CC Minutes 7-25-05
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
JULY 25, 2005
Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was opened with the
Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mayor Furlong, Councilwoman Tjornhom, Councilman
Peterson, Councilman Labatt and Councilman Lundquist
STAFF PRESENT:
Todd Gerhardt, Roger Knutson, Justin Miller, Paul Oehme, Kate
Aanenson, and Todd Hoffman
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
Cheryl, Jeff & Adam Peckron 968 Bluff Point Drive, Chaska
Janet Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Mayor Furlong: Thank you and good evening and welcome to those that are joining us here this
evening and those watching at home as well. Glad that you’re joining us. At this time I would
ask if there’s any modifications or additions to the agenda. If not, without objection we’ll
proceed with the agenda that was published with the council packet. Tonight I’d like to make a
public announcement and general invitation to National Night Out which will be this, on
Tuesday, August 2, 2005 in the city of Chanhassen, along with a National Night Out that is an
event nationwide. This is an event that encourages citizens to get out, get to know their
neighbors. Learn about crime issue. Help promote crime prevention. Provide an opportunity for
public safety representatives to meet and discuss issues of concern with our citizens. The City of
Chanhassen takes great pride in continuing to be a safe place to live and work and part of
keeping Chanhassen safe is a partnership between the citizens and those who serve this city.
National Night Out supports the efforts of reminding citizens that their involvement is an integral
part of maintaining safety in Chanhassen and we encourage citizens to get involved. This is a
great opportunity to meet neighbors and to renew acquaintances and to be involved. On August
nd
2, that’s a Tuesday night, coming up a week from tomorrow. A week from tomorrow,
representatives from Carver County Sheriff’s office, Chanhassen Fire Department and others will
be visiting various block parties. I think tonight there are about 31, 32 block parties already
organized. There is always room for more. If you’re interested in finding out if your
neighborhood already has a block party, or organizing one for your own neighborhood, please
call city hall at 952-227-1610. Hope to see everybody there.
CONSENT AGENDA:
Mayor Furlong: I would ask if there’s any desire to separate or pull off any item from the
consent agenda for separate discussion. If there is none, is there a.
City Council Meeting – July 25, 2005
Ralph Burrell: Mayor? Separate discussion, please explain. At this time or after another
meeting.
Mayor Furlong: Is this regarding one of the items on the consent agenda itself?
Ralph Burrell: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Why don’t you come forward to the microphone sir and just identify
yourself. Maybe identify the item you’re referring to.
Ralph Burrell: Okay. My name is Ralph Burrell. I live at 7555 Frontier Trail. We’re here to
discuss Mr. Stinson’s suggestion to subdivide Lot number 4 I think in Subdivision number 3 of
Frontier Trail.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. We’ll bring that up under new business. Is that public hearing?
Kate Aanenson: Right.
Mayor Furlong: It’s in the public hearing so that is later in our agenda already sir. Are there
any other items on the consent agenda? This is items 1(a) through (f). If there’s a desire for
separate discussion. If not, is there a motion to approve.
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to approve the following
consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager’s recommendations:
a. Approval of Minutes:
-City Council Work Session Minutes dated July 11, 2005
-City Council Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated July 11, 2005
Receive Commission Minutes:
-Park and Recreation Commission Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated June 28, 2005.
d. Approval of Plans & Specifications; Authorize Advertising for Bids; Lake Susan
Playground.
e. Approval of Membership to the Surface Water Management Plan Update Task Force.
Resolution#2005-63:
f. Approve Letter of Support and Resolution; Carver County
Application for Transportation Enhancement (TE) Funds for Trunk Highway 41 Bicycle/
Pedestrian Underpass and Trails.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
2
City Council Meeting – July 25, 2005
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff. Just one Mr. Oehme, if you could put that, or
maybe just get the picture back up with your blue and pink. The blue and pink cross on the, at
the top of that picture, is that correct?
Paul Oehme: Yeah.
Mayor Furlong: So, and I think by your statement while we’re vacating the current, we’re going
to re-establish 5 feet on each side of the new, all the way from the front to the back.
Paul Oehme: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Just to clarify. Very good. I see Mr. Lillehaug is here as the
applicant. Anything you’d like to discuss with council? Good evening.
Steve Lillehaug: Mr. Mayor, council members. Thank you for your time this evening. I think I
can just make this short and sweet. I could go into a whole convoluted path on the 2 ½ years it
took me to get here but you don’t want to hear that. I do want to thank staff for some of the
negativity, or not thank them for that but I directed some negativity towards them and I want to
thank them for dealing with it over the past couple years. Kate, Justin, thank you. I think it
stands for itself. I need this property to make my house whole that I currently live in right now
and that’s the bottom line.
Mayor Furlong: Very good, thank you. Any questions? Okay, no? This is a public hearing. I’d
like to open it at this time and invite any interested parties to come forward to discuss this matter
with the council. If anybody wants to come forward, this would be the time. Otherwise we will
close the public hearing. Seeing nobody then we’ll close the public hearing and bring it back to
council for discussion. Is there any discussion on this matter? Hearing none, is there a motion to
approve the request?
Councilman Peterson: So moved.
Councilman Labatt: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, proceed
with the vote.
Resolution#2005-64: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that the
City Council approve Vacation of Drainage and Utility Easements for Lots 8 and 9, Block
2, Walnut Grove, Vacation File No. 05-02. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A METES AND BOUNDS SUBDIVISION OF
LOT 2, BLOCK 1, FRONTIER THIRD ADDITION INTO TWO PARCELS,
APPLICANT, CHARLES STINSON, PLANNING CASE NO. 05-21.
Public Present:
11
City Council Meeting – July 25, 2005
Name Address
Charles Stinson 18304 Minnetonka Boulevard, Deephaven
John & Genell Lemley 7523 Frontier Trail
Ralph Burrell 7555 Frontier Trail
Theresa Watt 7423 Frontier Trail
Dave Howe 400 Santa Fe Trail
Tom Manarin 7552 Great Plains Boulevard
Kate Aanenson: In September, 2003 the City Council approved a subdivision of Frontier Third
Addition. At that time there was two lots that were approved. If you follow this blue line, that
was one lot and the black was the second lot. Right now the request is for splitting the one lot.
The lot had not been recorded. It’s in the process of being recorded, that subdivision. There was
some title issues and, on that. I just want to give a little bit of background on that subdivision
because it did access via Great Plains, which serves a private drive for the one lot to the north.
This doesn’t show the lot but the original one to the north. And then access via a public street to
the south. There was talk of vacating a portion of that street, but this private drive serves 1, 2
and then the one home to the north, 3. In reviewing these staff always tries to anticipate some
additional subdivisions that may occur. Current ordinance allows up to 4 homes off of a private
street, so if this gentleman did choose to further subdivide he could access via the public street.
So with that, that brings us forward to the proposal in front of you today which is the split of the
most southerly two lots. Access to the new lot would be off of a public street. It is a metes and
bounds subdivision which by City Council rules you are allowed to have a public hearing at the
City Council because it meets all the requirements of the subdivision as far as lot width and size,
and it has access to either a public or a private street. In this circumstance it does access via a
public street. So again it meets all the requirements of lot width, area and the like, so with that
the remaining parcel too, that would also meet all the requirements of the city ordinance so with
that staff is recommending approval of the conditions of subdividing it. One of the conditions is
that this wouldn’t be executed until the other one’s almost recorded, and that’s executed. So that
would be.
Mayor Furlong: So once the original subdivision is recorded, then this one would follow.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. With that I’d be happy to answer any questions.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff.
Councilman Lundquist: Kate, just for clarification then. The west lot there would still come off
of the private drive and the east lot comes off of Frontier trail.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Let me just clarify. It appears that that’s coming off of a private drive
but the original interpretation is this is still a portion of a public street so this is still coming off
of a public street.
Councilman Lundquist: So that would be a driveway off of Great Plains?
12
City Council Meeting – July 25, 2005
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, this one’s coming off the private drive. The one to the north, so then this
would come off of a public street.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay. So that driveway for that west lot is still considered a driveway
off of Great Plains?
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. That was the original interpretation. When this came in before
it did require a variance because it was a double fronted lot. Now it’s not a double fronted lot.
But it was granted a variance at that time.
Councilman Peterson: So going back to your first picture Kate, the 4 houses.
Councilman Lundquist: The aerial view.
Councilman Peterson: Yeah, the aerial view. Point out the 4 and the potential.
Kate Aanenson: Sure. So this would be the public street. If we were to split this through here,
can you see my red line? This lot to the north comes off of a private common platted drive. That
common drive also serves this home and this home. So this lot is large enough, it could be
further subdivided. They could also come off that private street. This lot comes off of a public
street and when we split this, this also would come off of a public street. So there’s no variances.
Councilman Peterson: So the one up to the northeast is off of Frontier, right?
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Councilman Lundquist: So if they wanted to divide the north lot they could come off of Frontier
Trail as well.
Kate Aanenson: This one probably wouldn’t because of the bluff but this one probably wouldn’t
be further subdivided, yeah. That’s, maybe we should back to this. There’s some bluffs there,
but there is a potential for further subdivision in that area. So all the lots do meet, but this one
that’s being subdivided, because it has access via public or private does meet the requirements of
subdivision requirements.
Councilman Lundquist: And we’re not backing ourselves into a corner down the road?
Kate Aanenson: No. Again, trying to provide additional subdivision access to somebody else in
that area that may want to subdivide.
Mayor Furlong: Currently the subject lot here, the southern lot is accessed via a driveway off of
Frontier Trail?
Kate Aanenson: These two lots.
13
City Council Meeting – July 25, 2005
Mayor Furlong: Or not off Frontier, excuse me. Great Plains.
Kate Aanenson: Yes, correct.
Mayor Furlong: Right. The private street issue is an issue for the lot to the north and the 3 north
of that.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Maybe I can show it just a little bit more clearly on this, it’s, where
there’s circuitous, there’s an existing home that comes off right here. This portion right here is
still a public street and then it splits to the private drive which would serve the one home to the
north that was originally approved, and then there was going to be one here that would come off
the public street.
Mayor Furlong: So that’s public right-of-way, that stub out there?
Kate Aanenson: That was our interpretation that it’s access via public street. As with the new
lot also come off of a public street. So this is the only part that’s changing off of Frontier Trail.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Other questions for staff. Storm water. Storm water management.
There’s some issues there. This is an area of town that has some challenges and we have some
slopes here so can you explain a little bit about some of the things we’re trying to do.
Kate Aanenson: Sure. This area drains back towards the Frontier Trail Association beachlot. So
this would be the two lots, and then this lot. It’s going back and this is one that we’re working
with the association to provide additional ponding on their, in negotiations with that. So this will
not go past the Frontier Trail. That’s where it’s currently going. So it wouldn’t increase. Or go
any differently.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. It looked like in the conditions we’re also requiring some
mitigation in terms of rip rap and other, on this lot as well.
Kate Aanenson: To direct the water.
Mayor Furlong: To direct and slow the flow. Okay.
Todd Gerhardt: Mr. Mayor, may I? Kate, do you have this drawing here?
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
Todd Gerhardt: Can you explain the road right-of-way where it abuts the private property so that
it’s not taking a driveway, private driveway, then to the street. There’s not a gap inbetween
there.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah. That was what I was trying to show on the other one.
Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, but it didn’t show up very well.
14
City Council Meeting – July 25, 2005
Kate Aanenson: So this is.
Mayor Furlong: Can you zoom in on that please?
Kate Aanenson: This is the end of that area that I was showing. It’s a little bit off center, but
this is accessing, this is the lot that’s the subject site that’s in for a split so the lot behind accessed
via this line, which is the private drive which serves this property and this property. Again
there’s enough that that lot may be subdivided in the future. So this one’s coming back the
public street to this lot and the new lot that’s being split will have access via Frontier Trail.
Councilman Lundquist: So the public street abuts that private property line on that southwestern
lot.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct, so both of them have access via a public street. Although metes
and bound subdivision as per our city code does say whether it’s public or private street, can be a
metes and bound as long as they have the required width and area and meet all the other
conditions of the subdivision ordinance which the new lot does.
Mayor Furlong: You said the new lot does meet?
Kate Aanenson: All the lot area and frontage requirements, that’s correct. And that’s, otherwise
it would have gone to the Planning Commission if it needed relief from any of those criteria.
Mayor Furlong: From a variance standpoint.
Kate Aanenson: For a one lot split.
Mayor Furlong: So even the bluff, or most of the time the.
Kate Aanenson: From the other lot.
Mayor Furlong: Some of it, or some of the setback from the bluff extends into this southern lot.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And any, there’s no relief from that bluff setback.
Kate Aanenson: No. So when they come in they’ll have to put that on their survey line to show
the home placement plan. That would be the only thing that we’d review. Again this is just a
representation. When they come in to pull the building permit they will show that on the survey
of the building permit and the home location and we’ll check that.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for staff at this time? If not is the
applicant here? Is there any information you’d like to share with the council this evening?
15
City Council Meeting – July 25, 2005
Charles Stinson: My name is Charles Stinson. I’m an architect and done a lot of homes in the
neighborhood here. I was approached by the previous owner on several occasions about
purchasing the property and when I realized he was going to put it on the open market I went to
the city and researched it to determine if it was subdividable and indeed it was so at that point we
purchased the property and just now are getting around to it so. We do, I think you had a copy, I
just received a copy from the President of the Frontier Trail Association in support of the project
so we’ve been working here for 12 years in the neighborhood and our goal is to do a great job
and be an example of how development can happen to save trees and plant new trees and put
architecture that’s in a reasonable scale to the property. And I also just want to say you know
been working again with the city 12 years and Chanhassen has been great to work with. Great
staff and very professional and if you have any more questions I’m here.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Stinson? Very good, thank you. We will
have a public hearing. There is a public hearing for this item so at this time I’d like to open the
public hearing and invite any interested parties to come forward and address this matter to the
council.
John Lemley: Good evening Mayor and members of the council. My name is John Lemley. I
live at 7523 Frontier Trail. We received first notice of this with the mailing of the notice. It
happened to come at a time when we were on vacation. Have not had a chance to really discuss
it much with the neighbors but we do have some of them here. Other neighbors have been on
vacation at the same time. Now Mr. Stinson has said that he has received the Frontier
association’s approval letter but no one else has been even notified.
Kate Aanenson: Let me clarify that. He, the President dropped it off. Said he was not
representing the association.
John Lemley: Okay, okay. Of all the people I’ve talked to, no one has been talked to or had this
whole plan discussed with them in the area. By Mr. Stinson. This was also the case when we
did the quote unquote Second Addition. Now I live in the, what is the initial addition which was
supposed to be the only addition. It was supposed to be a 9 lot unique subdivision.
Architecturally unique subdivision. Since that point the owner of Lot 5, when they came to
purchase their lot, I inquired both at the city and with the builder about whether or not the
Second Addition, or what is now known as the Second Addition, didn’t think it’d ever happen
there and they were assured because of the lots, bluff lines, all that, that nothing could happen
there. So with that we know now that it’s been approved and we’ve added 3 more driveways
onto that lot. It was never discussed with any of us in that. And I’m trying to give you a little bit
of background here to, give you a feeling of why I would recommend that you turn this down. In
putting together or starting to implement the infrastructure, modifications were needed for that
second addition. Access was taken to get back in there through the private drive of Frontier
Trail. That accesses Lots 3, 4 and 5. Nobody was ever contacted about accessing through that,
and in fact trees on Lot 5 were taken down. Numerous trees were taken down on Lot 5. Even
after being requested by the owner of Lot 5, who couldn’t be here tonight, the workers continued
to work that particular lot, and then putting in the infrastructure improvements. Now we come to
this particular, or this particular subdivision. And you’ll hear from some people here tonight that
have inquired about the same lot in which they were told that that lot could not be subdivided.
16
City Council Meeting – July 25, 2005
And now it is determined that it can be subdivided, so when we initially went into, or we. The
owners of Lot 3 who were the initial owners of the 9 acre parcel which is now known as, where
this subdivision or the first addition, they went out and actually had neighborhood meetings.
Had two neighborhood meetings in which they actually brought the neighborhood in. Discussed
what they’re going to do. Let them go back. Contemplate what was going to happen. Have
them come back and give their opinions on what was going to happen. None of this has ever
occurred with either, what is now known as the Second Addition of Frontier, or now what is
being called the Third Addition. What is also not being taken into consideration is that we’ve
added now 4 new driveways onto, with the subdivision of those lot that now consist of the third,
plus the new house that was just built across the street from our private drive. Plus we’re going
to be adding this, plus there are other houses that are now looking to subdivide and build
multiple houses. I don’t know if any of you have ever say and watched that bend there. It is
very difficult, especially for people that live there, to get out of your driveway. You can look
one way. You can look another way, and as you’re starting to pull out, someone is flying around
at 40 miles an hour. And that is not only dangerous for kids, but just the other night I almost got
hit in my car and on numerous occasions have almost got hit going around there with me on my
bike. So at this point I would like to recommend that you deny this subdivision. That Mr.
Stinson be required to discuss his plans with the rest of the neighborhood. That appropriate
measures be taken to correct or to address the traffic situation that is being created there because
as you look at what’s happened along that street, everybody’s got big lots. They’re seeing
what’s happened, and don’t get me wrong. I love what Mr. Stinson does. We have a Stinson
home, okay. But what it’s creating is a situation that is becoming more and more dangerous. It
is not what people bought into. There are a number of issues that just need to be addressed. We
need to address the traffic issue. Maybe putting a speed bump. Those types of things. We’re
also concerned about the trees. The initial subdivision went through because everything was
coming off the top there. That would be the trees, the nature of what you saw coming down that
road. That’s all natural. We bring in a driveway now from Frontier, that’s going to come down.
The most recent example is the most recent house that was built there. All those trees came
down. It’s cleared off and it is now just wild flowers growing there. So I guess at this point I
would recommend that the city deny approval of this. Number two, with respect to the drainage,
I have a real concern about the drainage. With the building of the first addition, there was not
adequate fencing put up to repel the accumulation of silt in that creek way that runs, that takes
the runoff water down to Lotus Lake. Now with the addition of that Addition, the Second
Addition and…over the winter, there’s been accumulation of silt that now we have ponds that
accumulate. The ducks will actually land in. And the fear is that trees will die. We had a
similar situation in the First Addition, and I hate to call it that because again it was supposed to
be the only Addition, but the driveways, the way it was built, they’re not adequately put in there
or put in there correctly so that the driveway went down on, and killed a 100 year old oak tree,
which was not the expense of the developer. It was not expense of Mr. Stinson. It was expense
of the homeowner. Us. And that you know 100 year old oak tree, aside from the monetary
expense, which is significant, but the character of that kind of a tree is something that can’t be
replaced. And if we’re going to be, continue to approve this and look at the drainage, he’s got to
continue to finish, whether it be him or his builder partner, to finish what they’ve started. And I
guess the biggest disappointment, the lack of communication. No communication at all. And I
guess with that I’ll leave it to others that are here to talk. Thank you very much.
17
City Council Meeting – July 25, 2005
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Ralph Burrell: Mr. Mayor, council members. Again my name is Ralph Burrell. I live at 7555
Frontier Trail. I’m a neighbor of John Lemley. I would like to echo a couple of points that I just
wanted to reiterate on this particular project. We’re the third lot to buy in this particular
subdivision, which is now subdivision one, which is disappointing because it sounds like we
have a bunch of tract houses down here. Subdivision 1. Subdivision 2. Subdivision 3. To my
understanding Frontier Trail was the owners of the first 9 lots and not the next 4 lots and the next
3 lots. So first thing I’d like to see is this is no longer called Frontier Trail Subdivision 2 or Lot
3 or whatever it happens to be. Secondly I’d like to talk about the drainage. My lot is sitting on
and right now the way the drainage with all the silt that is built up in the original natural drainage
coming off of the hills there, is just ponds in my back yard and I’m starting to lose my trees, as
John indicated. Especially with all the hard rain we’ve had, it just does not drain. There is just a
huge silt pond built back there, so I view that as the responsibility of probably the builder more
than it is Mr. Stinson. And like John I appreciate what Mr. Stinson does, but I think too many of
these things are done in a vacuum these days. I think some of the things miscommunication, and
I’m glad, thank you for clarifying that to us, is not in the best interest of the homeowners that
have existed there. What we were told was going to happen to all these lots was, I know the
nature of the business, things change. Opportunities present themselves but it’s disappointing
when we don’t have a say. Now we, the last time Mr. Stinson was here we approved his lot
across the street, which would be the first house in Subdivision 3 I suspect that is now. And that
was fine. Nice homeowners there. But again too many things are done in vacuum. I think Mr.
Stinson has just taken upon himself, thinking that he can do what he wants here. I think he pretty
much gets rubber stamped sometimes from the city as to what he can do, and there is no
communication back and forth, so like Mr. Lemley I would suggest that we disapprove his
request for splitting this lot. Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Good evening.
Terry Watt: Good evening. I’m Terry Watt. I live at 7423 Frontier Trail. The summer of 2003
I decided to buy a home in Chanhassen and I went door to door passing out flyers saying would
you like to sell your house. I’d like to buy it maybe. So I went around the neighborhood,
because this is an area I really wanted to live in and I went and looked at the school systems
here. I looked at the area and it was very much similar to a home area that I lived in when I was
growing up, so I wanted to live in Chanhassen and I chose Chanhassen for the school system and
the area that you’ve established here. In the summer of 2003 I looked at a house at the end of
Great Plains, 7554 which butts up against this area that we’re talking about, and I also looked at
a house at 7520 Frontier Trail. I came into City Hall and I asked to speak with somebody about
the plan for that area, and I was specifically told that they could not build on the area adjacent to
7554 Great Plains because it did not have public access to that area. And then as I walked over
and looked at the bluff area there that’s adjacent to Frontier Trail I was specifically told by
people here in City Hall, that the lady I spoke with, that they could not build anything there
because it was a natural bluff and they could not build into a natural bluff. So I did not even
consider buying, I would not have even considered buying these homes had that been wanting to
be subdivided or had I known that that was going to be subdivided. And if I remember correctly
she said September of 2003 they decided to subdivide that, so the summer of 2003 when I was
18
City Council Meeting – July 25, 2005
buying my home, I wouldn’t have even considered buying either one of these 2 homes if I knew
that that was going to be subdivided. And that these homes were going to be so close to this and
one was on a natural bluff, and one had no access I was told to the city street. Also I did
purchase a home though on Frontier Trail at 7423 and I kind of want to piggy back, that area is
really, really well traveled and the higher speeds there, I have to walk my kids across the street to
play with their friends because when you’re coming around that corner, you cannot see around
that corner and the speeds that these people go back and forth on Frontier Trail there are
dangerous to my children. And are dangerous to the children in and around that area. Mr.
Stinson’s a very gifted man. I’ve seen his homes and they’re very beautiful but I think we need
to do something to maybe curb the amount of building that’s being built there. Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you.
Dave Howe: Mayor and Council, my name is Dave Howe. I live at 400 Santa Fe Trail. I’d like
to refer to this picture. My house is just at the edge of this access here, right at the beginning of
Western Hills, and we just moved here last summer. One of the things we really loved about the
house was looking at the woods over there, where you’re talking about putting a couple houses.
The other thing that I don’t think was really honestly told to you was, that’s not a road. That is
not a road. There’s a little circle there. That’s not like a straight road like that picture is drawn
at all. It is not like that. You can drive down there and look at it. There’s a little circle there.
And the private drive goes off of that circle. There is no road going in like that at all. There’s
just a circle there. That’s an abandoned roadway. And when they improved Santa Fe Trail last
summer they didn’t go into there because, at all, even into the circle. That’s an abandoned
roadway, so that was not honestly told. My other concern is if you put, I love those houses on
Frontier Trail. They’re really awesome but I’m concerned about pulling one up on the hill and a
big architectural mismatch between Western Hills and this high design house. I just think it will
kind of look odd. So I’m concerned about that. So those are my concerns. Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to speak at the public
hearing here? Any responses at this point Ms. Aanenson on some of the issues raised?
Kate Aanenson: Sure. There is a bluff in the area, and that is shown on this most northerly lot.
If you look on, I’ll go back to that end portion of it as you mentioned, falls onto the proposed
new lot, so nothing can be built onto the proposed new lot. So nothing can be built on this
northern part. It is a bluff.
Mayor Furlong: Why don’t you zoom out of that one, if that’s. Could you show us where the
bluff is?
Kate Aanenson: Sure. So this would be the bluff right here. So a portion of that bluff does fall
into this lot. As I indicated when this home comes in for a building permit they’ll have to show
the lot, the bluff line and the setback from the bluff itself. So you cannot build on a 30% slope.
This does meet that definition, that’s why this house is sitting here and that’s where the majority
of the trees are in this area. There is a requirement for tree canopy and tree removal. Again
there’s a 55% and the applicant is at the 57%. Again working to preserve again the majority of
the trees in this area being preserved. The driveway is being located in this portion, the most
19
City Council Meeting – July 25, 2005
southern portion of the lot. Again the trees, the majority of the trees being up in this area there.
As far as the public street, there were conditions. Again the original plat that is being recorded
has the two lots or conditions regarding improvement of that public street. That’d go with the
first plat. So that will be upgraded. It wasn’t the developer’s responsibility for that, and that
would be with this lot when that one gets built. That home. That would be covered with that.
And executed and secured with the first plat. As far as whether or not there’s going to be second
or third additions, I’ve never had that question before and limiting somebody to say you cannot
provide additional style homes, that question hasn’t been arisen before. Someone pursuing,
wanting to be in the neighborhood and continuing to expand. I’m not sure how to answer that
question, so again it does meet the ordinance requirements as far as the further subdivision so.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Any follow up questions to staff at this point? If not, is
there any, before we move too far on here. Are there any new comments from a public hearing
standpoint? People that have not spoken.
Tom Manarin: I’m Tom Manarin at 7552 Great Plains Boulevard. I am two-thirds owner of the
private drive that came up in question earlier and you know it’s not a matter of whether or not
this meets the criteria’s for separating this and whether it’s subdivision 3, 2 or 1. I guess my
question is, which I have not obtained a good explanation. I would say for at least 2 years, that’s
pretty close isn’t it Kate, that we worked on at least 6 different drawings. You had at least 3
didn’t you Charles for driveways going in. And the driveways that I’m talking about was
coming off of Santa Fe. The whole reason was is because initially there was a proposal for the 3
lots. One of the lots would cross our private drive. I said I wanted the option in the future to be
able to subdivide. At that point in time is when everything else materialized to where we had all
kinds of different drawings. Moving driveways. Changing cul-de-sacs. Going to bubbles.
Hammer handle, that is currently approved, which there again it was my understanding that in
the city’s eyes it’s a non-conforming but we’re just cleaning up what was there. All to gain
access to this lot because there was no other way of gaining access. Now all of a sudden there’s
another access off of Frontier. Why did we go through all the rigmarole and stop vacation of the
old road bed at our property to allow them to come in through the public road. And that’s what I
don’t understand. Because everywhere around everybody gained land except for myself and the
other owner that owns the third. And the reason, my understanding again was the city would not
land lock that parcel, and by vacating it past our property and not, in other words going all the
way out instead of stopping where our property is, that would land lock them. Doesn’t look to
me as if it was landlocked if you can come off of Frontier. Okay, that’s all I have. Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Comments. Or response.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, there was a drainage and utility easement through this right here. It was
determined that that probably wouldn’t be the best way, even in the back parcel where we’ve got
the private street, and I’ll go back to this gentleman’s lot which is right here. Even if you came
down so to further subdivide that, it’s going to require a variance because of the shape and the
current private drive. There’s no other way to get a public street, because our ordinances say 90
feet of fronting on a public street. So it would come off of a private drive, whether it go this way
or that way. So in looking at the original analysis of what were the best ways, whether it was
two lots, it was determined that for this lot to come off here, and the second lot to come off the
20
City Council Meeting – July 25, 2005
private street, because in doing the public bubble, and that was what he was talking about, we
looked at putting a cul-de-sac, always our first choice is to try to access it via public street. So it
was numerous iterations of looking at what’s the best way without, and the gentleman spoke to
not consuming some of his property too and providing the best access. So that goes back to the
underlying two lot plat, which this is included in. So that decision was made, the best way to
service it is to continue to allow for additional split, which would require a variance. To come
off that private drive and go back out to Great Plains or Santa Vera.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: So what I’m saying is whether there’s a public street here or not it doesn’t
reconcile the requirement for the variance on that other lot.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to speak at the public
hearing? That hasn’t spoken yet, or had an opportunity. No? If not then without objection I’ll
close the public hearing and we will bring it back to council for additional questions of staff, if
there are any. Kate, one of the issues raised was with regard to public meeting, public notice,
and maybe this is as much a question for Roger. Periodically we have open houses, we have
neighborhood information. Is that necessarily required as part of our ordinance? To do that or is
this the notification…
Kate Aanenson: This was the notification.
Mayor Furlong: For this hearing. That’s a public meeting.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: With regard to continued subdivision of these two lots, obviously the southern
one is the one that we’re dealing with tonight. The northern one, given the location of that bluff,
would you envision that it could be subdivided without a variance on the bluff?
Kate Aanenson: Without a variance, no. I wouldn’t envision that. As our current ordinance
stands today, it would require a variance.
Mayor Furlong: Alright. Okay. Okay, any other questions of staff? If not I’ll bring it to council
for discussion. Thoughts. Ladies and gentlemen.
Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor I think historically my views on subdividing lots are pretty
clear in that I’d like to minimize that throughout the city and…my reasons that the residents
primarily don’t, most of them don’t want smaller lots. They moved out here for larger lots and
more trees and so I generally look for ways to minimize subdivisions and as I look at this, they
meet the legal requirements of the subdivision and I can’t, other than just being totally out of our
ordinance and saying no, I can’t see a reason why we can legitimately and legally deny this
subdivision. I mean they aren’t asking for variances. They meet everything. It’s not really
about interpretation. It’s pretty straight forward that I don’t think we have any option but to
approve it. Roger, is that a pretty safe summary of the legal position we have to take?
21
City Council Meeting – July 25, 2005
Roger Knutson: Mayor, council members. As we’ve talked about many times in the past, this is
what you classified as a quasi judicial decision. The question is not whether you like it or not.
You’re not making policy. The question is, has this application satisfied your ordinance
requirements. That’s the question before you. Once you answer that question, if it does, then
you really do lack discretion. If you determine it meets ordinance requirements.
Councilman Peterson: So in summary then, I can’t see anything here that would, that doesn’t
meet ordinance. So to that end I think we’re obligated to move ahead.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Other comments. Discussion. Councilwoman Tjornhom.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I think the three issues with the neighbors I think are drainage, traffic
speeds and communication. Drainage issues I think that’s probably something more for our
engineering department to look at or someone that deals with that to help them out with that.
Traffic speeds, that I think is a continual problem in the city and as we grow larger and larger,
people driving and driving fast and so that too I think is a concern. Maybe when you have, I
don’t know if you’re having a, the open, what was it? The safety night out?
Mayor Furlong: National Night Out.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: National Night Out. Maybe that’s when you could address if you’re
having a party in your neighborhood, with law enforcement regarding speeds and safety in your
neighborhood. And the communication, that seems to always be a problem. Some people get
notified. Some people don’t, and I think it always, these things always go smoother when there
is communication between the developer and the neighborhood so concerns be put to rest and
people feel more at ease with what’s happening, but I have to agree that there’s nothing here that
I can vote against. It meets the requirements and so I too will support it.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman Lundquist.
Councilman Lundquist: Well my comments would be similar and again I think the
communication thing is unfortunate but the reality is, when someone has private ownership of a
piece of property and decides that they want to do something that meets ordinances and
everything else, they’re not obligated whatsoever to do any communication. Obviously getting
along with your neighbors probably would suggest that that happen, but it’s not a requirement to
do that and so as unfortunate as that may be, it is what it is and Mr. Stinson is the owner of the
property and has chosen to subdivide within our ordinances and I’m sure that he will continue to
perform as he has in the past with his architecture and other things and can’t find a reason to not
support our ordinance so I will support it as well.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman Labatt.
Councilman Labatt: I don’t disagree with any of you guys. He has a reasonable use of his
property. It’s zoned. It meets all the requirements. We unfortunately can’t stop it or delay it at
22
City Council Meeting – July 25, 2005
the request of the homeowners for lack of communication or lack of a neighborhood meeting so I
support it.
Mayor Furlong: Without reiterating, on the issues of drainage, which is one area that I continue
to receive calls on and is an area especially in this part of our city. I know the city has been
trying to work with the homeowners association and other interested residents in and around this
area in particular to try to better manage our storm water drainage. I guess I would encourage,
because there are problems there that need to be corrected, but it’s going to take cooperation of
residents, property owners along with the city to get that done and I think there’s a willingness
on the part of the city to try to do that so I would encourage those residents that spoke here
tonight about some of the problems, if they’re interested in learning more about what the city has
been trying to do in that area or to work with their neighborhoods, neighbors to talk to Ms.
Aanenson or contact the city and talk to some people because that is an area, we have various
parts of our city that have storm water issues and so the, some of the other parts we can do more
about it. Here, this is an area that developed a while ago and so there’s some more cooperation
that needs to take place. At least I’m somewhat pleased with some of our conditions on this
subdivision specifically dealing with storm water drainage in an attempt to manage control and
also slow the flow. Reduce erosion in this area as well so that would be one area that I would
encourage people to, if they’re interested in being involved or getting involved in this
neighborhood, that that would be something to do. With regard to the ordinance, this does meet
the requirements in my opinion and it’s always frustrating, I can certainly empathize with
everybody that is told something will never happen and then it happens. I mean that’s not just,
it’s always difficult to deal with change in our neighborhood but when it’s change that’s
unexpected, it’s even more difficult so we certainly understand and appreciate that. At the same
time we operate by a rule of law and those laws, those ordinances are there to protect neighbors
but also to provide, to reasonably provide people that opportunity to improve their property and
by ordinances we try to strike a balance between protecting neighboring properties and property
owners as well. So from that standpoint I would concur with fellow members of council that in
my opinion this does meet the ordinance as it sits here today but given the comments that were
made tonight, I think there’s some improvements we can make in that area that will improve
everybody’s property, both values and enjoyment of life, specifically in the storm water
management. That we have some opportunities to make some improvements in that part of our
city and I think the city stands ready to work with the associations and the neighbors to see that
that gets done. Any other thoughts or comments on this matter? Before a motion. Is there a
motion? Councilman Lundquist.
Councilman Lundquist: I would, Mr. Mayor I would move that the City Council approve the
metes and bound subdivision 05-21 of Lot 2, Block 1 Frontier Third Addition into two lots as
shown on plans stamped received June 10, 2005, subject to conditions 1 through 14 in the staff
report and the findings of fact.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion?
23
City Council Meeting – July 25, 2005
Resolution#2005-65: Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded
that the City Council approve the metes and bound subdivision (#05-21) of Lot 2, Block 1
Frontier Third Addition into two lots as shown on plans stamped “Received June 10,
2005”, subject to the following conditions:
1.Water Resources Coordinator Conditions:
a.The bluff area on the property (i.e., slope greater than or equal to 30% and a rise in slope
of at least 25 feet above the toe) shall be preserved. In addition, all structures shall
maintain a 30-foot setback from the bluff and no alterations shall occur within the bluff
impact zone (i.e., the bluff and land located within 20 feet from the top of a bluff).
b.The plans shall show a culvert under the driveway on Parcel B.
c.The applicant shall ensure adequate riprap is installed at the flared end section in the
southwest corner of Parcel A.
d.Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all graded 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 Time (Maximum time an area can
Steeper than 3:1 7 days remain open when the area
10:1 to 3:1 14 days is not actively being worked.)
Flatter than 10:1 21 days
These areas include any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water
conveyance system, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man made
systems that discharge to a surface water.
e.The plans shall show four 6” diameter biologs in the drainageway along the southern
property line (one biolog for every four feet in elevation change) from the flared end section
to the 10” ash to reduce storm water velocities and encourage sedimentation behind the
biologs. The ends of the biologs shall be pointed slightly upslope.
f.The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies
and comply with their conditions of approval.
2.Prior to building permit issuance for Parcels A and B, detailed grading, drainage, erosion
control, and tree removal plans are to be submitted to the City for review and approval.
3.Driveway grades for Parcel B will not exceed 10%. Show spot elevations.
4.Parcels A and B are to be custom graded lots.
24
City Council Meeting – July 25, 2005
5.Supply a detailed street closure and patching plan on Frontier Trail for water service hookup
to Parcel B.
6.Show 75' rock construction entrance to Parcels A and B.
7.Erosion control measures and site restoration will conform to the MPCA's "Protecting Water
Quality in Urban Areas" (BMPH). Type I silt fence is to be used in accordance with the
plans and the City of Chanhassen's Detail Plate No. 5300. Extend erosion control measures
along grading limits for driveway on Parcel B.
8.Water and sewer service for Parcel B will be constructed at the time of home construction.
9.Storm sewer, water, and sewer service for Parcel A will be constructed in conjunction with
rd
Frontier 3 Addition and all its conditions of approval.
10.All water and sewer service construction will require a permit from the City of Chanhassen's
Building Inspection Department.
11.Building Official Conditions:
a.Final grading plans and soil reports must be submitted to the Inspections Division before
building permits will be issued.
b.Both parcels must be provided with separate sewer and water services.
c.Retaining walls over 4’ high require a permit and must be designed by an engineer
licensed in the State of Minnesota.
d.The building foundations must be designed by a professional engineer due to the slope of
the property.
12.The developer shall pay full park dedication fees.
13.Typical drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated on the rear property line of Parcels
A & B.
14.Approval of this metes and bounds subdivision is contingent upon recording of the plat of
Frontier Third Addition.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
None.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
25