CC Minutes 1-9-06
City Council Meeting - January 9,2006
about the marketing study and the value that that's going to have across the entire city, especially
in the.. . like this where we are looking at rezoning and location so. Thank you. I guess with that,
ifthere's no motion by the council we'll just look forward to receiving the additional information
in the time that we've discussed and allow the approval of last meeting to stand. Okay, thank
you.
ORCHARD GREEN. 2611 & 2621 ORCHARD LANE. PETER KNAEBLE: REQUEST
FOR SUBDIVISION REVIEW FOR 4 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Steve Lynch
Matt Pavek
John Dragseth
Jacqueline A. Dorsey
5225 Park Avenue
7110 Plymouth Avenue No, Golden Valley
2600 Forest Avenue
311 So. Water Street, Northfield
Kate Aanenson: Thank you. The applicant is requesting to subdivide 2.02 acre parcel into 4
single family homes. Just so you know when it originally came in with an additional lot, the
staff did work looking at house sizes and reduced it down to 4. This item did appear before the
Planning Commission on December 6th to review the plat and the Planning Commission voted 5-
o to approve the request. I believe there's a little bit of controversy regarding dispute on the
property line and why that condition was removed. It's stated right here in the staff report,
typically the city does not, because we're not the interested party in this property line dispute,
would not make that a condition of approval because in our opinion based on the amount of
property in dispute, the lot, the plat would still go forward with the additional right-of-way being
removed, and I'll just show you that real quick here... If we were to lay this out the same, this is
the area in red that's in dispute. So even if that property was removed from the plat itself, the
lots would still meet all the minimum requirements of the setback so if there is a dispute, and that
property was to go away, you could still meet all those standards of the one part of the plat could
be added administratively later so it's really a civil matter that, so we addressed it in the cover
memo. It was a Planning Commission item. Again we don't hold up a plat for that so that's why
we moved, removed and put to the front of the agenda on the cover memo so we did address it.
It wasn't dropped. We just explained how we did that. With that I'll just go through the plat
quickly. There's no street improvements for existing streets for the property so the 3 lots will
have access via Orchard and the other one off of Forest. The average lot size is 22,000 so again
kind of moving in that direction of little bit bigger lots for executive homes. There are no
wetlands on the site. With this plat we're looking at providing some additional easement for
ponding in the future. There is some water issues in the area so with that we're not putting a
pond in at this time but we're accommodating a drainage easement so in the future as we work
through those issues, we can accommodate potentially a future pond, so they will be paying
some ponding and quality fees through the subdivision. Again there are services in the area.
Existing lots. It needs to be additional service line but that would be accommodated. Parks and
trails, there is a park in the immediate vicinity so we'll just be taking park and trail fees. There
will be some tree replacement and approximately 19 trees to be replaced. All the lots do meet
32
City Council Meeting - January 9, 2006
the requirements of the city ordinance as far as area, frontage, depth and impervious surface so
with that it appears to be a pretty clean subdivision. We are recommending approval with the
conditions in the staff report starting on page 8.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff. If there are any.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: It looks like the area is small enough so where like the hard surface
coverage and stuff, that wouldn't affect any amount.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, that lot is, that lot itself is 26,000 square feet so there should be adequate.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay.
Mayor Furlong: Alright. Is the applicant here this evening? Would you like to address the
council on any issue?
Matt Pavek: Council members, Mr. Mayor, my name is Matt Pavek with Terra Engineering.
I'm one of the engineers and developers on the project and we just would like to say we concur
with the staff report and available for any questions if you have any. Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions of the applicant? Thank you. Appreciate you being
here. Okay, is there any? There was a public hearing conducted at the Planning Commission.
And so this is not necessarily, we don't hold the public hearing here but if there is any issue or
public comment because of issues that have changed between the staff report and the Planning
Commission or here, or anything else, certainly we'd like to hear that public comment as well.
John Dragseth: Mayor, council members. 2600 Forest Avenue which is the property to the
south. Southeast. I'm not prepared to address any substantive issues today because of the
change. I first learned of this change this morning and therefore I don't know what to say in
response to what the staff has said. I haven't had time to prepare that. What I'd like to address
is procedure that occurred. The Planning Commission met and was presented by the city staff
and the city staff inserted condition number 22 and presented it to the Planning Commission.
That was all the Planning Commission saw. That's all that they approved. I did not notice until
this morning when looking at the presentation that would be given to the council that 22 had
disappeared as a condition. That is something the Planning Commission was never shown.
Never voted on. I don't know what exactly why it was removed and moved to the cover page as
I understand, but it was removed as a condition. I think it makes sense as a condition and when
he, city staff first presented it I agreed to it and therefore I didn't say anything at the Planning
Commission about it. Did not have an opportunity to object to it at that time because it wasn't an
issue in the case. Did not have an opportunity to go through the appeal process from the
Planning Commission because it was never an issue in this case. Learned about it for the first
time this morning. Now it's interesting when they first added it, the city staff first added it I
asked why did you add it in that way and they said well because it's a private issue. A civil issue
and so we'll just put it on there. Developer can take care of it as a private, civil issue as a
preliminary to final plat. When I talked to city staff today and said why did you take it off, same
reason. It's a civil issue, a private issue. And apparently is now shifting the burden to me to take
33
City Council Meeting - January 9,2006
care of it instead of the developer seeking approval from the city. I think that is an improper and
probably legally infirm, although I haven't been able to research this approach to doing this.
There is, now granted a city can take any approach that they want within reason to approve these
processes, but once you put rules and process in place you have to follow that process. That's
my general understanding of the rules. I don't believe that process has been followed here. 22 is
dropped without review of the Planning Commission. Without an opportunity to comment on it
and then suddenly without notice put in a cover letter and said as a condition today. It's also the
dropping of it is questionable because the same reason for dropping it was the reason that was
given for putting it on in the first place. Seems arbitrary, capricious to drop it at this point. Not
sure why staff decided to drop it after they previously on their own motion put it in in the first
place. I guess I'm kind of curious about what the basis for that, and ultimately it's infirm
because there was no notice for the change. I first found out about it this morning. Called staff
immediately mid-morning. Didn't get a response until after lunch when I actually called staff
again and asked you know was this a mistake because I understand 22 was added right before the
Planning Commission meeting. Kind of given an indication well no, it's in there and I was
shown it was in the cover letter. Part of the problem is, if you ever look at the cover letter on the
web site all you see is a big black maple leaf because the watermark on the city stationary blacks
out everything that's on the cover letter, so I didn't know about this change of any sort until
really 2:00 p.m. this afternoon. I would say that that's not adequate notice. So what I would
propose to the City Council is that City Council approve the plan, the plat, preliminary plat as
proposed to the Planning Commission and the same plat that the Planning Commission
approved, and not shift the burden to clear up this civil issue onto somebody who is not seeking
approval for the City Council's vote. Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Comments or reaction.
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, I'd like to have the city attorney explain or verify if any processes have
been violated since the Planning Commission's action on this.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Roger Knutson: Mayor, members of the council. There's no process that's been violated. The
Planning Commission makes a recommendation to you and you take that into consideration.
What the recommendation to you was is not in dispute and has not been concealed from you.
You know what it was. It had that condition in there. Staff is recommending that that condition
be deleted. It's not unusual for the Planning Commission to recommend one thing and the staff
to recommend something slightly different. And if I could just comment further on the dispute.
First, the City as you know is not in a position to resolve property line disputes. I can issue an
opinion and say here's my opinion where it is, and that's nice but the parties aren't bound by it.
I'm not ajudge. This body is not, does not have authority to resolve property line disputes. So
what we do is look at information to make sure a stranger to the title for example isn't walking in
here and saying I want to plat some property. We make sure you have an ownership interest in
the property. And then here we have looked at it and this property, so you know, is Torrens
property. There was a proceeding a number of years ago with this very issue, at least the record
was resolved. Now someone can always challenge that later and the adjoining property owner if
he chooses to challenge it, that's the adjoining property owners' prerogative to do so. From our
34
City Council Meeting - January 9, 2006
perspective as a city we look at, is this something that should hold up approval, and our
judgment is no. That if someone wants to bring this on further and have it resolved, there's
mechanisms to do that. There are courts. We don't think it should up the plat.
Councilman Peterson: Do we even have a legal right to stop that? Isn't that kind of your point?
Roger Knutson: Yes. That's my point.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
John Dragseth: Is it possible to address two of those points quickly?
Mayor Furlong: Certainly, please. Keep it brief.
John Dragseth: First point, it may not be unusual for city staff to disagree with the Planning
Commission. What is unusual is for city staff to recommend a point. The Planning Commission
to approve it, and then city staff without any explanation to remove that exact same condition
that they put in themselves. Second point on the Torrens. There are two types of Torrens. It
wasn't mentioned. If you read the Chapter 508.23 of the Minnesota Statute you can do a simple
Torrens where you register the property in general. There's also a registration of the boundary.
This property did not have the boundary registered. Thank you.
Jacqueline Dorsey: My name is Jacqueline Dorsey of Visten, Dahl, Marsh and Dorsey, 311
South Water Street, Northfield. I am counsel for Sandra and Dwayne Johnson. They are the
current owners of the property. I just wanted to bring up a couple of issues. First of all Mr.
Knutson is correct that the Johnson's own Torrens property. It was registered, almost 16 years
ago. The Johnsons agree with the new recommendation of the Planning, of the city planner that
item number 22 be deleted requiring a resolution of that property dispute. I believe that they're
correct in their assessment. First of all it would be extremely dangerous, again as Mr. Knutson
pointed out, if anyone could come in and say I have a concern about a boundary line or I think
part of that property belongs to me and every subdivision that comes before this council would
roll to a stand still. It would also be changing the course of the current laws which require
someone who has a boundary dispute and believes that they have an interest in the property, right
now they have the responsibility to take some action if they believe they need to protect their
property. Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Sir, you have a public comment on this entire project, the proposed
subdivision? Very good, thank you. With that, are there any follow up questions for staff or for
the applicant? Okay. Then we'll bring it back to council for discussion. Thoughts or comments.
Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Mayor I think, like you said, pretty straight forward. We don't
often see ones that come along that are this straight forward without a lot of the stuff, especially
Kate like you said before with what's left in the city. They're usually the more difficult ones so,
and as far as the condition in or not in. I did see this condition 22 when I looked at the Planning
Commission verbatim things and along with Mr. Knutson and staff, I'd say it's, since Mr. Ayotte
isn't here anymore I would venture that we don't have a dog in that fight so. Regardless of
35
City Council Meeting - January 9, 2006
whether 22 is in or not, I think I would, I would have recommended that it be removed anyway
so that point, anyway. So I think cut and dried. Pretty cut and dried here. No issues and support
the proposal as published in the final staff report with conditions.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Other comments, discussion.
Councilman Labatt: I would echo Mr. Lundquist in supporting the conditions 1 through 21.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Councilman Peterson: As well as I.
Mayor Furlong: Same? Very good, thank you. Without restating the issues, the subdivision
does meet ordinance and that's what we're looking for and it went through the process with the
Planning Commission adopting approval. I do agree with Councilman Lundquist with regard to
that last condition and the reason that it would likely not be approved as well. That's not, those
types of conditions and proposals have come before this council that I've been involved in and
they've come out each time so. With that, is there a motion? To approve, which I believe begins
on.
Councilman Labatt: Move approval for.
Mayor Furlong: Do you have a page number?
Councilman Labatt: Preliminary Plat for Case 05-42, subject to the following conditions 1
through 21 in the staff report dated.
Mayor Furlong: Today.
Councilman Labatt: January 9th.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilwoman Tjomhom: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none we'll
proceed with the vote.
Councilman Labatt moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council
approve preliminary plat for Planning Case 05-42, Orchard Green for 4 single family lots
as shown on the plans prepared by Terra Engineering and stamped "Received November
4,2005", subject to the following conditions:
1. Applicant shall submit a landscaping plan showing 19 trees as replacement plantings. Plan
shall specify size, species, and locations.
36
City Council Meeting - January 9,2006
2. All areas outside of grading limits shall be protected by tree preservation fencing. Fencing
shall be installed prior to grading and excavation for homes on each lot. Any trees shown as
preserved that are removed or damaged shall be replaced at a rate of 2: 1 diameter inches.
3. The water and sanitary hook-ups for lot 2 must be moved to the driveway in order to preserve
the 12" maple.
4. The developer must obtain all permits necessary to remove the existing homes.
5. The grading plan must be revised as follows:
a. All proposed contours must tie in to existing contours, particularly the 992',990' and
988' contours on the west side of Lot 1; and the 996', 994' and 992' contours on the east
side of Lot 3.
b. Staff recommends that the low floor elevations for Lots 1 and 2 be lowered one foot to
achieve an 8 foot walkout. Staff recommends that steps be installed in the garage on Lots
3 and 4 to achieve an 8 foot walkout.
c. A drainage breakpoint elevation must be shown northeast of the building pad corner on
Lot 3.
6. Hydrology calculations must be submitted and shall include pre- and post-development
volume and peak discharge rates for the 2, 10 and 100 year rainfall events.
7. Any proposed retaining wall over four feet high requires a building permit and must be
designed by a Professional Engineer registered in the State of Minnesota.
8. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will
be required to supply the City with a detailed haul route and traffic control plan.
9. The developer must acquire a Work in Right of Way Permit from the Engineering
Department before commencing work in the right of way and shall submit a financial
security to ensure that Orchard Lane and Forest A venue are properly restored after the
services have been installed.
10. The developer shall pay the $29,298.00 trunk and lateral water and sewer fees in cash with
the final plat or assess them to the lots within the proposed development. The lateral
connection charges can be assessed at 8% for 8 years. The trunk hookup charges can be
assessed at 8% for 4 years.
11. Detailed grading, drainage, tree removal and erosion control plans must be submitted with
the building permit for each lot.
12. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies must be obtained, including but not limited
to the MPCA and the Watershed District.
37
City Council Meeting - January 9,2006
13. 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:
Time
Type of Slope (maximum time an area can remain unvegetated
when area is not activelv beinl!: worked)
Steeper than 3: 1 7 Days
10:1 t03:1 14 Days
Flatter than 10: 1 21 Days
These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any exposed
soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter
system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man
made systems that discharge to a surface water.
14. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street
sweeping as-needed.
15. The plans shall be revised to show the location(s) of the rock construction entrance(s).
16. The plans shall be revised to expand the drainage and utility easement in a straight line from
the point where the 978 elevation intersects the east lot line of Lot 4, Block 1, to where the
978 elevation intersects the 20' sanitary sewer easement at the southern edge of Lot 4, Block
1. Standard drainage & utility easements shall be dedicated in all other locations.
17. Based on the proposed developed area of approximately 2.02 acres, the water quality fees
associated with this project are $2,208; the water quantity fees are approximately $5,464. At
this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat
recording, is $7,672.
18. In the absence of parkland dedication, it is recommended that Orchard Green pay full park
dedication fees at the rate in force upon final platting. At today's rate, these fees would total
$16,000 (4 lots x $4,000).
19. Demolition permits must be obtained before demolishing any existing structures.
20. Provide a clean out on the sewer service for Lot 3.
21. Final grading plans and soil reports must be submitted to the Inspections Division before
building permits will be issued.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to O.
38