carlson Custom Homes as a project manager. I'll be the manager of
the project and we do not have any issues, but we agree with the recommendations of the staff
and the Planning Commission on all the items that have been discussed so far. We, there are a
couple issues that I'd like to just make you aware of. One of the things is that the
recommendation is that the plat be approved subject to the City Council authorizing the
Dogwood improvement project. We are in total understanding of that. If Dogwood doesn't get
done, and you don't order that project, then we don't have a plat. We've been working with the
staff for just a little over a year now and Bruce has owned that property, Bruce Carlson has
owned that property for almost 8 years. He's tried a couple of times to subdivide. That didn't go
ahead because we didn't have an agreement on Dogwood Road. Now it looks like we've got a
proposal that's going to meet the neighbors needs and meets our needs. Our assessment on this
project is going to be very, very large and we did for that reason reduce the lots, 2 lots from 24
lots to 22 because we wanted, we have to have something that's the best that we can produce.
And so we have reduced our lots down to 22. And these will be you know expensive homes, but
the project is really nice. Those lots are about as nice as we can do. I would ask you then that
you consider moving the plat on. We have to do quite a few things for the final plat. One of
these of course would be having an agreement on Dogwood Road, but we have reviewed staff's
recommendations on it. We have no problems with it. We also do not have a problem if the
owners on Dogwood want to have a 24 foot road all the way from the curve, all the way down.
We can live with that too. The planning staff and the engineering department wants to see this as
31 because it's in a new plat portion, we don't have a problem with that. Either way that you
decide to go on that, we just ask that we, that the plat be considered on the plat and not on the
width of the roadway. We will have to have an agreement on that roadway width before you
approve the final plat in any means. There's one other item that I'd like to point out. This may
be more appropriately addressed at final plat time but I wanted to make you aware of something
that we would request that you consider. Carlson Custom Homes owns a home that's located
right on Lot 4 here. They've owned that for about 8 years and there have been a couple of
proposed for large lot subdivision and now we've come up with this proposal. That existing
house has an existing well and it has an existing septic system which is, it's a mound system
that's located on a portion of Lot 3. Our assessment and city charges on this project are going to
be well over a million dollars and the city staff recommends that we pay those assessments up
front, while the others are paid on a I think a 6 or 8 year payment plan. We ask your
consideration that we be allowed to as soon as the final plat is approved, put this house on the
market in order to generate some cash to pay all these fees, and if you, we would propose that we
22
City Council Meeting - January 22, 2007
would do that by putting a temporary easement on Lot 3. This would probably be done at final
plat time so that this home could use the existing septic system until the time that the sewer is
done and we can hook up to the sewer line. If you wanted to place a restriction on the sale of Lot
3 until that was all done, that would be acceptable with us, but we are requesting that when you
get to final plat time that you would consider allowing us to utilize the existing operating septic
system until such time that the city sewer is in and we can hook up to it. We would be happy to
escrow money for the assessments and for the hookup that would be required so that you would
be assured that that would be done. But that would allow us to generate a sizeable amount of
cash to be able to plow into this project to pay all of these fees. I think that's probably, should be
considered at the final plat time but I wanted to make you aware of our request on that. And I'd
be happy to answer any other questions you might have.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any questions for Mr. Peterson? No? Okay, thank you.
Yes. Mrs. Brandt.
Deanna Brandt: Mrs. Brandt again. One last thing I wanted to say in regards to that 24 foot
wide Dogwood Road continuation. There is a signed petition, and I think Alyson's got it in her
folder by every resident on Dogwood Road stating that that's what we want.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Okay. Any other comments from the public? Okay, thank
you everyone. I'll bring it back to council for any additional questions of staff. Yes.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: The 24 foot road, it's probably in my packet and I haven't read it but
did the fire marshal, chief, did they have any comments or an opinion regarding the road size?
Paul Oehme: Yes. I did talk to our Fire Marshal and the 24 foot wide is the narrowest that he'd
recommend, but we've got to understand too, that's the paved surface. There is a shoulder
associated with the…road section there and the proposed current use they have a 12 foot wide
ditch. That ditch section along that roadway so you know narrowing the roadway down to 24
versus a 31, even under this scenario, I was looking at the grades, in terms of tree preservation, I
don't think, in my estimation there's going to be any significant trees that will be salvaged if you
narrow the roadway just based upon the size…this road out there so, that's just a consideration.
Councilman Peterson: Because of the ditch?
Paul Oehme: Because well, because of the ditch and because of just the grades to build a newer
section of Dogwood Road.
Mayor Furlong: So are we looking at curb and gutter along the entire length of Dogwood Road
there?
Paul Oehme: That's another thing too is you know, we are, that is one of the options that we
would be bringing before council at a later date when we have the council consider that
feasibility study. One of the options is to include that curb and gutter. Now if you go with curb
and gutter, that does push the road out to 26 foot wide from face to face, the curb, so but we do
narrow the ditch section, where there's no ditch section…
23
City Council Meeting - January 22, 2007
Mayor Furlong: So some tree preservation perhaps. It depends on where it is.
Paul Oehme: It depends on where it is and you are cutting into the hill so there are some, there
will be some trees that will be taken down there.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Councilman Litsey: So with the widening of the road, it's really taking up shoulder space more or
less, is that what you're saying? That's there now.
Paul Oehme: Right. It's just for grade purposes to build a road to it's current… There is going
to be some grading work out there. There will be some trees, not in the roadway, that will have
to be taken down because of the grades.
Councilman Litsey: And when it narrows and goes north, are there future plans at this point for
that?
Paul Oehme: Right.
Councilman Litsey: How much traffic are we looking at in the future perhaps?
Paul Oehme: Well when the staff took a look at this, this development, we're anticipating
actually less traffic going down Dogwood north of here than there is right now because you've
got an improved section of road here. It's going to be much quicker to get out on a 31 foot wide
road than neck down and…so in terms of traffic you know, it'd probably be less.
Councilman Litsey: I guess I'd be interested in hearing comments from residents about what was
just said in terms of it would have minimal impact on the trees.
Mayor Furlong: Yeah I mean I think, well I was just going to say, there seems to be some
options that have still not been decided with regard to the Dogwood project itself. So maybe the
thing to do is let's, you know we hear this, we're doing preliminary at this point so.
Kate Aanenson: Correct…asking for a variance and I think that's what the developer wants too.
Putting together…so I don't know if you want to give a range on street width. Minimum…
Mayor Furlong: Well I guess, okay.
Roger Knutson: They're asking, if it's below 31 feet they're requesting a variance. Unlike a
zoning variance, it doesn't have to go anywhere but to you for a subdivision variance. What I
was, is there any way you could postpone, puts the developer maybe at a little disadvantage but
postpone the decision on the road width until you have additional information based on the
improvement project?
24
City Council Meeting - January 22, 2007
Mayor Furlong: That's what I'm hearing probably makes the most sense because as part of that
project there'll also be additional opportunities for the residents to get involved. I mean I'm not,
by asking you to look at it, I don't know that we're necessarily authorizing it. But at the same
time I mean I'm open to other ideas but it seems to me we don't have enough to decide one way
or the other and yet I don't think holding up the entire project based upon the request of the
neighbors is fair to the developer. But we've got you know, the Dogwood project itself is
something that, this can't go forward without the Dogwood project so I think let's find some
answers on the Dogwood project and that may lead us to a direction here.
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, council members, I think we have this on as a work session. The
Dogwood Road project in our first meeting in February and then I don't know where we are on
plans and specs or authorization to do plans and specs and assessment hearing.
Paul Oehme: We're still negotiating some right-of-way issues with some of the…
Mayor Furlong: Okay. I guess my question then for Mr. Knutson would be, if we, if it requires
a variance to narrow the width from 31, can we approve the plan tonight without a variance and
still make that variance at the time of the final plat?
Roger Knutson: Mayor yes, but maybe you just want to note as a condition that the width of,
however you describe this segment. Dogwood north or.
Aanenson: Yeah, the Dogwood segment.
Roger Knutson: The Dogwood segment is reserved to be decided based upon additional
information. Something along those lines so you just, in your approval note that that decision is
yet to be made.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Yeah, let's move to other comments or questions on the rest of
the development. Or on this issue, if somebody wants to make a comment there. Councilwoman
Ernst.
Councilwoman Ernst: I just have one other question. So tonight I've really not heard of any
disadvantages, other than the fact that it doesn't fall within the 31 feet and also the fact that
potentially the fire truck may have some challenges getting down that road, although it doesn't
sound like he's very, he's real concerned about it. Are there any other disadvantages to having it
24 feet versus 31?
Paul Oehme: Well there's no parking that would be allowed in a 24 foot wide road. And 24 foot
wide roads, especially if we're going to have curb and gutter in the paved section, on a new road,
two larger vehicles passing by each other is, it's narrow. It's not.
Councilman Peterson: It's scary.
Mayor Furlong: It's really narrow.
25
City Council Meeting - January 22, 2007
Kate Aanenson: And those lots do have access via Dogwood.
Mayor Furlong: Some of the lots on this development.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: Would have, would be on the Dogwood, or at least on this section of Dogwood.
As the existing homes on the west side. Other questions or comments on the development in it's
entirety? Councilwoman Tjornhom, thoughts.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I think the Planning Commission kind of sifted through all those big
clumps of clutter that we don't have to do tonight as regards to the electric fence. I don't think
I've ever dealt with anything like that where there is an electric fence bordering someone's back
yard and how do you handle that? You know I still am a little leery about that but I guess I've
got to just have faith that a sign is going to make everyone happy for the next 100 years. When
it's sold and re-sold but the Arboretum is a great asset to our community and I think that you
know, it's a win-win for everybody.
Donald Peterson: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Furlong: Yes. Mr. Peterson.
Donald Peterson: If I could clarify something regarding that fence. The Planning Commission
recommended that we make a disclosure to any buyer that would come in. We will have a
mandatory owners association because we have 3 outlots that we have to maintain, etc so we will
have an owners association. Now we have agreed that we will make a full disclosure that there
is an electric fence beyond their property line. We will also allow our residents, if they choose,
to fence their back yard. They can do that so we will have a disclosure in all our advertising
material. We'll have a disclosure in our homeowners documents that states there is, the present
operation is an apple orchard. That they do use insecticides and…signs down there and
according to the Planning Commission recommendations stating the electric fence be on so
people will be well aware of what's there. If they choose to fence in their back yard, we will
provide ornamental recommendations so that we get a nice looking fence. And we have no right
or obligation we feel to build a fence or to object to a fence on their property. If the Arboretum
chooses to build a fence, there's nothing we can do about it. We're happy with what we've got,
but if they choose to build a fence, that's their right. According to city recommendations so if
that point clarifies.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: No…can live in harmony. Especially those people who have the
deer in their back yard that want to get over. I think it's going to be a great development. I think
it's a good asset to our community. It's a long time coming. I think there's been a lot of long
meetings and a lot of long nights with the whole thing and I feel bad about the road. It doesn't
sound like there's a lot of hope for saving trees and I've been down that road. It's beautiful and
you kind of feel like you are going up to your cabin, even though you're not, so I wish you the
best of luck with the trees but other than that, I don't think I have any other comments.
26
City Council Meeting - January 22, 2007
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other comments.
Councilman Litsey: Just echo the same thing. It looks like a good project overall. I don't know
all the history behind it because I'm new to the council but it looks like you've come up with a
real good project and I do have a comfort level now with those items that have to be disclosed so
I'm glad those were put in there so, if we can deal with the road issue, and I'll make a point of
looking at it. I guess I'm comfortable with moving forward with the development proposed but
separating out the road issue.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Other thoughts.
Councilman Peterson: You know I've sat through most of those meetings in different versions of
this and I'm proud to say I like this one the best. I think this has got the highest probability of
success obviously so, you know with regard to the road, I think a lot of where I would come
from in the road is what are the probabilities of the north really being redeveloped and kind of
redone also? I mean I don't like the idea of going from 31 to 24 with no aspect of 24, whatever
we get higher, you know then I think it’s a waste. But so that's where I think staff, I'd like to
hear what the probability of that, if it's still 24, going to a more safer road. You don't want to
drive on a 24 foot road with a car coming.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Or a garbage truck.
Councilman Peterson: Yeah, you wouldn't. You couldn't then, but so other than that I think it's a
great project and let's move ahead.
Mayor Furlong: Okay thank you. I think no reason to take a lot of time. It's a good project.
There's been a lot of thought put into it and I know that there's been a lot of work, and especially
cooperation with the developer and with residents along Dogwood and I thank everybody for all
their time and effort. And I think ultimately this is going to be a good project and I think that the
city project of upgrading Dogwood Road is going to be an asset, not only for the public but for
the residents along the road and I'm very pleased that we're moving forward with that. There's
been as much cooperation as there is so, I think this is, I think we should move forward. If there
are other comments, be happy to take them. Otherwise I think the motion begins on page 13 of
the staff report. 307 on the PDF and the only two things that I heard, and maybe there was a
third, is that we should make all 3 motions, or my recommendation would be all 3 motions
would be contingent upon the what? Authorization or.
Kate Aanenson: …staff report.
Mayor Furlong: Is it in the report or in the conditions?
Kate Aanenson: In the conditions of approval. It's under…and the reason why you didn't see it.
Councilman Peterson: 06-06.
27
City Council Meeting - January 22, 2007
Kate Aanenson: It's 6(g). Preliminary plat approval contingent upon. It should be final plat
shall be contingent upon approval of the construction project 06-06, which is the sewer and water
project.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, so just the preliminary plat? None of the.
Kate Aanenson: The final plat…so (g) says final plat is contingent upon.
Mayor Furlong: (g) should be final, and it's only with regard to that motion that it's required?
Kate Aanenson: For the subdivision.
Mayor Furlong: For the subdivision.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: The rezoning are fine?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: Don't need to be contingent upon that?
Kate Aanenson: Correct. Well we wouldn't go forward with the rezoning until…
Roger Knutson: That's already spelled out. The zoning is tabled until the plat comes back.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: And then just.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, so we're good on that. And the other one is just to add a condition.
Kate Aanenson: Reserving Dogwood right-of-way.
Mayor Furlong: The final with the Dogwood will be determined at the final plat?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: And which condition do you want that to be Kate?
Kate Aanenson: If you want to make it number 10.
Mayor Furlong: Alright. With that is there a motion?
Councilman Peterson: Yeah, what he said.
28
City Council Meeting - January 22, 2007
Mayor Furlong: Probably not good enough for Mr. Knutson over there. Yeah what he said if
we attach the findings of fact, right? Then it's okay?
Roger Knutson: Now you stole my thunder.
Mayor Furlong: Alright, alright. We've got motions A, B and C in the staff report. (g), item
what is it? 6(g) has been amended to say final plat versus preliminary. Strike the word.
Condition number 10. The final width of Dogwood Road will be determined at final plat, is that
sufficient? Can somebody say so moved?
Councilman Peterson: So moved.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilwoman Ernst: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Second. Any questions on the motion? We'll deal with all 3 motions in a single
motion without objection. Seeing that, any discussion?
Resolution #2007-09: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Ernst seconded that
the City Council approve Comprehensive Land Use Map Amendment from Residential-
Large Lot to Residential-Low Density for Lots 1 through 3, Block 3 of the preliminary plat
of The Arbors contingent upon Metropolitan Council review. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Ernst seconded that the City Council approve
the Rezoning from RR, Rural Residential to RSF, Single Family Residential for the land
within the plat of The Arbors subject to final plat approval for The Arbors. All voted in
favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Ernst seconded that the City Council approve
the preliminary plat for the Arbors creating , plans
22 lots, 3 outlots and public right-of-way
prepared by Otto Associates, dated October 31, 2006, subject to the following conditions:
1.The house designs, locations and driveway configurations for Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, must be
revised to maintain the required wetland setback.
2.Full park fees in lieu of parkland dedication and/or trail construction shall be collected as a
condition of approval for The Arbors. The park fees shall be collected in full at the rate in force
upon final plat submission and approval.
3.Fire Marshal’s 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
29
City Council Meeting - January 22, 2007
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 State Fire Code Section 503.2.3.
e.Submit proposed cul-de-sac name to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire
Marshal for review and approval.
f.No burning permits shall be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either
be removed from site or chipped.
4.Building Official Conditions:
a.A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before
building permits will be issued.
b.Demolition permits must be obtained prior to demolishing any structures on the site.
c.Existing wells and on-site sewage treatment systems on the site must be abandoned in
accordance with State Law and City Code.
d.The developer must submit a list of proposed street names for review and approval prior
to final plat of the property.
e.Retaining walls more than four feet high must be designed by a professional engineer and
a building permit must be obtained prior to construction.
f.Separate sewer and water services must be provided each lot.
5.City Forester’s Conditions:
a.Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits prior to any
construction. Fencing shall be in place and maintained until all construction is
completed.
30
City Council Meeting - January 22, 2007
b.Any trees removed in excess of proposed tree preservation plans, dated 10/31/06, will be
replaced at a ratio of 2:1 diameter inches.
c.A minimum of two trees shall be planted on each lot.
d.Tree conservation easements on Lots 5, 8, and 9, Block 1 shall be enlarged beyond what
is shown on plans dated 10/31/06.
e.Tree conservation easements shall be located on Lots 1-3, 5, 8-9, Block 1.
f.The applicant shall replace Colorado spruce shown on landscape plan with concolor fir or
Norway spruce.
6.City Engineer’s Conditions:
a.In order to meet the 10% maximum allowable driveway grade on Lots 1 through 3, Block
1, the builder may have to put steps in the garage to accommodate the grade change.
b.The dead pool volume of the pond needs to be increased by 360 cubic feet to meet the
MPCA Phase II requirements.
c.The proposed 1036 foot contour on Lots 12 and 14, Block 1 must be shifted so that the
backyard grade is minimum 2%.
d.The proposed major contours must be a different line weight or type.
e.Based on the grading plan, the home on Lot 5, Block 1 will be a walkout, not a full
basement.
f.The top and bottom of wall elevations of the wall must be shown on the grading plan.
g.Final plat approval shall be contingent upon the approval and construction of Project 06-
06.
h.Watermain must be minimum 18 inches above or below the sanitary sewer.
i.Access for Lots 2 and 3, Block 3 will be addressed and constructed when those lots are
final platted.
j.An encroachment agreement is required for the gravel drive and turnaround within the
th
Dogwood Road right of way south of West 78 Street.
7.Water Resources Coordinator’s Conditions:
a.The applicant shall classify Wetland 2 using the results from the Minnesota Routine
Assessment Method for Evaluating Wetland Functions (MnRAM Version 3.0). An
31
City Council Meeting - January 22, 2007
electronic version of the completed MnRAM evaluation shall be submitted to and
approved by the city to establish the classification of Wetland 2 so the appropriate
wetland buffer and setback requirements can be determined.
b.A wetland buffer 50 in width and a 50 foot setback from the wetland buffer must be
maintained around Wetland 1. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and
staked in accordance with the City’s wetland ordinance. The applicant must install
wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins
and must pay the City $20 per sign. Wetland buffer and setback requirements for
Wetland 2 are contingent upon review and approval of the MnRAM for that wetland.
c.The proposed driveways and structures on Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 appear to be within the
wetland setback for Wetland 2. The applicant shall submit house plans that will meet the
required setbacks on Lots 1 and 2, Block 1.
d.The proposed conservation easement shall be revised to envelop Wetland 2 and the
required wetland buffer.
e.A NPDES Phase II Construction Site Storm Water Permit will be required from the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) for this site. A Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be required in conjunction with this application. The
SWPPP shall be provided to the City so it can be reviewed by the Carver Soil and Water
Conservation District prior to the preconstruction meeting for the project.
f.The proposed storm water pond shall be constructed prior to disturbing upgradient areas
and used as a temporary sediment basin during mass grading. Diversion berms/ditches
may be needed to divert water to the pond and a temporary pond outlet shall be provided.
The outlet could be a temporary perforated standpipe and rock cone. The plans shall be
revised to include a detail for the temporary pond outlet.
g.It shall be noted on the SWPPP that all areas that will not be permanently stabilized
within the timeframe required by the NPDES permit shall be temporary mulched and
seeded. A note shall be included in the dewatering section of the SWPPP that states: “If
construction of the proposed temporary/permanent sediment pond is not completed prior
to dewatering, the City’s on-site construction observer must approve proposed
dewatering methods prior to beginning dewatering.”
h.The plans shall be revised to incorporate Chanhassen’s standard details for erosion and
sediment control, including 5302A and 5302D. Proposed erosion and sediment controls
for individual lots shall include perimeter controls (silt fence), rock driveways, street
sweeping, inlet control and temporary mulch after final grade and prior to issuing the
Certificate of Occupancy.
i.The applicant shall provide erosion and sediment control along the south and east
property lines to prevent discharge of sediment onto adjacent properties.
32
City Council Meeting - January 22, 2007
j.All silt fence that is not laid parallel to the contours shall have J Hooks installed every 50
-75 feet. This shall be noted on the plans and discussed at the preconstruction meeting.
k.Energy dissipation shall be provided at the inlet to the proposed pond and at the end of
the discharge pipe that outlets to the wetland within 24 hours of pipe installation. The
discharge location for the outlet of the proposed pond shall be evaluated to ensure that
the proposed discharge will not cause erosion issues. Reinforced erosion control matting
may be required.
l.A stable emergency overflow (EOF) for the stormwater pond shall be provided. The
EOF could consist of riprap and geotextile fabric or a turf reinforcement mat (a
permanent erosion control blanket). A typical detail shall be included in the plan. The
overland route from the EOF to Lake Minnewashta shall be shown on the plans and shall
be encumbered by a drainage and utility easement.
m.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
n.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.
o.Inlet protection may be needed prior to installation of the castings for the curbside catch
basins. In that case, all storm sewer inlets shall be protected by at least fabric draped
over the manhole with a steel plate holding the fabric in place.
p.The plans shall be revised to show a rock construction entrance (minimum 75 feet in
length) wherever construction traffic will access the site. The rock construction entrance
shall be constructed in accordance with Chanhassen’s Standard Detail 5301. Street
cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street
sweeping as needed.
q.At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final
plat recording, is $74,570.50.
r.The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies
(e.g., Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
(for dewatering)) and comply with their conditions of approval.
33
City Council Meeting - January 22, 2007
8. The developer shall provide in both their sales material and within the association covenants
full disclosure about the Minnesota Landscape Arboretum location, use of electric fence,
research operations, and agricultural operations including the spraying of trees.
9. The developer shall install signage on Lots 4 and 5, Block 2, and Outlots B and C warning of
the electrical fence on the Minnesota Landscape Arboretum property.”
10. The Dogwood Road roadway width shall be determined with the Final Plat.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
FOX HILL, 6570 CHANHASSEN ROAD, APPLICANT, 10 SPRING HOMES, INC.:
REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY INTO THREE (3) SINGLE FAMILY
LOTS WITH VARIANCES.
Public Present:
Name Address
Sheryl Deppa 4920 Sparrow Road, Minnetonka
Charles R. & Mary Klingelhutz 6570 Chanhassen Road
nd
Scott Rosenlund 622 West 82 Street, Chaska
Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor, members of the council. This is a little less complex
subdivision in the fact that it's 3 lots, although there's two actions required. One is a variance for
a private street…and the subdivision itself. The subject site is located on 101, just south of Fox
Hollow Drive. The council recently approved a subdivision…6 lots so this is, there's an existing
home on the property right now. The same applicant is doing both projects. And just again to
pass onto you the zoning in the area. The surrounding property actually is a PUD. The most
recent Fox Den was given an RSF which does traditional single family lots so, as did this subject
site. I just want to point that out because some of these lots actually behind are actually a little
bit smaller in the PUD… Again, all of this area is guided low density, which all of the lots
considered to meet the standard. So with the existing home on the site the applicant has to
demonstrate that through the current ordinances you could get 3 lots, so this subdivision meets
city ordinances with a public street. Fox Court. In reviewing this the staff felt that an increased,
by putting a public street to handle those 3 lots, it increased the hard surface coverage and there
were significantly more trees loss and because the cul-de-sac, such a short cul-de-sac would not
provide access to…there might be a more efficient way to serve…this home currently has it's
driveway on 101…again not the best layout. So in working with the applicant, we did want to
make desired from the staff perspective, alternative… The one issue that was addressed at the
Planning Commission and the staff also addressed is…that large lot, basically an acre and a half.
As pointed out in the staff report, if you take some of the hard surface, that area that's common,
so the area that's common, driveway starts here. Again providing a back up here. The Planning
Commission challenged staff if this is the best way to subdivide…private street, and what we've
learned with a private street, it provides enough width and enough back up area so you're not
backing into someone's private driveway so this is the common portion of the driveway… That's
34
City Council Meeting - January 22, 2007
the common part of the street, using the private drive. So this lot, taking out the hard surface
coverage is 18,000 square feet. This one is 19 and this one is 20 so again well in excess of the
15,000 minimum. The property is relatively flat so there's not going to be much grading required
on the lot…should preserve most of the trees. It does meet all the setbacks for the variance itself
will just be for the private drive. There was a request from some of the neighbors concerning the
extraction of additional right-of-way on 101. There's a written opinion from the city attorney…
regarding because it's on an officially mapped road that it's an appropriate extraction… The
developer is providing additional dedication to match what currently is in place. One of the
concerns was landscaping along the sight lines. That has been addressed. There's also a power
line there so we can't place taller trees there but they will be putting berming and that provides
the screening. Another issue was brought up was…and that also has been addressed. …similar
homes across the street so we're anticipating similar size on these lots. So with that, if you turn
to the conditions of approval which start on page 12. We are recommending approval of the
variance for the private street and then subject…and I'd be happy to answer any questions that
you'd have.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff.
Councilman Litsey: I think I got most of mine answered and I appreciate it but I'm still
struggling just a little bit with private versus public road there. The only one that comes to mind
that might be a private road near there is off of Pleasant View. There's a dirt road. Is that right?
Kate Aanenson: Yep, you're right and that's, that has quite a few more homes. The current
ordinance only allows 4 homes off of a private drive.
Councilman Litsey: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: I'm not sure if that's unpaved.
Councilman Litsey: That's unpaved yeah.
Kate Aanenson: That's unpaved. Gosh, I'm not sure if it's 6. It's long. Much longer. It doesn't
provide that turn around so.
Councilman Litsey: Yeah, you've got…
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, and that's what the Planning Commission challenged…the staff on that
too. Why would you recommend a private street? We compared this one similar to the one that
was recently done on Minnewashta. Minnewashta Parkway. There was an existing older home
that was divided into 3 lots. The same sort of application here where you've got surrounding
homes adjacent to it. It's less intrusive as far as putting that wider street in and it also provides
that turn around so… There is a requirement for maintenance between the 3 property owners…
Mayor Furlong: Are there any questions? Councilwoman Tjornhom.
35
City Council Meeting - January 22, 2007
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I don't have a question with the development at all. I have a question
regarding the widening of 101 and the trail. Can you give me a brief history? I was told at some
point you know that the trail will be there, it's not ever going to be taken away or you know. I'm
sorry, I probably opened up a can of worms I shouldn't be opening up.
Kate Aanenson: No, no. No, actually it was a question at the Planning Commission…which
they did talk about was 6 to 1 and especially, I think Commissioner McDonald approached it…
Near Mountain and they talked about the discussion and I'll let Todd…between the two counties.
Hennepin and Carver and then Chanhassen and Eden Prairie and trying to get a resolution of the
appropriate width and how…
Todd Gerhardt: Well 101 north of Highway 5 is you know a county road right now, and there
hasn't been a turn back agreement that has, where every government agency has agreed. I mean
you've got Eden Prairie. You've got Chanhassen, Hennepin County, Carver County so to come
to terms on a design for the road, 4 lanes, super 2, you know nobody could come to terms so with
that the trail moved ahead and the trail is approximately about a million dollars and you know it's
functioned in it's current capacity. Depending on trip generation in the future, but right now
there's no plans for discussions on turn back or reconstruction of the road so the trail will stay in
it's current alignment based on this development and I don't foresee anything in the near future of
a turn back.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, any other questions? Clarification on the access point for the private
drive. Is that going to be directly opposite of Fox Drive? It looks like it on the picture there. I
just wanted to confirm.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, it's in a T.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any other questions? Is the applicant here this evening? Is
there any comments you'd like to make? You're welcome to come forward.
Scott Rosenlund: No, not unless…
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any questions for the applicant? Follow up question I guess
with regard to the private drive, and maybe this is a question for the applicant. You showed on
there where the turn around would be. What's going to physically delineate between the private
drive and the driveway to that house? Is it going to be different materials or is it going to be a
single flowing asphalt?
Kate Aanenson: I think that's a good point that we should, because it could technically be
similar in width.
Mayor Furlong: It might visually be a continuous flow and even if the property goes around that.
Is there something.
Kate Aanenson: I think we could somehow mark it, stake it.
36
City Council Meeting - January 22, 2007
Mayor Furlong: For both Lot, what is it 2 and 3.
Kate Aanenson: Correct. This part is the common.
Mayor Furlong: Right. Visually or through construction or something. Is that something that
you've considered doing sir?
Scott Rosenlund: Again my name is Scott Rosenlund. I'm with Ten Spring.
Mayor Furlong: Good evening.
Scott Rosenlund: Good evening. I don't think I've really thought exactly how to delineate
between the two…private road and the driveway. Maybe we could mark it with a yellow line.
Kate Aanenson: I think there should be something.
Mayor Furlong: It's been a problem that we've seen in the past with, even though neighbors may
buy the property with all good intentions and believed understandings sometimes, it's not their's
so. Maybe that's something you could work with staff on.
Scott Rosenlund: Exactly. When you brought it up my first thought was maybe we should have
delineation with maybe just a yellow marker. Maybe.
Kate Aanenson: It would get paved over. I think I agree, somehow we've got to…
Mayor Furlong: Something we don't have to decide here tonight but let's work on that.
Roger Knutson: And Mayor, in the documentation creating the private street, we'll also want to
make it very clear that they have, the neighbors have the right to make that back up movement
there so we don't have any, anyone getting surprised when they buy that lot that someone's
backing up and we don't have any fuss.
Mayor Furlong: Is that distance, the back up distance, what's the length of that? Or check on
that and make sure it's deep enough to handle a delivery truck.
Scott Rosenlund: That was one of the requirements of, in the planning stage to make sure we
actually had a diagram. I don't know if we have it here, but a certain sized truck, staff
recommended, the engineers have to fit that truck. A certain radius and it was all engineered.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. You're comfortable with that Kate?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Just a point of clarification. I agree with what the city attorney said that
we put it in a covenant… The variance is for the private street.
Roger Knutson: It doesn't matter. The variance I would think would be the appropriate place.
37
City Council Meeting - January 22, 2007
Kate Aanenson: Okay.
Mayor Furlong: You're coming up with language Kate.
Kate Aanenson: Clarification on the, I would say clarification of the common driveway,
clarification of delineation.
Mayor Furlong: That's something that can be worked out I think. Mr. Knutson's comment might
need to be a condition of the variance.
Kate Aanenson: Right. The other one would be that the agreement, maintenance agreement
for…
Roger Knutson: The ownership of maintenance agreement would have to provide the right to
make that back up movement. That movement.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any other questions or comments? Discussion. Thoughts,
comments. Seems pretty straight forward.
Councilman Peterson: I think it is pretty straight forward.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. We're good to go? Alright. Motion begins on page 12 of the staff
report. 365 of the PDF file. Would somebody like to make the motion please, and then we'll
want to insert the recommended condition under the variance. Is that correct? The motion for
the variance. Just two motions?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, I think the city attorney felt…subdivision portion…
Roger Knutson: Or the variance were tied together. Technically it's part of the variance.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, same motion for the preliminary plat. Are there two motions?
Kate Aanenson: Yes there are. One for the subdivision.
Roger Knutson: And one for the variance. You can combine them in one motion if you choose.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Is there a motion?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Mr. Mayor, I'll make the motion.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I make a motion that we approve the preliminary plat for Planning
Case 07-03 for Fox Hill Subdivision for 3 lots with variances to allow a private street as shown
on the plans dated received December 1, 2006, subject to the following conditions 1 through 35.
Okay, now where do I go from there?
38
City Council Meeting - January 22, 2007
Mayor Furlong: I don't see the single motion in the packet.
Kate Aanenson: Yep, it'll be 35.
Mayor Furlong: And what's 34?
Kate Aanenson: 34 would be there'll be a delineation for the common portion of the property.
Mayor Furlong: The delineation, okay. Which is the private drive.
Kate Aanenson: Correct. And then 35 would be.
Roger Knutson: Documentation of the right to, the turning movement or the turn around.
Mayor Furlong: Documentation within the?
Roger Knutson: Within the documents creating the private street.
Mayor Furlong: Mr. Knutson reserves the right to revise and extend his remarks.
Roger Knutson: I don't know what form of document it will be. I assume it will be an easement.
Mayor Furlong: In the appropriate documentation. Alright. So that's 1 through 35. That's your
motion?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Exactly. That's what I was going to say.
Mayor Furlong: I knew that. Is there a second?
Councilman Peterson: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion?
Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that the City Council
approve the preliminary plat for Planning Case 07-03 for Fox Hill Subdivision for 3 lots
with variances to allow a private street as shown on the plans dated Received December 1,
2006, subject to the following conditions:
1.A minimum of two 2½-inch deciduous, overstory trees shall be required in the front yard of
each lot.
2.No more than one-third of the required trees may be from any one species.
3.Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits around all trees
proposed to be preserved prior to any grading.
39
City Council Meeting - January 22, 2007
4.Any trees proposed for preservation that are lost due to grading and construction activities
will be replaced at a rate of 2:1 diameter inches.
5.The Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be provided to the City so it can
be reviewed by the Carver Soil and Water Conservation District.
6.The plans shall be revised to incorporate Chanhassen’s standard details for erosion and
sediment control, including 5300, 5301, 5302A and 5302D.
7.In order to ensure that the proposed infiltration area functions properly, the contractor shall
minimize the number of equipment trips across this part of the site. Additionally, the lightest
equipment appropriate for the job shall be used. Once the infiltration area is graded, the
easement area shall be fenced off so no further compaction occurs. The applicant may want
to consider planting native shrubs, grasses and wildflowers within the infiltration area instead
of sod to promote volume reduction through infiltration and evapotranspiration.
8.A stable emergency overflow (EOF) for the infiltration area shall be provided. The EOF
could consist of riprap and geotextile fabric or a turf re-enforcement mat (a permanent
erosion control blanket). A typical detail shall be included in the plan. 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.
9.The plans shall be revised to show a rock construction entrance (minimum 75 feet in length) off
Fox Hollow Drive. The rock construction entrance shall be constructed in accordance with
Chanhassen’s Standard Detail 5301. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall
include daily street scraping and street sweeping as needed.
10.At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat
recording, is $8,450.
11.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 (for
40
City Council Meeting - January 22, 2007
dewatering), Carver County, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Minnesota Department
of Health) and comply with their conditions of approval.
12.Full park fees in lieu of parkland dedication and/or trail construction shall be collected in full at
the rate in force upon final plat submission and approval.
13.Building Official Conditions:
a.A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before
building permits will be issued.
b.Demolition permits must be obtained prior to demolishing any structures on the site.
c.Retaining walls more than four feet high must be designed by a professional engineer and
a building permit must be obtained prior to construction.
d.Separate sewer and water services must be provided to each lot.
e.Any existing wells and on-site sewage treatment systems on the site must be abandoned
in accordance with State Law and City Code.
14.Fire Marshal conditions:
a.Add an additional fire hydrant at the intersection of Fox Hollow Drive and Fox Hollow
Court.
b.A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees,
shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure
that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to
Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1.
c.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 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.
e.No burning permits shall be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either
be removed from site or chipped.
15.All existing buildings, driveways and accessory structures must be removed before grading
commences.
16.Submit calculations of storm sewer and NURP showing that the development meets the
requirements of the City and the MPCA. Determine the new HWL for the existing pond and
41
City Council Meeting - January 22, 2007
show it on the plan along with the NWL.
17.The swales on the eastern side of Lot 2, between Lots 2 and 3, and the swale west of Lot 3
must have a 2% minimum slope. Also, the swales in the northwest corner of the house of Lot
1, back yard of Lot 2, and side yard of Lot 3 should be moved away from the foundations of
the structures. Plantings shall be placed outside the swales to promote drainage. Add spot
elevations at the building corners of Lot 1.
18.A valley gutter shall be installed at the intersection of Fox Hollow Drive and the private
street to convey water through the intersection. Also, provide spot elevations on the curb to
ensure curb line has a minimum slope of 0.5%.
19.The proposed storm line connecting to the existing storm sewer shows a bend without a
structure. A structure will be required at all bends of storm sewer. Maintain 18 inches of
separation between the sanitary sewer and drain tile.
20.On the Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan, show:
a)Private street and driveway grades shall not exceed 10%.
b)Ground (i.e. non-paved) surface grades shall not be less than 2%.
c)Emergency overflow locations and elevations must be shown on the plan.
d)Add bottom elevations to the retaining walls.
21.An easement is required from the appropriate property owner for any off-site grading.
22.If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will
be required to supply the City with detailed haul routes.
23.Building permits are required for all retaining walls four feet tall or higher and must be
designed by a Structural Engineer registered in the State of Minnesota.
24.All sanitary sewer, watermain and storm sewer within this site shall be publicly owned and
maintained.
25.The watermain extension from Fox Hollow Drive must be wet-tapped. Due to the alignment
of the watermain in Fox Hollow Drive, it appears that this connection cannot be done under
traffic. The sanitary sewer connection on Fox Hollow Drive connecting to an existing stub
shall also be completed under traffic.
26.Utility plans shall show both plan view and profiles of all utilities (sanitary sewer, water, and
storm sewer lines. The actual elevations of existing utilities shall be determined.
27.Install cleanout for the sewer service for Lot 2 due to length.
28.Each new lot is subject to the sanitary sewer and water hookup charges. The 2006 trunk
hookup charge is $1,669 for sanitary sewer and $4,485 for watermain. Sanitary sewer and
42
City Council Meeting - January 22, 2007
watermain hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building
permit issuance. All of these charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the
Met Council and are due at the time of building permit issuance.
29.The utilities will need to be adjusted to allow a minimum of 10 feet horizontal separation
between the easement and the proposed utilities.
30.A 10-foot drainage and utility easement will be required for the front of Lots 2 and 3.
31.The private street entrance must connect to Fox Hollow drive at a 90-degree angle.
32.Lot 3, Block 1, must maintain a 20-foot side yard setback along the westerly property line.
33.The applicant shall file covenants concerning maintenance of the private street against all
benefiting properties as required in section 18-57 (p) 2 of the city code.
34.The applicant shall provide signs or other markings identifying the common areas of the
private street.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
Councilman Litsey: I have something. I don't know if it's best done under here or
communications. We had in our packet. It has to deal with the communications.
Todd Gerhardt: Correspondence.
Councilman Litsey: Or correspondence.
Mayor Furlong: Correspondence. Why don't you wait til we get there.
Councilman Litsey: That'd be fine.
Mayor Furlong: Any council presentations? If not then administrative presentations.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
Todd Gerhardt: Nothing to add. Look forward to getting our goals established here later on.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Gerhardt? None.
CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION.
Councilman Litsey: We had in our packet a communication from a Julie Odenbach about the
Dodge Charger and she was dissatisfied with the city's role in that. When I got it I didn't have a
43
City Council Meeting - January 22, 2007
chance to respond in time to include it in the packet. I'd like the opportunity just to read my
response and hand it out to the council for inclusion in the packet. If that's okay.
Mayor Furlong: That's fine.
Councilman Litsey: Okay. I'm going to need my bifocals for this thing. I'm in receipt of your
letter to City Manager Todd Gerhardt and members of the City Council dated July, or January
12, 2007. I appreciate you taking the time to offer your opinion in what you describe as
interference by Chanhassen city government for the rights of municipal traffic education
enforcement program in the community. I assume what prompted you to send the letter was the
article in the January 11, 2007 edition of the Chanhassen Villager entitled Black Dodge Poses
Image Problem for Chanhassen. As you are undoubtedly aware by my comments in the article I
am equally frustrated by what has occurred. I have worked hard to right this wrong both before
and after my taking office as a council member on January 8, 2007. It has been an uphill battle
but it is not in my nature to give up on matters of public importance. I agree that there is pause
for concern when a few disgruntled people can influence government to change a generally
accepted and legal practice that is in the best interest of the public. It is this particular, in this
particular situation a handful of undocumented and unsubstantiated complaints about the color of
the Dodge Charger resulted in the side lining of the highly effective tool for performing traffic
safety in Chanhassen. There are those of us that feel as you that the rationale about the color of
the Dodge Charger being too authoritarian would be amusing if not for the fact public safety is at
stake. This apparent smoke screen makes one question what is really at issue when by all
accounts the deputy assigned to this vehicle was enforcing the law in a fair and impartial manner.
Not only has the Dodge Charger been a real asset for traffic enforcement but the distinct
appearance of the vehicle has apparently been great for public relations. Young people in
particular are eager to take a closer look at this vehicle, prompting them to interact with law
enforcement in a positive way. It also provides an excellent opportunity to educate the public on
traffic rules and regulations. I was not given advance opportunity to review the response you
received to your letter from City Manager Todd Gerhardt. Nevertheless I am glad he was
forthright in accepting responsibility for being part of the decision making process that led to the
Dodge Charger being pulled from service in Chanhassen. I was disappointed however by what I
regard as his side stepping the real issue of why a select few people behind the scenes could
cause this to happen in the first place. My hope is that the residents such as yourselves speaking
out will make the difference in returning the Dodge Charger to the streets of Chanhassen. I will
continue to work on behalf of the residents of Chanhassen in achieving this goal. And I signed it
and copied it. Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other discussion on the correspondence packet? Seeing none,
if there's nothing else to come before the council this evening, is there a motion to adjourn?
Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilwoman Ernst seconded to adjourn the meeting.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The City
Council meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m..
Submitted by Todd Gerhardt
City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim
44