CC Minutes 9-29-05
City Council Meeting - September 29,2005
b. Resolution#200S-79: Call Assessment Hearing for TH 312/212 Improvements, Project
Numbers 03-09, 04-05, 04-06.
c. Resolution#200S-80: Call Assessment Hearing for 2005 MUSA Improvements, Phase I,
Project 04-05.
e. Approval of Registered Land Surveys for:
Resolution#200S-81: Lot 6, Block 1, Christmas Acres, Subdivision #05-02.
Resolution#200S-82: 860,890 and 910 Pleasant View Road, Subdivision #05-09.
f. Approval of Amendment to City Code Relating to the Disposal of Unclaimed Property,
including Summary Ordinance for Publication Purposes.
g. Approval of City Code Amendment to Chapter 6, Article III Concerning Watercraft
Operating Regulations.
h. Approval of Reassignment of Landscaping Requirements, Highlands at Bluff Creek.
J. Chanhassen West Business Park:
1) Approval of Final Plat.
2) Resolution#200S-82A: Approval of Plans & Specifications and Development
Contract.
k. Resolution#200S-83: Order Preparation of Feasibility Report for 2006 Street
Improvements, Project 06-01.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to O.
Rick Dorsey asked that item l(d) be pulled for discussion. Mayor Furlong stated the item will be
discussed after new business.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
Janet Paulsen: Council people. My name is Janet Paulsen and I live at 7305 Laredo Drive. I
wish to address the subject of the Harvieux subdivision.
Mayor Furlong: Mrs. Paulsen, would it be okay if we brought that up during, when we're
discussing that?
Janet Paulsen: Sure, that'd be fine.
Mayor Furlong: That will be fine. I'll make time for public comments. Would anybody else
like to address the council during visitor presentations this evening? No? Okay. We offer this
every evening so people are welcome to come each meeting.
2
City Council Meeting - September 29,2005
certainly would consider that as well. So any other thoughts or comments based upon what
people have heard? If not, is there a motion?
Councilman Peterson: I'd move to approve the denial as presented by staff in the staff report.
Mayor Furlong: Based on the findings of fact?
Roger Knutson: Yes, and adopting the findings of the Planning Commission as your findings.
Councilman Peterson: You know I don't say that just so you have something to say during the
meeting.
Roger Knutson: I'd be really bored if you didn't give me at least a little opportunity tonight.
Councilman Peterson: That's fine.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilwoman Tjomhom: Secong.
Mayor Furlong: Any further discussion on the motion? Seeing none we'll proceed with the
vote.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council
denies Variance #05-28 for a request for relief from the city's ordinances in order to place a
non-illuminated sign on a bank drive thru canopy without street frontage based on the
findings of fact in the staff report and the following:
1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship to warrant a variance.
2. The applicant has adequate signage.
All voted in favor, except Councilman Lundquist and Councilman Labatt who opposed,
and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2.
HARVIEUX SUBDIVISION. 6605 HORSESHOE CURVE. RONALD HARVIEUX;
REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLA T APPROVAL TO SUBDIVIDE
LOT 2. BLOCK 1. SATHRE ADDITION INTO 3 LOTS WITH VARIANCES.
PLANNING CASE 05-26.
Bob Generous: Thank you Mr. Mayor, council members. As you stated this is a request for
preliminary and final plat approval. There is a variance request for the use of flag lots to, as
creating two of the lots. The applicant has prepared revisions to the plat to correspond with some
of the issues that we had. Specifically this flag lot is required to be 30 feet in width and so
they've amended this plan to show that. In doing that they've had to revise lots 1 and 2. They
did follow the Planning Commission's recommendation and maintained the existing east/west
line between Lots 1 and 2, and instead extending the lot to the south. Again the variances for the
14
City Council Meeting - September 29,2005
use of the net part of the flag lot, they each have 30 feet or more of frontage on a public street.
The existing home on the south end, there will be no change in how that accesses itself. It shares
a driveway with the property to the west. As a condition of approval we're requiring that they
provide an easement to maintain that access in place for that. Staff is recommending approval of
the preliminary and the resolution for the final plat subject to the conditions in the staff report.
With that I'd be happy to answer any questions.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff. Just to confirm Mr. Generous with these
realignments of the lot lines, all the lots still meet our ordinances, correct?
Bob Generous: Yes, they complied with ordinance.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Thank you. Any other questions for staff? If not, is the
applicant here this evening? Is there anything you'd like to address to the council?
Ron Harvieux: Mr. Mayor and council members. My name is Ron Harvieux. I live at what is
Lot 3 in the old subdivision. 6605 Horseshoe Curve. We have lived there, my family and I for
26 years and as I mentioned at the Planning Commission, we think we've been good stewards of
the land in the 26 years. and we intend to be, as we develop the proposed subdiv.ision. As Mr.
Generous has indicated, we have complied with all the directives of the Planning Commission.
We understand them and the compromises were pretty easy to make and we've made them. One
of the big issues that Bob mentioned was in realigning these lots to make a 30 foot neck lot, one
of the big issues the Planning Commission came up with, and we believe in is maintaining some
very large trees that are on the lot. It's a very lovely wooded lot and we made the changes
without removing any further trees, which was that whole issue of not moving that north/south
line, so that's what that's about. We also changed the placement of the driveway and the neck
lot for Lot number 2, which was the Planning Commission's request but also was our neighbor,
our near neighbor's request. They would like to see that driveway move as far away from them
as possible. They happen to be just over the line, and we're doing that. We understand their
needs and we're trying to comply with that. And lastly we added patios and sidewalks to the
configuration for Lot number 2, which was getting close to the hard cover number, but we went
for the very worst case scenario because we really do understand the concept of the hard cover
and we understand what Planning Commission is saying to us, so we added the sidewalk and
patio the best we could see at this point to build a worst case scenario which still lives within the
guidelines and so we think we've addressed that issue. In fact we agree with everything that's
been done with one exception and that is, just a point of clarification. Under the resolution
document for final plat, there's a point number 3 which states the last sentence of that point, that
we should make sure, I think it's all heavy. Bob, I might have to borrow the document. I left
mine back at my chair. Is it on the top, I'm sorry. It reads right now, heavy mixing trucks
should use conveyor pipes to transport cement. We are considering building what's called ICF
poured concrete home there, which is ICF is Insulated Concrete Forms, but it is a pumping issue,
where the concrete's pumped into the home and it's poured concrete from the foundation all the
way up to the rafters. And quite honestly I don't know if the state of the art stuff right now that
they can actually pump that concrete from the street all the way to where the house site is, so I
only ask on point number 3, as point of clarification, that heavy mixing trucks should use
conveyor pipes to transport cement as feasible. I simply don't know if they can carry as far as
15
City Council Meeting - September 29,2005
from the street all the way to the housing sites. If they can, we'd ask them to do that but we
don't know that they can. Thank you sir, so for that one clarification. Beyond that I'm available
here to answer any questions that might come up and I thank you for the consideration.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Questions for the applicant. I guess when you say as feasible
you're speaking to, that it's physically possible.
Ron Harvieux: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: Not from a cost standpoint or.
Ron Harvieux: Well, well let's see. Yeah, I suppose I have to say affordably. I mean I have no
idea what it would take to pump, I don't know this, to pump cement 100 yards. I just don't know
if that's reasonably affordably feasible. I should put affordably in there because I don't know. I
don't know if that can be done. I think it's a start of the art question but I have no answer to it.
Mayor Furlong: Yeah, cost is feasible from a cost standpoint is different things to different
people versus state of the art so, Mr. Generous thoughts there or Mr. Knutson, Mr. Gerhardt.
Todd Gerhardt: I believe we probably put that condition in there to try to protect the vegetation
around the foundation.
Ron Harvieux: And there are some other caveats that go to the same thing. Put in a 4 inch layer
of chipped mulch. Consider the use of bridging things that go over the root system, and we
understand that. We will do that, but the issue of pumping, my issue right now is pumping
concrete 100 yards. I just don't know if that can be feasibly done. I just don't know. But we
want to protect the trees.
Roger Knutson: Mayor?
Mayor Furlong: Yeah.
Roger Knutson: I'm not sure I'm quite understanding this but are we talking about, when it
comes out of the cement truck... the typical cement truck has a chute. I don't know how long
they are but is that what you're talking, using that chute?
Ron Harvieux: No sir, they do have booms.
Todd Gerhardt: Like a fire hose Roger.
Roger Knutson: So maybe what you're saying is a boom that is readily available rather than,
maybe you can get something from.
Mayor Furlong: The other issue here, I mean depending on the sequence of building versus Lot
1 versus Lot 2, does that give you some other flexibility? I mean what I'm thinking is we might
have, we might not have the answer tonight but it might be something that we might have to
16
City Council Meeting - September 29, 2005
have them work with staff and when the situation comes up, when the grading plans are
submitted.
Ron Harvieux: That unfortunately, Lot 2, which is the lot that's furthest away from the street is
the lot we'd like to develop first. So I mean in some ways perhaps that's the one that needs the
answer first. Again I think probably in the world of pumping concrete, I suppose there's
something out there that can pump it 100 yards. I don't know. That's not seems to be in the
realm of kind of evidential applications we've seen. It's much less than that.
Mayor Furlong: Mr. Gerhardt, thoughts?
Todd Gerhardt: Not 100 yards.
Roger Knutson: Perhaps maybe what we're getting at, I think I understand. You're saying he
must do this if it is feasible and what we're struggling is how do we define feasible. I mean
given all the, maybe you want to say if feasible and then let, delegate to the staff that that
determination and say, you've got to do it unless you can convince the staffthat it's not feasible.
And they'll look at it carefully.
. .
Mayor Furlong: Then if there's a disagreement with staff's interpretation they can come back
here. And that gives the flexibility, depending upon whether you can utilize Lot 1 or not, or
other options.
Ron Harvieux: I think the staff has been very clear and open and workable to date. I bet they
will continue to do that. I'd be very willing to accept that condition.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Mr. Knutson, would you like to work out some language when we get to
our motion and Mr. Gerhardt.
Roger Knutson: Certainly.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant at this point? No? Okay.
Very good, thank you. There was a request from Mrs. Paulsen to comment so I would invite her
forward at this time, and when she's done, if other members of the public would like to
comment, they'd be welcome as well.
Janet Paulsen: Again council people. I have three issues with this development. The first one
is, refers to the side lot. Lot 3, which is the lot that has the present house on it. That driveway
also serves the neighboring lot, and according to our city codes we can't have one driveway
serving two homes. Now if you have a flag lot you have a 30 foot space to put in your driveway.
That means you also have a 30 foot space to put in a private street. A private street can be used
to access two homes but not a driveway. In fact there is no such thing as private driveway in our
code. The second issue is Lot 2. I just want to make sure that the table that's given is to be
understood then on Lot 2 the lot area is 18,422 square feet. And therefore the impervious surface
is one-fourth of that. The area has been corrected but with the lot area cannot include the neck,
that's the deal with a flag lot. So Ijust want to make sure that that's clear to the builder. And
17
City Council Meeting - September 29,2005
then again about the private street versus a flag lot driveway. If you create, this is creating a new
subdivision and you're creating Lot 3. Then if it has sharing a driveway with another lot you're
creating a non-conforming lot which is also against code. Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: And I guess Mrs. Paulsen, quick question there. Your first point was about the
30 foot space. Was that a terminology issue between a shared drive or a shared driveway or
shared private street or private driveway? Is that terminology because your third point, I guess I
didn't understand the difference between those two, so help me understand. Your first point was
about the.
Janet Paulsen: If you have room for a flag lot you have room for a private street. A private
street would be able to access 2 homes because it would have a 30 foot width and a 30 foot
length for those 2 homes to have their cars go through, but a flag lot would only have a 10 foot
driveway. That's all that's required for it, for 2 people to use it. Is that clear?
Mayor Furlong: I think so. Then your third point though was again relating to a shared private
street?
Janet Paulsen: If you have, if they have a shared driyeway, or 2 homes accessed by one
driveway, which is against code, you'd be creating a non-conforming lot and you would have to
have a variance for that.
Mayor Furlong: So is it nomenclature or?
Janet Paulsen: No.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Janet Paulsen: It's following code.
Mayor Furlong: That's what we try to do. So but I'm just wondering if it was nomenclature that
was bothering you or if it was the title or.
Janet Paulsen: It's also a safety issue because private street requires a wider pavement.
Mayor Furlong: But the current driveway does not meet the requirements for a private street, is
that?
Janet Paulsen: It's wide enough to put in a private street. If they make it a flag lot.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Good, thank you. Mr. Generous, comments on those points.
Bob Generous: Roger and I have had this discussion back and forth. Lot 3 is an existing
condition. The subdivision's not creating that private street/private drive issue. It's already
there. They're not changing that with the subdivision. Therefore we don't, there's no nexus
between the subdivision and making them upgrade that area because that's in place. The new
18
City Council Meeting - September 29,2005
lots are up on top. Our contention was that the configuration of the lots had to comply with the
ordinance requirements, and the 30 feet. That's correct. That would be sufficient to do a private
street, and if they further subdivide to the west and added homes accessing off of that, then we
would make them upgrade that and get the variance for the private street, but because it's
existing condition, they're not changing anything. Except for the lot line in that area.
Mayor Furlong: So it's an existing non-conforming and the use of that existing non-
conformance is not changing?
Bob Generous: Correct. It's not intensifying or anything.
Roger Knutson: The courts have looked at this issue and said, you cannot require someone to
eliminate an existing non-conformity just because they're subdividing if it's a legal non-
conformity. For example if you have an existing building on there that is out of it's setbacks and
someone wants to come in and subdivide it but that line isn't changed because of the subdivision,
you can't require it to be eliminated as a condition of the subdivision process. It's not being
changed.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. And the. other question was.
Bob Generous: The area for the Lot 2, yes we did recognize that the coverage cannot include the
neck area of the flag, and also the converse side of that, and which is good for Mr. Harvieux is
that we can't count the impervious surface within that either so, he gets to take that out too.
Mayor Furlong: So the driveway along that.
Bob Generous: Within that 40 foot neck is not included in his impervious surface for the 18,000
square foot lot. The flag if you will.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, and did you use the 18,000 foot in the preliminary.
Bob Generous: Yes, we did use the total area to calculate it but we also used all the impervious
surface within that area too so I think there's more impervious surface in there than any other...
properties so he actually gets a bonus.
Ron Harvieux: Could I.. . for that?
Mayor Furlong: Please.
Ron Harvieux: Maybe...
Mayor Furlong: If you could come to the microphone.
Ron Harvieux: Here is the lot without the neck lot. There's the total width of the neck lot so
actually we're.
19
City Council Meeting - September 29, 2005
Bob Generous: It's less.
Ron Harvieux: It's less and the neck lot is actually by itself, is more than 25% impervious
coverage because the driveway meanders. The driveway is 10 feet off the 40 foot lot so the
actual street would be 25% but because it meanders it's over 25. And so really we're penalized
by including the neck lot. If we take it out, our coverage is less.
Bob Generous: It goes from almost 25% to 23% site coverage based on that design.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Okay, thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to comment?
Debbie Lloyd: Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. Just to that last point, I think it would
behoove us then to put the accurate information in the report so it doesn't lead to confusion.
Whether it be beneficial or detrimental, just to have the right calculations in there. Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Is there anybody else that would like to provide comment at this time? Very
good, thank you. Any follow up questions for staff? Or the applicant. If not, I'll bring it back to
council for discussion. Comments. Thoughts.
. .
Councilman Peterson: I think it's reasonable. I think that to make those changes and clarify so
there is no ambiguity is certainly beneficial. Other than that, it seems reasonable.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilwoman Tjornhom, thoughts.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I agree with Councilman Peterson.
Mayor Furlong: Councilman Lundquist.
Councilman Lundquist: I would recommend that we completely remove the last sentence of
condition 3. I think we understand the intent there, but Ijust shudder at the amount of time that
Paul and Kate and Bob and our naturalist and everybody else and half of the city are going to try
to figure out if we can drive a cement truck on this. Sorry, concrete truck on this lot, and I think
we understand Mr. Harvieux and everyone's intent to save as many of those mature trees as
possible and understand that he's going to do that and we'll put our trust. I'm willing to put my
trust in them to do the right thing and for us to sit here and try to figure out how we're going to
pump concrete around this in my mind is ridiculous. So I would suggest let's take it out and not
create an administrative pain for ourselves.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman Labatt.
Councilman Labatt: I concur with everybody, including Mr. Lundquist's deletion.
Mayor Furlong: You're very agreeable this evening. I think so too, and Councilman Lundquist I
think it's a very reasonable recommendation and I would support just taking out that last
sentence as well. Any other thoughts? Comments. Very good. I appreciate the work that the
applicant and the Planning Commission did to try to recognize that there are some significant
20
City Council Meeting - September 29,2005
trees on this lot and if we can, by working with the, how it will be developed to try to minimize
any damage to those and impact I think we can do that and I think that's been done here
reasonably and I appreciate the applicant's efforts as well as the Planning Commission and staff
to try to get that done. Are there any other comments? Thought?
Councilman Lundquist: One other mulligan Mr. Mayor to the comments that were made by the
public. Would also recommend through a motion that we amend the staff report to have the
correct calculations and data with that as well so that the permanent record reflects the correct
numbers.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Without objection let's do that. Is there any other comments or
suggestions?
Councilman Labatt: No.
Mayor Furlong: Very good. Is there a motion?
Councilman Lundquist: What page is it on?
Mayor Furlong: 260. Or actually on the staff report 7 of 10.
Councilman Peterson: I'd recommend the City Council approve preliminary plat and final plat,
resolution as submitted by the staff report and the surveyor's dated 8/04/05 with conditions 1
through 34 with condition number 3, the last sentence to be removed, along with, as we
discussed earlier, putting the proper information and data and points to make them accurate for
the staff report.
Mayor Furlong: . Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilman Lundquist: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none we'll
proceed with the vote.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council
approves the preliminary and Resolution#2005-85 for Harvieux Addition with a variance
for the use of flag lots, plans prepared by Demars-Gabriel Land Surveyors, Inc., dated
8/04/05, revised stamped received September 12, 2005, based on the findings of fact
attached to this report and subject to the following conditions:
1. Only trees shown on the preliminary plat as being removed shall be allowed. No trees
are to be removed on Lot 1. Four trees are allowed to be removed on Lot 2. Any other
trees removed shall be replaced at a rate of 2: 1 diameter inches.
2. Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the grading/clearing limits prior to any
construction activities and shall remain in place until construction is complete.
21
City Council Meeting - September 29,2005
3. Detailed grading, drainage, tree removal, and erosion control plans will be required for
Lots 1 and 2 at the time of building permit application. Development of Lot 2 shall
incorporate a single-lane construction entrance covered with wood chips, tree protection
fencing must line the entrance route and a single storage area shall be designated for all
materials. Cement trucks may not be allowed to rinse out on site.
4. The front lot lines for Lots 2 and 3 are the westerly lot lines.
5. If grading will be done, a final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the
Inspections Division before building permits will be issued.
6. Separate water and sewer services must be provided for each lot. Relocate Lot 1 sanitary
sewer and water services from the northwest off Pleasant View Road to the west off
Horseshoe Curve.
7. Addresses for each home must be posted on Horseshoe Curve and on each home.
8. No b.uming permits will be issued. Trees must either be chipped or removed from site.
9. Builder/developer must comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy #29-1991
regarding premise identification.
10. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All
exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year
round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames:
Type of Slope
Steeper than 3: 1
1O:1to3:1
Flatter than 10: 1
Time
7 days
14 days
21 days
(Maximum time an area can remain
open when the area is not actively
being worked.)
11. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and
street sweeping as needed.
12. The applicant shall pay for the total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of
final plat recording in the amount of $7,558.00.
13. The developer shall pay full park fees for the two new lots at the time of final plat
recording in the amount of $8,000.
14. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will have to be obtained, including but
not limited to the MPCA, and Watershed District.
15. Tree preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree removal.
22
City Council Meeting - September 29, 2005
16. Extend the silt fence to the north along the west side.
17. Add a note to the plan: All sanitary services must be 6 inch PVC-SDR26 and water
service 1 inch copper.
18. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant
will be required to supply the city with a detailed haul route and traffic control plan.
19. The sanitary sewer and water hookup charges are applicable for each of the new lots.
The 2005 truck hookup charge is $1,458 for sanitary sewer and $2,955 for watermain.
20. All disturbed areas as a result of construction must be seeded and mulched or sodded
immediately after grading to minimize erosion.
21. Gutters must be installed on the house on Lot 2 and must discharge to the southwest
corner of the lot.
22. Submit a security to ensure that the street cuts are properly restored to city standards.
23. The applicant should be aware that any retaining wall more than 4 feet in height must be
designed by a structural engineer registered in the State of Minnesota. Also, it will
require a building permit through the City's Building Department.
24. Cleanouts are required at all bends of the sanitary sewer service or every 90 feet,
whichever is less.
25. A ten foot drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated along the western property
line of Lot 3.
26. A cross access and maintenance agreement shall be recorded over Lot 3 for the benefit of
Lot 46, Pleasant View Addition for the existing driveway.
27. Amend the staff report to have the correct calculations and data so the permanent record
reflects the correct numbers.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to O.
CHANHASSEN WEST BUSINESS PARK: LOT 4. BLOCK 2. CHANHASSEN WEST
BUSINESS PARK. MINGER CONSTRUCTION. REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN
APPROVAL FOR AN OFFICEIW AREHOUSE BUILDING. PLANNING CASE 05-27.
Bob Generous: Thank you Mr. Mayor, council members. As you stated this is a request for site
plan review. It's the first building within the Chanhassen West Business Park, which is the plat
that was approved tonight as part of the consent agenda. This building is approximately 46,000
square feet. The development is off of Galpin Boulevard and Lyman Boulevard. It's the most
westerly lot within the development, and I'll just show you. This is the concept plan for the
23