CC Minutes 3-23-09
City Council Meeting - March 23, 2009
when we show up at your house or at an accident or anything and much like our fire department
th
open house so we’re hoping for good weather on April 5. We did hire 2 new probationary fire
fighters recently here and took them both on and they came to us already trained, and that’s even
better for the City because we don’t have to invest into the training for them so, but we are still
posting on the public access TV that we still are accepting applications so if you see that on
there, feel free to put in an application. Did some different training this month that I’d like to
report on. We had an organization called BART which is Basic Animal and Rescue Tactics
come in and give us some training. Of course we train on medical and people training all the
time but a lot of times pets at fire incidents are just as important as people. We had an
organization come in and train us on doing CPR, administering 0 to animals and different
2
techniques and stuff that we can use too so something that’s been done quite a bit in this state
and Minnesota’s kind of a leader in it and we’ve got some additional tools that we have in our
trucks now so that we can tend to the needs of pets that we come across at fires too so. A little
training out of the box but we’re trained for all the incidents now so. That’s about all I have to
report on. It’s been, not much for structure fires which is good.
Mayor Furlong: That’s a good thing. Any questions for Chief Geske this evening? No? Very
good. Thank you.
Councilman Litsey: Thanks.
PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SUBDIVISION CREATING AN ADDITIONAL
LOT WITH VARIANCES, 7160 WILLOW VIEW COVE, APPLICANT: MARK AND
SUZANNE SENN.
Public Present:
Name Address
Betsy & Herb LePlatt 7012 Cheyenne Trail
Mark Senn 7160 Willow View Cove
Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor, members of the council. As you indicated this is a request
for a metes and bounds subdivision to create a second building lot and variances for a private
street. Background on this is that the public hearing was held before the Planning Commission
th
on February 17. At that time the Planning Commission voted 4 to 0 to approve the request for a
metes and bounds subdivision and the variance for the private street. City code does require a
public hearing before the City Council for a metes and bounds. That’s why this is a public
hearing. Typically that would have been held at the Planning Commission. Because there was
other variances, we just bundled that together at the Planning Commission so again a public
hearing is required for the metes and bounds. There were some issues that were brought up at
the Planning Commission that the staff did follow up on. One is a concern that maybe there was
some water, drainage backing up. We did investigate that and it appeared that the drain, the
catch basin in the cul-de-sac was performing and the other concern was the grading plan.
Because a house plan wasn’t shown, there’ll be future grading, that we will look at that carefully
to make sure that the drainage for that house doesn’t impede anybody else’s current drainage
10
City Council Meeting - March 23, 2009
pattern so that will be something that will be reviewed when that building pad is actually
accomplished. And then the other one was the Planning Commission did add an additional
comment regarding additional trees because a tree survey was not completed at this time and I’d
be happy to discuss that in a little more detail later but with that the Planning Commission did
approve it. So with that, the subject site as you indicated is on Kurvers Point and it’s one of the
largest lots actually in the Kurvers Point subdivision. The subdivision itself was created in 1987.
It consists of 42 lots. This lot itself is 3.66 acres. Again one of the larger lots. A portion of this
lot was split and added to a neighboring lot and that slide is actually in your staff report. So
again there is a discretion with the variances. The City Council does have discretion with the
variances because they’re deviating from the standards, but as far as discretion on the metes and
bounds, because in order to have a metes and bounds you have to meet all that criteria so the
metes and bounds couldn’t be approved unless you approved the variances that it meets the
criteria of the metes and bounds. The metes and bounds says you are abutting a public street.
This one’s requesting a variance from that to meet that. Again in your staff report there was
originally two proposals being submitted. This is a subdivision, the metes and bounds as shown.
It will have to be modified based on revised recommendations but staff is, we’ll be sharing with
you here in a minute but I just want to make clear that the applicant did state to the staff that they
are requesting withdrawal of the zoning variances. I just want to make sure from Mr. Senn that
it’s still his intent that he is withdrawing the variances on that. If you want to, you’re
withdrawing your request for all the zoning variances and you’re just pursuing the subdivision
variances, is that correct?
Mark Senn: Yes.
Kate Aanenson: Okay. We didn’t get that formally so I just want to make sure that that was
clear that we’re all on the same page on that so, alright. So again the metes and bounds, you can
see Tract C is the part that he’s splitting so the bottom portion, Tract D is existing 3.66 acre lot.
Within that Tract C is the proposed subdivision lot. This is zoned RSF, the minimum lot size in
that zoning district is 15,000 square feet. So this was the original request with the zoning
variances, as we just heard that they’re, we’re moving away from that so the original one had lot
variances and the like and when we went through that with Mr. Senn, then he did, as stated,
agree to pursue the alternative plan which does meet the requirements. And I’ll just kind of
briefly go through those. There is the minimum lot size, which we talked about. The 15,000
square feet. What this meets but some of the issues regarding that is when you have a common
driveway easement, which is what he’s requesting, that can be, that cannot be included in the
calculation so while on face value it meets that, the metes and bounds will have to clearly show
that defined. So wherever that common portion of the driveway is, that would, could not be
included in the calculation. So the driveway going to the new pad could be cut off somewhere
between anywhere within that area, if that makes sense.
Mayor Furlong: No, help me understand that. Is this relating to an easement for which parcel?
Kate Aanenson: For both parcels. What the ordinance states.
Mayor Furlong: To use the common driveway.
11
City Council Meeting - March 23, 2009
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: Correct. So that would have to be, that portion has to be 30 feet wide with an
easement on it.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: So that portion, wherever that driveway comes in to that house, and we don’t
know that yet so that will be something that we’ll have to be, when you record the plat we’ll
have to show, right now since we don’t have a driveway location, that easement will be common
to the end of that lot. The 30 foot wide easement. Then the other thing is that, and I don’t have a
pointer here.
Mayor Furlong: Can I ask a question before we get off the easement?
Kate Aanenson: Sure, absolutely.
Mayor Furlong: Is that easement required to provide, I mean this, this new parcel, the new lot,
does it require an easement out to the public street?
Kate Aanenson: Correct. Let me go through that part first and I’ll go back to the slide. So the
criteria for a common street is that any portion of the private street serving both tracks has to be
placed in a common cross access agreement, so that’s one of your conditions. There has to be a
cross access agreement so both parties, existing home and the new homeowner can use that
property. So that’s put into an easement. Now the variances comes in here because within that
easement the ordinance requires 25 foot pavement width and 7 ton design so we’re saying we
don’t believe that’s necessary to serve the two homes, so that’s part of the variance request. Is
not to have to do that. We are requesting that there be a 30 foot easement for the driveway at 7
to 8 foot width can remain as it is. That was the staff’s interpretation. Again going back to the
private driveway, if we go back to the existing plat, you can see how narrow it is on the cul-de-
sac there. While this is a 3 ½ acre lot, it’s very narrow. To put another driveway on there,
another driveway access to that separate lot on the end of a cul-de-sac when there’s limited snow
capacity, it seems to make some sense to make it common. So then the real issue for you to
consider in the variance is, does it also make sense then to say is there, does it need to be then 7
ton and 20 feet wide. That’s where the staff would agree that it probably services the way it is.
The trash now currently comes out to the end of the cul-de-sac. Both parties would continue to
do that so there’s no heavy equipment going back. It’d just be used for residential purposes. So
that’s a criteria that was required with that request so the 30 foot easement and the driveway as it
sits today within that easement.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: Okay? So within that then the ordinance says that you have to have 100, where
the lot, you can’t start the lot until you get to that area where it meets 100 foot in width, and
12
City Council Meeting - March 23, 2009
that’s the dashed line on there in the green. That’s 100 foot in, where the lot meets the 100 foot
in width, which would be to that easement line. Does everybody follow that? Now why does the
green go past that? Because you still need to have 15,000 square feet but you can’t count the
setback until you get to that portion. So from that setback line you go 30 feet to make the lot.
And the ordinance says if you don’t have a house plan you have to have a 60 by 60 pad. So you
go back to the other one, it didn’t make the 60 by 60 or the lot width, so that’s where we agreed
to make this change. So now we’ve eliminated all the requirements for the zoning variance. The
only variances now are just with the street and the subdivision variance. So with that we put in
the compliance table on the staff report. We’ve looked at the grading and drainage. Again the
issue there is because we don’t have a housing plan, that we will review it at the time of
application. One of the other issues that was pointed out in the utilities portion is that if the
subdivision is approved, that they must submit a utility plan showing existing sanitary sewer
services to the current home and then how cable and all that will be placed to the new home.
Again that’s another reason for the wider easement if anything needs to be in that. If a new
easement does need to be created along that property line, that would also have to be recorded.
As you know we record all easements within the lot line so that would be another thing that
would have to be added. I also wanted to point out because we are creating a new lot, then fees
are being recorded, required. So park and trail fees would be required as well as storm water
fees would be required on the plat. Again going to the tree issue, there is a significant amount of
trees. The Planning Commission felt like because we didn’t have a tree survey, the Planning
Commission did want that condition added. That’s condition number 18. What we’ve asked the
applicant to do is when they show us the home that they’re putting on the site, we estimate what
that tree removal would be. It is in excess of what the tree cover canopy requirement is so unless
for some reason it went beyond that, then more than likely additional trees would not be
required. There probably isn’t a lot of place to plant those, but the Planning Commission felt
because there wasn’t a tree survey, that they wanted to add that. So unless there’s any other
questions, the staff is recommending approval of the metes and bounds subdivision with the
variances, with the Findings of Fact and the conditions in the staff report.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Clarification, and then we’ll, you just said variances. Is the
variance, the variance relates to the drive or the private street.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: But within that, the proposal is not to do a 25 foot width nor do a 7 ton.
Kate Aanenson: Exactly. You’re correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. So that’s the, the variances are two but they both relate to the drive.
Kate Aanenson: Private street, correct.
Mayor Furlong: Private street, thank you. Thank you. Any questions for staff?
Councilman McDonald: I have a question. It’s kind of a clarification. What you talked about
on number 18 about the trees. As I recall reading from the report the concern was to the property
13
City Council Meeting - March 23, 2009
to the north, and in here it also says enhance landscaping to the north side of the property. I
guess what the question is, and again I did go out and look at the site. I don’t see how you can
add any additional landscaping out there. Are you of a feeling at this point that that finding’s
really not required?
Kate Aanenson: Right, except that we don’t know exactly where the utilities are going in.
Those would be some of the unknowns right now and the grading plan to make this work. It
appears that it probably isn’t necessary. There’s quite a bit of trees there, but if for some reason
the utilities need to go in that area, then we want replacement. So we believe that when the site,
the house plan comes in, the utilities are spotted, we’d have a better indication then of where it
shows tree loss or replacement would go. But you’re right, right now I don’t know where else
you could put something on that site. It’s pretty dense right there.
Councilman McDonald: And right now we don’t have any idea of where utilities are going to be
coming or going from at this point because there are no detailed plans.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Councilman McDonald: Okay. That’s all I have for right now.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Other questions for staff at this time? Councilwoman Ernst.
Councilwoman Ernst: Kate, can you tell me why the property owner was obligated to subdivide.
Because it’s 4 acres. Haven’t we, I mean our ordinance doesn’t, what does it read? Does it read
beyond a certain amount of acres?
Kate Aanenson: No. It has nothing, there’s no, our ordinance says so many units per acre but
you can have 1 lot on 10 acres and still be in a residential single family home. What our
ordinance says is you can only have one dwelling, and this is residential. One home per lot. You
can have a variance to put, if you have somebody that you want to live with you in your home,
you can ask for a variance. We have criteria for that for someone to live in your house. If you
want to do a, have gramma or grampa live with you or you have a child that you need to have
live with you, you can do that but to have a separate dwelling unit does require a separate lot.
There is no mechanism to do that. Even on a twin home, you do two lots or a condominium or
something like that, except a rental would be the only circumstance I’m aware of where you’d
have more than one ownership for that conveyance. But it has nothing to do with density or
units per acre or something like that. It would require a separate lot.
Councilwoman Ernst: I thought we had put, I thought we had put other residential homes on the
same lot in town.
Kate Aanenson: Not on a single family, no.
Councilwoman Ernst: Um, oh I’m sorry. Go ahead.
Mayor Furlong: No, please continue.
14
City Council Meeting - March 23, 2009
Councilwoman Ernst: For the grading plan, can you refresh my memory why are we
requiring…?
Kate Aanenson: The concern, always when you put a new house on, we’ve had this historically
and that’s why we require as-builts. When someone goes in and puts in a home, depending on
the type of home, we require that when you do a plat that they showed a walkout elevation, so
you’d know where the water’s draining. In this area. This is put in before. There was some
storm water ponds in place. There is 1 or 2 to the north but we want to make sure we’re not
causing runoff on this property to any other property so we want to see what type of home it is.
Whether it’s a walkout, lookout or just a finished floor elevation. Where that water drainage is
going.
Councilwoman Ernst: So I was out and looked at the site as well and it looked, there’s a couple
things. There’s like a, I don’t know what it is. It’s a sanitary drainage that goes down below a
hill. Below the trees there but then approximately 200 yards away from that there’s another
holding pond. So I guess I’m curious as to why there would be some concerns with drainage.
Kate Aanenson: We don’t know what type of home’s going in, so until you know that, you
know how they’re going to grade around that, then we couldn’t determine if it would create
additional runoff, the type of home. You know how much they’re going to excavate. How it’s
going to redirect the water. And if any other subdivision, that’s a standard question that we
would ask them to show us. You know you want a positive pitch on the front of the house to the
street so it catches that. That’s generally how we do it, so it goes into that catch basin there. On
the back of the lot. That it’s not going to the neighbor’s property so that is, it’s sheet flowing
across back towards the storm water pond.
Councilwoman Ernst: Yeah I, I mean I just didn’t see how there could be a problem there going
onto other people’s property. Based on what I saw there but.
Kate Aanenson: Right, being flat and unchanged but someone’s going to change that by putting
a house in, depending on the style house they put in. Yeah.
Councilwoman Ernst: And then the tree survey. I know Jerry had mentioned this too. I mean
there must be 300 or more trees out there and I’m just curious as to why the property owner may
be required to do a survey, a tree survey and some landscaping surveys because I didn’t.
Kate Aanenson: This is one issue.
Councilwoman Ernst: Again I guess it goes back to the drainage issue but.
Kate Aanenson: This is one issue the neighbors brought up, the visual impact and to screen that
and because there wasn’t a tree survey or a house plan to show that impact, the Planning
Commission just wanted to make sure, duly noted that it was an issue. A factor.
15
City Council Meeting - March 23, 2009
Councilwoman Ernst: So we have approximately how many surveys that the property owner has
to have total?
Kate Aanenson: A grading plan.
Councilwoman Ernst: A grading and.
Kate Aanenson: Right, and that’s typical for any.
Councilwoman Ernst: The tree survey.
Kate Aanenson: That’s a typical requirement of any subdivision.
Councilwoman Ernst: And then the tree survey? And a drainage survey.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Councilwoman Ernst: It just seemed like an awful lot of surveys to have for putting in a house
that I, when I was out and looked at the site it didn’t seem like it was going to require all that.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, again the staff’s position on the tree survey, the drainage survey we
believe is necessary. The tree survey we agree that you know when we see exactly where the
house is going to sit, we’ll make a determine. We’re not going to cut down trees just to replace a
tree so depending on what gets removed and the visual impact, then we would assess whether or
not we need to put additional trees in.
Councilwoman Ernst: Is that something that has to be done? When is that done? Is that done
before or after?
Todd Gerhardt: Typically it’s done before the subdivision.
Kate Aanenson: Or with the application, yeah.
Councilwoman Ernst: Before the house actually goes in?
Todd Gerhardt: Well when you submit your original application to go the Planning Commission
and City Council, it’s one of the items that you’re to submit for a full application is a tree survey.
And then that would give the Planning Commission and staff you know verification of the
amount of trees on the site. And the size of those. So you know then you can see what kind of
impact’s going to occur at the housing pad site. You know typically you’ll see utility plans with
the bigger subdivisions and you can see what the impact of the road utilities would have on that.
Councilwoman Ernst: Well I just don’t know what they would know at that point that they
didn’t know what they know today. You know other than just getting a survey done.
16
City Council Meeting - March 23, 2009
Kate Aanenson: Well I can answer that real quick. Within that buildable area there’s room for
flexibility. Now again that’s illustrative of what we believe the buildable lot is. That metes and
bounds from that original survey needs to be re-drawn to meet the standards of the 15,000. Meet
the 100 foot setback, 30 foot setback line with the 60 by 60 buildable pad. That’s our
illustrative. That is not the metes and bounds subdivision so that’s got to be re-submitted. So
that could change a little bit. So within that we don’t know exactly where that house is going to
sit, or how the utilities are in there so there is some unknowns here yet. So we’re just making
sure that it’s, meets the City standards.
Councilman McDonald: Could I just follow up, to follow that? Then I guess what this is
coming down to, I mean I looked at the site. There seems to be plenty of room there to put
something in. My question about to the north, I don’t see how the home’s going to impact that
but I think what you’re telling us is that once you have more detail and you can actually overlay
it in there. If you agree there’s no impact as far as the trees that are currently there. He’s not
going to cut down existing trees to place this, then there may not be a need as far as replacement
of trees. And at that point, I mean anything to the north, which would be along the fence line,
which is on the other side of the road, we’re not going to go in there and do an additional impact
that says you have to block everything at this point are we?
Kate Aanenson: No but you have to recognize that there is a buildable area to the north.
Someone could put a porch on. We don’t know exactly how that house is laid, but I would hope
in good faith that we’re going to use you know sound judgment and say, now of those trees are
impacted. There’s no more room for additional trees or if there is some additional loss because
of utilities, then we can push it, move a tree around or save a tree and move a tree over where it
provides an additional screening so that we would try to work on that.
Councilman Litsey: Just for clarification, what surveys have not been completed yet?
Kate Aanenson: Just the house pad survey and the tree survey.
Councilman Litsey: And normally the tree survey is required ahead of time?
Kate Aanenson: Typically we do.
Councilman Litsey: And why was it not? Why the exception this time?
Kate Aanenson: In this circumstance because it was a heavily wooded area, the place where the
house is going is the area with the least amount of trees. If it moved to the north side then
definitely we would have required a tree survey.
Councilman Litsey: But in reading through that earlier there was some, I mean the main concern
is with the trees.
Kate Aanenson: To the north.
Councilman Litsey: Yeah.
17
City Council Meeting - March 23, 2009
Kate Aanenson: Correct. And if I go to this aerial wanting again, that you can see is the area
that they chose that has the least amount of trees on the site.
Councilman Litsey: It just seems to me we’re not being real consistent perhaps with not
requiring that survey up front.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I have a question in general regarding the survey. You know I think
we’ve all been to look at the property between the Planning Commission meeting and tonight’s
meeting. When you say survey, what are you talking about? Are you talking about someone
going out there and measuring and marking every tree that’s there?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Or I mean are we going that extensive or are we just you know
taking an overview of what’s there right now.
Kate Aanenson: Right.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Because that’s really the question.
Todd Gerhardt: Any tree over a 6 inch caliper.
Kate Aanenson: Right. Right. And to be clear the City Forester did look at the site to make a
determination of that it was in the area of the least amount of impact of trees, so then at that point
you know, but if you were to do a tree survey, just like we did on the public works building, they
marked all the trees on that property, yeah.
Todd Gerhardt: You know I think our ordinance when it comes to tree surveys are typically for
larger lot subdivisions and in those cases you may have a very heavily wooded piece of property.
Similar to Mark’s but larger and as a part of that there’s no replacement calculation that’s used.
So that’s been in place for a long time. Probably ever since I’ve been here and so you know it’s
been a standard of our’s. It’s a real concern when you see larger stands of trees go down that we
replace that resource somewhere else on the site.
Councilman Litsey: Does the ordinance differentiate between lot size though?
Todd Gerhardt: No.
Kate Aanenson: No except for that this lot, even with this whole area is cleared, there’s a
significant amount of stands so what our ordinance, as the City Manager’s indicated, the
ordinance is if there’s few trees and you take them all out, it’s heavily punitive. There’s no way
you can do any subdivision without taking out some trees so you find that nexus or that balance
to say what’s the appropriate amount, so again the lot was located in the area with the least
amount of trees. So the majority of the rest of the property has significant amount of trees, so
we’re just trying to say what is the appropriate. If more trees go down than we think should go
18
City Council Meeting - March 23, 2009
down with this, then we’re going to look at that replacement. We’ve asked them to stake the
house when they get to that point. That’s a condition that we evaluate that. If it seems
excessive.
Councilman Litsey: So we have the latitude to require that at some point…
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
Councilman Litsey: I thought there was something in there but I didn’t.
Kate Aanenson: Well I think that’s where the Planning Commission was a little bit firmer on
that condition.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: And while you’re looking for that, if I could just chime in another
opinion again. I, you know I totally agree with subdivisions when they’re coming in and there
are beautiful stands of oak trees or mature trees that are obviously been there for a long time and
they should be protected and this to me seems to be, where this house is going, it is just a lot of
trees that maybe are 6 inches or even less. I don’t see a lot of substantial trees in that area when
you first drive in so you know sometimes ordinances, I mean they’re there for a reason but
they’ve got to make sense at the same time and I’m not sure at this point if making the owner go
out and do a tree survey for everything 6 inches or more, in that spot because where the house is
going it is the least, that is where the least amount of trees are. I’m not sure if it makes sense.
Councilman McDonald: Yeah I guess you know to chime in. I mean what I looked at today, and
where the house is going to go, it’s already cleared. There’s one tree there that was damaged by
lightning that’s going to come down, and that doesn’t necessarily need to be replaced because the
tree’s dead.
Mayor Furlong: What I might ask, if we can, because I want to make sure that we get questions
for staff. I want the applicant to come up and then we have a public hearing as well so.
Kate Aanenson: Can I just clarify that?
Mayor Furlong: Sure.
Kate Aanenson: We do have a condition in here that speaks to just what I said and that’s
condition number 8 that says that they must submit a tree preservation removal calculation. So
we’re just going to ask them to show us what they’re removing, and then they protect, use that
protection fence around the remaining portion of it and then unless there’s additional trees
moved beyond that, what we believe is a calculation, then we would ask for additional trees to be
placed, and that’s where the Planning Commission wanted to make sure that if they’re replaced,
that they be put to that north side where they provide the most buffer.
Councilwoman Ernst: So that’s what the survey consists of?
Kate Aanenson: No. That’s not what the survey consists of.
19
City Council Meeting - March 23, 2009
Councilwoman Ernst: Okay. Alright, I just wanted to be clear on that.
Kate Aanenson: This is a modification to that.
Councilwoman Ernst: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: The survey requires everything.
Councilman Litsey: That gives some comfort level moving forward that we have some control
over some of that, if they feel that more trees or whatever.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Councilman Litsey: That’s fine, and then as long as that’s clear.
Councilman McDonald: That’s kind of a trade off between doing the survey up front and you
know.
Councilman Litsey: Yeah, as long as we have some authority to you know, do that, that’s fine.
Councilman McDonald: Okay.
Mayor Furlong: Any other questions for staff? If not the applicant is here. Mr. Senn, would you
like to address the council on any items?
Mark Senn: Hi.
Mayor Furlong: Good evening.
Mark Senn: My name is Mark Senn. 7160 Willow View Cove, Chanhassen. Um, let’s see here.
We, we are I believe the largest lot in the entire area. I believe we’re also probably the longest
term resident in the area other than I think I surviving members of the Kurvers family. The,
when we purchased this property it was always our intention to look at this property as not only
meeting you know our current needs at that time but you know a lot of future needs and family
needs and a whole bunch of other things. Our strong desire here was to really just kind of come
in and ask permission or whatever we needed to essentially build another house on the property.
Small house. One level. No stairs and that sort of thing. The purpose of the structure is to put
my mother in it right now. Future purpose is probably putting me in it. The, we were kind of
told basically that that wasn’t possible and that we can do that life’s gotten I guess very
complicated since then no matter which way you turn in relationship to doing this. But it’s our
intention to never, I mean there will not be two separate owners here. There will be a covenant
in the divided lot, if that’s the approach that we end up taking and if that’s the only approach that
we’ll have a covenant on it saying it needs to be remain the same ownership as the other house.
That’s not something we leave to chance one way or the other. That covenant will be there and
will remain there. The, as far as the you know where we want to ultimately go with this, I think I
20
City Council Meeting - March 23, 2009
kind of prefaced it earlier. I mean what we want to do right now is put my mother in it and in the
future my son will be basically moving into the house and probably my wife and I will be
moving out into this house when we’re not spending you know as much time around here. At
least during the winters. What we’re trying to do here, I mean basically that’s, we’ve been pretty
good stewards of the land out there. I think we have. We’ve even done something that most
people I don’t think ever consider doing but actually we even put a wetland on our property that
wasn’t there. And the, you know we’ve really kind of developed, since I’ve been there I’ve done
all the landscaping on the property in terms of everything. I mean there was essentially almost
nothing there when we purchased it so, we’ve really taken kind of a lot of care in what we’ve
done there and how we’ve done it. The situation is that you know it appears that you know this
is the way we have to go and actually subdivide, which is not really our desire but if that’s
what’s required you know we’re willing to go with that and we’re willing to work with that but
again we just don’t want to create a separate situation here. I don’t view this as a separate or
how do I say it, the typical subdivision because it’s not a typical subdivision and stuff. You
know we have almost, we’re just shy of 4 acres. We have about 430 feet of lakeshore and we
have over 1,000 trees on our property. Just to give you a feel for it. I really want to thank all the
council for coming out and looking at the property. Looking at the site. I was a little dismayed
at the Planning Commission that nobody would come out and then was talking about what to do
about certain areas and the area we’re talking about here essentially, if you look just to the north
of that site there, there’s basically 300 trees in that area right there between us and any
neighboring houses. If you go a little bit to the west, where the kind of center island area is and
the driveway there, there’s probably another couple hundred trees there and there’s another 100
on the north side of the driveway between there and the property line going up to the house.
Again behind the house that’s a whole different story. We have well over 500 trees in the back
of the house and stuff so it just kind of gives you a little better feel for the site and stuff. When
the house was put where it is on the site, which is essentially the narrowest point, it was kind of
put there intentionally because we really don’t want to you know look at anything else happening
between there and essentially the lake and stuff so that’s part of what drove you know our
decision in terms of where we wanted to put this. And we also located the house essentially
based on where it would be the lowest impact on the site, but also lowest impact to really any,
you know anything around the site and stuff so. The house we’re planning is going to be like I
say, single level, no stairs. About the only debate we’re still going through is whether there’s
going to be a basement in it for storage or not but the, it’s going to be at grade. Again, no steps
and there’s not going to be a walkout or anything like that. The topography there would be
destroyed if we put a walkout in and that’s not the intention again. Like I say we were even
thinking of slab on grade but I’ve been thinking a little bit more just creating some, at least some
additional storage space underneath. The house that we’re looking at doing is going to be
probably around 40 by 60 or so, with the garages. I mean we’re not talking about a large house
here. We’ve always kind of viewed this or look at it as, or at least I guess I should say I have
because I grew up with, started in Minneapolis and then in Minnetonka and a few other places
but kind of like a carriage house, which still exist in even many of our other surrounding suburbs
and stuff and that’s really kind of what we view this as and it’s going to remain part of the
property and be part of the property because that’s what we want it to be. Just to give you a little
more background on a few other things. The most the utilities come up the driveway. Under the
driveway, and the remaining utilities follow the southern property line there and I mean that will
all be laid out with the plan once we get the structure set. So we have really a couple different
21
City Council Meeting - March 23, 2009
options in terms of where to come from in terms of the utilities go. At least currently I’ll just
give you a feel for. We currently have a fire hydrant on the south end of the house. Probably
about 15 feet off the house. And there’s also sewer, just so, the sewer goes all the way back
down to probably within 50 feet of the lake and stuff so, just kind of gives you a feel for what’s
there. As far as going with, you know we’ve been working with staff and you know if this is the
route that’s best and works for everybody, we’re happy to go with Plan B. Some of the
conditions that have been attached I think are kind of problematic and stuff but I’m not quite sure
how we deal with that. For example in number 8, the whole deal over the tree calculations and
survey and stuff. I think I mentioned to most of you and I can only hope that we’re not required
to do a tree survey. I don’t even want to know what that would cost with over 1,000 trees, but
going down there, item (c) under there causes me great concern, which tells me any tree I want to
do anything with I have to get the City’s permission from. I’m doing that almost on a weekly
basis. With as many trees as we have, we’re constantly thinning out and doing other things. I
mean for example I have boxwoods growing up into majestic oaks that are 150 feet tall and
that’s what kills oaks and stuff so I mean I thin out my trees and take care of them because I’m
trying to keep the big old oaks. I’m trying to keep the big, I’ve got pines in excess of 75 feet and
everything else and we’re trying to keep our mature trees but I think most of the people who
know me I spend, oh I spend, since I’ve been retired, most of my life in my yard and it takes a lot
of work just to keep that stuff up and heck, I can’t even keep up with the firewood I produce so.
I give a lot of it away. So I mean (c) again causes us a lot of concern because next thing I know
I’m going to be doing what I’m always doing and being carted away for it. Other items in here
that kind of concern us a little bit were number 12. Paying full parkland dedication fees. I’ve
already paid them really. Don’t think I should have to pay them again but. They’ve been paid
once on the property and I’m not really again increasing, I had more, how would I say more
people on the property over the last 20 years than I do now. And will after this house is built.
The revised survey stuff and as far as the drainage goes, again also concerns me unless it’s really
defined because the last thing I want to do is re-survey my entire parcel there for topography and
draining and basic grading and drainage, that sort of thing and stuff because we aren’t going to
alter it at all. In fact again that, one of the reasons why we picked where we’re going to put the
house because the drainage from that house is going to basically just go right to the east there.
It’s the only place it can go and there’s a big catch basin there and that catch basin just goes
underground then into a storm sewer which goes to a retaining pond that’s less than a couple
hundred yards away.
Mayor Furlong: Mr. Senn excuse me. That item, which condition were you?
Mark Senn: That is on number 13. I’m sorry.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, 13. Thank you.
Mark Senn: Yep. And then on number 18, again nobody from the Planning Commission came
out and stuff but to be honest with you I can’t even grow grass in any of those areas because it’s
so shady. I don’t know how I’m going to get anything else to grow if somebody wants me to
plant additional stuff and stuff. I guess maybe if the issue here is that the, if the neighbor to the
north doesn’t, or thinks this is going to alter their view, I guess I have a fence along the entire
north property line there that’s getting rather old and I mean I’ve worked, thinking about
22
City Council Meeting - March 23, 2009
replacing it anyway so I’ll just replace that and when we do that section I’ll be happy to just put
in a privacy fence and then we won’t have to worry about it and stuff but again most everything
we’ve done there has been trying to be the lowest impact and have it kind of fit. Not have to do
things like that and the, but again just in that area, it’s impossible to look at, even if somebody
wants me to plant, it’s just throwing money down the tubes. I can’t even, like I say, I can’t even
get grass to grow in most of the areas so, not shade grass. But other than that, the you know
overall you know staff’s been really good. I think staff kind of came up with Plan B because we
were all kind of having a hard time trying to figure out how to do this with all the ordinances and
regulations that have come in since we’ve owned the property. But it’s a workable solution in a
lot of ways. Again not the desired one but we’ll just turn around and solve that with the
covenant and that sort of thing if we need to do that so. Other than that if you have any
questions, be happy to answer them. Again thanks you all for coming out and looking.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Questions for Mr. Senn.
Councilman McDonald: I have a question. I mean it seems as though the biggest problem
between you and the City is a lack of detail, and the City’s put a lot of things in here that again
would be required under the ordinance of a normal developer, and I guess you know you’ve laid
out some of the problems with doing some of this. If it’s possible to provide detail to the City,
all we’re looking for is certain assurances and then at that point you know staff can, and again I
seem to be seeing that it’s stated in here. It’s kind of staff’s discretion on some of these surveys
as to whether they’re going to require them or not but for right now it appears that because the
lack of detail we have to put it in. If you can provide the detail and work with staff and come up
with the solution there to maybe do away with some of these, would that be acceptable?
Mark Senn: Yeah, I mean that’s our intention. I mean the only reason we didn’t is when we
originally walked in and found out we had all these rules hitting us from 10 different directions,
it was kind of really difficult to figure out exactly you know what we could put there. And then
when staff came back and said we’ll just put a 60 by 60 pad there, we said that’s fine because
we’re not even going to utilize a 60 by 60 pad so.
Kate Aanenson: Can I give a little clarification again? This is a metes and bounds subdivision.
A metes and bounds subdivision typically we do if you have a lot that’s maybe 200 feet on the
street that only requires 90 feet of frontage, so all the utilities and everything is there. This isn’t
a plat. This is a metes and bounds subdivision so there is a lot of vagueness in doing a metes and
bounds subdivision. So engineering was looking for where those drainage and utilities and so
I’ll let the City Engineer address what level of detail because that’s their bailiwick as far as what
they feel like they need for drainage, but that’s why that was put on there because a metes and
bounds is a different conveyance than a normal plat. So it doesn’t have a level of detail. If this
was a plat it would show the easement lines typically 10 feet around on the side so maybe Paul if
you wanted to address the requirements for the survey.
Paul Oehme: Sure. You know typically engineering requires drainage survey for new house
pads. It’s both for the property owner’s benefit and for the adjacent properties to make sure that
the drainage is properly getting away from the building, plus not impacting any associated
23
City Council Meeting - March 23, 2009
buildings or structures or any other lots around them so all we’re looking for is some assurances
that drainage is being maintained or improved on this site.
Kate Aanenson: There’s also a requirement for the drainage and utility easement and that’s the
other one, I’m on condition number 13. That, because we don’t know where the driveway’s
going so there’s that commonality portion so we want to see where that would go because that
affects that, where that portion has to be 30 feet plus and then whether or not you wanted to show
the utility in a separate easement or not. As you indicated there’s a hydrant on there but this plat
doesn’t show if it’s on an easement or.
Mark Senn: Oh it is. We have a utility and drainage easement around the entire property and
stuff now so.
Mayor Furlong: Is that along the property line?
Mark Senn: Yeah. Along the property lines and stuff so.
Kate Aanenson: It’s my understanding we couldn’t find that so I don’t know.
Paul Oehme: Right, a metes and bounds survey typically doesn’t show a lot of that detail work
so.
Mayor Furlong: Does that exist already on the?
Paul Oehme: We weren’t able to find it, the easement on the property so.
Mark Senn: You wouldn’t. There isn’t.
Kate Aanenson: That’s the reason it’s here. We couldn’t find it on this one, yeah. So.
Paul Oehme: So all we are asking is just to verify that those easements are recorded. And if not,
we’d like to get those recorded.
Mayor Furlong: For just the new parcel or both?
Paul Oehme: Just, we’re just talking about the new parcel.
Mayor Furlong: The new parcel. And all this discussion has been around the new parcel, is that
correct?
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: Alright. Any other questions for Mr. Senn? At this time. Councilwoman
Ernst.
Councilwoman Ernst: Not for Mark but for Kate. Or Paul. Whichever one can answer it.
24
City Council Meeting - March 23, 2009
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Councilwoman Ernst: So if you can, can you get the detailed information without him having to
do the surveys?
Paul Oehme: Typically not. A registered land surveyor is typically the person that would be
needed for obtaining the existing and needed easements on the property so he would do a title
search and look at what’s exactly out there currently and if anything additionally is needed, he
can point that out to us.
Councilwoman Ernst: Is this kind of what you were talking about Jerry is doing this aside from
the survey?
Councilman McDonald: Yeah I guess what I’m looking for here is, I mean what’s in the
requirements yeah, it’s pretty stringent but it’s required by the ordinances and everything. I
guess what I’m trying to get at is, the City’s just looking to protect themselves and once we have
assurances of some of this, and again it’s because of there’s no detail as to what’s going in there
and so the City needs to know.
Kate Aanenson: Just to be clear, we don’t have any records of it. It’s not that there’s no detail.
We don’t have records of it so someone has to provide that.
Councilman McDonald: No, I mean details of his house. Of what he wants to build and where
it’s going to go.
Kate Aanenson: Or existing conditions.
Councilman McDonald: Right. Yeah. So that’s the thing I think we’re looking for and it’s not
that we’re going to require a lot of this. It’s I guess it’s the option.
Kate Aanenson: Well, I don’t want to have the discretion.
Councilwoman Ernst: ...why do we have it in here?
Mayor Furlong: Yeah, Kate.
Kate Aanenson: Well my concern is that I’m going to be negotiating all these things and I feel
very uncomfortable doing that. You know I think and the staff’s position is, what we have in
here, but for the tree thing which we agree that we can resolve that. I’m not sure, if we don’t
have the easements here, someone has to go out and physically survey it and find that location so
it’d either be the City or.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
25
City Council Meeting - March 23, 2009
Councilman McDonald: I guess let me, I’m not saying that they should come out. I understand
you’ve got to negotiate. My question’s more to Mr. Senn in that knowing that, that what we’re
looking for as a City, if you’re prepared to do it and give it to the City and then we’re willing to
say okay that meets our requirements, then is everything okay and it looks as though these things
are still open to negotiation somewhat.
Mark Senn: Well again most of that doesn’t bother me Mr. McDonald as long as it doesn’t cost
me a fortune to do it. I mean again I’m building a very small residence here that I’m not looking
to turn into a half a million dollar home so, especially when the half a million’s caused by things
that have absolutely nothing to do with the structure so. Because again you know, you know
we’re going to continue and we still do and will continue to look at it as you know as one piece
of land anyway so.
Councilman McDonald: Okay, and I guess I understand all of those concerns and what I’m kind
of looking for here is, how do we meet the requirements of the City and all it’s ordinance and
how do we meet your requirements of trying to build what’s basically a fairly simple home for a
very good purpose and such. That’s all I’m trying to look at is how do we get at that without
driving the cost of your home up to where it’s much more than what it should be.
Mark Senn: Yeah to be honest with you I wish somebody would have told me that they didn’t
know about the easements because that shocks me. I mean I believe I have a plat map for the
entire neighborhood when it was laid out with all the easements on it. For every lot and stuff. I
can, I’ll dig that out and stuff. I thought those were all here and on record and everybody
understood where all those were.
Mayor Furlong: Let me ask a quick question. With regard to condition number 13 in the staff
report. It says submit a revised survey showing the following a, b and c. Is that survey, just for
clarification, is that survey of Tract C and D or simply Tract C?
Kate Aanenson: I’ll ask Paul on that.
Paul Oehme: That would be just C.
Mayor Furlong: Just C.
Paul Oehme: Yeah C and drainage. Basically if the drainage is heading to the east, we’d like to
grab that information as well.
Mayor Furlong: And to the extent that the grading and construction might change the drainage
on that portion.
Paul Oehme: On that parcel.
Mayor Furlong: You’re looking for where the drainage is going to go after the house is built.
Paul Oehme: Exactly.
26
City Council Meeting - March 23, 2009
Mayor Furlong: To verify that it’s not going towards the neighbor.
Paul Oehme: Right.
Mayor Furlong: That it’s going to the east, which Mr. Senn said that’s, it may not naturally go
there now. Some of it may, some of it may not but that’s what you’re looking at.
Paul Oehme: It’s both for the property owner’s benefit and for the neighbor’s benefit I think,
and for the City’s. They can capture that information and make sure that we know where that
water’s going.
Mayor Furlong: But again just to be clear 13 is just related to Tract C?
Paul Oehme: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: Not Tract D. And maybe we can clarify the language there to be clear.
Kate Aanenson: Sure. We can make that a part of the motion. Part of the condition.
Mayor Furlong: Alright. Okay.
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, council members. If I can just add a point of clarification here. What
we’re trying to do here is once Mark is done with the subdivision, he can sell Tract C. I know
that’s not his intention but that’s the ultimate goal here based on our ordinance. If he had this
property and just put the carriage house, he couldn’t just sell the carriage house and so this is
allowing him the opportunity to sell that. That’s what our ordinance puts in place. We don’t
allow the carriage house and we can go through a whole white paper of why we don’t allow
carriage houses but at this point what we’re trying to do is to protect Mark and the future owner
of that property the rights with those easements of where water’s going to drain and the
neighbor’s next door. So just point of clarification.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Appreciate that. Any other questions for Mr. Senn? Otherwise
what I’ll do is, thank you.
Mark Senn: Alright, thank you.
Mayor Furlong: And we’ll have a public hearing here so at this time I’d like to open up the
public hearing and invite all interested parties to come forward to the podium. If you can please
state your name and address in addressing the council on this matter I’d appreciate it.
Herb LePlatt: Hi. My name is Herb LePlatt and we live at 7012 Cheyenne Trail, Chanhassen,
Minnesota and we are the property that’s directly to the north of the proposed Tract C that Mark
is proposing to put in. Several points that I wanted to bring up right away is Mark said that his
house was one of the oldest and that’s not true. There’s 3 homes just north of him that were
there since 1968 so his house, that’s not a true statement. There are other homes there that are
27
City Council Meeting - March 23, 2009
older than his that have been well established. The other part of this is, just north of where this
building site is is probably the least treed spot on his entire property and that’s why it’s so critical
to have a tree survey and find out exactly what is going to happen to those trees because those
trees are critical to main our values and our expectation of what we bought 20 years ago. We’re
not the only ones that are in this same situation. There are two other neighbors right next to us
that are in the same situation as we are.
Councilman Litsey: Is there a way to put that map up so you can point to where you’re talking
about or?
Mayor Furlong: Can we put it on the table? Do we have one for the table?
Councilman Litsey: If not, then just the pointer.
Kate Aanenson: It’d be easier with the mouse just to point right to the north there.
Councilman Litsey: That’s fine. Just so I get it right.
Kate Aanenson: There you go.
Herb LePlatt: That’s our property right there.
Councilman Litsey: Okay. And the least treed area you’re saying is?
Kate Aanenson: Off that point to the north.
Herb LePlatt: Is off that point to the north, correct.
Councilman Litsey: Okay. Thank you.
Herb LePlatt: I believe that a tree survey, there was an assumption being made that a tree survey
would have to be done for his whole lot and that’s not necessary at all. I don’t think anybody
wants that but I do believe that a tree survey around the area of this Tract C is appropriate so I
encourage you to follow through with that if you possibly can. The utilities, there is an electrical
utility, the gas utility that runs right down that north lot line so we have no control over the trees
or what happens in that easement right there. I mean they can come in and take all those trees
down and now we’ve got even less trees because a majority of the trees that are there exist on
that utility easement. We have no control over that so I’d really like to encourage some sort of a
control by the Planning Commission to have landscaping done. Or at least ensure that there is a
buffer that remains there that we can control in this building process instead of waiting for the
power company to come in and take the trees down because they’re getting into their power
wires. A privacy fence was mentioned and the privacy fence would probably have to be about
20 feet tall in order for it to work or have any impact simply because where he’s building, where
Lot C is or Tract C is the highest point on that property. So anybody that is anywhere around
him is going to see that house and have, be impacted by it no matter what you put in there, unless
it’s tall trees. I guess the, I just wanted to encourage the council to listen to your own ordinances
28
City Council Meeting - March 23, 2009
because they’re there for a reason. It’s not to cost him more money but it is to protect the other
people around a development. When we bought our house there 20 years ago we came in and it
was all plotted as single family homes. There was no expectation of any development behind us
ever, and I’m not sure exactly what it will do to our value of our home. If it brings the value
down I hope that it brings the tax base down with it. There’s 3 other homes here that will be
similarly impacted if they went to sell their homes later on. So just as a consideration I think that
the council should listen to what their ordinances and what their planning department has been
telling them and it is for a good reason. Thank you for your time.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. May I ask you a question?
Herb LePlatt: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: Mr. LePlatt. You mentioned trees and a utility easement on the north lot line.
Is that easement on Mr. Senn’s side of the property or on your side of the property?
Herb LePlatt: It’s on our side of the property line.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. And what’s the listen of that? Of that easement.
Herb LePlatt: I believe it’s a 10 foot easement. It’s a standard electrical utility easement.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Herb LePlatt: There’s a gas line that goes through there and, a natural gas line and a power line.
Mayor Furlong: Because you do have some trees on your side of the property line but you’re
saying those are in the easement area?
Herb LePlatt: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And then from the tree survey standpoint around there, you said it’s
important to do it. Help us understand your thoughts on how that would be used.
Herb LePlatt: That’s how you control what trees are going to be taken down and if those trees
need to be replaced. Is to have a tree survey done so in the utility process of coming into his new
tract takes down trees, or in the building process that’s off the roadway it’s off because there’s
going to be changes there, that you don’t even know about yet because it hasn’t been detailed. In
fact there’s, you’ve all been saying the same thing. There’s a tremendous lack of detail in this
plan and without the details you can’t tell whether it’s going to fit into your ordinance or the
variances on the ordinance that you’re creating. So I encourage you to get the details and that
would include a tree survey, and I don’t think it has to be done throughout the whole thing. I
think that the planning commission could give some guidelines on how large an area needs to be
surveyed.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
29
City Council Meeting - March 23, 2009
Herb LePlatt: Most of the trees that are on the northeast side of his proposed lot are all under 6
inches. That means he could come in and take them all down if he wanted to and then there
would be no trees between us and, well the four, the subdivision, whole subdivision and this new
tract. So it’s, there’s a lot of gray area that needs to be worked through before I think that there
could be any approval process done with a fair conscience.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you.
Councilman Litsey: I just wanted to ask, are you comfortable with what, how it’s phrased in
here in terms of conditions of approval or do you still think that’s too watered down?
Herb LePlatt: Well from what I heard here tonight I think that what currently is there would be
acceptable to us. I think that that would do what would be needed to give the Planning
Commission oversight on the tree removal or the utilities and the new road that’s going to be
built in there. So.
Councilman Litsey: Okay.
Herb LePlatt: I believe that it, you know as it stands I would think that that’s, that would be
appropriate as long as there’s some oversight.
Councilman Litsey: Right. Thank you.
Herb LePlatt: Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you Mr. LePlatt. Anyone else who would like to speak?
Betsy LePlatt: Hi, I’m Betsy LePlatt. I am the other adult resident at 7012 Cheyenne Trail. My
main reason for coming up was I was disappointed with the removal of the recommendation of
the Planning Commission to add some sort of landscaping on the north side and the reason this
bothers me a bit is I was hoping maybe there would be some sort of evergreen something that
could be planted on the new lot C since it is a little bit higher elevation than the part to the north
that’s not in Lot C. But however I think the privacy fence idea is not a bad one so I wanted to go
on record saying that and I guess that’s it. Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Very good, thank you.
Councilman Litsey: Kate, doesn’t Section 18, or the condition 18 address that a little bit?
Kate Aanenson: 18?
Councilman Litsey: Yeah.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, I think maybe shy was under the impression that you were going to
remove that. You have been discussing that.
30
City Council Meeting - March 23, 2009
Councilman Litsey: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: So I think there’s just a misunderstanding. You haven’t voted on that yet.
Mayor Furlong: Yeah, we haven’t made any changes at this point. We’ve been discussing the
different changes but as I understood Ms. LePlatt your comments is you prefer to keep 18 in.
Condition 18.
Betsy LePlatt: I don’t have 18…for me to know.
Mayor Furlong: That’s what I heard. That was the condition that the Planning Commission
recommended be added that dealt with landscaping.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Enhancing landscaping.
Mayor Furlong: Yes.
Betsy LePlatt: On the north.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: That’s what 18 said.
Councilman Litsey: It says the applicant shall work with staff to enhance landscaping on the
north side of the property.
Herb LePlatt: Would that be the Tract C property? The new property or the existing?
Councilman Litsey: Good question.
Kate Aanenson: It’s on the north side. I think we have to decide where it goes.
Councilman Litsey: So we have to clarify that language.
Herb LePlatt: …either the north side of his driveway or south side of his driveway.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. We’re still in a public hearing at this point so I would invite
anyone else to please come forward and address the council on this matter. No? Okay. Without
objection then we’ll close the public hearing and bring it back to council for thoughts and
discussions unless there are other questions. Councilwoman Tjornhom.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I’m going to throw a question out there. On these subdivisions, you
know we’re talking about trees and counting them and removing and putting them back and, take
me back to the planning commission days. What is required for the amount of trees on this
31
City Council Meeting - March 23, 2009
subdivision, and what’s required if they’re removed? You know do they have to be replaced? I
mean what is our ordinance? What does it say?
Kate Aanenson: Well there’s a couple points here. One, when there’s a variance request you
can apply any reasonable condition to mitigate that impact and that’s I think where the Planning
Commission was going.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: Okay. And the other one is, I’ll just state it simply and that’s if there’s a lot of
trees you can take some trees out because there’s no way you can build without removing some
trees. If there’s very few trees and you take them all out, you’re going to be heavily penalized to
replace. So the goal is looking at the species of trees and what’s being removed, so until we
have the house in front of us, and we look at the floor plan, how the final grading works out.
What’s the best way? What we’ve found is kind of working through that, best way. To site a
tree. If we can place a tree on the site, again we hate to remove trees to place another tree, that
we would look to see, if another tree could be placed, would it be effective screening to make
that decision in the field at a future date, so we would look at how much is being removed. Can
we replace it? Where can it be replaced? You don’t want to replace it right next to the house so
we have to look at all that and evaluate once the house plan comes in and that’s why we think A
covers that, and again using sound judgment. What makes sense to make that work.
Mayor Furlong: Could you pull up the picture that showed the 60 by 60 pad, that showed the
setbacks? Of the staff B. Do you have a sense of the distance between the northern most point
of Tract C and the northern property line of Tract D?
Kate Aanenson: 30-40 feet.
Mayor Furlong: 30-40 feet. 30? And what’s the setback? You’ve got that point there but
what’s the setback from.
Kate Aanenson: Well that’s what I’m saying between the road and that, could something go in
that point and how close would it be to the.
Mayor Furlong: But isn’t there a setback there from that property line?
Kate Aanenson: Right.
Mayor Furlong: That northern most property line…
Kate Aanenson: Right, if I could just go to the original survey that was on here, you can see
that’s the property line where that driveway converges is. It’s the only place you would have on
Tract C would be in that point where the driveway is. The driveway’s kind of split. Is that what
you’re asking me?
32
City Council Meeting - March 23, 2009
Mayor Furlong: I guess I’m asking the northern, we’ve got kind of a point, that northern point
almost looks like a house if you will.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, right there. Right.
Mayor Furlong: With the roof line, what I’ll refer to as the northern property line on C, which is
kind of the roof line. The two together.
Kate Aanenson: Right.
Mayor Furlong: Which will confuse everybody but what is the setback for building from those
two lot lines?
Kate Aanenson: Oh, I see. From that setback line. I probably have to go, if you’ll let me go to
the.
Mayor Furlong: Is it the side? Is it 10 feet?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah. This is where you’re showing it.
Mayor Furlong: Yeah.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah.
Mayor Furlong: It’s 10 feet.
Kate Aanenson: Actually the front, the front is where you meet the 100 so that’s, that would be a
side. So that’d be 10 feet.
Mayor Furlong: Okay so, because that’s 30 is coming from a quote, front.
Kate Aanenson: 30’s from the front and the back would be.
Mayor Furlong: And 30 in the back.
Kate Aanenson: Towards the lake. And then 10 on each side. You’re correct.
Mayor Furlong: 10 on each side.
Kate Aanenson: So there is room within there to put. Again looking at what the roof line looks
like, could a tree go in there? It may not, and if for some reason as the applicant indicated the
utilities are in there, something needs to be dug up to get drainage and we’re making a water
swath to put that in, that maybe a tree can be placed on the other side so we’ll have to make that
as a field decision. And that’s why I say we’ll go out there and look at it, once they stake out
where the house pad’s going to go, we’ll make that tree inventory there. What’s being removed.
33
City Council Meeting - March 23, 2009
Can some of it be replaced? Where’s the appropriate place? That’s always a better field
decision to get the best screening.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: Did I answer your question?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: No it did. I just.
Mayor Furlong: Any other questions for staff at this point? Mr. Senn if you would, you had
mentioned that there’s some utilities that run along the driveway and some utilities that run along
the southern property line. Did I understand that correct?
Mark Senn: Yeah, the.
Mayor Furlong: Do you know which ones are under the driveway and which ones are on the
southern property line?
Mark Senn: The utilities that run up under our driveway I believe are our gas. The stuff on the
north, or I mean sorry, the south property line I believe is the, is the, what am I trying to say? I
think it’s the telephone and.
Mayor Furlong: Water, electric.
Mark Senn: And cable and stuff like that. The water I believe also goes up under the driveway,
if I remember correctly.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Mark Senn: And stuff, and then actually I think goes up under the driveway and then criss-
crosses over across to where that hydrant is that I was describing on the south side. Our sewer
for our house goes down towards the lake, not towards the street and stuff and so we tie into a
sewer deal that’s to the west of us basically and stuff. As far as what’s, I mean we drive the, how
would I say it. The utility easement along the north property line north of our property line
essentially, I mean all that, we don’t derive any utilities off of that. That all services essentially
the neighborhood to the north of us and stuff. It has nothing to do with us one way or the other.
Mayor Furlong: So all your utilities are at the driveway or south?
Mark Senn: Yeah.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright.
Todd Gerhardt: But those are your private utilities, correct? That go down the driveway.
34
City Council Meeting - March 23, 2009
Mark Senn: Ah yes, but I mean what we’re looking to do is basically just tie, because I mean
again they’re metered at the house so I mean it’s our intention to tie into the utilities at the
closest point we can tie into utilities so.
Mayor Furlong: So I guess the question I have then, there is a request here in the staff report for
an easement on that access, the driveway. Does it need to be an easement…
Kate Aanenson: And that may be a double, that might be the easement for the utilities might be
one and the same.
Mayor Furlong: But does there need to be a utility easement from the public street as well for
this parcel?
Mark Senn: It’s usually all one in the same.
Kate Aanenson: Well it may or may not be. We have both conditions in here so.
Mayor Furlong: Where’s the second condition? The utility easement.
Kate Aanenson: It’s 15.
Mayor Furlong: Drainage and utility easement, okay.
Kate Aanenson: …the driveway serving both so that’s a cross access. And then.
Mayor Furlong: What about other utilities? 13 just says showing.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Number 4. And number 3.
Mayor Furlong: Utility plan showing existing, okay.
Mark Senn: Yeah, see all the utilities to the north property line are kind of sightly. They’re all
above ground. All of our utilities are underground.
Mayor Furlong: Alright. Okay, thank you. Thoughts and comments. Any other questions on
this one? Councilwoman Ernst?
Councilwoman Ernst: Well I personally would like to see staff and property owner, see what
they can come to on a conclusion and then come back. Work through the details that we talked
about tonight and then bring it back. That’s what I personally would like to see.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Councilwoman Ernst: See if they can work some things out.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: So are you saying you’d like to table this?
35
City Council Meeting - March 23, 2009
Councilwoman Ernst: Yeah.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Other thoughts, comments.
Councilman Litsey: I’m fine moving ahead as proposed. I think it addresses the legitimate
concerns of the neighbors here without compromising the applicant’s ability to move forward so
I think we’re being mindful of what the neighbors have brought up and yet the applicant can
move forward. I think we should just do it.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Councilwoman Tjornhom or Mr. McDonald.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: You can start.
Councilman McDonald: I guess you know I’d be in favor of that too because my concern is,
after hearing.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: In favor of what? Tabling or.
Councilman McDonald: Tabling.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay.
Councilman McDonald: Yeah, I would be in favor of tabling and allowing some details to be
worked out because what I hear from the residents to the north, I’m not sure that that’s what
number 18 is and that’s where my confusion comes down because now if you’re requiring
buffering and landscaping over on basically it would be Tract D instead of C because I don’t see
how you’re going to do it on Tract C. I think that needs to be worked out as to what are we
going to do there as far as screening. Is there anything, because if we don’t take down any trees,
we’re not going to require anything to be put back in there but we don’t know that at this point
because we don’t know if there’s any trees.
Kate Aanenson: Mayor, unless someone submits a house plan, I really don’t know that I have
much more to negotiate with. I’m submitting what I believe to do a legitimate requirement to
our ordinances. Unless someone submits a house plans in more details then I don’t really have.
Councilman Litsey: No, that’s absolutely a good point.
Kate Aanenson: I don’t know what else to negotiate. If you want to waive something then, then
I would suggest that that take place there because I feel like this is our best recommendation to
meet our ordinance. You know we’re doing a metes and bounds instead of a subdivision which
requires a variance so I think, unless you want to give us some direction on that.
Councilman McDonald: Well if I misunderstand, I thought that’s what you were asking for is
we need more detail submitted in all of this to move forward.
36
City Council Meeting - March 23, 2009
Councilwoman Ernst: I’m saying that they, let them work it out. However that needs to be, but
see if they can come to an agreement on some things and then bring it back to council.
Councilman Litsey: What I hear staff saying is to do that then we’d have to have house plans.
Councilwoman Ernst: Well.
Councilman Litsey: Is that what we’re asking for?
Councilwoman Ernst: I don’t know. That’s something they’re going to have to work out.
Councilman Litsey: Well I think we have to give staff direction. I don’t want to leave them
hanging.
Councilman McDonald: Well and I guess I’d be in favor of you know getting the details. What
do we need to work out? So that’s going to mean staff needs the details of what’s going in.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilwoman Tjornhom.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I guess everyone’s working with what they have at this point and
doing the best they can with the information they’ve been given. You know I don’t have a major
problem with any of this. I think my major problem, if I have one, is the ordinance itself that
requires people to count trees that are this big. You know I think that kind of sometimes over
burdens them, for developers and people that are trying to do something with their property and
so I guess that’s where I come back, and I’ve done this with other developments also and I’ve
said that it’s tedious for developers to have to go to that extent when it comes to tree
preservation. Obviously common sense intercedes that there are definitely those mature trees
that should be marked and taken care of, and so I guess that’s where I go back to, is it onerous to
go count all the trees or you know what’s required on the lot? What’s not? So I guess I’m
willing to move forward with it and in good faith hoping that there aren’t a lot of those small
trees that need to be counted and that I would think it would be in everyone’s interest, the
applicants and the neighbors and the person that’s going to be living there to keep all the trees
there for privacy. Common sense just tells me that at least that that would be what should
happen so I am willing to go ahead and move forward with this tonight.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you.
Councilwoman Ernst: I’m sorry Mayor, could I ask one more question?
Mayor Furlong: Certainly.
Councilwoman Ernst: Kate when, with the details that you have laid out here, are you saying
that this is basically everything that we have to work with? There’s no more.
Kate Aanenson: Well, we require a drainage and utility easement. I’m not the one to say you
don’t need to do that. You know I think if we’ve looked for that and we don’t have it. The
37
City Council Meeting - March 23, 2009
original, this is originally a registered land survey so we don’t have that data so what we’ve said,
Paul clarified that and we just say for the new tract so we’re minimizing the requirements if this
was a subdivision so we’ve already kind of stepped back from that so I think what we’re
recommending here is to make it legitimate, as the City manager said, if there’s conveyances on
that property that it’s whole, and we don’t know what’s going to happen in the future. That
we’ve done our due diligence to make sure it’s correct. Nobody wants them to count any
individual trees but I think what we’ve agreed is that we’re going to stake out the area for tree
removal. We’ll examine that. If there’s a place to put an additional tree, if that’s what makes
sense, then that’s what we would do but to take down trees to put in another tree, we all agree
that doesn’t make sense. Whether or not you want to say that you know some of the other
easements are there, I don’t, or doesn’t have to pay park fees, I’m not sure that’s my place to
negotiate those things. I feel uncomfortable negotiating some of those things so.
Councilwoman Ernst: Okay, thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Does that answer your question?
Councilwoman Ernst: (Yes).
Mayor Furlong: A lot of different parts, a lot of different options here this evening. I think
based on the information we have, I do feel comfortable going forward. It may mean that there
might be some more requirements than typical. At the same time I think we have to look at the
requirements and make sure they’re reasonable, and I think this is, getting back to
Councilwoman Tjornhom’s thoughts and comments here on what’s reasonable. Our ordinances
are there. We do follow the ordinances but at the same time we have to take a look at the
ordinance and say is it reasonable to require that the ordinance be followed, and I think the best
example of that probably is the request for the variance this evening on the private street to not
require upgrading that current driveway to a 7 ton, 25 foot wide private street. That would
certainly take out a number of trees. I think trees will be the most used word tonight on our
council minutes.
Todd Gerhardt: In this room.
Mayor Furlong: Well, I think if the minutes get recorded somebody can do a word count on
trees. I just said it twice more. But I think to, within that I think trying to talk about, I’ve tried to
make some notes here and maybe I’ve missed something but you know with regard to some of
the issues before us I think the, Mr. Senn has already modified what he originally wanted, which
was a new structure on the existing lot without any, without any change in property lines. He
wanted a new structure on the existing lot. He’s moved away from that. With that, to staff’s
credit, looking for opportunities, a way to meet the ordinance and minimize the request for
variances, they’ve done that here. I think there is reasonable cause to support the variance
request. That the two variances, both of them on the private street, which is the width and the
construction of 7 ton. I think the, you know as I look down the conditions, some conditions,
number 12. Isn’t there credit in our ordinance for any parkland fees previously paid against the
current fees as well? I mean I think to the extent that, my sense is that any fees currently paid,
there’s also, that would be credited against the current fees. Mr. Knutson.
38
City Council Meeting - March 23, 2009
Roger Knutson: For park dedication you only pay for the additional lot. Not, he already has one
lot so he only pays for the one additional lot.
Mayor Furlong: Right. You know with regard to the grading plan, with utilities and stuff like
that, the grading plan I think is very important and that can come with the house plans but what
that’s going to do is show where the lot will be graded. It’s going to have to be graded some,
even though it’s fairly flat and open, to make sure that water does run the way that they want it to
run, which is to the east. Currently it naturally drains probably to the east and south both. What
we don’t want is a situation where it amplifies the drainage to the south and therefore impacts the
neighbor to the south, so I think the grading plan is an important part of what we do, and that’s
important. You know with regard to, and now I’ll get back to the trees. We’ve got, and I fully
appreciate the LePlatt’s concern about their view changing and that’s going, that may or may not
happen. It’s in the winter time now so none of the trees have, are foliaged out but you know on
the north side of that driveway, if there’s 30 feet to the property line plus the setbacks, another
10. Given the shape of the buildable area, I’m doubtful that the building will go right up to that
setback and that peak but even if it does, it’s still 40 feet away with substantial number of trees
inbetween. I can understand the recommendation of the Planning Commission on number 18 but
I just, you know when I step back and say is it reasonable? I just, I don’t know that it is to do
that. I certainly don’t think under condition 8, you know I have, I don’t know that there’s a need
for a survey at all. I certainly don’t think condition 8(c), that no trees will be removed on Tract
C or D without approval of the City. I mean that’s pretty broad. How long does that last for and
is that really necessary? I think if the applicant, when they submit their building permit also
submit a plan for the tree preservation and removal calculations. Not including necessarily a
survey but on an area that can be reviewed by staff on site, which we’ve done and you said that’s
the best way to do it. And then protect those trees that they’re looking to preserve with fencing,
which we do on all developments.
Kate Aanenson: Yep.
Mayor Furlong: That’s kind of the best we can do. I mean I think that’s a reasonable
accommodation. We’ll be able to tell. There may be some big trees that have to come out. But
there aren’t only, there are a substantial number of trees there so, I mean I’m comfortable
moving forward with the adjustment to 8 that I’ve recommended. And with the adjustment to 13
that says a revised survey of Tract C showing the following. I k now there was a question about
easement over the road. In my opinion that absolutely has to be there for this parcel all the way
from the public street. Based upon personal experience with family members, they don’t always
talk nice to each other and Mark, I’m sure your’s is the exception but people change. Time
changes thoughts and that has to be there so, but I clearly think that that needs to be there, as well
as the easements for the utilities coming into this parcel. Currently they may be working
together but some day that may not be the case. Even with common ownership that simply may
not be the case and I think it just, that’s protection for all. So those would be my
recommendations, given what we have, unless there’s a desire on the part, I don’t even know
how much time we have left on this, if any. You know unless there’s a desire by the applicant to
wait, but then what I’m hearing is, you’d have to come forward with your housing plans and it
may be premature to do that. I don’t know, that’d be up to you. Is it? Okay. Then I think what
39
City Council Meeting - March 23, 2009
we need to do is go forward with the information we have and seek reasonable balance between
the information that we’ve received this evening. Other comments.
Councilman Litsey: Mayor, you’re looking to strike under 8(c) then, or modify that language?
Mayor Furlong: I’d be looking to strike 8(c).
Councilman Litsey: 8(c).
Mayor Furlong: And I’d be looking to strike.
Kate Aanenson: Can we modify (a)?
Mayor Furlong: I’d modify (a), correct.
Kate Aanenson: Just to say submit a survey for the home location?
Mayor Furlong: Well not necessarily a survey. What I’m looking for is basically tree
preservation and removal plan to the City staff. This is all relating to Tract C.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And what that does then is here’s, the property owner then is going to
have to say to the City here’s what I’m planning to do on Tract C. And then (b) would require
them to seek to preserve those that are being protected.
Kate Aanenson: Which is standard.
Mayor Furlong: By fencing. Correct?
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: Throughout the construction process. And 8(a) would be accomplished based
upon staff and the applicant working together, likely on site. After it’s staked out. So that can be
seen, and I think that’s how we do it all the time, don’t we? I mean that’s just normal practice.
Councilman Litsey: That’s workable?
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: So and with 13, now I guess for all of these, basically are there any conditions
here that are not related to Tract C? Or do all of these relate specifically to Tract C? Can you
review that quickly because.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, I would have to.
40
City Council Meeting - March 23, 2009
Mayor Furlong: I don’t want to put Tract C in 13 and then leave it implied that…
Kate Aanenson: The only one I’m not sure on is the engineering on 13. If there were some other
drainage, because the original recording we had was a registered land survey, that’s why there
wasn’t an easement recorded, and I don’t know.
Mayor Furlong: And well that’s why I thought Mr. Oehme said earlier this evening that 13
related only to Tract C.
Paul Oehme: For the drainage, yeah.
Mayor Furlong: And the, what about the other a, b and c? Is that all Tract C or is some of that D
too?
Paul Oehme: Well to the east. I mean I think we need to do, evaluate how the drainage heads to
the east and potentially to the cul-de-sac. And also if these utilities are going to become public
we need to evaluate how those utilities are being brought in there so.
Mayor Furlong: So, okay then maybe I misunderstood. 13 needs to be for the entire Tract D as
well as C? Or is there a sub-set in, help me understand.
Paul Oehme: No, I would recommend just to the east of Tract C to the cul-de-sac.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, so Tract C and to the east of Tract C on D.
Paul Oehme: Correct.
Todd Gerhardt: It’s wherever you know Mark’s going to have to tie into those utilities and so
you may have to go onto Tract D to create an easement for the benefit of C.
Mayor Furlong: Correct, and I would think that the, if the connection is from Tract C straight to
the north to his driveway to connect into the utilities, it’s not just that easement but the easement
from that point back out to the public utilities as well.
Todd Gerhardt: Yes. If the private utility breaks, that property owner should have the rights to
go on there and fix it.
Mayor Furlong: Or to have…
Todd Gerhardt: …want to.
Mayor Furlong: Right. Exactly, and that makes sense. Okay. So the revised survey under 13
would be for Tract C and as necessary on Tract D to the.
Kate Aanenson: As necessary, yep.
41
City Council Meeting - March 23, 2009
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright, is that? Did you get that on the minutes Nann? Let’s go, and
then the last thing was, I guess the last thing was 18 and I fully appreciate the LePlatt’s concern.
I’m just, I’m looking at it practically and from a reasonable, and I believe that there’s, between
the distance between the northern part of, or the setback portion of the building on Tract C up to
the north property line, then additionally from the distance from that property line up to the
house on Cheyenne Trail, that’s quite a bit of distance. In fact it looks like on the aerial he’s
more distance than the distance of some of the houses from Cheyenne to, to Willow View further
to the east so. Those are my recommendations as a way to move forward here this evening.
Taking advantage of the compromise that’s already taken place between the applicant and staff,
and looking for a way to meet people’s needs as best we can.
Councilman McDonald: So are you saying strike?
Councilman Litsey: …remove number 18?
Councilman McDonald: Are you saying strike 18?
Mayor Furlong: That would be my suggestion, simply given the, well as I said earlier.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: In the motion 18 isn’t mentioned. It’s just 1 through 17.
Mayor Furlong: 18 is down at the bottom of the conditions.
Councilman McDonald: On the front page.
Councilman Litsey: On the front page it’s 1 through 18.
Mayor Furlong: Yeah but I think the staff report wasn’t updated back on, what was it?
Councilman Litsey: I don’t personally think 18 is too onerous on the applicant. I think it gives
flexibility and I trust staff would be reasonable. I would be, personally I’d be receptive to the
other two amendments or changes but I wouldn’t be to 18.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Councilman McDonald: Well I guess could I ask for clarification because that’s where all of my
problems have been tonight is on 18. It just says to the north of the property. Are we talking
about D or C? If we’re talking about D, then I guess I have some problems with that because
now we’re going beyond this property. If we’re talking about C, then make sure that the buffer
remains within that. Then I don’t think we have a problem. It should be okay to leave it that
way. I’m not sure what property we’re talking about and that’s what I’ve been trying to get at.
What trees? You know are we talking about making them build a berm. We’ve heard privacy
fences. All kinds of things and planting evergreens. That I think is going a little bit further than
what’s required and that’s the problem I had with 18 was it was too open ended as to what we’re
talking about.
42
City Council Meeting - March 23, 2009
Mayor Furlong: Well I guess my thoughts on it, and the picture on the screen here, to the extent
that it says of the property, let’s for sake of discussion say it is Tract C. Okay?
Councilman McDonald: Okay.
Mayor Furlong: Then as we talked about before, based on the information I have the northern
most point of Tract C is about 30 feet from the north property line of D. Which is also the south
property line of the homes to the north on Cheyenne and you can see in this picture the distance,
you can see the distance that it is from that property line up to those homes. Yet if you go to the
furthest right of his picture you’ll see that the other homes on Cheyenne back to the home on
Willow View are closer than these two will be.
Councilman McDonald: Right. But I guess my point is you’re not going to put any landscaping
in there. It’s already full of trees and that’s why, then why is that there? If it’s going to the north
to the property line of Tract D, then I think we still have got some problems because now you’re
making someone go in and put things over and above what’s currently there and you can’t even
get to some of his property because of the trees so they have to go on the other side of the fence.
That’s my problem with 18 is I think it’s.
Kate Aanenson: Can I just again go to where the Planning Commission’s rationale was. If you
look at the criteria for a private street, prevailing development patterns. Okay? It’s on the end of
a cul-de-sac. We all are in concurrence on that. Public street would not improve the access. I
think there’s agreement on that. And then it says enhance protection of natural resources and
that’s where the Planning Commission said, you know maybe we should look at the trees to the
north. That was a generic north because we don’t have the house plan. We don’t know how it’s
going to lay out. As the mayor stated, which we concur, we’ll go out there. We’ll put a fence
around what goes and if we can put additional trees on, there’s enough loss or putting the utilities
in cause additional loss, we’ll try to put an additional tree somewhere to the north of the site. It
could be the house site. It says to the north. To the north of the home. To the north of the, if it
doesn’t fit, it doesn’t fit. So that’s all, it’s all covered in 8. That’s what we I think are in
concurrence on.
Todd Gerhardt: Right on. I mean 8 covers everything on Parcel C.
Mayor Furlong: It covers 18.
Kate Aanenson: Exactly.
Mayor Furlong: 18’s redundant.
Todd Gerhardt: And I think everybody’s in agreement that Parcel D does not, you couldn’t fit
any trees on there.
Kate Aanenson: Right, unless the road had to get ripped up to put the utilities in for some reason
but agreed, so.
43
City Council Meeting - March 23, 2009
Mayor Furlong: So effectively 8 covers 18 so it’s redundant.
Kate Aanenson: I believe it does. Yeah. I think the Planning Commission was just struggling
with that, are we enhancing the natural resources, and we’ve modified 8 to make sure that that
happens.
Mayor Furlong: Yep.
Todd Gerhardt: So you can eliminate 18 then.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Councilman McDonald: I mean does that answer Councilman Litsey’s concerns?
Councilman Litsey: Well I’ll defer to staff if you think that that gives you enough latitude to
address the concerns that the neighbors have raised, and if the neighbors are comfortable with
that.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah. We’re comfortable with that. That we understand what the Planning
Commission intent is and that it’s reasonable requirement.
Councilman Litsey: Does the neighbors understand, do you understand that?
Herb LePlatt: You know I have some, I have some concerns about it but I do understand what
the intent is.
Councilman Litsey: That sits okay with you?
Herb LePlatt: Yeah. …okay the way it stands as long as they don’t come in and rip that road out
and they have to go back in and…improve that road, yeah. It’s like I said, our, the least amount
of trees on that whole lot of his is between the north of Lot C and his… That’s where the least
number of trees exist. And part of that is because his driveway goes through there.
Kate Aanenson: Right. That’s correct.
Herb LePlatt: So if we, you know you lose anymore in there, then there needs to be some
governance, some oversight into the…and make sure that those… And I think 8 does that but
what I understand, I haven’t read it thoroughly in the way it stands now but I think 8 probably
covers it.
Mayor Furlong: Yeah the key here from a concern standpoint, actually is not 8 but it is the
variance that doesn’t require them to rip the road out and to rip the road out, so I think your
concerns are covered.
Herb LePlatt: Well it would be for utilities because if his utilities are underneath that road, I
mean there may be you know, they may have to remove a portion of that road.
44
City Council Meeting - March 23, 2009
Mayor Furlong: That, they may have to remove a portion of the driveway but the key is by
granting the variance the entire driveway doesn’t have to be taken out and built to a 25 foot wide,
nor would it if they had to rip out a portion of it would they have to rebuild it to 25 foot wide.
Okay. So I think you’re right. I think 8 and I think the variance, what I’m offering, the variance
provides the protection that you’re seeking. Any other thoughts or comments?
Councilman McDonald: Well and I think the other thing to one of your points about the
easements, they do need to be put in there because you’re creating a land locked lot.
Mayor Furlong: Absolutely.
Councilman McDonald: And so it’s got to have access, whether it’s family members or not, I
think law requires that. You can’t just create a land locked piece of property.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: Access easement as well as, as well as utility easements to provide any public
utilities from the public street. Okay.
Councilman McDonald: Okay, I guess we’re good.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Would somebody like to make a motion?
Councilwoman Ernst: What is the motion? After all that.
Mayor Furlong: Councilwoman Tjornhom, you want to give it a try.
Councilwoman Ernst: Go for it.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I’m going to go for it. No pointing fingers at me. I make the motion
the City Council approves Alternate B for Planning Case 09-02 with a variance to allow a private
street with a width of less than 20 feet and less than a 7 ton design, and approves the subdivision
creating two lots as outlined in the staff report subject to conditions 1 through 18 and the
adoption of the attached facts, Findings of Fact and action. Amending, or based upon, or.
Mayor Furlong: Amending. Yep.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Amending. Changes to condition 8. Is that correct? Do you want
me to give you the specific language?
Kate Aanenson: I think we’ve got it.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: That’s already been discussed? Okay. Condition 13. Is that correct?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
45
City Council Meeting - March 23, 2009
Councilwoman Tjornhom: And striking condition 18.
Mayor Furlong: Correct.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Is that it?
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilwoman Ernst: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on this?
Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilwoman Ernst seconded that the City Council
approves Alternate B for Planning Case 09-02 with a variance to allow a private street with
a width of less than 20 feet and less than a 7-ton design, and the subdivision creating two
lots as outlined in the staff report, subject to the following conditions and adoption of the
Findings of Fact for Alternate B:
1.Approval of the metes and bounds subdivision is contingent upon approval of the private street
variances.
2.A grading plan must be submitted for review and approval and shall comply with the City
Code.
3.A utility plan must be submitted showing the existing sanitary sewer and water services to
the existing home,the existing gas, electric, cable and telephone services to the existing
home and the proposed sanitary sewer and water services to the new lot.
4.A drainage and utility easement must encompass any portion of the new services that crosses
another property. The easement width shall extend a minimum of 10 feet, on center, from
the service.
5.If the sanitary sewer and/or water service are extended from the utilities within Willow View
Cove, an escrow must be posted for the restoration of the street. The escrow amount will be
determined when the utility plan is submitted since the extent of excavation is unknown at
this time. The escrow will not be released until it is deemed the area is in satisfactory
condition after one freeze-thaw cycle.
6.The sanitary sewer and water hookup charges for Tract C shall be paid with the building
permit application at the rate in effect at that time. The 2009 rates are $5,087 for the City
water hookup charge, $1,893 for the City sewer hookup charge and $2,075 for the
Metropolitan Council sewer charge.
7.The party applying for the building permit is responsible for payment of the hookup charges.
46
City Council Meeting - March 23, 2009
8.Environmental Resources Specialist Conditions:
a.The applicant must submit tree preservation, removal calculations and survey for Tract
C for City staff approval prior to recording.
b.All trees proposed to be preserved shall be protected by fencing throughout the
construction process. The fencing must be installed prior to any excavation or grading.
9.At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of recording, is
$1,984.88.
10.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)) necessary and comply with their conditions of approval.
11.All disturbed areas shall be mulched and seeded or sodded according to following table:
Time
(maximum time an area can remain unvegetated
Type of Slope
when area is not actively being worked)
Steeper than 3:1 7 Days
10:1 to 3:1 14 Days
Flatter than 10:1 21 Days
These areas include 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.
12.Full park fees in lieu of parkland dedication and/or trail construction shall be collected in full at
the rate in force upon approval and recording.
13.Submit a revised survey for Tract C and as necessary on Tract D showing the following:
a.Drainage and utility easements.
b.All utilities must be shown and relocated if necessary prior to recording.
c.Driveway access to the new parcel must be shown on plan.
14.Submit a 30-foot wide private cross-access easement over the shared portion of the private
street.
15.A drainage and utility easement must encompass any portion of the driveway serving Tract D
and encroaches on Tract C.
16.Tract C must meet the minimum criteria for a non-riparian lot within the shoreland management
district as described in Chapter 20, Article VI.
17.The applicant shall revise the lot lines as shown in staff’s layout (Alternate B). ”
47
City Council Meeting - March 23, 2009
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you everyone. That completes half of our agenda this evening. No, I’m
glad we spent the time on it because it’s important that we spend time to make sure we get things
right so thank you everyone for your patience and participation. We do appreciate that. Let’s
move on now with our agenda this evening. Mr. Gerhardt, item number 5. Are we going to
proceed with that this evening? Which is consideration of feasibility study.
DOWNTOWN PARK AND RIDE FACILITY: CONSIDER APPROVAL OF
FEASIBILITY STUDY.
Todd Gerhardt: Yes Mayor. It will not take that long. Council sat through this before and I’m
sure Jon and Paul have a quick power point. All we’re doing is asking for the council to accept
the feasibility study this evening. There is no conditions that go along with that. All you are
doing is informing you of the design and then anything that would relate to TIF agreements or
master redevelopment agreements would all have to come back at a separate time.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Todd Gerhardt: So all you’re doing is accepting where the street would go. How the utilities
would be relocated.
Mayor Furlong: And, okay that’s fine. Let’s start with the staff report please.
Jon Horn: Good evening Mayor, members of the City Council. My name is Jon Horn. I’m with
Kimley-Horn and Associates. We have been working with City staff and Southwest Transit on
the downtown transit station improvement project. We have the completed feasibility report for
the project and wanted to run you through a very brief overview of the feasibility report tonight.
The project includes public improvements to support the construction of a park and ride facility
by Southwest Transit. The number of parking spaces to be provided in that facility is bouncing
around somewhere between 400 to 520 something that will be further identified as a part of this
process. The site is located directly behind the Chanhassen Dinner Theater property. We have
been spending a lot of time coordinating the proposed improvements with Southwest Transit.
There are improvements that Southwest will be building as a part of this project. There’s some
land acquisition that I’ll talk briefly about that’s included as a part of the project. Some roadway
right-of-way and some land that the City will be acquiring. We did do a traffic study as a part of
the process to evaluate the possibility for a traffic signal at either Great Plains Boulevard or
Market Boulevard, either to support the transit facility as well as potential redevelopment in the
area by the Bloomberg Companies. Bloomberg’s considering possibly an apartment building
and some office and retail use in the area. Based upon the results of that traffic study they’re
currently not proposed to be traffic signals at either location. It was determined not to be
warranted. There were some other recommendations that came out of that traffic study that I’ll
mention here briefly. This is the project location map. The red box shows the location of the
parking ramp, directly behind the dinner theater. It sits at about the location of the existing
corrugated metal building that’s used for a scene shop for the dinner theater as well as a bus
shelter at that location. In terms of the improvements, I mentioned the coordination between the
48