CC Minutes 4-13-09City Council Meeting - April 13, 2009
Bob Roepke: I think all of our board members are certainly supportive and have had, have
contributed to the foundation. We are seeking a representative on the board from Chanhassen.
We’re talking to some people about that. We’re talking to some people that are connected with
business from your community to see if they would have an interest in joining us so we’re out
there recruiting so if you have some names or some suggestions for us, that’d be wonderful.
We’d appreciate that. I don’t know did you want to? No?
Mayor Furlong: Very good. Thank you. Anything else? Well thank you. We appreciate you
coming this evening and sharing that information.
Mary Langworthy: Thank you very much
Councilman Litsey: Thanks.
Mayor Furlong: Anyone else for visitor presentations this evening? If not then we’ll move on
with the other items on our agenda this evening.
APPLE TREE ESTATES: REQUEST FOR A SEVEN-LOT SUBDIVISION WITH
VARIANCES, LOCATED AT 8600 WATERS EDGE DRIVE. APPLICANT: PLOWE
ENGINEERING, INC., OWNER: ALOYSUIS KLINGELHUTZ.
Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor, members of the City Council. This subject site is located off
of Waters Edge Drive. What makes this area ripe for development is the improvements that
were put in place with the new 212 interchange and allowing this street now to not be the old 101
or a busier street now that it’s a long cul-de-sac it makes it more desirable in order for this
property to be subdivided. So the applicant is proposing to subdivide this property which is a
little over 10 acres in size and through the process there’s been a few changes which I’ll
th
summarize. This item did appear before the Planning Commission on the March 17 meeting
and they voted 6 to 0 to approve it. It does include a variance for a private street which I’ll spend
some discussing in a minute too but I just wanted to point out for you, there was some issues
brought up regarding the drainage which we’ve specifically identified in a little bit more detail
and I’ve passed out a modified amendment for page, excuse me for condition number 46 and I
have that single sheet there, so we’ve modified that again to be a little bit clearer what the issue
is and again as I move through the staff report you’ll see. So again just north of the new 212/101
interchange abutting Lake Susan so the shoreland regulations do come into play with the zoning
on these lots. Again the subject site. 10 acres. 10.2 acres and meets over, exceeds the density.
Existing on the house is the one single family home with a shed on the property. The shed will
be removed. The lot itself, lots in this area, because it was access via a state road, you can see
there was the use of common driveways to develop the properties in here. While they were
larger lots because they were lakeshore lots, common driveways was pretty common in that area.
So that also was a factor in the development itself. The lot also has some interesting topography.
The site slopes from a high point along the east central property line with an elevation of 930 and
then drops down to 922 so it’s a little bit challenging when you’re trying to do these infill
developments to make everything work. Again the use of the street on this, on the apple orchard
side, because the lots are previously accessed via the private drive, we did want to incorporate
5
City Council Meeting - April 13, 2009
that into the two larger lots that will be along the lakeshore, and that’s how this lot figures out.
You can see the existing home is on Lot 1. The proposed large, other larger lot, lakeshore lot
would be on Lot 2, so it’s their intent to continue to share that common driveway. Can you turn
that on? Do you know where it is?
Mayor Furlong: Alright, let’s keep going. We’ll have to…
Kate Aanenson: Okay, so the existing driveway, just to be clear. Would share all those, would
share just those two lots at the end of that cul-de-sac. Otherwise the subdivision would meet the
standard. That would be the only variance, and the variances, just for the common driveway
itself, it still would have the 7 ton design where there’s common 30 foot wide easement under
that common portion so the variance again would just be for that. If you go through the variance
criteria as we laid out in the staff report, which is found on page 9 just talking about the
prevailing development pattern. Again the development pattern in this was long, larger, deeper
lots and because the lot itself is in excess in the compliance table, over almost 2 acres in size, it
makes sense to have them share that so there wouldn’t be a lot of additional traffic on that. So
the rest of the lots would be served off of a private street that does meet city standards.
Mayor Furlong: Can I ask a question on that?
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: Just for clarification. What does our ordinance, does our ordinance not allow a
private street off the end of a cul-de-sac?
Kate Aanenson: There’s already one home off it. If you have more than one home it does
require a variance.
Mayor Furlong: Any time we have a private street with more than one home it requires a
variance?
Kate Aanenson: Correct. Yes. And then also it’d be a condition that there’d be a maintenance
agreement between the two parties. Common access so the one party can’t control it. So that’s a
way of regulating that. The reason being is if you chose not to allow it to subdivide, by giving a
variance you could deny the variance therefore not allowing that type of subdivision. That’s the
other control point on that. So if you chose, if you didn’t think it made sense in that
circumstance, by denying the variance you wouldn’t allow that type of a larger lot. Our rationale
on this basis is because it’s a 77,000 square foot lot, two lakeshore lots, I think when we, when
this proposal first went out to the neighborhood there was some concern there’d be a lot. Yeah,
I’m going to use lot a lot. There’d be.
Todd Gerhardt: Many.
Kate Aanenson: Many, thank you. Many lots on the lakeshore but there’s only one additional
with one dock. Additional dock, so I think that helped some of the neighbors concerns who had
similar sized lots, as was the prevailing development pattern so in looking at this and grating the
6
City Council Meeting - April 13, 2009
variance, it does, it is consistent with the prevailing development on those lakeshore lots. And
the homes that are being subdivided are consistent with the Lake Susan development. Again all
these lots are in excess of the minimum lot standard of 15,000 so I mean they’re compatible. So
here’s an example of like the common driveways. Those two lots that are being served off the
end of the cul-de-sac and again staff supported that, as did the Planning Commission. So the
grading and drainage was one of the big issues that came up on this project. This is the
proposed, as it is now, where the pond would be located. Originally the pond being proposed on
Lot 2, which I’ll show you in a second. So this has a wetland on it which is not being impacted.
A bluff that’s closer to the lake, and then the storm water pond would be now closer to Waters
Edge Drive. It was in a different location. I’ll show you that in a second. So this is the tree
preservation area. This site is being mass graded except for the preservation areas that are closer
to the lake. It’s inside of that green, bright green area. Would be the preservation area so except
for the Lot 2 would be custom graded. The other lots would all be mass graded which is pretty
typical for a subdivision. The utility plan. Again the sewer and water is available in the area
tying to existing utilities so that’s all workable in meeting the standards of the subdivision
regulations. So now I just want to spend a minute and explain to you the modifications of the
storm water itself. So this was the original proposal. You can kind of see again talking about the
challenging topography. The emergency overflow where the water comes out and the elevation
of the existing larger lot home in that area where there was some concern about where that water
would be going so we asked the developer to modify that and now there was a lot eliminated so
one, we have one less subdividable lot that was eliminated in order to provide storm water
ponding and that’s off of Waters Edge. You can see in that light green area there how the storm
water pond has been moved down to there, and that reduces that issue we have regarding the
emergency overflow onto the existing house, although there was still some concern about how
this water’s being managed, and I can show you that in the next slide. If everybody’s tracking
with me here. This is the proposed storm water. There is, you can see that light blue line kind of
going out between those two homes, if there was an emergency overflow so I’m looking at, we
also wanted the developer’s engineer to model that and this is the proposed overflow also by
tying it to an existing storm water pond. So the modifications on condition 46 address that. We
just want to be clear before it comes back for final plat. You will see this. Typically a final plat
is on consent so what we’ll show you is how all the conditions have been met so each one will be
itemized and then we’ll say this condition has been met or been modified and show how that’s
done and that would be translated into the development contract, so we just want to be more
specific on condition 46 of how that can be done and we believe it can be accomplished but we
just want to make sure that’s engineered correctly.
Mayor Furlong: And that’s been passed out this evening?
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: Has this been given to the applicant I assume?
Kate Aanenson: It was to the engineer. I’m not sure…
Mayor Furlong: To the engineering, okay. Yeah.
7
City Council Meeting - April 13, 2009
Kate Aanenson: So with that again all the lots exceed standards with the one variance which we
think is reasonable. Use of the property based on those deeper, larger lots so with that we are
recommending approval of the subdivision with the variance as identified in the staff report with
the modifications to condition number 46 and I’d be happy to answer any questions that you
have.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for staff? Councilwoman Tjornhom.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Kate one thing I haven’t seen ever I don’t think is where we’re
requiring the addresses to be bigger than normal or, what is that?
Kate Aanenson: That was spelled out more specifically. I think too when you have a house at
the end of a cul-de-sac, to get to those back lots, that they can be spotted easily. That’s for that
reason. You’re talking about the fire marshal’s conditions?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yeah because I’ve never really seen that before I don’t think and…
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, and that’s for those two specific lots at the end so that they can see it,
because they are deeper, longer driveways so they know which way to go so it’s just identifying
those at the end of the cul-de-sac. The addresses at that point.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: So that was in the Fire Marshal.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: What he requested. Okay.
Councilwoman Ernst: Kate in the notes you had that there was a previous plan submitted by the
developer that included a filtration basin on Lots 2 and 3. And you said staff did not support this
proposal. Can you expound on that?
Kate Aanenson: Sure. I’ll let maybe let Paul, if you want to address it. The original proposal up
here in the…
Paul Oehme: Mayor, City Council members. The staff had issues with the location of that pond.
One, it’s on a bluff more or less. Steep grade. Typically you don’t want a pond at those type of
locations just in case you have a larger storm event. Overflows of those ponds can have
problems and can actually break and become, just basically drain out the pond so you know
typically we don’t like to see ponds in those type of locations. That was one issue. Another
issue the pond is right next to a existing home. We felt that the drainage pattern potentially
could impact that adjacent property owner, so that being said we worked with the engineer and
the applicant relocating that pond.
Councilwoman Ernst’s question was not audible on the tape.
Paul Oehme: Yeah, I mean I think we’re comfortable with the location of the new pond.
8
City Council Meeting - April 13, 2009
Councilwoman Ernst: Okay. Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Other questions for staff.
Councilman McDonald: Well the question I’ve got is, I’m not quite sure where is the water
going then from the pond? It looks as though on your last drawing it comes across through a
culvert or something or is it going north or west?
Kate Aanenson: Sure. Yeah, this is the original proposal, which the city engineer has indicated
that that longer driveway with the house on it, that’s sitting lower than the emergency overflow.
That was our concern there because of the bluff. So this was the staff’s recommendation to
move it to this site.
Councilman McDonald: Okay. And then from there overflow, which way does it go to the west
or?
Kate Aanenson: Do you want to?
Paul Oehme: Yeah, if you could go back to the pipe routing one. Go back one more. There we
are. Actually go forward. I’m sorry. There it is. Okay. So basically the darker blue is showing
the NURP pond that’s being created to treat the storm water runoff. Our ordinance, basically at
this location it’s more of a land like basin for us and under normal rain events there won’t be any
discharge out from that pond or out from the, out from the wetland area. The lighter shown
green pipe that’s shown there heading to the west, that would be in a worst case scenario during
100 year, back to back 100 year rain events, that’s just to mitigate any potential back-up or
elevation of the pond into adjacent properties so, that pipe shown here wouldn’t be used very
often. It’s just for large events that it would be used. Typically you know under normal design
criteria we like to have emergency overflows at grade that are not piped because of pipe potential
for backing up, but in this instance there’s limited locations for that type of design so this is an
alternative that we came up with that we think can work.
Councilman McDonald: Okay and then to the west where the pipe ends, what’s at that location?
What’s the water going to?
Paul Oehme: Yep there’s, it doesn’t show on this drawing.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah I can go back. It’s the first one. It’s Lake Susan. Lake Susan.
Paul Oehme: There’s an existing storm sewer system that will connect into and then it
discharges into a wetland, and then after that wetland then it goes into Lake Susan.
Councilman McDonald: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: I think the challenge when we look at these for infill development, as a staff, is
the existing development pattern isn’t pre-treating the water so now when you’re increasing
9
City Council Meeting - April 13, 2009
development, the developer’s obligated to pre-treat that water so how do you tie it into a system
that doesn’t exist so that was a little bit of a challenge and I think the biggest concern was well
you have an existing house with, as the city engineer indicated, that’s water sitting up higher.
That’s not the best design so unfortunately we lost a lot to accommodate that but we’ve learned
in the long run it’s probably wiser not to do that.
Councilman McDonald: And is that what this drawing shows is that one of your fears were that
the water was going to go to the north between those two houses and everything?
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Councilman McDonald: So now by re-adjusting this and putting the pipe, we’ve pretty much
guaranteed it will go the west and shouldn’t have any impact to the north.
Kate Aanenson: And that’s what condition 46 says.
Paul Oehme: We’re trying to mitigate it.
Mayor Furlong: And I guess to clarify. Ms. Aanenson, if you can go back to the previous slide
that you had on that showed. That one right there. Perfect. You knew what I was. Is the green
arrowed line there which will be the discharge pipe, is that the pipe that didn’t have sufficient
slope to it that you’re asking?
Paul Oehme: That’s correct. We didn’t feel that that pipe would address the storm water issue
out of that pond and then be, we would have some maintenance issues if there was no slope on
that pipe so.
Mayor Furlong: And that’s also been added, or the last criteria here. By minimum slope
requirement are we referring to our ordinances?
Paul Oehme: Correct.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: Other questions for staff at this point? If not, is, I see the applicant’s here. Or a
representative of the applicant. If anybody would like to address the council on anything. No?
Okay, and I just want to make sure you had the opportunity if you wanted to.
Al Klingelhutz: I can go up if I can get up.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any questions for the applicant if anybody has that? Very good. Well
let’s discuss it then. Did you want to talk about it or not? I just, if not that’s fine.
Neil Klingelhutz: I think they covered it pretty well. I mean there’s a couple…been put on it but
it’s pretty well summed up in the report.
10
City Council Meeting - April 13, 2009
Mayor Furlong: Great. Great, thank you. Good to hear. Thoughts and comments. On the
proposal before us this evening. Who would like to start?
Councilwoman Ernst: I think it’s pretty clear. The only question I had was on the pond and I
think that’s been explained pretty well and the applicant seems pretty positive so I would support
it.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Other thoughts? Councilwoman Tjornhom.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yeah, it seems like all the wrinkles have been ironed out. Thanks to
the Planning Commission and staff once again so I think, in these times when we’re wondering
where the next development is coming, it’s good to see one coming through so I’ll support it
also.
Mayor Furlong: Mr. McDonald.
Councilman McDonald: I guess my only thing is, I’m kind of sorry to see this happen but I hope
it doesn’t mean you’re going to move you know because I’d hate to lose you as a neighbor or
something so as long as you’re going to stay I’m in favor of it.
Mayor Furlong: Did you want to add a condition…
Councilman McDonald: It’s just a request.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Councilman McDonald: Please stay.
Mayor Furlong: Councilman Litsey.
Councilman Litsey: I have nothing to top that so. No, I’m fine with it.
Mayor Furlong: Very good. I think I agree. This is, one comment that I will make is that, as we
were interviewing candidates for some of our commissions, one of them made the comment, and
I think it’s a fair comment that sometimes it seems like things get rubber stamped at the council
level and I think to Councilwoman Tjornhom’s thoughts, it really is because a lot of work has
been done already and when a proposal comes to us as clean as this one is, even though there’s a
variance involved and there are a number of conditions, the bottom line is everything’s been
thought out and I would give credit to members of the Planning Commission and certainly the
staff and also the applicant and their professionals that are working with them to, because it tells
me that everybody’s been working together to find common solutions and to make sure it works
for everybody so we appreciate that and it makes everybody’s job easier but it usually ends up
for better developments as well so I just wanted to add that to the record. With regards to the
development, I think it’s pretty clear that it makes sense to go forward including the variance.
It’s a very reasonable request. Somebody like to make a motion. Councilwoman Ernst.
11
City Council Meeting - April 13, 2009
Councilwoman Ernst: I make a motion that we approve a 7 lot subdivision, preliminary plat with
a variance for access off of private street for Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Apple Tree Estates, plans
prepared by E.G. Rud and Sons Incorporated and Plowe Engineering, Incorporated dated
1/29/09, revised 2/25/09, subject to conditions 1 through 46 of the staff report.
Mayor Furlong: And just for clarification before asking for a second, 46 includes the modified
46 that were distributed today.
Councilwoman Ernst: Yep.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilman McDonald: I’ll second.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Made and seconded. Any discussion?
Councilwoman Ernst moved, Councilman McDonald seconded that the City Council
approve a seven lot subdivision (preliminary plat) with a variance for access off a private
street for Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Apple Tree Estates, plans prepared by E.G. Rud & Sons,
Inc. and Plowe Engineering, Inc., dated 1/29/09, revised 2/25/09, subject to the following
conditions:
1.Additional six-inch address numbers will be required at the entrance to the driveway of Lots
1 and 2, Block 1, where it comes off the cul-du-sac.
2.Additional six-inch address numbers will be required at the driveway where it splits between
Lots 1 and 2, Block 1.
3.Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact locations and numbering requirements.
4.No burning permits will be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and scrubs must be
removed from site or chipped.
5.A three-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, and nothing be placed in
front of the outlets to hinder firefighting operations. MN Fire Code Sec. 508.5.4.
6.Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be installed.
Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during time of
construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided. MN Fire
Code Sec. 501.4
7.Temporary street signs are required to be installed as soon as construction begins. Signs
shall be of an approved size, weather resistant and be maintained until replaced by permanent
signs. MN Fire Code Sec.505.2.
12
City Council Meeting - April 13, 2009
8.A 30- foot wide private easement, cross-access and maintenance agreement must be
submitted for the private street.
9.Final grading plans and soil reports must be submitted to the Inspections Division before
building permits will be issued.
10.Retaining walls over four feet high require a building permit and must be designed by an
Engineer registered in the State of Minnesota.
11.Each lot must be provided with a separate sewer and water service.
12.Demolition permits must be obtained before demolishing any structures.
13.Existing home(s) affected by the new street/cul-de-sac will require address changes.
14.The existing shed on proposed Lots 4, 5 and 6, Block 1, Apple Tree Estates must be removed
concurrently with the installation of the street improvements.
15.Full park fees in lieu of parkland dedication and/or trail construction shall be collected as a
condition of approval for Apple Tree Estates. The park fees shall be collected in full for all new
homes at the rate in force upon final plat submission and approval.
16.Applicant shall remove Colorado spruce from the planting list and transfer the quantity to
other evergreens in the Plant Schedule or add a third evergreen species. A revised planting
list shall be submitted to the city.
17.All trees proposed to be preserved shall be protected by tree preservation fencing. Fencing
shall be installed prior to site development or grading and excavation for homes on each lot.
Any trees shown as preserved on plans dated 1/15/09 and revised 2/25/09 must be replaced at
a rate of 2:1 diameter inches if removed.
18.The applicant shall locate the existing row of trees along the east side of Apple Tree Lane
north of Lot 1, Block 2 relative to the proposed retaining wall and develop a plan to protect
the trees. The survey and plan shall be submitted to the city for approval.
19.The building permit survey for Lot 2, Block 1 shall include the tree survey for the lot. Any
additional tree removal on the lot greater than what is shown on subdivision plans
dated1/15/09, revised 2/25/09, will need prior approval from the city and additional plantings
may be required.
20.The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to show river birch and balsam fir or black
spruce near the wetland rather than red oak and white spruce.
21.The plans and hydrology calculations must be revised so that the pond will hold back-to-back
100-year storms.
13
City Council Meeting - April 13, 2009
22.Correct the location and elevation of the wetland emergency overflow.
23.A piped EOF is required for the wetland. The developer’s engineer shall examine possible
locations for this connection and work with and obtain the necessary permission from the
property owner/agency.
24.The driveway grades for Lot 3, Block 1 must be adjusted so that there is positive drainage
along the entire driveway.
25.A building permit for Lot 2, Block 1 may be issued prior to installation of the public street
and utilities. A final Certificate of Occupancy will not be granted until the public utilities are
in and the first lift of asphalt has been installed on the street.
26.The developer must submit a plan showing how access to the existing home on Lot 1, Block
1 and the proposed home on Lot 2, Block 1, will be maintained throughout construction.
27.The top and bottom of wall elevations must be shown on the plans.
28.The plan must show the existing trees on the property to the east of the development,
adjacent to the proposed retaining wall. The plans must be revised so that the off-site trees to
the east of the development are not impacted with the retaining wall construction.
29.The developer is required to obtain the appropriate permits from MnDOT to construct the
local street connection.
30.The developer must notify the affected property owners a minimum of seven days before
mobilizing to complete the sanitary sewer connection.
31.A security will be collected with the final plat to ensure that the disturbed area will be
restored to the current condition.
32.The storm sewer between the public street and the pond must be shifted to either the north or
south property line of Lot 1, Block 2 to eliminate the drainage and utility easement through
the property.
33.Any excavation within the wetland cannot result in a maximum inundation greater than six
(6) feet in depth.
34.The finished bottom of the wetland shall be undulating providing varying depths.
35.Side slopes shall be no greater than 5:1 on average and no greater that 3.5:1 in any location.
36.Bottom of the wetland shall have a minimum 0.8 feet of organic soil materials or otherwise
hydric soils.
14
City Council Meeting - April 13, 2009
37.A vegetation establishment plan must be developed and implemented for the wetland and the
buffer area. In the event that no excavation occurs within the wetland, a vegetation
management plan need only be developed and implemented for the buffer area.
38.Sequencing of erosion control measures need to be incorporated into the plan. This includes
placement of perimeter controls prior to earth disturbing activities and excavation of the pond
during the initial grading activities to be used as a temporary basin.
39.Silt fence must be included down gradient of all exposed soils.
40.Inlet protection shall be required within 24 hours of setting the structures on site.
41.Erosion and sedimentation BMPs must be placed to protect the structures in Waters Edge
Drive.
42.A concrete washout area needs to be shown on the plan and must comply with the NPDES
permit requirements.
43.A rock construction entrance, at least 75 feet in length, must be indicated on the plan.
44.An NPDES Permit will be required for the project. This must be obtained prior to
commencement of any earth disturbing activities.
45.The pond and wetland should be put into an Outlot. This will result in a further reduction of
SWMP fees. That portion of Lot 1, Block 2 east of the westerly normal water level elevation
for the stormwater pond shall be included in a separate Outlot to facility pond maintenance.
46.City staff shall work with the applicant to make sure that the new proposal for drainage meets
the City of Chanhassen Engineering Department’s requirements including:
a. The 100-year storm event must be stored onsite. This requirement presents a challenge
because of the elevation of the culvert under the neighbor’s driveway to the wetland.
b.The peak elevation noted for the back-to-back 100-year storms is higher than the driveway
to the east.
c.The exfiltration assumption used in the model must be verified.
d.The discharge pipe must meet the minimum pipe slope requirement.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY: APPROVE BIDS AND QUOTES FOR FACILITY
PROJECT NO. 08-03.
Paul Oehme: Thank you Mayor, City Council members. As you recall last council meeting
council did approve bids for steel and concrete packages. These items did have some significant
lead times to them. That’s why we requested council approve those early. Earlier. For tonight’s
meeting staff is requesting that the remaining bids and quotes, as identified in RJM Construction
15