Loading...
CC Minutes 2-13-06 City Council Meeting - February 13,2006 Councilman Labatt: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on that motion? Resolution #2006-13: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that the City Council order the improvements and preparation of plans and specifications for City Project 06-01. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to O. Mayor Furlong: And thank you everyone for coming to the public hearings and public meetings. I would encourage staff to, and I know they will, continue to work with the residents over the life of this project. We will be seeing this again and appreciate everybody's comments as well. Given the time, let's take a short recess subject to the call of the Chair. (The City Council took a short recess at this point in the meeting.) ORCHARD GREEN. 2611 & 2621 ORCHARD LAND. PETER KNAEBLE: FINAL PLAT APPROVAL AND APPROVAL OF PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS & DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT. Todd Gerhardt: I'll take this one Mr. Mayor. The applicant has asked that this item be placed back on the agenda that he may ask you to reconsider staff's recommendation on extension of sewer, stub sewer lines. Staff continues to say our practice has been to extend that sewer line to the property line. I think the City Attorney also sent a letter to the applicant explaining that. However he wanted to come before you and request that assistance. So with that I would ask the applicant to come and speak before you. Peter Knaeble: Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council. We realize it's late and we'll be brief in, or I'll be brief in my comments and I appreciate the time tonight. My name is Peter Knaeble with Terra Engineering and we're responsible for the development. We're also the developers of this small project in Chanhassen. We've been working with the staff for a number of months and just want to reiterate, I think we mentioned this at Planning Commission, also at City Council as part of the preliminary plat that the staff, engineering and planning staff has been very cooperative all through the process as we've been going through, so we appreciate that and one ofthe things we want to note, especially compared to the other staff's work with a number of cities around the Twin Cities is that, with the cooperation and the fact that they will even return phone calls when you call, which is not unlike a lot of the staffs that we work with so we appreciate that. It's just, there's two items that we want to bring up tonight. One is the extension of the sanitary sewer and again we understand the staff's position. We just want to bring it in front of the City Council for final reconsideration of that point. And the second item we want to talk about and have again a second or final consideration from the City Council is the calculation of the park fees. So those two things are what we want clarification of from council tonight. Again in regards to the sanitary sewer issue, again we don't want to necessarily beat a dead horse but we think there's, or will be inordinate costs assigned to this project as a part of this sewer extension. Our calculation or our estimates from our contractor's about a $60,000 cost assigned to these 4 lots is approximately $15,000 additional cost per lot. Again the basis and the 40 City Council Meeting - February 13, 2006 requirement of staff is to extend the sanitary sewer on Orchard Lane about 185 feet. The way we are proposing to serve the 4 lots on this project. 2 lots have existing services. We're proposing to build 2 new services. The service for Lot 3, we propose to come in from the south side. There's a sewer extension or existing sewer system on the south part of the property that would accommodate that. The reason we're doing that is, there's a couple of reasons. One, there would be no tree removal or significantly less tree removal as a part of that service. It would be a shallower service so less cost to do that for the service on Lot 3. We understand again from the staff that coming in a rear of a lot versus the front of a lot and having an easement across Lot 4 is not the usual situation but it's a reasonable alternative from our point of view. And we would plat an easement as part of that. So given the fact that we want the sanitary sewer easement, prefer the sanitary sewer easement in the back, or the sewer service in the back of Lot 4, we don't see the need to extend that service on Orchard Lane. And in fact that 185 foot sewer is going to benefit the property on the north side of Orchard Lane versus our property so that's the basis for our request for your review and reconsideration as part of the City Council. Again we leamedjust recently that in the past project, or the property across the street had been approved for a lot split and as a part of that approval from the City Council they required that property to extend that service as part of that. The staff report requirements to accommodate that lot split. That has not been done to date, but we would expect that that project gets reactivated. That requirement or that project would be required so again we see the benefits for the north, not to the south. That is again one kind of a quick synopsis of that item and we can talk about that a little bit. Second of all I just want to make a brief comment on this. The calculation of the park fees for this project, and I think the council is aware of what the issue is. It's our interpretation of the city ordinance that the park fees are based on the number of new lots, not the number of whole lots created as a part of a project. We're proposing.. . from 4 lots but it has 2 existing homes on it. So our interpretation is that we should be assessed for 2 additional park fees. Not 4 fees. And the reason we say that is that's consistent with what the City's done in the past. A couple projects that we were charge or assessed just that way. Both Crestview and Highview were assessed only for the new lots and the existing homes were excluded as part of that, so we would like similar consideration on this project. And again, those are the two issues. We realize it's late so we would just respectfull y ask reconsideration of those two items. Mayor Furlong: Okay. I guess probably the first thing to do is let's understand what staff is recommending, or asking for inclusion and then, and the reasons for it. Paul Oehme: Thank you Mayor, City Council members. This project is, I don't know, it's about 3 months in now and it's, the sewer and the services to this development have evolved over this timeframe. When the developer first came in, he had proposed to extend service basically from this manhole. These are the three lots. Orchard Lane would be, sits right here. Here's the black for the new development. Originally they proposed coming to service Lot 3 via the manhole that currently exists out there and crossing this property line. Staff had recommended that the, as we have in all developments that the sewer is extended to the property, the farthest property so that new developments can take off from there and not disturb the existing properties in front of the utilities. We had recommended putting a manhole here. They came back with setting a manhole just past the service line here to Lot 3, and they had originally you know agreed to that. Agree to that proposal. That manhole, which was, which they had proposed was about 43 feet from the manhole that is shown here at the property line. The new proposal from Terra Engineering is the 41 City Council Meeting - February 13, 2006 sewer extension from Lot 3 to the back of the lot through Lot 4. This is a sub-standard design in my estimation and is problematic for future service, or maintenance in the future as well. Whenever we have an opportunity to service a property correctly with perpendicular service lines, you know going directly into the house, those are the type of services and designs that we like to see so. You know we're consistent with other developments that we've built here in the past, and we'd just like consideration on this project as well. The gentleman did bring up the fact that the property to the north has subdivided and at that time, when that subdivision went through he was required to extend the sewer past the original location here. That was never extended and no letters of credit were obtained at that time. We have changed our practice since then. It was I think 10 years ago. Now we require that letter of credits are issued before any permits are released or projects are approved so that in the event that the developer walks away from the project, the City has the funds then to build the infrastructure at a later date so. That's kind of the synopsis and the reasons why we're proposing the design as it is. This is, I'm showing you the plan that Terra had put together too. This is not the City's drawings. This is the actual engineer's drawing that is working on this project. Mayor Furlong: I guess a question then, it looks like, if you can put that back up please. Right now there's a manhole. Is the middle out there with the 3-2? Is that, or of the 3 lots, is the middle one 2? Paul Oehme: Middle one's 2. Mayor Furlong: Okay thank you. Right now the sewer line extends to it in front of the second lot, is that correct? Paul Oehme: Correct. Mayor Furlong: And your initial request was that it extend all the way across Lot 3. From engineering standpoint, correct? Paul Oehme: Yes. Mayor Furlong: We said well we don't want to go that far. Paul Oehme: Correct. Mayor Furlong: Why wouldn't you go that far? Paul Oehme: To, where it's shown here? Mayor Furlong: Yeah. Paul Oehme: That's where we're requesting it. Mayor Furlong: Is that what's included in this right now? 42 City Council Meeting - February 13, 2006 Paul Oehme: That's the request and that's the condition that we're proposing. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Paul Oehme: And you know, they had previously had approved, or had requested that the manhole stop just short of this service line here. That's, you know so they had originally requested that. That's about 43 feet from where we're talking about manhole 1 here. It's not $60,000. It's, that extension is more like $8,800 to extend that sewer main another 43 feet so. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions for staff on this matter? Councilwoman Tjomhom: Are we discussing the sewer right now? Mayor Furlong: Well if you've got quick questions for Paul because then we're going to go over to Mr. Hoffman for the Park and Rec. Councilwoman Tjomhom: No, that's. Mayor Furlong: Just questions at this point. Clarify questions. Okay, thank you. Mr. Hoffman, on the park fees. Todd Hoffman: Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council. State law, city code allows for the collection of park dedication fees at the time of subdivision. In this case you have 2 existing homes that are going to be combined with other property or 4 new lots. The 2 existing homes did not pay park dedication fees and so by that we're making a recommendation that all 4 pay park dedication fees. There has been instances, Mr. Knaeble is correct, where it has not been charged and when that has been done, it occurred in error. There also have been plenty of plats that have come through where there's been existing homes in subdivisions where we've charged that fee to that existing home. Councilman Lundquist: Todd, can you give me an example of one where we, on an existing home where there was a subdivision where we did collect park dedication fee. Todd Hoffman: Just have to go to a file and pull them out. Not off the top of my head I cannot, no. Todd Gerhardt: I typically don't see those. Sorry. Councilwoman Tjomhom: When you said that the home, the 2 original homes didn't pay park dedication fees, when were they built? Like in the 60's or 50's or something or? Where that wasn't the general practice. Todd Hoffman: Park dedication fees have been around in this city since about the mid 1980's. Councilwoman Tjomhom: Okay. 43 City Council Meeting - February 13,2006 Mayor Furlong: At this point, and this is 2 lots being combined to create 4. 2 existing homes going to 4. But our normal subdivision process, maybe this is a question, because these fees are generated out of our subdivision ordinances, is that correct? Roger Knutson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. In a normal subdivision process, if we've got a, I mean if we've got 20 acres or 15 acres or 40 acres being subdivided and there's an existing resident on there, my experience has been that we haven't given a credit back for that first house. Is that the issue here? Roger Knutson: That's right, they're asking for a credit because there are existing houses. The response is, our subdivision ordinance says it's based on the number of lots in your plat, and then these lots are in the plat and we would give them a credit had they previously paid. You don't want to. Mayor Furlong: And that we have done before? Similar to our utility fees and. Roger Knutson: There's no credit due because the park dedication charge was never paid for these homes before. Councilman Lundquist: What did we do on Carlson's property? Pemtom building a park south of Lake Lucy. Or Mancino's property that we had up there? Councilman Labatt: Well I think those homes were destroyed. Todd Gerhardt: Well no, Mr. Carlson's home. Councilman Labatt: But the Mancino's house was moved... Mayor Furlong: The question is whether they paid before or not. Councilman Labatt: Well her house was there before 1988. Councilman Lundquist: Well right, which is the same scenario as this one. Todd Gerhardt: And the key thing is, is was the property subdivided. I don't believe the Mancino property was subdivided when that home was built. She bought a 20, or I don't know if she did, but somebody previously to her bought a 20 acre parcel and built a home. The only time that this ordinance kicks in is if you go through the subdivision process. And under the Pemtom one, he should have paid for the creation of that existing lot that Mr. Carlson's house is now sitting on. Councilman Lundquist: Right, I mean that's similar one to this where, the house sits a lot, I mean yeah it's 40 acres or 80, whatever the parcel was. The house was built there. It's still sitting there on a lot that was newly created as part of the subdivision. The house was there 44 City Council Meeting - February 13, 2006 previous to park dedication fee collection. It's the same thing. Bigger scale obviously but same thing. Same with Mancino's. That house was there a long time ago on a 20 acre parcel but they sell the property.. . Mayor Furlong: But the park dedication, whatever number of lots, as I'm hearing staff tell us here, whatever number of lots were created, that's how it's based. Councilman Lundquist: Yeah but there again, it's one big 20 acre parcel. You cut it into, you know whatever it was, 40 lots or 37, whatever we made out of that thing, there's you know similar circumstances. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other questions? For staff on either of these two matters. Is there any discussion? Councilman Peterson: I think that the.. . disagree with staff that we're setting, we already have set precedence and I understand there's a little gray area but not when it comes to what we've done and what we've tentatively tried to do is so I respect they asked for reconsideration but... Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other discussion? Councilwoman Tjomhom: I have to support staff too that the sewer project just seems to certainly make sense that we would do that and the ordinance, an ordinance is an ordinance. If that's what our ordinance says then I, I have to follow that ordinance. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman Lundquist. Councilman Lundquist: This sewer thing I think is a cut and dry for me. I'm not at all in favor of granting easements across somebody else's property for your, for another house. I think you're setting yourself up for issues down the line. Seems like a pretty standard thing. I guess the cost of doing business when you're developing new developments and I'll go with staff's recommendation on the park dedication fees although Todd, I'll give you a call and check into the ones and just for my own edification, just to make sure that we're being consistent there so, for now I'll go with that and then do some follow-up and we'll see where we at. So I'm in favor of staff's recommendation. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Labatt: I concur with staff. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Well I as well and to Councilman Lundquist's point, just confirming the policy that we have in the past and there may have been some oops in the past but I think Councilman Peterson made the comment that that's not the intent so, I think here it's clearly that this is the intent and so with regard to the dedication fees, to me there's not, we shouldn't be spending any time on the sewer. The staff is designing the city and doing it well and that's the right way to go so. Any further discussion or is there a motion to approve? 45 City Council Meeting - February 13,2006 Councilman Peterson: Motion to approve. Mayor Furlong: Motion's been made to approve staff's recommendation in the staff report for both items (a) and (b). Kate Aanenson: Can I make a clarification on one motion. This is for final plat so your recommendation actually follows on page 7. Mayor Furlong: Do you want us to read it? Kate Aanenson: Well you can just, the motion should be approving the final plat and the motion's in the... Mayor Furlong: The development contract and. Kate Aanenson: Correct, in the recommendation. Councilman Peterson: As is usually the case, that's what I meant to say. Mayor Furlong: And the minutes will so reflect what Councilman Peterson meant to say. Okay, so Councilman Peterson has made a motion. Granting final plat approval as presented in the staff report on page 7, is that fair? Kate Aanenson: Can I just double check with Paul...it refers to plans and specs. I'm assuming that plans and specs are with the sewer. Paul Oehme: Yep. Mayor Furlong: Plans and specs with the sewer the way he wants it. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And was there a second to that? Councilman Labatt: Second. Mayor Furlong: Councilman Labatt, thank you. Motion's been made and seconded. Is there any discussion? Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that the City Council grants final plat approval of Planning Case #05-42 Orchard Green, for 4 single-family lots as shown on the plat stamped 'Received January 23, 2006' and construction plans stamped 'Received January 26, 2006', 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. 46 City Council Meeting - February 13, 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 comer on Lot 3. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. Detailed grading, drainage, tree removal and erosion control plans must be submitted with the building permit for each lot. 10. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies must be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA and the Watershed District. 11. 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 actively being worked) Steeper than 3:1 7 Days 47 City Council Meeting - February 13, 2006 10:1 to 3:1 Flatter than 10: 1 14 Da~s 21 Da s 12. 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. 13. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as-needed. 14. The plans shall be revised to show the location(s) of the rock construction entrance(s). 15. Based on the proposed developed area of approximately 2.02 acres, the water quality fees associated with this project are $3,232; the water quantity fees are approximately $5,858. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $9,090. 16. 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 $23,200 (4 lots x $5,800). 17. The developer shall install lateral sanitary sewer to the east property line. The cost to complete this work is the developer's responsibility. 18. The developer shall pay the $10,544.00 lateral water connection charge with the final plat. 19. The first two building permits issued for this development will be charged the trunk sanitary sewer and water hook up charges and the $1,575.00 SAC fee. 20. Demolition permits must be obtained before demolishing any existing structures. 21. Provide a cleanout on the sewer service for Lot 3. 22. The site must be mass-graded. The developer must post a security for this work with the final plat. 23. 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. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that the City Council approve the construction plans and specifications for Orchard Green dated January 20, 2006, prepared by Terra Engineering, Inc. and the development contract dated February 1, 2006, conditioned upon the following: 48 City Council Meeting - February 13,2006 1. The applicant shall enter into the development contract and supply the City with a cash escrow or letter of credit in the amount of $66,589 and pay a cash fee of $44,937.50. 2. The applicant's engineer shall work with city staff in revising the construction plans to meet City standards. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to O. CONSIDERA TION OF CHANGE ORDER TO HIGHWAY 212 PROJECT OF THE POWERS BOULEVARD BRIDGE IMPROVEMENTS. Paul Oehme: Thank you Mayor, City Council. The, just wanted to apologize for the late notice on this. We did receive a quote on these improvements very late in the game here. We have been working with MnDot and design road contractor to try to get these costs to us sooner but. Councilman Lundquist: They're too busy hauling dirt all night. Paul Oehme: It's been a struggle. Todd Gerhardt: And driving through the Lake Susan development. Paul Oehme: So anyway, the improvements that have council consider tonight is installing footing foundations or blisters and conduit in the Powers Boulevard bridge section that's being built in connection with the 212 project. That bridge is currently being built right now as we speak at this location here. The pilings have been done. The beams are in place and they're starting to work on forming the decking right now. One of the improvements that we, staff has talked about was to facilitate a future lighting of that bridge, and the bridge is shown on this sheet here. North is this way. There's bridge sections here. This is westbound 212 and eastbound's over here. Trail's on the west side. 10 foot wide trail. And to facilitate potential lighting on the bridge, we have asked.. .MnDot to do us a cost of putting in the foundations and the conduit and those are shown in the highlighted areas. There's 7 in total for, on the trail side and 3 on the opposite side of the bridge. Now is the time if council wants to put lights on this bridge, now's the time to at least consider putting in the infrastructure to make that happen in the future. We don't have to put in lights at this time but it's very problematic to put in the foundations, the blisters and the conduit in the future. The cost for that, those improvements in your background are $46,500 to pay for that. For those improvements at this time. And the funding would come from the state aid loan agreement that the city has entered in with to fund, to pay for the improvements that are being built in conjunction with the 212 project. So at this time I stand for questions. Give maybe a better idea of what a blister is. This is the bridge section here. Railing is along the bridge section and the... would actually sit out in back of the wall section so. Mayor Furlong: Okay, good. Any questions for staff? 49