CC Minutes 1-10-05
0'4 -3(ø
City Council Meeting - January 10,2005
Mayor Furlong: Been made and seconded. Any further discussion?
Roger Knutson: Mayor, just a point of clarification. You have in front of you a resolution. I
assume what you're doing is adopting the resolution but just deleting the sewer and water
portion. Would that be the motion?
Councilman Lundquist: Yes sir.
Mayor Furlong: Within the feasibility report right?
Roger Knutson: Right.
Councilman Lundquist: Yep.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Is there a, it's been made and seconded. Clarified. Is there
any other discussion?
Resolution #2005-08: Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to
adopt the attached resolution and authorize preparation of plans and specifications for the
2005 street improvement projects, with the exception of sewer and water in the Lake Lucy
Road/Steller Court project. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a
vote of 5 to O.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you everyone. Thank you for those that came in and took time to
address the council and came to the open houses.
REOUEST FOR REZONING FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL (RR) TO SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) AND PRELIMINi\RY PLAT APPROVAL FOR A 43
LOT SUBDIVISION WITH VARIANCES FOR PRIVATE STREETS. LOTS 1 & 2. OLD
SLOCUM TREE FARM (6620 & 6640 GALPIN BOULEVARD). PINEHURST.
PLOWSHARES DEVELOPMENT. LLC.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Nathan Franzen
Steve Kroiss
Peter Coyle
Matt Goldstein
Curtis Neft
Chris Moehrl
Daren Laberee
Bruce Mattson
Charles Jackson
Plowshares Development
Plowshares Development
Larkin & Hoffman
Lundgren Bros Construction
Westwood Professional Services
Westwood Professional Services
Westwood Professional Services
2020 Crestview Drive
2100 Crestview Drive
22
City Council Meeting - January 10,2005
Alan Nikolai
Beverly Jackson
Doris Nikolai
6282 Cartway Lane
2110 Crestview Drive
6570 Galpin Boulevard
Kate Aanenson: Thank you. The subject site, located just off of Galpin Boulevard, south of the
Crestview neighborhood. Just north of the Woodridge Heights, and then the subdivision
here...before you. There's two action items on the proposal tonight. One would be the
rezoning. It's currently zoned RR. The comprehensive plan has it guided for residential single
family and then the second action tonight would then be the subdivision of approximately 27
acres into the 43 lots. The plat itself is very complex in the fact that it's heavily wooded and it is
also, has a significant change in grade. Really about 50 feet in change in grade. Of the 27 acres
of this plat, 18 acres of that or 60 percent of that is going to be graded. Because of the severe
elevation changes and the number of trees and the amount of grading, it's going to impact the
development, so one of the issues that certainly came into play was tree loss. The city ordinance
does allow, through their calculations of the tree loss formula and does provide a mechanism to
replace those trees and that is provided for in the staff. What I'm going to do is kind of focus on
the critical issues that were presented and not go through the entire plat, as there is verbatim
minutes. But one of the issues on the trees, when this subdivision, the subdivisions to the south
and to the east came in, we did provide opportunities for access to the site. For example on
Manchester Drive, was stubbed. And then also we did provide a private drive off of Brenden
Court because we anticipated with the creek crossing that there could be a private drive in that
location at that time that was anticipated. At this time the applicants are proposing to donate that
Outlot A. We'll talk about that in a minute but change in wording there. So that's kind of the
area that they're preserving for trees. Through our experiences we've talked about on trees, on
lots. Trying to preserve trees on individual lots is sometimes creates a quagmire so we find it's
the best way to do it as preserving in larger clumps and you can see with the retaining walls, how
they're working to preserve some of those areas of significant trees. I would treat this similar to
what we did, when we saw in the newest application on Vasserman Ridge has probably been our
most recent one with significant trees where we preserve the trees in the back of the lot and
there's some retaining walls and the like. A similar developer would be on these lots, so we
believe that that's been addressed. One of the issues that the Planning Commission did address
was the trees along Galpin and I just wanted to touch along that for a minute. There was a
concern from the neighbor to the north regarding tree loss and the Planning Commission also
addressed some of the arborvitaes that were along that. The arborvitaes that were on that site are
on a particular lot, not in the right-of-way. We're certainly working to preserve as many trees
along the site as we can. Staff was a little concerned about the wording of that condition and
how that works. But the Assistant City Engineer Matt Saam did meet with the, talked to the
County and I think what we worked on the north side here is reducing the length of that decel
lane. I don't know if you have a better map of that Matt, but so we won't have to be so far north,
and there was a concern about trees. All those trees are in the right-of-way so there may be some
tree loss but they're not on private property. They are in the city right-of-way.
Matt Saam: If we could zoom in. There we go. Here's the proposed access to Pinehurst off of
Galpin. I'm sorry. Here's the proposed access to the site off of Galpin. We have a property just
to the north of this development that has an existing driveway also off Galpin. One of the
County requirements, because Galpin is a County road, is to install a turn lane for right turn
23
City Council Meeting - January 10,2005
movement. People going south into the site. Initially the developer had looked at starting it
right, way up at the top at the existing street intersection of Crestview would have conflicted
with this driveway. We spoke with the County today and they're willing, based on traffic, speed
limit, that sort of thing, to start the turn lane just past this driveway.
Kate Aanenson: But maybe Matt if you could address, some of those trees are in the right-of-
way currently. They're not on private property so there will be some tree loss but those are
currently in the right-of-way. Of the County road.
Mayor Furlong: Which one? The hedge there.
Kate Aanenson: This. These trees right here on the neighboring property. The other arborvitaes
are inside the development itself and they may be lost. I think the Planning Commission had
concern that we try to preserve those as much as possible. Just to kind of refrain how we do
this... by the City Forester to ensure that it's properly staked and maintained before they
commence grading. Before they're authorized to proceed. Engineering and the City Forester
and depending if there's wetland impacts, those are all reviewed before they're allowed to
proceed grading so that's kind of our check in to make sure that it's consistent. So I guess that's
kind of the tree issue and the trees along the site regarding the, but certainly it's our goal and as
is the developer's to preserve as many of those as possible. The second issue that's been raised
on this is the street connection. Certainly as the planners and trying to, and the comprehensive
plan trying to connect neighborhoods together when we know there's movement going north or
south. Kind of providing those trip generations for circular movement. We had recommended a
connection. The Planning Commission recommended against that but we just want to talk a few
minutes about why we think that's important. Again, historically throughout the city when we
do infill development, some of the neighborhoods that we connect, even up on the northern end
of Minnewashta we try to provide those cross access connecting neighborhoods to provide,
whether you're up on Country Oaks or even Minnewashta Landings where there was an older
neighborhood. 1940's, we tied those in. Again, connecting neighborhoods. Better
transportation movement. So the request to the north, and I think that's where the Planning
Commission struggled. They hadn't seen the Shivley Addition, which did go to the Planning
Commission last week. We did want to see access to the north because there is movement going
to the junior high, so we had recommended that a sidewalk trail be built and established to get
access via a trail over to the junior high. Both these, the Shivley which you'll be seeing and
Pinehurst would be going to that middle school. The other recommendation was if it was cul-de-
saced and a private street, this was noticed for variances. To do a private street with a cul-de-
sac. At a minimum we still feel strongly about that trail connection, to get again the walkers.
They're going to be cutting through somebody's yard to provide that trail access to get to, up to
the junior high. We did do it on the other subdivision, on the end of Brenden Court. There is a
pass thru on the gate on the other side again to expedite that. It seems like that age will find the
shortest distance to get to that site. So with that we are recommending approval that that
connection. One of the other issues that came up was drainage. On Lot 27, which is this lot.
I'm sorry, this lot right here. Kind of in the middle of the plat next to the pond, and if you can
zoom in on this. This has a drainage swale that runs through it, and this is addressed in a little bit
more detail on page 5 of your staff report. We looked at it a little bit more carefully. The
applicant's engineer also looked at it more carefully too but left off the drainage on Lot 23 which
24
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
is up here... The concern that we have when you have a drainage swale running through the
area, is that you, it's hard to convey that point of contact where the water's running through.
We're concerned that we've had this problem before where the drainage disappears. We have
water in the basement. We have people putting structures in those. We believe that's really,
we're creating an inferior lot and our concern about the long term impacts of that, so with that
we would not recommend approval. Lot 23 again was not included in the conveyance. There
was some other discussion talking about could it be piped? Could it be drain tile? It's kind of
hard when you have sheet flow from these lots coming down to get that into a channelized. Can
we get it to a concentrated point to put a channel or a pipe? I'm not really sure again because of
the grading and the way that slopes, if we could get it to a concentrated. Again, and the
maintenance of the pipe, but it's kind of an issue that we believe someone buying this lot really
is getting a problem. And as we've experienced with Country Oaks, which we recently just went
back and retrofitted those sometimes lose their purpose. So our concern with that is again
discussed on page 5. If the council chose to approve that as a lot, we're recommending that a
drainage and utility easement be placed over that entire width of whatever that drainage swale.
At this point it's not identified as how deep and how much, what that width would be but we
would recommend that that be described and there be a clearly put out drainage easement over
that so any buyer would be made aware of that. And that also the specific computation so that
we know that it can manage that, and the homeowner, future homeowner is made aware of that.
Again our first choice again based on overland conveyance, that we know sometimes swales and
easements disappear, so that was our concern on that one. Moving on, the sewer connection.
Matt passed out for you a copy of revised sewer. Did you want to address that Matt or?
Matt Saam: Sure. As Kate said this was passed out to the entire council. Previously staff had
some concerns with the way that the sewer was proposed originally. We'll go down here, make
a 90 degree turn, another 90 and then come into Lake Lucy Road. We sat down with the
developer recently. Gave him our list of concerns, which are highlighted on your paper. I won't
take the entire time to go through all of those. Steepness of slope. This is city owned property.
Future possible well site. Those are some of the issues. The developer, I think did a good job of
listening and taking into account our issues with it. They've come back with a different
proposals basically to direction ally bore, bore in a straight line shot on this sewer that would save
this entire hillside. Again it's a very steep slope. We're concerned with long term stabilization
of that slope, especially on city owned property. Degradation of the line. They've lowered the
pipe slope so the slope won't be as great. Those maintenance issues go away. The only issue we
really had left was, we still need an open cut into Lake Lucy but we feel we can live with that.
It's a compromise so, long story short. We've come to a resolution on this issue with the
developer.
Councilman Labatt: Matt can you, on that big map, show us where it is on that.
Matt Saam: Sure. Again, this is Galpin right here. We're coming down a street. This is the
sewer area, then we own this outlot on the north side.
Councilman Labatt: On that steep hill.
Matt Saam: Yes.
25
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
Councilman Labatt: Do we have any other sewer lines in the city that are on that steep of a hill?
Coming down.
Matt Saam: I'm sure we do. Yes. I'm looking at our Utility Superintendent, yes.
Councilman Lundquist: How well do they work?
Mayor Furlong: Yeah, I think Councilman Lundquist's question is appropriate. We've got
them. How well do they work? Do they cause a struggle?
Matt Saam: At the steep slopes that were originally proposed, we were 9 plus percent in the
original submittal. We had concerns there. I won't get into specifics. Vortexing gases being
given off. They can prematurely degrade the interior of the concrete manhole, that sort of thing.
We also had issues with trying to get Kelley's jetter, which cleans the sewer line. Again I won't
get into details but getting that up a steep slope at that long of a distance. They brought the slope
down now to something in the lines of 7 percent I believe. We checked with PCA and that's a
much better slope and Kelley says he can live with that one so.
Councilman Labatt: What did they do to make it go from 9% to 7%?
Matt Saam: Basically deepened the sewer at the top end.
Councilman Labatt: So are we still looking at what 30 feet or something like that at one point
when I was reading?
Matt Saam: Yes. The maximum, and we can verify this with the developer's engineer but the
maximum depth now is 30 feet, whereas before if they would have brought it the way we wanted
it too we would have been in the 35 to 40 foot area, so they have lowered, or not gone as deep.
Councilman Labatt: Okay. So long term maintenance wise, we're not concerned at all about
that slippery slope?
Matt Saam: Again, based on conversations with the utility folks who maintain those lines, they
can live with this versus what the original proposal was.
Mayor Furlong: Would there be a preference to, from a maintenance standpoint ongoing cost to
the city to still bring it out to Galpin? Would that be a lower cost? Would there be any cost
differential on their ongoing utility cost?
Matt Saam: It would be deeper. It never went out to Galpin, just to correct it.
Mayor Furlong: Oh I'm sorry.
26
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
Matt Saam: It would go down Manchester. It would be deeper. I would think we'd see some
increased costs on the deeper maintenance of the sewer. For sure to construct it, it's more costly
to go deeper.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. So it really saves cost then, the cost would probably be a wash either
way? Is that fair or is one preferred over the other in terms of maintenance cost?
Matt Saam: It's better to not, if we don't have to go as deep in terms of maintenance.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. So the shallower, the 7% grade is.
Matt Saam: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: Is still going to be less than bringing it out to Manchester.
Matt Saam: In our opinion we can.
Mayor Furlong: Best estimate.
Matt Saam: Yeah, we can live with that and it will be better.
Mayor Furlong: Okay; thank you. Kate.
Kate Aanenson: Okay with that, I believe that's kind of the summary of the critical issues that
reflect in this plat. Again we worked hard with the developer. It is a complex site. Again just
talking about sewers, and figuring all those layers. There is 3 wetlands. They're not touching.
So we worked well. Revised, made some revisions. Reduced tree loss, retaining walls so all and
all there's still just a couple of sticking points. If we can go to page 9, which is the beginning of
the conditions, I'd just like to walk through those. Make sure there's some correct
wordsmithing. Again, there's two motions. The first one is the rezoning on page 9. Bottom of
page 9. And the second motion would be for the preliminary plat.
Mayor Furlong: Is the council vote, is it a four-fifths on the rezoning matter?
Kate Aanenson: I think it's just a simple majority.
Mayor Furlong: Or is it simple majority on both?
Roger Knutson: Simple majority on either one.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Kate Aanenson: So following then on page 10, number 2. The applicant has requested that
Outlots A and B be, the words be changed from dedicated to donated. Again a conveyance term.
Then that's all I had on page 10. Page 11, there's a couple conditions that were added by the
Planning Commission. Just to be clear on, so there's no misunderstanding. The applicant work
27
City Council Meeting - January 10,2005
with the staff to preserve every effort. I would hope we do that with every plat. That goes
without saying. I'm just not sure again enforceability on that. Then the arborvitae hedge, again
that is on private property. It's our understanding that that probably will be graded. I'm not sure
that we're, you know on that right turn lane, that it may be lost based on the requirement for the
right turn lane. Just to be clear on that. And then going to page 13. I think (q). We resolved
that issue. I believe in the fact actually the developer, which is, we resolved the, investigated the
further sewer based on the plans. If you want to give today's date that the revisions that were
handed out tonight. I think that one's been resolved.
Mayor Furlong: So staff would request that (q) be removed?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: So that can just be deleted because that's not an issue?
Kate Aanenson: Correct. And we'll just address that in the plans dated tonight. And then 8 on
that page. The applicant work with staff to incorporate a totlot. That's an extraction. I'm not
sure that we can force upon the developer. Again, this development is not proposing a park but
is being requested to pay park and trail fees. So there isn't a totlot proposed at this time. And
again that's not an extraction that we would request. With that, I'd be happy to answer any
questions that you have.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff.
Councilman Labatt: Kate, talk about it briefly when you say you're going to come back, that
sliver of land in the Gestach part. Brenden Court. What's the plan with that?
Kate Aanenson: At this time it could be, we have a utility easement so we want to maintain an
easement over it but I don't think we need to maintain it as an access. When every time we look
at subdivisions, we look at, it's all part of a piece of a puzzle. We want to see how the adjoining
properties would, could subdivide. It was never our intention to put a public street there because
we didn't think there was enough lot depth based on the creek crossing. We didn't want to have
to cross the creek, so at that time the current ordinance allows 4 homes off of a private drive. So
we put the private street in there, which will provide access to those 4 lots. Otherwise the only
way to get access would have to be over the creek to get to there. The applicants have chosen to
make that a donation area and preserve all those trees.
Councilman Labatt: So are we going, that's paved right? Right now.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Councilman Labatt: So are we going to keep that paved or are we going to restore it back to
natural?
28
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
Matt Saam: The only thing I would say to that is, we do need that access if we have utilities in
there. To the manhole, that sort of thing. We'd like to make sure we maintain available access.
It doesn't necessarily have to be paved. Gravel. Something like that.
Kate Aanenson: I think between now and the time it comes back, maybe we can meet with the
neighboring property owners and kind of see how the developers are come back for final plat to
see what, but we do have easements for utilities we want to maintain.
Mayor Furlong: Any other questions?
Councilman Labatt: I've got a whole list.
Mayor Furlong: Well, do you want to start? You've started. Do you want to keep going?
Councilman Labatt: Sure. Let's talk about Lot 27. I've read stuff from the Planning
Commission and their concerns with it. I've heard your's and I've read the developer's book
that they've put together, which is actually a very nice book. But all three are saying a little bit
something different. And to me it looks like a bulldozer on top of a hill at sunset. This huge
thing sticking out of place just to try to throw a lot in there. We've heard about swales and the
problems that they create. We just went back and fixed a problem over by Lake Minnewashta.
We've listened to former Councilor Ayotte talk about the swale in his back yard with that
development in Near Mountain and the problems that caused. So I would support Kate in
removing Lot 27 and shifting that pond a little bit. See how you worded it in here Kate, but you
talked about, if you eliminate Lot 27 you'd move that pond a little north. But if you can just
comment more on Lot 27 and what Plowshares has said in here about Lot 27.
Kate Aanenson: Sure. Again, they reviewed the drainage. It's our belief that Lot 23 also has
contributed to that drainage swale. Part of 24, 25 and 26 is going to a public area. And our
concern is that it's hard to have overland conveyance you know without appropriate easements is
not a good thing. We've learned that historically. We've learned these things about drainage.
That's a bad thing. But even if we get an easement, the issue is, and we've had this problem that
people, it might not be the first year. It might be the second year and we might not have a water
problem but people tend, it's right in their side yard, to want to use it. Whether it's to put a
swing set in or storage, something, and that tends to back up the water, and we have concerns
that we're setting ourselves up for a problem lot and wouldn't recommend that.
Councilman Labatt: Okay. So we had that taken care of.
Kate Aanenson: Let me just add one more thing to that because this question wasn't asked.
Could it be piped? Could it be drain tiled? And again, because of the grades there, it's hard to
get a concentrated point to control that water. We think that'd be a little difficult to try to, in
order to channel it better, so you have a more controlled, that was our concern.
Councilman Labatt: Okay. Update on page 3. I'm just reading my notes here. Kate in your
staff report you talk about concerns on the western end. In your narrative here.
29
City Council Meeting - January 10,2005
Kate Aanenson: The connection?
Councilman Labatt: Well I'll find it. Can we talk about that, the connection from, you're
recommending what you're just showing us. The through street up onto the next project.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Councilman Labatt: The Planning Commission feels it should be cul-de-saced.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Councilman Labatt: And this was at the Planning Commission last week? The.
Kate Aanenson: The one to the north.
Councilman Labatt: Yes.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Councilman Labatt: What did they.
Kate Aanenson: Still didn't want the connection.
Councilman Labatt: Huh?
Kate Aanenson: Still didn't want the connection. They still recommended against the
connection.
Councilman Labatt: How are they going to access, off of a private drive?
Kate Aanenson: So this is the subdivision, they would come out Crestview. So we're saying it
gives them another area to come out to, whether it's construction traffic. All this traffic now
comes just on this. And part of it is connecting neighborhoods. While people may not be,
wishing to subdivide now, those are larger lots that can be subdivided in the future and again we
always try to not just plan for today but plan for tomorrow. Looking down the road. Trying to
make good decisions down the road. For better circulation.
Councilman Labatt: So if you can go back to that other page. Isn't our goal of having, how long
is Crestview? Is it over 500 feet?
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
Councilman Labatt: And isn't our goal in our comp plan or guidelines that we talk about, we
don't like cul-de-sacs over 500 feet.
Matt Saam: Yeah, we try to limit the length.
30
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
Councilman Labatt: So by allowing access from Street B up there, we're achieving the ultimate
goal here of having a loop.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Councilman Labatt: Correct?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Councilman Labatt: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: A secondary access for both.
Councilman Labatt: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: Again, just to reiterate on that. The other condition was, with that connection
was a trail to give access up there.
Councilman Labatt: Yeah.
Kate Aanenson: Or sidewalk.
Councilman Labatt: And then on page 3 of your staff report, in the update section, you talk
about this, and maybe I'm combining two things here. As part of the court judgment approved
on October 17tl1, that paragraph.
Kate Aanenson: ... the original staff report?
Councilman Labatt: Yeah, the update.
Kate Aanenson: I'm sorry, what was the question?
Councilman Labatt: I'm confused here on this. What, is this, what portion of the development is
this?
Kate Aanenson: This is the sewer.
Matt Saam: Yeah, I just learned about it.
Kate Aanenson: ..okay, I'm sorry. There was some mitigation done, that little lot remnant piece
that was tied to this parcel. It's against city ordinance to leave a narrow strip of property that's
unbuildable so it has to be assembled with one or the other, so it's a litigation. They need to tie
that into this plat.
Councilman Labatt: Oh, so it's all internally in the property?
31
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
Kate Aanenson: That's the legal description, I'm sorry. Yeah.
Councilman Labatt: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: So that wasn't a part of it. We didn't catch that with the original but was
brought to our attention when we looked at the plat. So we can't leave a lot, a narrow piece
that's unbuildable.
Councilman Labatt: Got it. Okay. And then as long as you've got that up, let's talk about the
turn lane impact here from south on Galpin. And the impact that's having on the north property.
And I did not have a chance to talk to that homeowner about his feelings or her feelings on that.
Matt Saam: Yeah, I talked a few times since last week with actually the son of the homeowner
here. I think he's here tonight representing his mother. Initially you have concerns again about
if the turn lane would go in her, per county requirements, it would start right up here north of the
existing driveway property. That taper or widening of the lane would go into the existing
driveway. They basically didn't want to deal with that. We took a look at it from traffic. Really
how many people are going to be coming to this development from the north. We're thinking
most of the traffic will be coming from Highway 5 to the south, both to and from. Plus the speed
limit here is in the 35 mph range. We're not talking 50. North of Lake Lucy remember it's less
than 50, so we don't need quite as long of a standard turn lane we don't believe. Based on those
two factors. So we talked to the County and they agree that they can decrease from their
standard turn lane requirement and start it just south of this resident's driveway. And as far as
the impacts go, this is the old original plan which showed grading basically in this entire right-
of-way in front ofthat property. Now, I've talked to the applicant's engineer. The grading can
start just south of the driveway. It won't have as much of a tree loss impact, that sort ofthing.
Councilman Labatt: So how long will the turn lane be?
Matt Saam: Approximately 200 feet I believe, and the standard is 380 on a higher speed
roadway.
Councilman Labatt: So let's take the turn lane at Longacres Drive, from southbound. How long
is that turn lane then?
Matt Saam: I would guess that one's 380. Again that's 50 miles per hour in that area.
Councilman Labatt: Well this is a 40 zone here.
Matt Saam: Okay, the resident there and excuse me if I'm wrong, told me it was 35. It's 35 to
40. Either way it's lower than south of Lake Lucy. And again, where are these people coming
from? How many are going to be coming from the north? Galpin to the north. While it does, I
don't believe it connects into 7 directly. There's a round about way but again, most ofthe traffic
will be coming from the south.
32
City Council Meeting - January 10,2005
Councilman Labatt: Well it connects right directly to 7. Galpin does.
Matt Saam: Outside of the city.
Councilman Labatt: Yeah.
Mayor Furlong: You can't turn south from westbound 7 there.
Councilman Labatt: No, you just go to Chaska Road and take Mayflower, like I do every day I
come home from work. I just, you know I'm looking for some more hard data, empirical data
that shows that where I live south on Galpin, I drive north every day to go to work. I mean I just,
there's a lot of guys that drive north. People that live in Stone Creek drive north to 7 to get to
work in the north metro, and I just, I mean I'd like to see some more data to justify this whole
turn lane shortening and I think you're looking at trying to dump a lot of speed into a short turn
lane to get into this development coming south. So, I don't know, any other comments on it or?
Kate Aanenson: I guess we'd agree that the traffic is coming from the north and that's why we
put this shortened turn lane coming southbound because you can't take that turn coming
southbound from 7, unless you come Chaska Road but.
Mayor Furlong: Yeah you do Chaska, Mayflower and you can still get south.
Councilman Labatt: You do it too don't you?
Mayor Furlong: Yes.
Councilman Labatt: Well you turn on Pheasant. I'm just, a point of concern I have you know.
Mayor Furlong: Just a quick question. Do we have any traffic counts or speed counts on that
section of road recently in the last couple-three years?
Matt Saam: On Galpin, yeah. It's a state aid road. It's done every other year at a minimum. I
don't have those figures in front of me but we do have those in the office.
Mayor Furlong: And that would include not only count but speed? In that area.
Matt Saam: That I'm no sure of.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Your point is, make sure it's long enough to handle the traffic.
Councilman Labatt: Exactly.
Mayor Furlong: And this is preliminary.
Kate Aanenson: You know if, that's something we can certainly look at. It's got to come back
for final plat.
33
City Council Meeting - January 10,2005
Councilman Labatt: That's all I'm asking is, let's look at that and if we need to lengthen it, then
we need to.
Matt Saam: We can definitely look at the traffic patterns, the counts. If we have speed data and
bring that before you at time of final plat.
Councilman Labatt: Okay. And then as far as, and still on this turn lane, the impact. The trees
that are being cut are in the right-of-way, or easement.
Matt Saam: Correct. Those to the north of the Pinehurst property.
Councilman Labatt: Correct, yeah. Is there any sort of, how does the development on the
downhill side of this, ofthis owner, now they're developing so now he's going to lose trees in his
yard. How are they compensated? What happens? I mean he's going to lose how many trees in
his front yard? 1O?
Matt Saam: No, I believe the number is 2 now. If the turn lane would start south of the
driveway.
Councilman Labatt: Of the driveway. What if it started back up by that Melody Hill, whatever
that road is?
Matt Saam: Did you count those?
Kate Aanenson: 8.
Councilman Labatt: So if it has to start up there, that road, is there any sort of restitution so to
speak for losing trees?
Kate Aanenson: Well they're in the right-of-way. They're not on private property. Otherwise
we'd certainly have to.
Councilman Labatt: Well I can see if they're in the right-of-way...but these are trees that are in
the right-of-way that are going to be impacted on the development to the south that this guy
probably says well heck, I don't want to lose my trees. But you know.
Matt Saam: Yeah, the only thing I know that the applicant has spoke with the resident to the
north. So maybe they've entertained some of those discussions. That might be a good question
for the.
Councilman Labatt: Okay. And I guess I share some of the same concerns with the lack of a
park in here. I mean, in reading the staff report that you know this is in the Pheasant Hills Park
service area but there's really no direct access other than out to Galpin, down Galpin, up
Pheasant and over. I mean I just, I think we just need to look at that a little bit. I just want to get
other councilors comments on the lack of a park. Or a totlot. We're dealing with the same issue
34
City Council Meeting - January 10,2005
down at Yoberry and we're going to have an impact down there on the same topic. I think we
need to look at the big picture here and you know, talk about that so I'll let other guys take some
time now.
Alan Nikolai: Mayor, can I ask a quick question?
Mayor Furlong: With what regard?
Alan Nikolai: Is there going to be any public comment on what you're talking about?
Mayor Furlong: On this project?
Alan Nikolai: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: Not this evening.
Alan Nikolai: .. . questions that Mr. Labatt has brought up can be answered possibly.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Alan Nikolai: For example that they're disputing with that right-of-way. Those trees are on my
mother's property and that was, I indicated to the city today staff that we are disputing where that
property line is.
Mayor Furlong: Okay so with regard to, I guess with regard to that issue from our standpoint
Kate, there'd be surveys required I assume.
Kate Aanenson: Yep, and we'll get that worked out by the time it comes back for final plat.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, so this is preliminary so we're.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct, and that's our intent. To resolve that between now and when it
comes back.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. We're still at questions for staff. Any other questions Mr.
Lundquist? Or others. Go ahead.
Councilman Lundquist: Question Kate on the zoning change from RR to RSF. What's the
density that we target in RR?
Kate Aanenson: For the most part we're coming in right around 2.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay and this development, the preliminary with the RSF, what's the
density there? Probably in here somewhere.
Kate Aanenson: In the staff report. 1.85.
35
t
City Council Meeting - January 10,2005
Councilman Lundquist: 1.85, okay. So if we were to not change that zoning, approximately any
idea about how many lots would have to be removed out of here to hit that?
Kate Aanenson: The RR is 2 '12 acre lots so, just to be clear on the changing of the zoning. It is
the state law says it does have to be consistent so they do have the right to go for the RR. I mean
for the RSF so.
Mayor Furlong: I don't think your first question was answered, what you were looking for, if I
understood it. You asked about density within RR.
Councilman Lundquist: Yep.
Kate Aanenson: Well it's 2 Y2 acre lot minimum so you'd have to take that times the 27 acres.
Councilman Lundquist: So if you have a 2 '12 acre minimum, how do you get a 2.0 density?
Mayor Furlong: I think she misunderstood your question.
Kate Aanenson: Okay, you can't. Yeah. I did misunderstand.
Councilman Lundquist: Alright.
Mayor Furlong: You were saying RSF we average about 2.
Councilman Lundquist: About 2, okay.
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: For RSF but this one is whatever it is.
Kate Aanenson: Right.
Councilman Lundquist: So talk about the, talk a little bit more then about the rezoning from RR
to RSF. If I understood what you're trying to tell me there, that we don't have a choice.
Kate Aanenson: Well what the state law is, is the comprehensive plan is the guidance and it is
guided for low density. We left this in place because some people wanted that because they were
seeing a larger lots and not to pay the tax consequences. They weren't ready to develop. There
was no sewer and water available to the site. So what we put in our comprehensive plan, until
such time that a project came forward we wouldn't rezone it. And so we have other areas in the
town that are A2, agricultural but there is sewer and water. For whatever reason it's not, and it's
in the MUSA area. It's in the MUSA area, utilities aren't brought to that site. And at that time
we would propose a rezoning. So this is consistent with that policy.
36
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
Councilman Lundquist: But it's still at our discretion to change that from, to change or not to
change from rural, from RR to RSF.
Kate Aanenson: Well I'll maybe let the City Attorney address that, the discretion.
Roger Knutson: I've not looked at this issue but how is it guided?
Kate Aanenson: It is guided residential single family. It's guided low density, excuse me. It's
not guided RSF. It's guided low density, which has a density range of 1.2 to 4. something.
Roger Knutson: So under State law we're supposed to eliminate the conflict and you can do that
in one of two ways. Changing the zoning ordinance or changing the comprehensive plan but
you're facing with this application some time limits so.
Councilman Lundquist: So it's still.
Roger Knutson: You could change the comprehensive plan, in theory.
Councilman Lundquist: So we've got one of two things to act on. Either, if this is, if that piece
of this is denied tonight, then we're required to change the comprehensive plan, is that what
you're telling me? I'm not sure.
Roger Knutson: You would, yes.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Fair enough. That's it.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, other questions?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I have, I'm not sure if they're questions or comments but I was on
the Planning Commission for this and I don't know if Commissioner Sacchet can come up and
testify or not.
Mayor Furlong: I think in a minute, yep. What we'll do is get questions for staff and invite the
applicant up.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Because I see in the plans it looks like you are connecting the
neighborhoods.
Kate Aanenson: But, and the Planning Commission did recommend against it, that's correct.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yeah. Okay, Ijust...I was at the Planning Commission meeting
and...
Kate Aanenson: Yep, and they also recommended against on Shivley too, that's correct.
37
City Council Meeting - January 10,2005
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay. That was just my only comment I wanted to bring up. That
there was discussion and it was adamant, most neighbors were there and they were adamant that
they did not want access.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any questions Councilman Peterson?
Councilman Peterson: Kate or Matt, on Lot 27. Can you just help me understand, if we took an
aggressive position and we talked about an easement, if we do want to do Lot 27, you do an
easement. Make the future homeowner, lot owner aware. Is there anything else we can do over
and above that? You know it just seems like we should be able to figure out a way to fix that,
and I'm not really concerned about if the property owners knows it and then builds a sand box
blocking the water, I really don't care about that. If they're going to be that ridiculous, but if
they're aware of it but is there anything we can do from.
Kate Aanenson: Sure. Well what we did recommend, or actually is it on page, where is it in the
staff report. And that was to put the utility easement over it. Part of it is.
Councilman Lundquist: Page 5 Kate.
Kate Aanenson: Page 5, thank you. Is it a ditch? Is it a swale? And how do we figure out that
width, but at a minimum we want the easement over that so when someone comes in for an
accessory structure, we can tell them to stay out of that so, could it be addressed? Yeah, but
we're just telling you that, even though you put that on there, landscaping people make different
choices. Don't always check in, and that's typically the hardest one. Some ofthe other
accessory structures you get a permit for but you know, 1-2 homeowners down the line, it's the
grading issue. Landscaping, those sort of things.
Councilman Peterson: Are we apt to see a heavy rain, a lot of water passing through there? I
mean like inches or an inch or is it just going to disperse?
Matt Saam: Councilman Peterson, the applicant's supplied drainage calculations modeling 100
year storm event through the swale and it was in the inches range of water.
Councilman Peterson: Just from a practical standpoint, is it apt to stick around very long? Is it
apt to stay around very long? I mean is there enough of a drop there where it's going to disperse
quickly or flow?
Matt Saam: Yeah, it's not intended to pond or pool water. Of course during a rain event there
would be water in there a short time after the rain stopped there'd still be water, but it's intended
to drain out. To the pond.
Councilman Peterson: It's apt to drain out in hours? Minutes or? Hopefully not days, right?
Matt Saam: That's a tough one.
38
City Council Meeting - January 10,2005
Councilman Peterson: I know but I'm just saying, but the grading is intended to draw attention
away from, but it's draining within minutes I would assume.
Matt Saam: Yeah, unless it's spring rains where we're getting rain you know every day for a
while.
Kate Aanenson: I guess that was our concern too. It could be wet for a couple months in the
spring and that could be a concern, and that's, it just kind of lends to, if it's not that great of a lot,
obviously it has a lot of value. We understand that. We appreciate that from the developers but
we also don't want, we're going to get the calls. And we're just trying to set ourselves up you
know to have the best, use our best information at this point. To prevent a problem in the future.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Kate in terms of, a lot of my questions have been answered already, but I
reserve the right to ask more. With regard to connecting the neighborhoods. That's something
in our comprehensive plan that we require in terms of trying to, for the reasons stated in the
comprehensive plan. The question I have, and it was brought up by one of the residents in the
Planning Commission and I haven't had a chance to address it specifically. Maybe it's been
looked at with the Shivley development up above. Rather than connecting on B Street, coming
out of Pinehurst, going straight over to Crestview. Have we looked at connecting at the end of
the cul-de-sac of A up to the cul-de-sac of Crestview, so we connect the neighborhoods without
maybe encouraging necessarily additional traffic through. Now, I.
Kate Aanenson: I think we're almost to the junior high by that point. I think you might be a
little bit past it. You're talking at the end of this? Up here.
Mayor Furlong: Yeah, if you back up because it looked like with your picture, and again there's
a lot there but it looked like with your pictures with the Shivley neighborhood laid on top of that.
Kate Aanenson: Can this go, yeah. This is actually.. .on that side of the pen is actually now
we're at the middle school site. That's the property line.
Mayor Furlong: I mean done it align? Does it work?
Matt Saam: I think one of the things we were trying to do is save this applicant what this
proposal is trying to save the trees. Let me go up.
Mayor Furlong: Sure.
Matt Saam: They were trying to save the trees in this area, Mr. Mayor. I think that's what
you're asking if we could move this street over.
Mayor Furlong: No, not necessarily. If B ended up being a private street or cul-de-sac, which
get back to the correctness of doing that. Rather than connecting the neighborhoods, using Street
B here and aligning that. Thank you for that picture. You can see where I'm pointing at my
television screen. Rather than connecting there. Does it work to align the cul-de-sac at the end
39
City Council Meeting - January 10,2005
of Street A to connect that over to the cul-de-sac over at the end of Crestview? See right now
Street B is coming in short of that cul-de-sac.
Matt Saam: Right through here.
Mayor Furlong: Yeah. And maybe it's going to eliminate too many lots out of both of them.
Matt Saam: Yeah I guess maybe the applicant looked at it. I haven't seen a proposal, sample
grading plan, that sort of thing that would look at doing that.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. I think that would, and I don't want to redesign. I'm asking the
question, and maybe it's something since both of these are coming through at the same time,
somebody can look at. It's a tough situation because I definitely heard and saw what the
residents said on this issue, as well as the Planning Commission but the overall benefits of
connecting the neighborhoods I think are positive. Is there a compromise that worKs where we
can accomplish our goal of trying to connect the neighborhoods in terms of building something
more than a city of cul-de-sacs and private drives, and yet at the same time address some of the
neighbors concerns.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, we can look at it. I think, just my understanding is that it's no
connection, so I'm not sure if the point ofthe connection. It's the no connection. I'm not sure if
moving the contact, if the contact point makes it more palatable. I just think it's the connection
issue. That's all.
Mayor Furlong: It may not. There is an issue of additional traffic by making a curve all the way
around reduces any through point. We'll get to comments in terms of what the expectations of
traffic.
Andrew Johnson: Mr. Mayor, I am the... the development of that so if there are any questions
that you'd like to ask me, I'm available. I'm certainly willing to...
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Thank you. I'm not sure where we are in the process with both of
these. The preliminary but given that they're both coming through at the same time. So I guess,
I know the applicant will come up, or I'd like to invite the applicant up, unless there are any
other questions for staff at this time. Maybe they can address that question and all the others
they've heard this evening. Is a representative from the applicant here? Is the applicant here?
This evening.
Nathan Franzen: Good evening Mayor and council members. My name is Nathan Franzen. I'm
with Plowshares Development. Just want to start off by saying that the, we appreciate staffs
work on this project. It's been a back and forth on many different issues and it's not been a very
straight forward thing but we think we've come to a conclusion on pretty much everything to
date, with the exception of one thing and that being the elimination of Lot 27, or condition (p).
And I'm just going to start with that one because that was a pretty big one for us. I just want to
start off by stating that Lot 27 meets and exceeds all the city ordinances and standards for
setbacks, size. We're not asking for a single variance on that lot. In fact it's 20 percent larger
40
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
than your minimum lot size of 18,232 square feet, which seems like we should be able to create a
conforming lot out of something nearly a half acre in size. Staffs concerns were mainly related
to runoff volume and grades, as well as a swale being properly graded at the time of construction
or into the future. And I guess to address those concerns, when we calculated the drainage area
we went back and made sure that that area, that's draining into Lot 27, was not going to be
something that would cause a liability to the property owner and from our standpoint we
wouldn't be proposing a lot that we thought had liability issues. We are a builder as well and we
understand that these issues come back years and years from today. From when they're
approved. So I guess we're staking our opinion or our reputation on this lot as well. And to
address some of staff s concerns related to that, we did provide all the calculations proving that
this isn't anything out of the ordinary as far as storm water runoff is concerned, and we are also
willing to accept all of the staff's alternative conditions found on page 5. Specifically that we
will dedicate the drainage and utility easement over the entire swale. This will help protect that
swale from ever being built upon and secondly we will survey the lot after the landscaping is
complete so ónce the landscaping's done, the sod is in, we'll go back out. Re-survey the lot to
insure that that swale is built correctly. I think that alone is something that's stating our
commitment to make sure that lot is going to be correctly. It's going to work properly and I did
bring along our project engineer to answer any questions more specifically about site drainage.
He's been going over that particular lot quite a bit lately so, with that I would ask that you delete
condition (p) and replace it with staffs alternative conditions found on page 5. And I'll certainly
answer any questions related to that. As far as condition (0) is concerned, which is the
connection to the Shivley Addition, we would like to reiterate that we are in agreement with staff
on this issue. We see the need in the future for that area, if it ever were to redevelop, it would be
in the best interest of the city to have another connection. It's already been talked about that if
there's construction traffic on Crestview, that it is probably getting in and out of Crestview
because it is so narrow and it jogs. However if you don't agree with that, we would ask that you
approve the alternative street connection and basically if you feel that street is not justified, we
would ask that you approve the private street with the cul-de-sac. This would still provide a
sewer and trail connection but it would eliminate the street connection and I guess Kate's been
over that with you and we are fine and okay with either of those options and we think both of
those are quite viable options. I just have a couple of clarifying points I'd like to ask, as long as
we're up here. Condition 9 and that's the trail connection. I've been in discussions with staff on
the condition actually states that it will be stubbed out of Street A, which is this street right here.
I just wanted to clarify that that was a.
Mayor Furlong: I'm sorry Kate.
Kate Aanenson: That's wrong. We want that to come off of, there's a connect through Street B.
Mayor Furlong: Yeah okay.
Nathan Franzen: If that could be noted, I'd appreciate it. And I'd also like to note that we are
donating Outlot A to the City and it is not required for the dedication or the City's subdivision
regulations, and that we are not receiving any financial payment or credit for the city for the
dedication of this land, and that's really for the record more than anything. At this point I'd
entertain any questions you may have about the remaining issues.
41
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for the applicant. I guess the one question you brought
up, Lot 27. Councilman Peterson was saying what are the alternatives besides just sheet draining
that, surface drainage of that. I think that's going to be an issue. Have you looked at that as
alternatives?
Nathan Franzen: I would like to have my engineer address that.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you.
Chris Moehrl: Mayor, council members. My name is Chris Moehrl with Westwood. I'm the
project engineer on the job. What we've done on Lot 27, basically we've gone into a detailed
evaluation of the drainage on the lot. We don't want to propose a lot that's not going to work
from a drainage perspective or from an engineering perspective so we've gone an extra step and
done some additional detailed calculations. Basically from discussions with staff and meeting
with staff, understand the main concern again is drainage. If we look at this graphic here,
essentially the way we have it graded out right now is that all water would flow away from the
pad to a high point right here and a swale. That that would run down this side lot line. Some of
the water would run this way and some of the water would run towards the street and then there
would be a catch basin inlet right here that would pick up some of that water. We wanted to kind
of get an idea of really how much water is in this swale that we're looking at. I do have a
drainage area map that we put together. Right here, this is Lot 27. This is 26, 25, 24 and then
we also included half of 23. Part of our conservative approach on this too we assumed that the
entire house would drain towards the back yards. Ideally you've got a couple of down spouts in
the front of the house that would then drain out to the front of the street and a couple downspouts
in the back that would go to the back yard, but we did want to be conservative on this approach
because it is important to us. After doing those calculations we ran it with 100 year storm, again
being conservative, and we had computed that in this drainage swale that goes around the house,
we had 2 inches of water in that swale. And again that would be at the peak of the storm. As
soon as the rain stops and you had asked the question about timing and how long that water
would be there. As soon as the storm stops, just because of the limited distances here, I would
say that that would drain out probably within 10 minutes. So it's not, the swale's not designed to
hold any water after the rain stops. It would fully drain out once it's ended. So again through
detailed design, we also want to ensure that the slopes grade away from the pad. We do have it
designed that way. We could steepen these slopes up a little bit more to add a little extra security
on the swale. We also looked at the ordinance for both the city and watershed. There's a
requirement of the lowest opening, which would be the walkout elevation or.. . of 3 feet above the
100 year high water level. In this case we're at 3.1 feet. Another requirement would be an
emergency overflow which would need to be at least 2 feet below the walkout elevation. On this
particular pad we're also 3.1 feet exceeding the requirement, and again the emergency overflow
is a case where if you look at the site, and again the grading design is probably one of the most
important engineering functions of the project. If we look at the site and say okay, worst case
scenario. If all the storm sewer fails, all the pipes get plugged up, where does the water go?
That's why we do provide for emergency overflow so that we don't flood out houses and we
don't get basements with water.
42
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant?
Councilman Peterson: Just before you leave, give me an idea of how wide the swale would be,
at the 100 year storm? With 2 inches of water in there, how wide are we talking?
Chris Moehrl: 3 feet wide is what we used in the calculation.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Commissioner Sacchet, anything to add?
Uli Sacchet: Yes. Mr. Mayor, council members. My name is VIi Sacchet. I'm the Chair ofthe
Planning Commission. There is a few things I want to briefly add. First of all, where the
Planning Commission is coming from by recommending not to connect the neighborhoods. I
think that has not been properly looked at yet. The Planning Commission very clearly
understands the benefit of connecting neighborhoods, and we also understand that the
comprehensive plan very clearly gives directives that we do want to connect neighborhoods.
However, at the public hearing we had we had unanimous, very outspoken unanimous consent
from the neighborhood of Crestview to the north that they do not want to be connected. We've
had a similar situation not that long ago just north of there where we had a neighborhood that did
not want the road to go through. I think it was Melody Hill or what was it called? Melody Lane.
And in that case the Planning Commission stood up the principle of the comprehensive plan and
made the recommendation to connect. At that point the council decided to allow the request of
the neighborhood not to connect. And in that particular case I think the connection would have
been more important than this particular case here, and therefore the Planning Commission felt
confident to recommend not to connect because it was very outspoken, very unanimous request
from the neighborhood to the north not to be connected. Now, at the same time I also want to
stress that the Planning Commission was very clear that we recommend a trail connection. A
foot trail connection. That ultimately will connect also to the high school. To the West. And
that's going to be part of the other proposal that's going to come in front of you, but I do believe
it plays into this consideration here. I also want to point out that the Planning Commission did
recommend nevertheless still to have the connection from this proposal on the west side going to
the high school as well. To have both of them. There seemed to be value to that.
Mayor Furlong: I'm sorry, for clarification.
Uli Sacchet: Yes please.
Mayor Furlong: There's, the Planning Commission, so and we heard that Street A was a
mistake. You're saying that the Planning Commission recommend a trail going both at the end of
Street B and at the end of Street A?
VIi Sacchet: At the time I think we did, didn't we? Can you verify that Kate? It would have to
be verified to be very clear in terms of giving you a clear answer to that one.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Sorry for the interruption.
43
City Council Meeting - January 10,2005
VIi Sacchet: I'm also not sure whether we considered the possibility of the private street at the
time which would make sense for the context that it become a private street to reduce the impact.
I do want to point out that the Planning Commission felt pretty strongly about getting rid of the
Lot that's been kind of discussed, whether it should stay or not. Lot number 27 I believe it is.
That's the things I want to add from the Planning Commission. I also do want to point out, as
you probably know this, it's my understanding that we have very good representation of the
neighborhood to the north here tonight and as you probably observed some of these people
would very much love to make a comment so that's just something I want to add here. I think it
could be beneficial to let some of these people speak. Just my personal opinion. Thank you very
much.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
VIi Sacchet: Any questions?
Councilman Labatt: Thank you. Did you say that the Planning Commission strongly
recommended to eliminate Lot 27? Did I hear you correctly?
Uli Sacchet: We voted to eliminate it. There was 1 member I believe that did not think so, but
where we were split is how to use the lot. There were some members of the Planning
Commission that thought it would be a good idea to do a totlot. Others thought it would not be a
good idea. But the majority was clearly voting to eliminate Lot 27.
Councilman Labatt: Okay, thank you.
VIi Sacchet: Anything else?
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Just a follow-up question. Mr. Hoffman, Councilman Labatt asked
a question about the totlot I think during staff presentation. Do you have just a quick response to
that about the totlot in the area relative to coverage?
Todd Hoffman: This is a map that shows park service areas in the community. The concept of a
neighborhood I think when we take a look at this particular area, it's not the neighborhoods that
we're talking about for park service areas. Park service areas are up to a half mile for a
neighborhood park. Over a mile for a community park, and then for a regional park, such as
Minnewashta Regional, that is just 3 to 5 cities is the park service area. So if we take a look
specifically at the property of Pinehurst, it does abut the Minnetonka middle school site. It will
have direct access to that recreational facility and so it's directly in the center of this, of a
community park service area. It is also on the fringe of a park service area for Herman Field
Park, which is to the west. Across 41. And Pheasant Hills neighborhood park is just to the east
across Galpin. That's the current conditions that we have in this particular area for park service
areas. Again, neighborhood parks, half a mile. Up to half a mile. And they serve, again
depending on the size of the park, the neighborhood park, up to 5,000 residents in our
community, and so we're talking about 28 acres. 43 homes. Up to 100 to 150 residents and the
city does not have the ability to provide a neighborhood park site for every neighborhood of 100
to 150 residents. If we jump forward a little bit and take a look at future planning in this area in
44
City Council Meeting - January 10,2005
regards to park. We bring up the darker green circles are sites that are either currently acquired
or being studied. First in this area, the one that is currently acquired is the area north of Pulte,
and so you start to fill in this neighborhood park service area as that land is developed. A site
that we're studying very close to the Pinehurst proposal is the Carlson property, right here near
Lake Harrison, so the acquisition of a future neighborhood park site and that begins to fill in that
site even more. And then two, one off to the west, one off to the east. If Camp Tanadoona every
develops, we would look for a property in that location. And if the Gorra property would ever
develop, so you start to see that the smaller circles really blend and fill in our total park service
areas which we plan into the future. We certainly recommend or encourage private developers
to develop their totlot. A totlot facility if they think that will meet the demands or the needs of
their residents, but again we cannot mandate that they do that.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any questions? Thank you for that addition.
Tim Larkin: Mayor?
Mayor Furlong: Sir.
Tim Larkin: As the only existing homeowner in the Shivley Addition, I would like to request 5
minutes from the council.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Just a minute if you would please. Any other questions for staff?
Kate Aanenson: I just want to make one clarification too on the comment regarding the trail. I
think when we looked at Street A, for that trail, we hadn't seen the Shivley Addition so I think
it'd be a duplication to put it on A and B, ifthat was the case at this time. I think it's staff's
opinion that B would be a better access point, street or no street, to get up through that. Tie into
that cul-de-sac and go over.
Mayor Furlong: Given what you're seeing right now, the development to the north?
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. As opposed to two?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, you're in the center more. Picks up more of that traffic going north. The
pedestrian traffic.
Mayor Furlong: Alright. You know with regard to other public comments. I'd be happy, and
we'd be happy to listen to comments from residents. Generally we pick those up during the
visitor presentations because the public hearing took place on this at the Planning Commission
level. If there was misunderstanding about that, I apologize. What I would ask, since the
council has had copies of the verbatim minutes for the Planning Commission, that if somebody
wants to address an item that's been raised tonight, or some changes between the Planning
Commission plan and this plan, and you want to make comments on that, you're certainly
welcome to come forward. What I don't want to do, just for purposes of time and efficiency,
45
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
that we get into a full re-discussion of the issues discussed at the public hearing. The Planning
Commission's the place for the public hearing. Also we're dealing with this Pinehurst Addition
so the Shivley Addition, while that's gone through the Planning Commission. The council has
not seen the minutes of that. Some of us have watched the tapes or watched it on TV but I don't
necessarily want to get into that discussion, except for perhaps where there might be some
interconnections from a trail or a street standpoint. But even then, it might be premature to get
into those discussions. So if there is somebody that would like to come forward and address the
council on an issue, please do so.
Tim Larkin: Mr. Mayor, members of the council. I appreciate the time and I'll try to be very
brief.
Mayor Furlong: If you could state your name and address for the record.
Tim Larkin: My name is Tim Larkin. I am the, currently the only existing homeowner in the
Shivley Addition. I purchased the existing home. Working with the Lecy company I found them
to be very good folks, as I'm sure you know. I can appreciate your dilemma because I
understand from a testimony at the Planning Commission that the comprehensive plan does call
for a connection. The problem in this particular case with interconnection is it leads to an
inequity, and I'll try to be brief and address that. And I would also like to point out that in the
packet on this particular addition, or this particular application, it very clearly states that the
Planning Commission recommended that Street B be turned into a cul-de-sac and that the
connection that you're talking about to the junior high school come off of Street A. It's in bold
in the report in front of you. I don't know how it stated that it was a mistake that it should come
off of Street B. What I'm confused about, and I'm a layman obviously. What I'm confused
about is what is the purpose of the Planning Commission? The entire neighborhood Mr. Mayor
came out to the Planning Commission. Gave public testimony and tonight I understand the
limits of time but tonight the staff has completely disregarded it, it seems to me, although they've
reported to you. They've completely disregarded the findings of the Planning Commission,
which were in short that the interconnection was not necessary in that the current development
has entrances and exits along Manchester and along Galpin. In addition the inequity it's created
on what would be the new Crestview, which is of course my cul-de-sac, the inequity that would
be created, you have 43 homes to the south that would conceivably be coming up to the new
Crestview cul-de-sac, dropping off their children as if it were part of the junior high school and
letting them walk through the back yard of the junior high school. I think that creates an inequity
for the folks in the existing Crestview neighborhood. In addition, I don't have the map because I
frankly thought this was going to be a formality. I thought that the Planning Commission made
themselves very clear. I didn't understand that that wasn't binding. Staff has recommended a
trail, if I might use this.
Mayor Furlong: Could you help him orientate.
Tim Larkin: Alright, thank you. Staff has recommended the trail connection, as you can see,
here and here. Now I would, I don't know if you can zoom in that at all.
Mayor Furlong: Can you slide it over? There you go.
46
City Council Meeting - January 10,2005
Tim Larkin: Here and here, which is literally down the back of my lot line, and then towards the
junior high to the west. The gentleman in this existing home testified at the Planning
Commission. I obviously paid a great deal of money 4 months ago and preserved trees in this
area here for that express purpose. As I understand it, there's going to be a great deal of tree loss
to put that trail in, which again is not something that the Planning Commission was for. The
Planning Commission and the developer agreed that a better place for that trail would be
between 2 and 3. Lots 2 and 3, and I understand you're not here to consider the Shivley
development tonight, but it seems to one citizen it seems very confusing that the expressed
recommendations of the Planning Commission appear to weigh for nothing here tonight. And I
have literally all my neighbors here tonight willing to testify. I understand that you're not going
to hear that testimony again, but that literally allows the council to not hear the cries of the
neighborhood that there's a safety issue. There's an inequity being created. You've got 43
homes to the south dumping into what will be a 5 person cul-de-sac. I think there's an additional
safety issue, and I'll leave this for last. I think there's an additional safety issue created by the
connection down the existing Crestview. If you're not familiar with it, it's a grade down to
Galpin and there's a very sharp curve in the middle of Crestview. It's not a very wide right-of-
way. I believe, and someone could correct me on this, I believe it's an existing 50 foot. 40 foot
right-of-way existing. So it's a very narrow street and it has a very large curve in the center of it.
My neighbors to the east along existing Crestview are very concerned with the safety issue of 43
homes cutting through there, as we all know will happen. 43 homes cutting through there and
coming down that very narrow, very windy street so I appreciate your listening to my comments.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you.
Tim Larkin: Any questions for me?
Mayor Furlong: No, thank you.
Alan Nikolai: Mayor and council members. My name is Alan Nikolai, 6282 Cartway Lane. My
mother is Doris Nikolai who lives at 6570 Galpin Boulevard, which is on the northeast of this
development, and you said to keep it towards streets or things that have not been already covered
at the Planning Commission. And I will do that. Like to commend Nathan over here and Matt
with working with me in the last week on further developments of that turn lane. That was, at
the Planning Commission they found out the day of I believe, so and then we finally have
actually seen a plan in the last couple days. My concern is that heard today some information. I
do take exception to the trees being on public right-of-way. They are on my mother's land.
When that city trail was put in approximately 5, 7 years back, she was paid by the city for
construction easements and also for loss oftrees on that supposedly public right-of-way, what
the city staff had said. That is private. It is 33 1/3 feet off the county center line. Not
approximately 50 feet as city staff has suggested. That is an issue. So basically that is a
problem. I do, my mother talked with her, she does want to have that right turn lane start south
of her private driveway. If you have not been out there, her private driveway is a very steep,
approximately 12 to 15 percent grade already. To shift the turn lane 12 feet to the west is going
to greatly steepen that. There will be massive soil corrections to be able to get up that driveway.
It's already difficult now to make it steeper, it's going to be a nightmare for her. So I'm very
47
City Council Meeting - January 10,2005
concerned about how that right turn lane will impact her property. She would like to see it to the
south and being that the County has looked at that, that if you would consider that as a condition
with this development, that it start to the south of her private driveway. It'd be safer. Limited
sight visibility for her to come down onto a right turn lane. It's just not kosher. You don't have
a public, a right turn lane and have a private drive coming into the turn lane itself. That's an
accident waiting to happen, and that is a safety issue. You mentioned the streets. One thing that
Mr. Larkin did not cover is that it is also on that S curve on Crestview. It is very limited sight
visibility, especially in the summer time. Extremely limited. To the point if you have two
vehicles going more than 15 miles an hour, you're risking a head on there. The additional traffic
would make it an accident waiting to happen so I please not consider that in your decision
making about the connecting the two neighborhoods when there's unanimous consent that they
do not want that. Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. A quick question Ms. Aanenson with regard to the right turn
lane and the property there, where that would be. We can make a condition. Our assumption is
it's in the right-of-way at this point. Surveys will dictate where it is or isn't. What if it's not all
in the right-of-way? If we require that based upon I think Councilman Labatt brought up.
Kate Aanenson: Assuming there'd be some sort of compensation or get an easement from the
neighbor.
Mayor Furlong: And who would be responsible for that?
Kate Aanenson: The developer. A condition of approval.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: Can I just iterate one thing because has come up before and while you have
verbatim minutes, I focused on the staff. I didn't want to minimize the Planning Commission's
recommendations because when we get to this level, often there is sometimes a split on the
Planning Commission or internally between planning and engineering, so that's the purpose of
this is to kind of filter through all of the recommendations. Park and Rec, planning, engineering,
and the Planning Commission and certainly didn't want to minimize. I hope I reiterated that they
didn't want to connect it, nor did they on the Shivley want to connect those.
Mayor Furlong: I think that was clear.
Kate Aanenson: Again, one of our leading points on that connection, while we agree that
Crestview is a narrow road, we've heard both applicants say that construction traffic, even at the
back end where Lecy's building could come through this way, which we think is a benefit to that
neighbor to the north also. That neighborhood Crestview to the north.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you.
Nathan Franzen: I'd like to shed some light on the trail issue and the turn lane issue real quickly.
Regarding the trail and Street A, one of the reasons why we suggested that the staff was the
48
City Council Meeting - January 10,2005
grade different at the end of Street A and where the top of the playing field is. You know does
that, does everybody know where I'm talking about?
Mayor Furlong: The track you're saying in the middle school?
Nathan Franzen: This point. Is somewhere in the range of 8 to 10 feet in difference of grade,
and that would most likely require steps so it's not going to be an efficient trail connection that
you can ride a bike. And that's why we agreed with staff that, behind the scenes that Street B
was a better alternative connection because it is all at grade. And in fact the reason why it's to
the north, northern part of-Shivley Addition is because that is where the school's property and
the Shivley's properties the most even between the two properties so there's the least amount of
grading at that location. So that is why that location was chosen. And also as far as the turn lane
goes, the property line I guess is in dispute. We have looked at it and believe that it is
completely within the right-of-way. However, I have also indicated that if it wasn't and we did
remove trees, that we'd be willing to replace the equivalent amount of trees that we take out of
that right-of-way area onto his property once it's identified so. We're willing to try to be a good
neighbor and replace any trees that we, are caused by us.
Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you.
Andrew Johnson: Mr. Mayor Andy with Lecy Construction. One thing that I did want to
mention too is, with this connection that we are willing to make, from here we also have an issue
because we are looking from basically walkout grade, okay. So there is going to be, probably 6
or 7 foot grade difference from here to here, so we have the same issues as Plowshares will to
make that connection. Our big concern is that you have 43 residents, or 42. The problem is,
you're going to.. . all that traffic is going to come up along here, to our development. The same
thing with Brenden Court. We built a couple residents on that cul-de-sac. It's the same thing
that they have a problem is with all those residents come out that street. And actually. .. build a
fence because as you know looking across here, with kids and everything else, it's going to be
the quickest way. .. .quickest way to this trail so cutting across is certainly going to be an issue.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Okay, anybody else who would like to comment? Very
good, thank you. Any other questions for staff at this point? If not, let's bring it back to council
for discussion. Who'd like to make a go of this one? I'll start calling on people. Deputy Mayor.
Well let's start discussing some ofthe issues. I mean we can go back and forth here. We don't
have to just hit everything at once. Maybe the thing is to start hitting some of the issues and we
can hit some easier ones first.
Councilman Labatt: Big one first. Street B.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Labatt.
Councilman Labatt: Giving Craig some direction. Go ahead Craig.
Councilman Peterson: You know I'm torn. I came in thinking that it was a good thing to do.
You know that's what our goals are for the comprehensive plan. I like the idea of bringing as
49
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
many neighborhoods together as we can when appropriate and when reasonable. I see the issue
of the kids trekking through different neighborhoods. The steepness of that. That will stop some
kids from doing it. Some won't. So I'm on the fence, no pun intended, on the street issue.
Came in thinking that I want to connect and now I'm anxious to hear other people's perspective.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you.
Councilman Peterson: Want to take them one at a time?
Mayor Furlong: I want to get some discussion going. We're hitting a late hour and I think we
have a lot of things thrown at us. I mean the big issues, and there are some minor ones. We've
got to clean up the minor ones too. Big issues are the connection issue, the street connection.
Trail is kind of related to that. We also have the Lot 27. I think the sanitary sewer issue has
been addressed. Some minor issues include whether or not there's a totlot required. There's
some issues on, we've got the right-of-way issue. We've got, how many more issues do we got?
We got some of the other conditions that were included, not only in the staff s report but other
conditions added by the Planning Commission, that depending on which way we go with some
of the issues may resolve themselves. With regard to the arborvitae. You know that's kind of
the right-of-way and I think we've heard some information on where that is so, whether we want
to start with the street issues, you know and give thoughts on that. Why don't we do that?
That's the elephant in the living room I think and let's get some thought on connecting the
neighborhoods to the north, between Pinehurst and Crestview. Maybe we can see where
thoughts are there. Councilwoman Tjornhom.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Alright. Being newly elected I guess I am, as I said that I was
representing the residents of Chanhassen and tonight I feel that I have to represent them in this
manner. You have to respect the comprehensive plan and I do, unless there's an overwhelming
majority of people that have a different opinion. And I think this impacts their day to day life
and I think it impacts the whole neighborhood. They bought their homes. They settled in
expecting something that you know, if this road goes through, their quality of life I think it
lessens by the whole thing and so I think I have to respect the people that are there now, and so I
am not in favor of connecting the two neighborhoods together.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Councilman Lundquist.
Councilman Lundquist: I would probably have to agree with the council, Councilwoman
Tjornhom, although not having, not to, obviously not living up there, if I look at, I've probably
driven down Crestview twice in my life so if I lived in this Pinehurst thing, even if Street B was
there, I don't know why I would want to drive down that road rather than just drive right down
this nice, wide street A out onto Galpin. You really don't have a reason to drive on Pinehurst.
It's a narrow street. You can't see. You can't turn around. You can't get out onto Galpin from
there either way, so at the end of the day, I don't think it makes a difference because nobody's
really going to do that anyway. But the residents feel pretty strongly I guess I don't see an
advantage either way other than Pinehurst is going to lose some land. Some lot area having to
build a cul-de-sac on there, and you know with the Shivley Addition coming through, if they
think that people are just going to drive up there and drop their kids off, if they make that
50
City Council Meeting - January 10,2005
connection. If people want to drop their kids off, they're just going to drive up Pinehurst and
drop them off there anyway, probably. So I guess I don't, it doesn't really, at the end of the day
it doesn't really matter to me either way on this one, and I'd be willing to go with the residents
request and wishes and just make that a cul-de-sac at B.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Councilman Labatt.
Councilman Labatt: Well, I can, I really do understand the points, and I've talked to some
friends up on that Brenden Court that have had problems with a dumping ground for their kids to
get through the fence there. So I understand the concern about the cul-de-sac in Shivley being
utilized that way. So the question would be is, do we make that street to be a cul-de-sac and we
say to Plowshares well, put the connection down off of Street A. At the end of Street A between
Lots 7 and 8 or Lot 8 and the private cul-de-sac, and either way there's a grade. So do you take
one person's problem and put it up on the northern development and say well, you figure it out?
I don't think we do. I think that the problem lies within the Plowshares thing here. People are
going to be accessing the school. Let's let them create the trail connection through their own
development. So if I've confused anybody about my position earlier, I would, now I may
confuse myself. In listening to my fellow councilors, I'm now in favor of keeping Street B a cul-
de-sac. I think that that does make sense, the most to making that a cul-de-sac. And saying to
Plowshares, let's put that lot, that connection down off of Street A into the school. Did I really
confuse you mayor?
Mayor Furlong: No, but you jumped onto another issue and we were trying to stick to the street.
But the street and the trail are connected. No pun intended.
Councilman Labatt: Okay.
Mayor Furlong: My thought on the street connection, it is, I started looking at this and
recognizing the wishes of the residents to the north off Crestview, and saying that we need to
connect these streets. It's something that long term is what we need to do as a city and from
planning. I don't think the City of Chanhassen, as I mentioned earlier tonight, should become a
city of cul-de-sacs and private drives. I don't think that's good development long term. It
doesn't create a sense of community. A connection of neighborhoods. The challenge here is, I
agree with, while I agree with Councilman Lundquist, I don't think there's going to be much in
the way of traffic going through. It's north at the end of most of the 42 houses. It does have that
S curve there that is tough to navigate. Will slow it down. I don't see a lot of traffic happening
there. My concern is, is that from a precedence standpoint, the argument that we're going to add
traffic to our road prevents us from connecting neighborhoods. From connecting streets in the
future. That concerns me because I think that argument will occur each and every time. And it
will keep us from following the comprehensive plan which is trying to build a city, not
individual developments. And that's where I'm struggling with this one. I don't think anybody
up here wants to go against a neighborhood, especially when it's as vocal and as united in it's
opinion as this one is, but at the same time, there are other neighborhoods that are going to come
to this council and to the Planning Commission and be vocal and united and so this is one of
those classic dilemmas and fortunately we get it on the first meeting of this council. What type
of city are we building? And I'm struggling. I think there are some specific reasons here that I
51
City Council Meeting - January 10,2005
can look at to say don't connect these from a street standpoint because of the design of
Crestview. And the safety issues there. But when we start looking at other roads, I mean we got
to be careful, if that's what we're going to say is, is if residents come to the council or the
Planning Commission and say we don't want it because it's going to add traffic to our roads,
then if that's the criteria I think we're doing developments. We're not building a city and I think
that's a problem. So I don't know if you know what other people's thoughts are on there. I can
see specific reasons here where not connecting makes sense because of the design and the layout
of Crestview and the city currently has no plans to improve that. My preference would be to
connect them still. That is my preference. But I can see if my fellow council members are
saying there are some reasons not to but I think the impact is going to be less than what I'm
hearing people concerned about. It doesn't mean I don't think there won't be an impact. There
will be. You connect roads. There are going to be some cars that are going to be kids riding
bikes. I don't see a problem with that. I think that's positive in terms of building a city. In
terms of the trail, there's a need to connect the trail. I've got, if we've got grading issues or
adding steps is...I think putting a trail at the end of a private road.. . all sorts of problems. We're
talking, we're going to talk about Lot 27 in a minute. Let's talk about a trail coming through a
private drive in terms of inconvenience to those 3 property owners later, or the traffic or cars
driving up the private drive to turn around to drop off kids if the trail goes up there. I think that's
going to be a problem from a use standpoint. We need to put.
Councilman Labatt: At least it's their own neighbors though. Here you're taking.
Mayor Furlong: Well you don't, I guess I'm not necessarily saying that. There could be other
people. It's a public road. There could be other people that will come up and drop children off.
That happens on, is it Brenden Court right now. It's not just the people that live on Brenden
Court that use that trail to go to the middle school. The other thing is, from a proximity
standpoint here, you're traveling across the fields. You've got a much longer walk and in the
dead of winter, people aren't going to be dropping their kids off in this neighborhood. They're
going to be doing it someplace else or driving them right to the front door, where they should so
you know, anyplace we put the trail, somebody's not going to like it so we've got to pick the best
place. Whether we connect the neighborhoods, people aren't going to like it. So the question is,
is that good public policy in terms of building a city or do we say there are reasons here where
we won't, but that is still our policy. And I would be comfortable with that but I wouldn't
necessarily be comfortable taking a position that we're not going to try to connect
neighborhoods. I think that's the wrong direction to go. Thoughts, feedback. Did we resolve
anything or are we just continuing to say this is a tough situation? Let's, given that, what do we
want to do, Councilman Peterson? Any other thoughts? You were waiting to hear from us.
Councilman Peterson: I think that based upon that, I would like to connect because I think it's
going to bring the neighborhoods together. I think that's important. And again, I agree with
Councilman Lundquist, that it's not going to bring traffic up. A little bit, but probably not
discernable and it will bring kids throughout the neighborhoods but I think that's a good thing.
So I probably would lean towards bringing the street through, as staff recommended.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright, thank you. Other comments? Thoughts. If not, why don't we
try to move on to some other issues. Lot 27. We've got the Planning Commission and staff are
52
City Council Meeting - January 10,2005
both recommending that that lot be eliminated because of storm water runoff. Thoughts and
comments on that.
Councilman Lundquist: I'll go first on this one. I think, I'm in favor of leaving 27 the way it is.
The developer, the engineering firm, seems like they've put in a great deal of effort and yeah,
we've had some bad experiences in other places but unless the staff can demonstrate that we've
had calculations in that area and do things, and the fact that the developer's willing to put an
easement across that and do the surveying after the landscaping, I think is a good compromise so
I'm willing to give him 27 on that and I think staff is right that we're going to be the ones, or
they're going to be the ones that get the call, not the developer and the home builder so the onus
is then that we put that easement out there and that we know that when people come in for that,
to put up a structure and things, that we watch for that and that we get the survey after that house
is built and the landscaping's in there so we can avoid some of those, oh I didn't know it was
there things going on so I'm in favor of leaving 27 in. With the added conditions on page 3 I
think it is.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Other comments.
Councilman Peterson: I concur.
Mayor Furlong: Councilman Labatt.
Councilman Labatt: I say it goes. Eliminate it.
Mayor Furlong: You say eliminate it?
Councilman Labatt: Yeah.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. I'm concerned about keeping in a problem lot. The engineering
information that we have in our packet was dated on the 30tll. The Planning Commission didn't
have privy to that information in terms of the storm. But I also respect their opinion about not
wanting to create a problem lot. We've got an engineer saying it's okay. We've go the
developer that I think has done good work in this city before and while coming in tonight I was
assuming that, I was hoping that there'd be a solution beyond just looking at surface drain, and
what I'm hearing is there really isn't. And so, you know, the concern there is that we're creating
a problem lot but working with the best information we've got I guess. I can go either way on
that one at this point. Is there any other issues or discussion on that? Other major issues or other
issues to discuss here? The right turn lane's been brought up. That was late in the Planning
Commission. It sounds like there's been some progress there, both in terms of staff, the county
and the developer and the property owner. To the extent that there is property line disputes,
that's not an issue for the city to deal with, am I correct there?
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, so Councilman Labatt, you were suggesting that we make sure that staff
work with the County. Get traffic counts and design that right turn lane so that it's sufficient for
53
City Council Meeting - January 10,2005
the traffic there. I think that's a reasonable position and with the desire to keep it on the south
side of the driveway if at all possible.
Councilman Labatt: If at all possible yeah, but we need to, I mean they've got the traffic counts.
We know what the speed limit is out there. You and I drive that road a lot. It's 40 zone there but
we, some travel faster than 40.
Mayor Furlong: You've seen some others?
Councilman Labatt: I've seen some. Never done it myself but, so we just need to get better data
and we need to figure out that if the Nikolai's lose trees that are not in the right-of-way property,
that they are compensated by Plowshares.
Mayor Furlong: And it sounded like Plowshares was willing, did I understand, whether it's in
the right-of-way, if you're taking trees out, you'll do some replacement and work with the
property owner?
Nathan Franzen: Correct, either way.
Mayor Furlong: Yeah so, okay. Are there any other comments or discussion on the right turn
lane? There was the issue on the arborvitae hedge, if I'm pronouncing that correctly.
Councilman Lundquist: Arborvitae.
Mayor Furlong: Arborvitae, thank you. If that's the only mistake I make, I'll be doing pretty
good. Any thoughts or comments? The Planning Commission was saying use best efforts not to
take it out. I think that's, that will be done. Anyway. The question is whether or not we force
replacement of that in addition to whatever we're requiring under our ordinance with regard to
tree replacement. That was one, I guess a minor issue that I see coming from that. Any thoughts
or comments? That's the condition 4(e) and (t). That were added. I guess there are 3 things
there. Best efforts to preserve trees beyond the tree preservation plan. There is ensuring that the
hedge in the retaining wall survives. Maybe there's a question about the word ensure there. And
then replacing the hedge. People comfortable with that? Is it more than what we need to be
doing?
Councilman Lundquist: I would say thoughts on the arborvitae and the turn lane and all of that
stuff are still too far up in the air. We need to see where that, where the right-of-way is. Where
the private property is. What is all going on. Traffic counts. Speeds. There's just way too
much up in the air right now for me to say either way on the turn lane. I don't know enough
about what's going on there so we've got some work to do there now so whether that.
Mayor Furlong: Between now and the final.
Councilman Lundquist: And final, absolutely. So whether that, you know I don't know I guess
what our options are there right now. Preliminary and final, but with what information I have
now, I can't say really anything in the turn lane right now because it's too far up in the air.
54
City Council Meeting - January 10,2005
Mayor Furlong: With the plant.
Councilman Lundquist: Or yeah, the hedges and all of that stuff. There's too much in dispute
and up in the air right there.
Mayor Furlong: For clarification, Ms. Aanenson, what do we need to do tonight in the
preliminary in terms of conditions, given Councilman Lundquist's issue of let's see where some
things shake out before we deal with these conditions. Do we continue with these proposed
conditions then or do we?
Kate Aanenson: Sure, I guess I would say, work with staff to demonstrate how the trees can be
preserved. If they can be preserved so we kind of leave it open ended so when it comes back for
preliminary, we show you the best management practices that we've employed or however we're
going to try to save those, or if they can't be saved, giving the rationale why.
Councilman Lundquist: Or you know if it's in the turn, I'm sorry, right-of-way. Private
property.
Kate Aanenson: Correct. Grading of the house pad. Correct.
Councilman Lundquist: Yeah, I think both the applicant and the homeowner there have, I
believe that they'll work it when they figure out where the line is and what's going on and all of
those kind of things but right now nobody knows really I don't think.
Mayor Furlong: The arborvitae are on the Pinehurst development property.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: It's not the property to the north.
Kate Aanenson: So I was just going to separate those two, thank you. Just for clarification. Just
for the clarification, for the City Attorney too, so what we're talking about is (e) and (t). What
we wanted to do. This is on page 11. What we wanted to do is to put those in the format of
following up with additional information to clarify those points whether or not the evergreen
hedge can be saved with a retaining wall. So it's a but for. So we can resolve that at time of
final plat and that would be consistent with (t). Then a separate condition was, regarding
preservation of trees on the Nikolai property. To resolve that. To get additional information on
the right-of-way line and.
Mayor Furlong: Can we put conditions?
Kate Aanenson: You can add, certainly.
Councilman Lundquist: Top of conditions?
55
City Council Meeting - January 10,2005
Mayor Furlong: No, with regard to the property to the north.
Kate Aanenson: Sure, you can add any conditions you want.
Mayor Furlong: In terms of tree replacement in the right-of-way and...
Kate Aanenson: Well I guess it's a separate, it's a civil.
Councilman Lundquist: If those are on the Nikolai, those trees are on the Nikolai property and
that turn lane has to go into that private property.
Kate Aanenson: That's a matter between the developer and Mr. Nikolai to resolve.
Councilman Lundquist: Right. So our condition is that the turn lane has to be there and then
they've got to figure out.
Mayor Furlong: Properly designed based upon traffic.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct. They resolve it. Whether that's compensation or however they
work that out, that's correct.
Councilman Lundquist: Yeah, that's not for us to figure out.
Mayor Furlong: So you've got some suggested wording on 4(d), (e) and (t) there? To address
Councilman Lundquist's issues.
Kate Aanenson: Yes, between now and final plat the staff work to resolve conditions (d), (e) and
(t), to see if they're still valid. And then the other one I would add is, at the time of final plat the
staff shows you based on traffic and turn movements, the right-of-way lane. The length that that
needs to be for the decellane.
Mayor Furlong: I hope you're writing this down. Okay, we'll call on you at that point.
Kate Aanenson: Okay, sure.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other thoughts other than Councilman Lundquist on the trail there,
unless you have questions.
Councilman Labatt: Going back to that, where the existing driveway is right now, is that going
to be the same point to enter the development?
Mayor Furlong: Is that where the street is?
Councilman Labatt: Within 5-10 feet. So Todd's here. When we put the trail in, by my seat up
here, we went through an extensive effort to save those arborvitaes then right?
56
City Council Meeting - January 10,2005
Todd Hoffman: Correct.
Councilman Labatt: And I mean we narrowed the path. Maybe you can kind of update us on
what.
Todd Hoffman: We moved the path from the farther in the ditch line up to the shoulder of the
road.
Councilman Labatt: At the applicant's request.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Councilman Labatt: And now we seem to.
Kate Aanenson: Different circumstances. Different.
Councilman Lundquist: I'm not saying not save the arborvitae. I'm just saying now.
Kate Aanenson: We don't have enough information here to clarify exactly how it's going to.
Councilman Lundquist: I don't know if we can or not.
Roger Knutson: What you'd be doing is determining the feasibility of saving the arborvitaes.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: And we're dealing with the arborvitae to the north of the existing driveway,
correct?
Kate Aanenson: All vegetation along that. Vegetation along Galpin. Feasibility of saving
vegetation along Galpin.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Okay. Where are we? Other issues. Minor issues. Other issues that
people want to discuss.
Councilman Lundquist: The trail.
Mayor Furlong: The trail? Where are we on the trail? I guess it's B, A or not. I'm losing my
place and that's not good at this late hour so with regard to the trail, Councilman Lundquist.
Thoughts.
Councilman Lundquist: I guess a question I think I heard the City Attorney talk to Mr. Gerhardt
before about, if it comes off of the private drive on, at the end of Street A and we have to put
stairs there, do we have an issue with accessibility?
Todd Gerhardt: Can't have stairs. Unless you provide another alternative around it.
57
City Council Meeting - January 10,2005
Councilman Lundquist: So you've got to have a switchback or something. That sounds like fun.
So the longer, theoretically, the longer, farther away that we can get that trail access from a grade
change at the middle school, the easier that grade can be. I guess I'm on Street B then.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Mr. Hoffman, comments?
Todd Hoffman: Clarification, or a comment. Just as we have a responsibility to provide access,
pedestrian access to the school site for the Pinehurst, when the Crestview property comes
through, we're going to have the same responsibility to connect those people. And so if we do it
only on Pinehurst, then we're going to have to do it up on Crestview as well as they come
through so instead of having one, it would probably make sense to combine the two at the one
access point that can connect it to neighborhoods.
Councilman Lundquist: So in other words if you put, if we put one at A with stairs and a
switchback, when Shivley comes in, you're going to have to put one there anyway.
Todd Hoffman: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: So that's why the recommendation was to include the trail across on B. Okay.
Any other thoughts on the trail? Councilman Labatt. Councilwoman Tjornhom.
Councilman Labatt: Could we do both?
Mayor Furlong: Require two trails? Well each developer would require a trail.
Councilman Lundquist: They're going to anyway.
Mayor Furlong: Where would you put them Councilman Labatt? What are your thoughts?
Councilman Labatt: Well just run it down along Lot A there or Lot 8 off of Street A.
Mayor Furlong: Can I, Kate with regard to the preliminary plat. Is it, you wanted direction from
the council as to where that trail's going to go. I think there's a sense that we should have a trail.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: And so there are, we've got both of these developments coming through
somewhat simultaneously so we can try to minimize the impact to all the homes and reduce the
class to all developers and maximize the effectiveness of the trails and avoid as many steps and
switchbacks as possible. Is that possible to do? Or do we need to definitively state here where
that trail goes at this time?
Kate Aanenson: Again, just kind of in the perusal of the Park Director but I just want to remind
everybody at the end ofthat, unless you went between these two, you're coming at the end.
You're on the end of a private street.
58
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
Councilman Labatt: Well what I was looking at is you've got a sidewalk running down along
the entire length of Street A, and it ends right there at the beginning of the private drive.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Councilman Labatt: So you're jumping across to get to the other private drive, and then you run
it down along the lot, between Lot 8 and the private drive right towards the end of the cul-de-sac.
Then you're on the school property.
Councilman Lundquist: You're talking about running it right down the middle of 8. Lot 7 is
halfway through the cul-de-sac in Street A.
Todd Gerhardt: There's some grade issues in that area too.
Councilman Labatt: Well we're talking about running it right down along here.
Councilman Lundquist: The lot line is here.
Councilman Labatt: No, I'm talking about running it right along here.
Councilman Lundquist: Yeah, that's a private drive.
Councilman Labatt: We'll run it right along the edge of Lot 8. Keep it inside of Lot 8 and just
dedicate some land. Keep it off the private drive but just make a sidewalk there.
Councilman Lundquist: But the sidewalk goes along the private drive.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: What are the issues?
Kate Aanenson: I guess grades. Private drive.
Mayor Furlong: Yeah, the question is the grade issue. The further west you get, relative to the
school property to the north. While they're checking the grades on that, any other comments on
the trail or the location of the trail. Whether it comes off B or A or the private drive.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I think Mr. Larkin had some concerns with his trees being taken off
the trail.
Mayor Furlong: That would be in the Shivley development.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yep.
59
City Council Meeting - January 10,2005
Councilman Lundquist: You're going to wipe out trees no matter where you go. To get a trail
through there.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: Is it, for the Shivley development, what did Planning Commission do with that?
Did they table it or pass it? Approve it?
Kate Aanenson: No, they recommended approval without the connection but with the trail
connection. They had concerns regarding that connection between, going to the north. Whether
that, they spent a lot of time talking about grade and one of the members, I'm not sure exactly. . .
Mayor Furlong: Well I guess from a concept standpoint, did they include a trail between the end
of the cul-de-sac on Crestview and the school?
Kate Aanenson: Yes. Yes. Yes they did.
Mayor Furlong: So that's going in.
Kate Aanenson: Yes. In the interest of trying to design it here, if you can give, since we're
coming back with final plat and you're going to see Shivley, it gives us some time to sit down
with them and sit down with Shivley and try to work it out and come back under final plat. I'm
not sure we're going to solve it.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, good. Any other issues we can address that way?
Kate Aanenson: I'd be happy to take them all that way.
Mayor Furlong: We need some. Okay, so anything else? Any other issues to discuss here?
We've dealt with, or we've at least exposed people's thoughts on the street connection.
Exposed people's thoughts on the Lot 27. We've got, we're going to have further information
brought out with regard to the right turn lane and the preservation of vegetation along Galpin.
Not to maximize that. Any other issues? Councilman Peterson?
Councilman Peterson: Playground.
Mayor Furlong: I'm sorry. Playground? Totlot. Totlot, okay. Let's talk about that quick.
Councilman Peterson: I don't think we need it.
Councilman Lundquist: Concur.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Other thoughts. You're saying no?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: No totlot.
60
City Council Meeting - January 10,2005
Mayor Furlong: No? Your thoughts?
Councilman Labatt: I'm either way but no.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. I don't know that it's necessary to require it here, given what we heard
from the Director of our Parks. I'd say no on that. Especially if 27 goes through, it'd be hard to
require a totlot on 27. Okay. Any other issues? Thoughts. Okay.
Councilman Lundquist: Could I propose a, something to help us speed us along. It seems like to
me.
Mayor Furlong: Now you want to propose that?
Councilman Lundquist: It seems to, we've got I think the street connection yeah· or nay and Lot
27 as a yeah or nay. Everything else I think we probably have consensus on among the council
so perhaps we could formulate a motion to include all of those and then work on an amendment
basis for what we do with the street and other piece.
Mayor Furlong: Well why don't we start with a motion that either includes or excludes and then
see if we need to amend. That motion.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay.
Mayor Furlong: If that would work. So we have a comprehensive motion to begin with.
Somebody want to work on that?
Kate Aanenson: And there are two motions...
Mayor Furlong: Two motions. Can we deal with those together, or do we need 4 on either of
them? Or we asked that earlier. We're on 3 on both of these?
Roger Knutson: You need a simple majority on both. So you can combine them in one motion
or individually if you choose.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Councilman Lundquist: Can we do the first one first?
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Is there a motion? That first motion.
Councilman Lundquist: Motion to approve the rezoning from RR to RSF.
Councilman Peterson: Second.
Councilman Lundquist: Findings of fact in the staff report.
61
City Council Meeting - January 10,2005
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Is there any discussion on that motion? Everybody's on
track here. We're on recommendation A on page 9. That's all we're dealing with now. Any
discussion on that motion? It's been made and seconded.
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that the City Council
approves the Rezoning of 27 .62 ~cres located within the Pinehurst subdivision from Rural
Residential (RR) to Single Family Residential (RSF) based on consistency with the City of
Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan and compatibility with surrounding development. All
voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to O.
Mayor Furlong: That motion prevails. Do we want to go with motion B?
Councilman Lundquist: Alright, it was my crazy idea. I'll take a run at it I guess. Move that the
City Council approve preliminary plat for Pinehurst Addition with a variance for the use of
private streets, plans prepared by Westwood Professional Services. That would be
recommendation B with conditions in the staff report. Condition, Kate what condition is it that
we're calling the street? Whether it goes through or whether it's a cul-de-sac. Is that condition
(o)?
Mayor Furlong: Yes, I think so.
Councilman Labatt: Let's deal with number 2 first. Where they wanted that reworded.
Councilman Lundquist: Where ate we at? Oh yeah. Donated. Condition 2, Outlots A and B
donated to the City.
Councilman Labatt: Let's take them right in order.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Condition 4. 4(d), (e) and (f).
Kate Aanenson: Feasibility of preserving vegetation along Galpin will be studied and presented
at the time of final plat.
Councilman Lundquist: And then did we add condition (g) about the turn lane?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, or I added that at the very end but you can put it there too.
Mayor Furlong: Want to put that under engineering?
Kate Aanenson: ...engineering, that's where I would put it.
Councilman Lundquist: Alright. So where are we putting that? 5(v)? Alright, let's hit 5(0)
first. That's the street, right? I would move that 5(0) be worded so that the street B is connected
to Crestview as recommended by staff. And with the addition of condition 5(v). That a right
turn lane, or that is already in 5(u) so 5(u) is a right turn lane off Galpin is required and
specifications to be determined.
62
City Council Meeting - January 10,2005
Roger Knutson: You dealing with (p)?
Councilman Lundquist: Paragraph 5(u). Condition 4(u) on the turn lane.
Councilman Peterson: But we've got (p) in there too.
Councilman Lundquist: Oh I'm sorry. And (p), remove condition 5(p).
Councilman Peterson: And reinsert staff recommendations on page 5, right Kate?
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Councilman Lundquist: Yes, and insert on the top of page 3 I think that is.
Kate Aanenson: Right, I...it's 5. You're right.
Councilman Lundquist: For clarification those conditions being an easement required over the
whole drainage piece and the survey after the landscaping is completed.
Councilman Labatt: Did we want to delete (q)? Because that's been worked out, right?
Councilman Lundquist: (q) has been worked out so remove that.
Councilman Peterson: And delete 8.
Councilman Lundquist: Yep. Number 8 is removed.
Mayor Furlong: Clarification. What did you do with (u)?
Councilman Lundquist: (u) is a right turn lane off Galpin into this will be required and design
specifications to be determined.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Councilman Labatt: Are you scratching out to meet Carver County requirements and you're
going to say to be?
Councilman Lundquist: Yeah. Scratch out the last sentence.
Mayor Furlong: Carver County and City of Chanhassen requirements?
Kate Aanenson: It's a County road. Matt?
Matt Saam: Correct. County.
63
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, so they will have input on that.
Matt Saam: We'll work with them.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, so how do you, how would you, given what you've heard from the
concern of the council.
Councilman Lundquist: A right turn.
Kate Aanenson: I heard what Brian said. I think that all of us just need to work with the
Nikolai's to ensure tree loss. That the right-of-way.
Councilman Lundquist: Yeah, but that's not our issue.
Kate Aanenson: It's not but.
Councilman Lundquist: I think the understanding is there. If we require them to build a turn
lane, they've got to figure it out from there. If that means that the trees are on private property
and they've got to take them out, then they've got to work with our concern really is that the turn
lane is there. If those trees are in the right-of-way, then they come out. If they're on private
property, then that's up to that developer to work with the Nikolai's to figure out how they're
going to buy the property from them, replace the trees, both, whatever they got to do. That's
none of my concern.
Mayor Furlong: So the only thing you're adding to (u), from what's there.
Councilman Lundquist: Specifications to be determined. Still determine length of it, as well
where it starts. Where it's.. .
Todd Gerhardt: And that would be submitted at final plat.
Councilman Lundquist: To be determined by final plat submittal. And number 9. That there
has to be a trail connection from this neighborhood to Minnetonka West, that origin point to be
determined by final plat. How's that for open ended.
Mayor Furlong: Did you take out 8?
Councilman Lundquist: 8 is gone.
Mayor Furlong: I think you did pretty well. Location of the trail is to be determined.
Councilman Lundquist: Whether it's A or B or how that works out with Shivley. So, as a recap.
Lot 27 stays in. Turn lane to be determined. Connecting the neighborhoods through Street B
into Crestview. No totlot and the trail to be determined. Everybody there?
64
City Council Meeting - January 10,2005
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Everybody understand the motion?
Councilman Labatt: Yeah.
Mayor Furlong: Clear on that? Is there a second?
Councilman Peterson: Second.
Councilman Labatt: Can I make a quick friendly amendment?
Mayor Furlong: Why don't you offer your amendment, yeah.
Councilman Labatt: It's very minor. In reference to that sliver of land in the Gestach
neighborhood. That if there's any cost incurred by the City to, whether we remove the asphalt or
whatever we do back there, that Plowshares is responsible for that?
Mayor Furlong: This is off Brenden Court?
Councilman Labatt: Yeah. But this is in, this was land that was required to be dedicated or
outlotted when Brenden Ponds was going to go in there. Brenden Court by the Mancino's
requested that so if we're going to be foot with the bill now of removing that, you know they
should.
Matt Saam: That cost goes with the development.
Councilman Labatt: That cost goes with the development.
Mayor Furlong: Cost to restore. So you're proposing that as an amendment for...
Councilman Labatt: If there's a cost that the City would incur in whatever's decided to do with
that asphalt private road.
Councilman Peterson: Do we need that as a condition or is that normal and customary?
Roger Knutson: I would suggest since it's been raised that it'd be appropriate to vote on the
motion. Make that an amendment.
Mayor Furlong: Make that an amendment. Amendment's been made and seconded so I guess
the question is.
Councilman Lundquist: Condition 10?
Mayor Furlong: Add condition 10. Your proposing to amend the original motion by adding a
condition 10 that any, do you want to re-state that?
65
City Council Meeting - January 10,2005
Councilman Labatt: Any cost incurred by the City on the donated sliver of land, portion of land,
whether we decide to remove that asphalt or.
Mayor Furlong: This is on the access off Brenden Court?
Councilman Labatt: Yes. That that cost would be paid for by Plowshares.
Roger Knutson: Or the work done by Plowshares.
Councilman Labatt: Yeah, yeah. Yeah.
Mayor Furlong: That's an amendment to the motion. Is there a second to the amendment?
Councilman Peterson: Second.
Councilman Lundquist: For clarification that's paid for or removed by Plowshares? We're not
requiring them to pay for us to do work?
Roger Knutson: I'm a little bit at a loss but normally you would give the developer, you want
the developer to do the work so.
Mayor Furlong: I guess the City probably hasn't spent the time determining how they want that.
Councilman Labatt: No, I'm just saying if there is any cost that we're going to incur.
Todd Gerhardt: We're talking about the stub road off of Brenden Court.
Councilman Labatt: Yeah.
Councilman Peterson: The private street.
Todd Gerhardt: It's not donated.
Councilman Labatt: Okay, the stub road then.
Todd Gerhardt: The stub road.
Councilman Labatt: Off of Brenden Court.
Todd Gerhardt: Not the donated land.
Roger Knutson: So you would think you'd want to get this resolved by final plat time to give
them direction, so maybe you want to leave this as another open ended issue. To say determined
by the time of final plat whether this should be removed. If it needs to be removed, that the
developer do it or pay for it.
66
City Council Meeting - January 10,2005
Councilman Labatt: Sounds good.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And Councilman Peterson you're comfortable with seconding that?
Councilman Peterson: Affirmative.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any discussion on that? Amendment. Just on the amending the
motion to include the cost there. I think it's reasonable is my thought. Any other discussion?
Let's vote on that. On adding that condition as an amendment. Unless there's further
discussion.
Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to approve an amendment to
the motion to include condition 10 which reads, A determination shall be made by final plat
whether to remove the stub road ofT of Brenden Court. If it is determined to remove it, the
developer shall either do the work or pay for it to be removed. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to O.
Mayor Furlong: So that, we now have condition 10 included in our original amendment. Other
discussion on the amendment, or on the amended motion.
Councilman Labatt: Before we vote can we just briefly talk about the connection real quick. I
mean I'm on the fence and you know so help me jump to one side here Brian.
Councilman Lundquist: Well interesting because I think that originally I was there too but I
think the mayor made a convincing argument about pulling them together. Pulling these
neighborhoods together and providing that and the more I think about it, it may actually
contribute positively by giving some of the people on Crestview another alternative out of that
neighborhood, instead of driving down the narrow S curve, so I think when I look at that, I don't
see how there's going to be a mass of cars that are going to be going up and down Crestview
because we connected that road. Other than maybe an additional 5 or 6 houses that are along
that road may have the option of going either way, but if I'm given the option, I'm going to go
with the nice, new road that's wide open and has better access, better sight lines and quite
frankly I can go to more places than just right out onto Galpin. When I get through there I can
take Manchester and go you know out through Lake Lucy. I can do a lot of different things on
that so that's why I changed my mind on that one. So if that helps you or not. Steve if that's.
Councilman Labatt: No, thank you.
Councilman Lundquist: You know I mean I'm sensitive to the residents. I know that they're
not, the residents of Crestview are not going to be happy with that but unfortunately I think it
comes with the territory and looking out for the greater good and the precedent that it sets
concerns me and that's why I changed my mind so hopefully the residents don't feel like their
thoughts were fallen on deaf ears and know that although we didn't allow those people to speak
at the meeting, that we do read, I read the minutes from the Planning Commission. Anyway so,
we might not have heard them by ear but certainly read them so that's why I think that's a big
issue for them but that's why I made the decision the way I did.
67
City Council Meeting - January 10,2005
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Other discussion on this motion. I guess my thought as we're coming
here, I think this is a classic example of how democracy has been compared to making sausage.
You try to do the best you can. It's not always pretty. Sometimes you don't want to know what
takes place but fortunately we do it in the open public setting. There was a question raised
earlier tonight that I'd like to address too before we vote on this with regard to the purpose of the
Planning Commission and what good are they if it comes to the council. I value the process that
we have in terms of the Planning Commission. I think it's a very excellent process. I value and
respect all the commissioners that serve on the Planning Commission. They put in a tremendous
amount of time. More than many residents realize, and we value, I do and I know the rest of the
council does, value the effort and the commitment and the participation that the public has at the
Planning Commission. Part of the purpose for the Planning Commission as I see is, is to make
the process as efficient as you can and at the same time creating some inefficiencies. And why
do I say that? Because the Planning Commission, one of their most powerful tools I think is
when things aren't ready to go forward, to table them and get answers and get some of the
questions. You can see some of the things here that weren't quite done that we struggled with
here. The Planning Commission does an excellent job of doing that. To the extent that
recommendations come out of the Planning Commission in a single motion, we also recognize
that there are differences of opinion, even on the Planning Commission. Not all their motions
are unanimous. With a development this size, typically there's some give and take and I think
you're seeing that up here tonight too. So I think the Planning Commission has a very important
role in the process. I commend Commissioner Sacchet and all his fellow Commissioners. We
may not always agree on everything, and I think unfortunately sometimes those are the times we
remember. We don't remember all the things we agree on and those by far outweigh everything
else, so whatever action this council takes this evening on this or future projects, you know there
isn't always going to be agreement. You won't see agreement among the 5 of us. I don't know
how people can expect agreement out of the 7 commissioners and 5 of us all at the same time
every time. And it just isn't going to happen so I wanted to make sure that people realize that
this council, and certainly I individually respect all the information and the work that the
Planning Commission does and recognize that they put in a tremendous amount of effort and we
do value their opinion. I hope they keep doing what they're doing. So I wanted to add that
comment. I think what we're doing here tonight is a reasonable compromise in trying to balance
the rights of a developer to develop his property. The goal of the city for the public good and
this is a difficult situation with regard to the street connection. It's probably the biggest issue.
The thoughts of the residents have not been forgotten by any means. It's what's made it difficult
and why I stand by my earlier comments this evening, so. Any other comments or thoughts on
this? We've got a motion in front of us that's been amended by adding the condition number 10.
Is there any other discussion or proposed amendments?
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that the City Council
approve the preliminary plat for Pinehurst Addition with a variance for the use of private
streets, plans prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Inc., dated 9/17/04, revised
9/22/04 and 11/05/04, based on the findings of fact attached to this report and subject to the
following conditions:
1. Setbacks shall be a minimum of 20 feet from the back of the private street.
68
City Council Meeting - January 10,2005
2. Outlots A and B shall be donated to the city.
3. Water Resources Coordinator Conditions:
a. Wetland buffer widths of 16.5 feet to 20.0 feet shall be maintained around all wetlands
on-site.
b. All structures shall maintain a 40-foot setback from wetland buffer edges.
c. The building pad on Lot 9, Block 1 shall be revised to reflect the wetland setback
requirements.
d. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the
City's wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs, under
the direction of City staff, before construction begins and shall pay the City $20 per sign.
e. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3: 1. All
exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year
round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames:
Type of Slope
Stee r than 3:1
10:1 to 3:1
Flatter than 10: 1
Time
(maximum time an area can remain unvegetated
when area is Dot activel worked
7Da s
14 Da s
21 Da s
These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, 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 man
made systems that discharge to a surface water.
f. Daily scraping and sweeping of public streets shall be completed any time construction
site soil, mud, silt or rock is tracked or washed onto paved surface or street that would
allow tracked materials or residuals of that material to enter the storm water conveyance
system.
g. Construction site access points shall be minimized to controlled access points with rock
entrance and exit pads installed and maintained throughout construction.
h. Based on the proposed developed area of 23.36 acres, the estimated total SWMP fee, due
payable to the City at the time of final plat recording is $83,465.
1. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies
(e.g., Riley-Purgatory-Bluff-Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency (NPDES Phase IT Construction Permit), Minnesota Department of Natural
69
City Council Meeting - January 10,2005
Resources (for dewatering)) and comply with their conditions of approval.
4. Natural Resources Coordinator Conditions:
a. A minimum of two overstory trees shall be required in the front yard of each lot.
b. The developer shall be responsible for installing all landscape materials proposed in rear
and side yard areas.
c. Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits prior to any
construction.
d. Tree preservation on site shall be according to tree preservation plans dated 09/17/04.
Any trees removed in excess of proposed tree preservation plans will be replaced at a
ratio of 2: 1 diameter inches.
e. The feasibility of preserving vegetation along Galpin will be studied and presented at the
time of final plat.
5. Engineer's Conditions:
a. The applicant will be required to meet the existing site runoff rates for lO-year and 100-
year, 24-hour storm events. The proposed ponds must be designed to National Urban
Runoff Program (NURP) standards. In addition, the proposed ponding must be sized to
accommodate the drainage generated from the property to the north, as shown in the
City's Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP).
b. The storm sewer must be designed for a lO-year, 24-hour storm event. Submit storm
sewer sizing cales and drainage map prior to final plat for staff review and approval.
c. Drainage and utility easements must be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm
drainage system including ponds, drainage swales, and wetlands up to the 100-year flood
level.
d. Staff recommends that Type II silt fence, which is a heavy duty fence, be used adjacent to
the existing wetland, existing creek area, and around the proposed pond. In addition, tree
preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree removal. Erosion control
blankets are recommended for all of the steep 3: 1 slopes with an elevation change of
eight feet or more.
e. All plans must be signed by a registered Civil Engineer in the State of Minnesota.
f. On the utility plan:
70
City Council Meeting - January 10, 2005
1. Show all existing and proposed utility and pond easements.
2. Maintain lO-foot horizontal separation between all sanitary/water/storm sewer mains.
3. Increase the watermain pipe size in Street D to 8-inches in diameter.
4. Add a storm sewer line between Lots 7 and 8, Block 1 with a catch basin at the north
property line for future connection by the property to the north.
5. Extend sanitary manhole #12 to the north property line with an invert elevation of
1049.0.
g. On the grading plan:
1. Show all existing and proposed easements.
2. Show the benchmark used for the site survey.'
3. Maximum allowable side slope is 3:1; revise in the rear yard of Lots 14 and 15,
Block 1 and the rear yard of Lot 3, Block 2.
4. Show the location and elevation of all emergency overflows; the elevation must be
1.5' lower than any adjacent house pad elevations.
5. Show the retaining wall top and bottom elevations.
6. Use storm sewer class 5 in roadway; revise note under general grading and drainage
notes accordingly.
h. Any retaining wall over four feet in height must be designed by a registered civil
engineer and a permit from the city building department must be obtained. In addition,
encroachment agreements will be required for any retaining wall within a public
easement.
1. The sanitary sewer and water hookup charges along with the Lake Ann Interceptor
charge will be applicable for each of the new lots. The 2004 trunk hookup charge is
$1,458.00 per unit for sanitary sewer and $2,814.00 per unit for watermain. The total
2004 Lake Ann Interceptor charge is $2,102 per unit and the SAC fee is $1,425.00 per
unit. All of these charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the
Metropolitan Council. Sanitary sewer and water-main hookup fees may be specially
assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit issuance.
J. All disturbed areas, as a result of construction, must be seeded and mulched or sodded
immediately after grading to minimize erosion.
71
City Council Meeting - January 10,2005
k. The applicant should be aware that any off-site grading will require an easement from the
appropriate property owner.
1. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant
will be required to supply the City with detailed haul routes.
m. Due to the depth of the proposed sanitary sewer from MH-20 to MH-17, the required
easement width will be increased to 50 feet.
n. All of the utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the
City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant is also
required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary
financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation
of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval.
o. Street B will be connected to the north to Crestview Drive.
p. Lot 27 is approved with the following conditions:
1. A drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated over the entire width of the swale
on the northwest side of the buildable area on Lot 27, Block 1. No structures shall be
allowed within this drainage and utility easement, with the exception of the retaining wall
shown on the approved grading plan.
2. To ensure proper drainage, a survey shall be required for Lot 27, Block 1 upon
completion of the landscaping. The survey shall be submitted to the City and reviewed
by staff to ensure consistency between final grades and the approved grading plan. If
discrepancies exist, any inconsistent areas shall be re-graded to match the approved
grading plan. Additionally, any property owners should anticipate flowing and/or
standing water within the swale on the northwest side of the property (Lot 27, Block 1).
This may preclude mowing of the swale during times of above average precipitation.
q. Revise Street C to be a standard 28 foot width.
r. Lower the western end of the site in the area of the two private drives.
s. This development is required to provide enough additional platted right-of-way which
results in 50 feet of right-of-way on the western side of the Galpin Boulevard centerline.
t. A right-turn lane into the site off of Galpin Boulevard will be required to be constructed
with specifications determined by time of final plat.
6. Geotechnical testing report and recommendation will be required and needs to be
provided to the city.
72
City Council Meeting - January 10,2005
7. A 30 foot wide private easement, cross access and maintenance agreement must also be
submitted for the private street.
8. Provide an access trail from this neighborhood to Minnetonka Middle School West, the
location to be determined by time of final plat.
9. A determination shall be made by final plat whether to remove the stub road off of
Brenden Court. If it is determined to remove it, the developer shall either do the work or
pay for it to be removed.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to O.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you everybody. Noticing the time or the hour, let's take a 5 minute
recess.
REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL WITH
VARIANCES FOR A 4.080 SQ. Fr. ONE-STORY WAREHOUSE BIDLDING.
NORTHWEST CORNER OF AUDUBON ROAD AND COULTER BOULEVARD.
PAISLEY PARK STUDIO STORAGE: RON SCOFIELD.
Kate Aanenson: Thank you. This is a two action item before you. Again it's just, there is a
subdivision creating a 7.6 acre lot and one outlot and then a site plan approval. The subject site
is located just north of the General Mills site, south on McGlynn Drive, adjacent to the existing
daycare. The site is zoned office industrial park. The subdivision itself is pretty straight
forward. There are conditions of approval there for the preliminary plat and we really don't see a
lot of issues. Weare requesting just the radius on Coulter be changed to provide better, right
now we have some trucks that cut that corner so we're working on changing that radius but
really other than that the subdivision, we did ask for just some additional landscaping but that's
pretty straight forward. The layout decide itself. The building is well conceived. It is mostly for
storage and does provide additional parking for special events over at the studio across the street.
The architect is here tonight to show the colors on the building. Again, the small building for
this size lot. Under 5,000 square feet. Again providing some storage and additional parking
across at the street. We are recommending approval. There was some additional conditions the
Planning Commission added and that was a landscape buffer between the parking and the
daycare to the north, and revising the parking lot to better accommodate cars, around the median
just so there's better flow through that. The Planning Commission did recommend approval on
December 7tl1 of this and 7-0 so with that we are recommending approval with the conditions in
the staff report.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. And those conditions include the two recommended by the
Planning Commission you're recommending as well, thank you.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: Any questions for staff on this one? No? Thank you. The applicant is here.
Are there any issues you'd like to address to the council sir. Thank you for sticking around.
73