CC Minutes 5-14-07City Council Meeting - May 14, 2007
h. Approval of Three Month Extension to Variance #05-10 for 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard,
Laura Cooper.
i. Approval of Temporary On-Sale Liquor License, Chanhassen Rotary Club, Fourth of
July Celebration, July 3 & 4.
j. Approve Release from Contract for Private Redevelopment Between the City of
Chanhassen and Coeur Terra, LLP.
k. Approve Professional Services Agreement with WSB & Associates, Inc., PW009Z.
l. Approval of Agreement with PCI for Temporary Concrete Batch Plant for TH 212
Project.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
Debbie Lloyd: Good evening. Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. I'm going to keep this short
but I need to say this now to make it a matter of public record. As you are aware for over 6 years
I've watched what's happening with developments within Chanhassen. After shoreland code
wasn't properly applied in a subdivision within my neighborhood. It's sad to say that despite
bringing information to the attention of the city staff and council that their application of city
ordinance to all residents and developers doesn't exist within our borders. It does appear that
certain developers are set to higher standards than others. It is the ordinance, it is the city code
which puts each one of us on a level playing ground, and I didn't plan that. Thank you. Tonight
nd
you have before you the final plat for 2 phase of the Preserve for approval. As you are aware I
did raise questions about this development in an email correspondence.
Mayor Furlong: Excuse me Ms. Lloyd. Is this the reason why you pulled that item from the
consent agenda?
Debbie Lloyd: No. Not in and of itself solely. This relates to something else as well.
Mayor Furlong: Alright.
Debbie Lloyd: Condition 13 for Addition 1 of the Preserve specifically mentions the
construction of Bluff Creek Boulevard improvements to serve the development, and that the
development is assessed for this project, but there's no mention of setback. The ordinance
requires 50 feet. The setback of 3 homes from Bluff Creek Boulevard is less than what
ordinance requires along a collector street and less than what was required of Town & Country,
also a PUD established along the very same collector street. When the Preserve was approved
the developer claimed no variances were required. The only mention of any setback condition in
the report was a 40 foot setback for the primary corridor. That is the Bluff Creek corridor. The
exception for the street setback was not stated again. Therefore implied that they were meeting
all city standards. The Preserve is a multi-phased development and as such may have violated
3
City Council Meeting - May 14, 2007
other terms of their development contract. Specifically the cutting of mature oaks within the
secondary zone of Bluff Creek in Phase II before it was approved. That's on the agenda tonight.
The purpose of the PUD was to be sensitive to this surrounding area. Is this sensitive? The clear
cutting of mature oaks prior to the approval of the final plat for the phase? What corrective
actions will you take regarding the cutting of the trees? I suggest you postpone approval of the
final plat for the Preserve tonight. I have pictures of the destruction in case no one has seen what
went on there. In another development, Abra. Anyone drives down Highway 5 you can see that
Abra is not set back as much as other locations. Again, in the staff report not one mention of the
setback required from the right-of-way. I've checked with the State of Minnesota. I have the
right-of-way here. There's a 200 foot right-of-way for that highway in that portion of the city.
They're set back 50 feet from the pavement. MnDot says that the right-of-way extends beyond
the pavement. Those are issues I brought in email. I wish I would have time to, had time to send
formal letters so it would have been in your packet. This is not something I enjoy doing, but
something that needs to be addressed. I'm sure there's other situations out there. If council or
staff can't give honest answers to this, maybe we need citizens who are going to look at this stuff
and get a consensus as to what is important and needs to be remedied. Thank you for your time.
Mayor Furlong: Anybody else who would like to address the council during visitor
presentations. Again, if it's a matter relating to a public hearing later, this would not be the time
to come up.
Boyd Peterson: Good evening. Yeah, Boyd Peterson. 9860 Pioneer Circle. I'm here for some
other issues but the one this gal's talking about is pretty much right on the nose. It's appalling
what this city is going to let them people do in cutting them mature oak trees. Now we're
supposed to be a city of trees and we all know what drives development and it's money. And I
just hope to hell that they weren't supposed to do this and the city does something about it.
Whether fine them or put a big delay on them because money's driving this deal and they're just
driving this whole situation and they do what they want. There's no such thing as the easements
or setback. But the tree issue, that's ridiculous. It's the first I've ever heard of it but I was
appalled when I seen it.
Mayor Furlong: And we will be addressing that issue when we pick up item 1(e) apparently.
Later on this evening. Anyone else for visitor presentations this evening. Alright, thank you.
PUBLIC HEARING: 2007 STREET REHABILITATION PROJECT 07-02:
ASSESSMENT HEARING AND AWARD CONTRACT.
(Councilman Litsey stepped down for this item and recused himself from the discussion
and vote.)
Mayor Furlong: We'll move now to our first public hearing for the evening. This is relating to
item number 2 on our agenda relating to the 2007 Street Rehabilitation Project 07-02. We'll start
with a report from staff and open up a public hearing as well and then consider other items.
Councilman Litsey?
4
City Council Meeting - May 14, 2007
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. At this point we'll open up the public hearing and invite any
interested parties to come forward and address the council on this matter. Okay. Anyone?
Seeing nobody then without objection we'll close the public hearing and bring it back to council
for discussion. Any discussion on this item?
Councilman Litsey: Pretty straight forward.
Mayor Furlong: Seeing none, is there a motion to approve?
Councilman Litsey: So moved.
Councilwoman Ernst: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Second Councilwoman Ernst? Thank you. Any discussion on the motion?
Councilman Litsey moved, Councilwoman Ernst seconded that the City Council approve
the request for an on-sale intoxicating liquor license from High Timber Lounge, LLC
contingent upon receipt of the license fee and liquor liability insurance that meets
minimum state requirements. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with
a vote of 4 to 0.
ND
1(e). THE PRESERVE AT BLUFF CREEK 2 ADDITION:
1) FINAL PLAT APPROVAL.
2) APPROVAL OF PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT
CONTRACT.
Mayor Furlong: Is Ms. Lloyd still here? Oh, there you are. You wanted to discuss this. This
would be the time for you to come forward.
Debbie Lloyd: As I said, first of all you received my emails regarding the setback along the
boulevard. I guess the question I have, were not state funds sought for that boulevard? MSA
funds?
Mayor Furlong: Was it Bluff Creek Boulevard?
Debbie Lloyd: (Yes).
Mayor Furlong: Any questions? I think the answer is yes. Yeah.
Debbie Lloyd: So it is a collector and you only got, the state defined as a collector. Code clearly
states 50 foot setback. I mean that wasn't in the staff report. That's a shortcoming of the staff
report. Clearly the 40 foot was relative to the buffer for the wetland. For the protected zone.
The other issue is, and there is, there's one built home. There's a foundation going in. There's
another lot that doesn't look like it's going to have adequate space next to the model. I mean
there's another lot that's questionable. The one with the foundation going in, I asked about how
20
City Council Meeting - May 14, 2007
that was going to be configured because it looks like it's going to have a huge wall and a
driveway to back up into this garage and it doesn't look like there's even adequate space for that.
Let me grab something. The development contract. The opening. Right to proceed. Within the
plat or land to be platted the developer may not grade or otherwise disturb the earth, remove
trees, etc.. I was appalled. I drove by and saw all these mature oaks. I don't know if you drove
by. They're just cut. They're not in Phase I. They're in the secondary bluff protected zone. I
mean I was just like appalled. So is this what happens? So you send out a message saying
they're not doing things right and they go and take care of and get rid of everything so that they
can proceed? And I didn't have time to really study what's before you tonight but it looks to me
like there were like 13 lots that they want approval for, but they want to grade everything.
Everything. What if more lots don't come in for a long time? We've disturbed all that earth for
something that may not take place. And the two, replacing these mature trees. Think about it. 2
to 1. What kind of penalty is that? If that's the kind of penalty that's leveled. Why wouldn't
anyone go in and clear their land? I mean I just, these are not the kind of you know standards I
think our city should live up to. And the responses to my emails were nothing but to me a
deterrent, a smoke like dig a little more. Dig a little more til we have time to get this through.
That's how I felt about it.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Ms. Aanenson, I guess with regard to items raised by Ms. Lloyd.
Debbie Lloyd: And I'd like you to point out where the corridor is.
Kate Aanenson: Sure. As far as the other issues raised, I've responded to those twice and I don't
have all the information in front to respond to those. I'll just talk about the trees. I'll step back
and look at the whole AUAR area. So this is the 600 acres that we studied. So this is the site
that the Rottlund Homes, the Preserve. This is where the road stops approximately right here. If
you look at where the trees are on, can you zoom in on that just a pinch more? Just a little
tighter. That's good. Thank you. If you look at what we did on the project for this, this was
buildable. We saved all those trees. We saved this is the lot line here is not all of this. We
saved all these trees and we'll be saving those. If you look at what's on here, on a bigger scale,
what we showed to be graded, this was an original preliminary plat. I've got this, this is Lyman
Boulevard. Maybe you can now back out a little bit. This is the area of grading. Those trees
were to go out. The trees that were saved are over here. Down in here and then in the primary.
There's 20 acres of the primary zone. The sewer line did go a portion of the primary zone. They
were required, I don't have the preliminary plat in front of me. I didn't know how much detail
you were going to get into tonight. But I brought this down in case there was a question
regarding the plat itself. There is a tree replacement plan for the project. Again the way our
ordinance works is based on a canopy coverage, there is canopy there and they are required to…
replace trees in that area. Yes there were trees to come down there but if you look at the acreage
of trees we've preserved overall, it's significant and we've taken the Planning Commission down
there to show them what we've done. We've crossed the creek once and I think we've done a
very good job of trying to preserve trees. On every project there's going to be trees going down.
Now is this part of Phase I? They worked with engineering to, they have a grading plan for the
entire site to work that to mobilize, to get that, and I don't know if Paul wants to comment on that
at all but to do the grading of the entire site because they will be building this trail with this plat.
The trail that crosses the creek.
21
City Council Meeting - May 14, 2007
Mayor Furlong: I'm sorry which? Could you show me that?
Kate Aanenson: I'm sorry. The trail, I'm sorry.
Mayor Furlong: Hit the table please, thank you.
Kate Aanenson: Okay. So this trail will be built this year. They're building that right now.
They've sent in the pictures for the crossing of the creek, so there's a bridge structure here that
will cross the creek. They're building that this year. That's why they wanted to grade the entire
site. Get in there and they worked that out with engineering. There's security in place. Again
following the grading plan that was approved for the entire site. So nothing has been changed on
that. They're following the plan so.
Mayor Furlong: I guess one of the questions I heard was they're grading within the area that,
they're grading, taking out trees prior to getting the second addition approved. Are you saying
that the grading plan was approved at the beginning for the entire site irrespective of when they
proceeded with the plans and specs.
Kate Aanenson: I'll let Paul answer that question.
Paul Oehme: Well yeah. In the preliminary plat phase we didn't put that, the grading plan for
the whole development all 2-3 phases of it and that was reviewed and we did approve of that on
that design. The developer has requested that mass grading be taken place. It is more beneficial
we feel for the entire site to be graded at one time instead of piecemealing it together because of
the…erosion control issues that happen with…there's less intrusive to the existing properties so
you get most of the grading done and then come back…so there is a lot of benefit in doing mass
grading project up front versus doing it separately down the road.
Mayor Furlong: Is this the first time we've done that or have we done that historically?
Paul Oehme: No, we've done it before too.
Mayor Furlong: Whole Town & Country.
Kate Aanenson: Lake Harrison, yeah. Again they are grading down in the secondary zone
because that's where the trail is going, on top of the sewer pipe. Again consistent with what
we've already approved so. So we're monitoring that, and.
Councilman Litsey: Wouldn't there be more erosion concerns though if the site's completely
graded than if?
Kate Aanenson: They have to establish seed and the like to the whole area so.
Councilman Litsey: Do they do that?
22
City Council Meeting - May 14, 2007
Kate Aanenson: Yeah.
Todd Gerhardt: You want to grade the site completely so you have natural drainage that would
go with the new development you know. When you stop you start getting erosion of your road
beds and gullies in areas that shouldn't be there and your water's going to be re-directed out with
the grading plan. That's why we get a grading plan so we can direct the water ultimately where
it's supposed to go at the end of the development. Now in this case they had two phases. Graded
the first phase. That kind of comes to a hill and it stopped there. Then as you go down towards
Lyman, it makes sense that you want to grade the rest of that all the way down to Lyman so you
don't have it all going to the ditch. So you can redirect it to the ponds and get it pre-treated
before it goes into Bluff Creek.
Paul Oehme: The next phase of this project too, we're trying to balance this site out with
material right now, is the cut phase of the development. The next phase of the development so
they would eventually have to stockpile material someplace until they use it for the next
additional phases. It doesn't make sense to stockpile like that in piles…because you will have
erosion control problems…
Todd Gerhardt: Kate, could you talk a little bit about the setback from Bluff Creek Boulevard?
Kate Aanenson: Sure. I mean I've addressed that. There's a difference of opinion on the, where
we look for the 50 foot and I've addressed and I don't have all that in front of me to go through
that in detail and the specific lots. I did look at that but I'd have to go back and look at my notes
on that so.
Mayor Furlong: Have they done anything at this point that's inconsistent with…
Kate Aanenson: With what they've done, no.
Mayor Furlong: What was approved.
Kate Aanenson: No. No. There's a difference of opinion on that and I don't want to get into a,
I've been doing this for a long time. 7 years going back and forth on this. Getting a legal
opinion on when I say something so I'd just as soon have everything in writing.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: In my own protection. So back to this grading, I just want a further
clarification. I did pass out for the developer, I did mention in my staff report that we did ask for
a trail head here. The bridge will be crossing. This road here will actually be a public street as it
goes across to the industrial park on the other Degler parcel. So in looking at that we felt that
probably wouldn't be the best place for homes to be placed so they actually dedicated, we
compensated them for not building but with this plat they will be dedicating the right-of-way and
again to get the bridge to go across, so that is where, in my staff report I put in a dollar amount.
The applicant did request that we put in the development contract which makes sense, so I did
23
City Council Meeting - May 14, 2007
make that amendment and I'll give that to the developer and Mrs. Lloyd too, but that's the
compensation that we owe them in the amount of $216,709. to make sure that's clear so.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright, thank you.
Debbie Lloyd: I do want to make one thing clear. Those trees you know, grading I'm not expect
in that but I can tell you those trees were not scheduled to go down in Phase I for anything I've
read. Yeah, tree preservation or whatever. Those trees should have gone down after approval of
Phase II. If you approve their removal.
Mayor Furlong: And I think what we just heard this evening, and Mr. Oehme if I heard
something wrong tell me, that there's a, the sequencing of the plats is independent of the grading
plan. And that the grading plan was approved for the entire area, or in this case it sounds like
there were two phases but the grading plan had been priorly approved in it's entirety, is that
correct?
Paul Oehme: Yeah, I mean there's a, staff has looked at the grading plan when it came at
preliminary plat time and I know council had reviewed that grading plan and that's the plan
that…
Councilman Litsey: And that's the portion of the project that the cutting of the trees would be
covered under?
Paul Oehme: Yeah, absolutely. I mean…
Councilman Litsey: Obviously you can't grade if you don't have the trees down.
Paul Oehme: Exactly. With the grading plan that was approved, that's the only way…
Councilman Litsey: And those trees ultimately would have come down at some point in time for
the project. Okay, thanks.
Mary Born: I'm Mary Born, 7199 Frontier Trail but my question is don't they need the
contractor must have a permit to do the work, correct?
Kate Aanenson: Yes. He has to have a letter of credit, which he does.
Mary Born: Is the contractor holding a permit that's been approved by the City?
Paul Oehme: For what portion?
Mary Born: The portion that's been done so far.
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
24
City Council Meeting - May 14, 2007
Paul Oehme: Yeah. I mean he has acquired the MPS permits. Erosion control to look at all the
issues associated with the grading.
Mary Born: So he had signed and returned permits from the City?
Todd Gerhardt: That's correct.
Mary Born: And is it normal to do that before we're at the next phase? The Phase II.
Mayor Furlong: Again what I'm hearing tonight is that the aspects of the whole project are
somewhat independent in terms of timing. If there's a different way of saying that.
Kate Aanenson: We have projects where they grade the entire site and we did that actually K.
Hovnanian graded beyond their site limits for Phase I, just because they wanted to balance it so
the goal is to have security in place and approved for the grading. That doesn't mean you're
going to final plat that. Final plat is different legal applications as far as showing lots of record
and those sort of things and that, there's typically an assessment running with the county. The
grading sometimes is just the prep part of the site to get it ready so there's no utilities in or
anything because once you do that part of it, that's a different assessment part so.
Mayor Furlong: Have they started doing anything that they weren't allowed to do based upon
their approvals received at the time?
Paul Oehme: Not that…
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Rick Dorsey: Rick Dorsey, 1551 Lyman Boulevard and I have a different issue. It's dealing
with the grading but I appreciate the staff having in there that there's some talk of a retaining wall
and it's kind of the first I've heard of it. It's not going to be approved or whatever at this time but
my question or concern is, if they do the grading right now for Phase III, which the wall isn't
approved for, a 12 foot wall in two stages, it kind of makes it mandatory that that wall will go in
and staff hasn't approved, or you know isn't recommending it I believe for. Okay, go ahead.
Kate Aanenson: Sure. This is the end of the 12 lots are in this area here. The applicant would
like to put a retaining wall. It's approximately 12 feet. They're adjoining Mr. Dorsey's property
here. If you look at the change in grade. If you look at the change in grade, you're at 931 so
you're at the top of the wall. So what it is, is for these homes are looking into the wall so you
won't have a wall on your side because you're pretty much at grade on your side. So these
people have protection from whatever happens on your side.
Rick Dorsey: But I guess my question is, if they start grading now and you haven't approved that
wall, can they do that? I mean it's forcing that there will be a wall there without an approval.
Kate Aanenson: It's my understanding engineering did give approval for that wall.
25
City Council Meeting - May 14, 2007
Rick Dorsey: When? I guess that was my question. This is the first I've heard of it.
Kate Aanenson: As part of the grading. It's on the preliminary plans too so.
Rick Dorsey: There was no wall because I got a copy of the grading plan and there was no wall.
There's a swale. I mean I'm just asking a question because that means there's a fence that I'd
have to put up if you have a 12 foot wall, on my property, and it drops 12 feet to the other side,
you're certainly going to have to have a fence going up and I'm unaware of it.
Kate Aanenson: Well they would have to put the fence on their side.
Rick Dorsey: Well still, I mean I'm just unaware of it. It was never even brought up so I just
wanted to ask the question. Is that part of Phase III and they haven't got you know approval for
Phase III and you're not recommending it at this point, it's just a timing issue is what I'm asking.
Kate Aanenson: This is an engineering report that got put in. What it says is, if we knew it was
to happen on this site, this is part of engineering so this isn't my comments. This is a retaining
wall. There may be an opportunity to reduce the height of the wall or eliminate the property to
the east. We're asking that it be, staff is recommending that the wall be deleted from Phase II
improvements and if necessary constructed in future phases. We don't know, they're trying to
protect their buffer from whatever happens on your side so.
Rick Dorsey: Well I'm thinking too that if they grade it now and they make it, so there's a 12
foot drop and I have farm equipment running along the edge of it, at this point in time you know
how is their safety protected?
Kate Aanenson: They'd have to put a fence up on it.
Rick Dorsey: Well to me, could I ask that we just come back to this, just so we have a chance to
look at the plan because we really have not seen this plan with the wall in it. This is the first I've
seen of it. So that's what I would ask tonight, thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Alright. How is the wall fitting into the second addition? Final plat that's being
requested and the development contract.
Kate Aanenson: It's really engineering's issue so I'll let Paul answer that.
Mayor Furlong: I'll rephrase the question. I pose the previous question.
Paul Oehme: There's 15 lots…would be just to get the wall built at this time because of the
grading that's going on on the site. It's better to do the wall construction and to construct some of
this infrastructure at this time just so we don't have to go back in and do that. Just rough in…so
you know the developer is requesting that that portion of the infrastructure be built at this time.
We reviewed that portion and did not feel that it's, would negatively impact the surrounding
property owners. We've done walls on other developments within the city as well so staff
wasn't…
26
City Council Meeting - May 14, 2007
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor and council, if I could just add onto what Paul is saying. They're mass
grading the rest of the second part of the site, all the way down to Lyman and they're coming in
and making a 12 foot cut through that hill. You can't leave the 12 foot cut exposed. You have to
put in a retaining wall to hold that back.
Rick Dorsey: What I'm saying is if they're going to do that though, that was my question…
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, I just asked the applicant. They would like to put the wall in now
because just for what the city manager just said. They've got a 12 foot cut. And that's, they're
trying to protect their property for their residents, similar if you come in with your project and
you're going to want to do the same thing to maximize or to work out through your development
so, they'll have to put a fence on the top, I'm assuming for security. For protection.
Todd Gerhardt: Our ordinance allows that you have to put up fence on anything that's over 4
feet in height. You have to put the retaining wall in as you're cutting the property. You can't
leave a 12 foot cut exposed without fence and you're going to see erosion. That wall's going to
come tumbling down, or the 12 foot earth berm that's left that's on Mr. Dorsey's property is going
to erode into the Ryland property. They have to put the wall up with the grading.
Rick Dorsey: Again I would, I guess I'd like to have it held off until we have a chance to look at
this. You know Phase II is coming to I believe just this row of houses right here. About 3 acres
of land. Right across here. And the wall is beyond that into Phase III. I understand they want to
do it. I understand all that. It's just the first we've seen of it. I would like at least the opportunity
to look at it because it does impact our property. The original plan had swales along the edge.
This isn't what that is so, it's different than what was originally approved at the preliminary plat.
This isn't the final plat for Phase III at this point in time. It's for Phase II so they're doing work
in Phase III that's not been approved yet. So for my perspective I just would like time to at least
review it before you approve it.
Mayor Furlong: Alright. Now that we're granting it, how much time would you like?
Rick Dorsey: I just need to talk with somebody and you know this is the first I've seen of it so.
A reasonable amount of time and just be able to address any issues.
Mayor Furlong: I guess the question I have with regard to the, what was approved. I mean why
the reason for the change?
Todd Gerhardt: The applicant's here this evening, if he can come up and explain.
Mayor Furlong: Would you like to address that?
Matt Dusett: I'm Matt Dusett with Ryland Homes. Looking at it, looking back at the old plans
myself but I believe this wall's been on there ever since. Like I said I'd have to look at it. It's not
something we just threw in there because Alyson Fauske, the Assistant City Engineer did
question me on that and this point and you know we were working on it, and I'm not opposed to
27
City Council Meeting - May 14, 2007
lessening the wall. Like I said right now I'm trying to protect my homeowners who are building
back there with, we don't know what's going to go on behind here. The way I see it, it's a 12 foot
buffer for the homeowners and on top of that you know where our landscape plan shows trees on
top of there you know, and then obviously the fence which like you said is mandatory that you
put a fence along any higher than 4 feet. So like I said, I'd have to look back in the initial plans
but as far as I remember, that wall has always been there so I don't know if it got highlighted a
little darker in this plan but you know like I said, it's always been there.
Kate Aanenson: Matt, can we wait 2 weeks on the wall and then just approve the second phase
and then come back with the wall?
Matt Dusett: You bet. I mean we can, my whole goal is to not to hold up you know, I'd like to,
we can not even touch this letter right now and leave it the way it is. We can decide what we're
going to do with it at that point because Alyson did come up with a site plan that we could work
on possibly not putting that wall in there but like I said at this point I'd rather spend the money
on protecting my homeowner's back yards for what's going to go in on the property over here so.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, so with regard to what's before us this evening, there's a portion that
sounds like there'd be agreement to delay for a couple weeks.
Kate Aanenson: Approving a step in phase but then eliminate the, just hold off on any retaining
walls until 2 more.
Rick Dorsey: …excavation?
Matt Dusett: And cut. I mean we've got.
Rick Dorsey: Excavation people here?
Matt Dusett: We've got some 10 foot, 12 foot cuts in here to begin with grading. I have to talk
but you know we've got a lot of work grading to do in here as it is so if we can get it resolved in
the next couple weeks, I don't see it being a problem. We're not going to get buckets in the
ground anytime real soon. We got delayed. We've done the permits for demo'ing the house so,
right now we're waiting on that and I'm not in a huge rush to get going on it so if, we have plenty
of work to be doing over here. If we can get going on over here whenever, then discuss it at
another point.
Mayor Furlong: I guess the question is, do we need to approve everything under 1(e), anything
under 1(e) tonight or would 2 weeks, do you need some things approved tonight to keep going
over the next 2 weeks or could this wait for 2 weeks?
Kate Aanenson: Well I think it'd be nice to get the development contract put in place.
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, could I suggest that you approve the development contingent upon
meeting Mr. Dorsey's satisfaction with the wall with the contractor. We don't have to bring it
back then.
28
City Council Meeting - May 14, 2007
Roger Knutson: We would if they don't agree.
Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, if you don't agree then we'll bring it back or if there's an issue, we would
bring it back and then you'd have to hold off the grading for 2 weeks if you can't come to
resolution on what's going on.
Rick Dorsey: So just to make it clear, my biggest concern is if you make the cut, then you make
the wall necessary. And so.
Mayor Furlong: Over the next 2 weeks he's going to stay out of that area.
Rick Dorsey: Okay, so there's no approval being done for grading then? Is that what you're
saying?
Mayor Furlong: No. That's not what I'm hearing.
Rick Dorsey: Okay. That's what I'm trying to understand. If you give the approval to grade, you
give the approval to grade. Based on their plan.
Councilman Litsey: I think they'll hold off on excavation there and the wall in that area.
Mayor Furlong: In that area until they can review alternatives that have been presented by the
city staff.
Rick Dorsey: If it should be determined as they said it may be an option to not put a wall in
there in the first place, which the city doesn't like walls anyway is my, having been to many of
these meetings. We'd just as soon avoid them if we can.
Councilwoman Ernst: Just from what I heard, we have to put, we have to put something there.
Rick Dorsey: No, because the grading has changed. There never was a 12 foot cut there. There
was a blending of the two properties together previously.
Mayor Furlong: Here's what I would suggest. If there is a way that we can approve this tonight,
because it sounds like the, it will be appropriate to do that, contingent upon some review of this
small item, this particular item. Small's the wrong word but this particular item over the next 2
weeks.
Rick Dorsey: Mayor excuse me, I'm not sure you're getting my point. If you approve, from the
way I understand this, if you approve this plan and it's allowing them to go forward and do their
mass grading, which I'm not saying I disapprove of but the plan they're showing here is not the
plan that was originally approved by the council. The plan that was originally approved did not
have a 12 foot cut along the property line. It blended together. If I had put houses in there
someday, they're at the same level. Now I'm looking at them that these are going to be 12 feet
higher than these and they're going to have a fence. That's something totally new to me and
29
City Council Meeting - May 14, 2007
something you didn't approve. So by approving it tonight you're saying yes you are approving it,
is my interpretation of it.
Mayor Furlong: I heard a recommendation that we approve it contingent upon over the next 2
weeks the property owners getting together, looking at options with city staff and coming
forward if it cannot be agreed to during that time, then it would come back to us in 2 weeks. Is
that? Does that address the issues?
Rick Dorsey: What's the difference between that and not approving it for the 2 weeks then? I
guess that's what I'm asking. If we don't come to an agreement where are we at if we approved
it?
Mayor Furlong: And I asked that question, if we could wait for 2 weeks and what I was told is
that there's a lot to do outside of this area that can be started during that period.
Rick Dorsey: Yeah, no I know I understand that and what I'm saying is the grade has to match
up and they've got a plan, okay. And if you're saying go ahead with this part of the plan, they
can't not do what's on this plan the way that it's currently here. No matter if I disagree or not
because how are they going to change it? They can't in the middle of their property have houses
at different levels. That won't happen. Roads won't match up.
Mayor Furlong: Well I guess I'll ask the applicant again, if you could address the question.
Rick Dorsey: Can you wait for 2 weeks until we meet? Before you get approval tonight.
Matt Dusett: Like I said our biggest thing, and part of this development agreement is we want to
get rolling on this trail. We want to get that in for the city before fall and part of this agreement
is getting you know, rolling forward with that. Getting the bridge in. Donating your parcel of
land over on the northwest corner of it and that's more or less that portion of it. I'm not concern
right away, like I said for this area. I can leave this whole area along for right now. One note, if
we didn't, if this wall wasn't on here, looking at these existing grades, we would have lowered
these houses 11 to 13 feet, which would have completely changed every single road in here if
this wasn't the plan that was approved so I'm almost 99.9 percent sure this is the exact same plan
that was approved. It's just not feasible for design…
Rick Dorsey: Just so you know, I picked up a plan 3 weeks ago from Alyson in the engineering
department and it's not the same. So I'll bring it in tomorrow if staff would like to see what I've
got.
Mayor Furlong: I think what we need to do is find a way to move forward here and address your
concerns and at the same time moving forward for the developer with regard to the property
owner so, what I'm hearing is sir, and I'm sorry I didn't catch your name.
Matt Dusett: Matt.
30
City Council Meeting - May 14, 2007
Mayor Furlong: Matt. Thank you. For that, by approving this tonight any grading would not
preclude any changes in this area, if that's what is required.
Matt Dusett: Yeah…
Mayor Furlong: Changes on this plan.
Matt Dusett: The eastern half.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. So Mr. Knutson, do you want to provide us with some language on a
contingency that would address what we're trying to do here.
(There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.)
Roger Knutson: …grading issues and the wall issue, I'll let someone else describe it. The
eastern part of the property. Eastern part?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Roger Knutson: Or Phase III, whatever it is. Phase III. Working out satisfactory to city staff
and Mr. Dorsey. And if that can't be worked out, to be brought back for your ultimate resolution
in 2 weeks.
Councilwoman Ernst: So moved.
Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. So that motion is made and by doing so you're adopting the
motion for 1(e) on the recommended motion for 1(e) subject to that language?
Councilwoman Ernst: Yeah.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Any discussion on this motion? Given that it was pulled from the consent
agenda, I think, I don't know that we need extensive discussion but I want to make sure anyone
on the council has an opportunity to discuss any other issues.
Councilman Litsey: I just thought this seems consistent with the way you've handled past
projects and I see no reason to doubt staff's recommendations and how they want to handle it so
I'm comfortable I guess.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. So the motion has been made with the conditions
recommended subject to the issues recommended by Mr. Knutson.
31
City Council Meeting - May 14, 2007
Councilwoman Ernst moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council
nd
approve the final plat for The Preserve at Bluff Creek 2 Addition, plans and
specifications and the development contract subject to the applicant, city staff and Mr.
Dorsey working out a satisfactory resolution to the grading and retaining wall issues in
Phase III. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
1(g). APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE REGARDING WETLAND
BUFFERS AND SETBACKS.
Councilman Litsey: Yes Mayor, I asked this to be pulled from the consent agenda. I just wanted
to make a few comments prior to us acting on this amendment. And I jotted some things down
because this has been an ongoing discussion and a lot of factors have come into play and coming
to where we're at tonight but the past several years the City of Chanhassen has been working on
updating it's 1994 Surface Water Management Plan and the purpose of this plan is to provide for
the protection and management of the city's wetlands and associated natural resources. The
Second Generation Surface Water Management Plan was recommended for approval by the
th
Planning Commission on August 15 of 2006 and it was subsequently adopted by the City
Council on August 28, 2006. And for interested people the details of that plan are available on
the city's web site. Revisions to the city code were needed to achieve the goals set forth in the
Second Generation Surface Water Management Plan. The Planning Commission held a public
th
hearing on December 5 of 2006 to review the suggested code revisions and receive public
comments if there were any. There were no public comments at that meeting so the Planning
Commission moved ahead and voted 7-0 is my understanding at that meeting recommending the
proposed code revisions. These code revisions came before the City Council at it's meeting on
January 8, 2007 and this actually happened to be my first meeting as a newly elected council
member. By this time two significant issues, referred to I guess the sticking points, had surfaced
regarding the recommended code revisions from the Planning Commission. The one issue had to
deal with impervious surface definition and the other issue had to do with wetland classifications
along with their corresponding buffer setback requirements. Since the first City Council meeting
in January, a considerable amount of time has been spent by both staff, which I very much
appreciate and members of this council trying to address these two issues and I know it's been a
struggle and I appreciate everyone hanging in there on this. The matter before the City Council
this evening has to do with revisions to the city code regarding wetland regulations. Included in
this are wetland classifications and their corresponding buffer setback requirements. Prior to
rd
City Council work session held on April 23 I was receptive to several proposed modifications
supported by staff regarding wetland classifications and their corresponding buffer setback
requirements. These modifications include creating an additional wetland classification called
outstanding for the more vulnerable wetlands. Reducing the buffer and setback requirements for
the preserve wetland classification. This was in consideration of the additional protections being
provided under the newly created outstanding classification. And then reducing the setback
requirements for accessory structures in all wetland classifications other than outstanding,
therefore affording homeowners more use of their property. What I'm not prepared to support
this evening however the additional changes recommended by Councilmember Peterson and
rd
received favorable by the remainder of the City Council at the work session held on April 23.
These changes reduced both the buffer and setback requirements for Manage 1, 2 and 3 wetlands
which made up the bulk of the wetlands in the city. I did not feel there was ample justification
32