1988 05 09CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 9, 1988 ·
Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.. The meeting was
opened with the Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCI~ERS PRESENT: Councilman Horn, Councilman Geving and Councilman
Johnson
COU~I~~S ~~: Co~i~nBO~
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Gary Warren, Barbara Dacy, Todd Gerhardt, Lori
Siets~ma, Larry Brown and Jim Chaffee
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Geving seconded to
approve the agenda with the following additions: Mayor Hamilton stated that
it~n 11 was misstated. Item 11 has been deleted and its 13 (a) is the it~n
stated as it~n 11. Councilman Horn wanted to discuss oak wilt under Council
Presentation and Councilman Geving wanted to discuss recognition under Countil
Presentation. All voted in favor of the agenda as amended and motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA:
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the following
Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager' s rec(mmendations:
b. Approval of Plans and Specifications for Eight Acre Woods.
c. Approval of Sc/rw-aba-Winchell Develol~uent Contract.
f. Approval of Fireworks Permit for JUly 4, Minnewashta Homeowners
Association, Bill Naegele.
g. Accounts Payable dated May 9, 1988
h. City Council Minutes dated April 25, 1988
Planning Cc~nission ~=eting dated April 6, 1988
Planning Omn~isison Meeting dated April 2~, 1988
i. Approval of C~ble Television Ownership Transfer.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING: MOVING PERMIT, 6701 MINNEWASHTA ~Y, THOMAS BICKr.R.
Barbara Dacy: The proposed house to be moved is and was constructed at the
Hennepin Technical Center over in ~den Prairie. The proposed structure's
exterior consists of wood siding. It's approximately 1,344 square feet plus a
two car attached garage. Both the Building Inspector and myself inspected the
home and it's in a brand new condition. It will require the State Seal as well
~y Council Mseting - May 9, 1988
as meeting the Uniform Building Code. ~ne proposed move would take place
during the week of May 15th and the proposed location for the new home is on
Minnewashta Parkway opposite the intersection of Maple Lane and Minnewashta
Parkway just south of the Larkin h~me. The new address would be 6701
Minnewashta Parkway. ~ne site was graded in conjunction with the home that was
built to the north. This is a Certificate of Survey of the lot showing the
proposed location of the home. Tae home can meet the required lake and front
yard setback requirements. According to the ordinance the Council has the
ability to establish conditions with the moving permit application and they
also have to determine if the structure is in compliance with the UBC, is well
maintained, in a good state of repair, meets the zoning ordinance requirements
and the building will not materially depreciate surrounding property values.
Staff finds that all of these conditions can be met. We have established
however six conditions for approval for Council consideration. One of them
being compliance with the public safety director's memorandum dated May 5th
regarding the t~me of the move and receiving all necessary County and State
permits. Secondly, during construction Type II erosion control be constructed
on-site and to improve the existing erosion control that's out there now, as
well as conducting soil borings and working with the City Engineer's office
regarding the location of the manhole in the southwest corner of the site.
I know the applicant is here and the ordinance does require a public hearing.
The property owner to the north sukmitted to my office today a letter in
support of the application which I handed out.
Mayor Hamilton called the public hearing to order.
Tc~ Bickle: I believe you have some photocopies of pictures I'd like to
sukmit. I'd ask this to be returned. This is the appraisal, independent
appraisal for the construction loan. I'd like to suk~it the photos for you.
Craig Courtney: I'm the president of the Pleasant Acres Homeowners Association
who has the access lot just to the south of this proposed site. First off, I
don't have any cc~plaints and a majority of the homeowners are in favor of this
house being placed here. The problem I want to address is the south border of
his lot and the north border of our lot, we're having a considerable amount of
erosion problems. Because it is at the slope of the Minnewashta Parkway and it
takes all the run-off basically frcm that development. We're trying to correct
part of our problem now and I want to make sure, it was stated that there was
erosion control but I would like to make sure that there is something done.
With the difference in elevations where the manhole is now I understand is
going to come down, but the grading of that lot towards the lake access lot has
some of us concerned. If ~ try to do something to control the erosion that's
natural from the road and then ~ have a lot next door that's adding more run-
off to our lot and that is basically our concern of the grading of that lot. I
guess that's all that our concern is. We want to make sure that w~ don't have
any added problems with erosion of our access lot. Also, the cleaning up of
that southwest corner there. There's any awful lot of old wooded ties and
stuff that they have bulldozed when they originally started to fill that lot.
Right up to that corner and we'd like to make sure that sc~e of that stuff is
taken care of.
Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to close the public hearing.
All voted in favor and motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
City Council Meeting - May 9, 1988
Councilman Horn: I think the question I have about materially depreciating
surrounding property values is probably answered in this data that I'm pouring
through right now. I guess I don't like that term. To me it should be equal
value to, not materially depreciating. I suspect w~'ll 'fir~ that out as I get
through these ntmg~ers.
Mayor Hamilton: I think the homes that are built at the Hennepin Technical
Center are really, they do an unbelievably nice job on then. It's brand new
construction and I've talked to people who work down there and they say if you
can ever get one of those hemes, you should do it because they' re a very well
built h~me and they put an awful lot into ~ that you probably wouldn't get
in a h~me that you built youself so I think it certainly would be an addition
to the neighborhood.
Councilman Geving: I was particularly interested in the photo. ~nat's one of
the things that w~ always ask for in these applications ar~ I see that Tcm has
given us that now and I've got a better appreciation for the actual picture of
the home to be moved. Will there be a basement under this hc~e?
Tom Bickle: Yes there will. It will be a walkout.
Councilman Geving: There is a sewer and water hook-up available to this lot
and one of the conditions I would make T~n is that, even though you probably
intend to do this, I would request that this be hooked up to the city sewer and
water hnnediately. Even though you probably have a year under our ordinance.
Tcm Bickle: We fully intend to do that.
Councilman Geving: I would probably still make that a condition. Another
condition that I would like to make since this is a home that will be moved
onto a lot that meets all of our city requirenents, is that w~ would grant no
variances for the sideyard or frontyard setbacks. Things of that nature so
that if you wanted to move this house onto the lot, you'll have to meet all of
the city setbacks. I an very happy to see that we have a menorand%m~ frc~ Mrs.
Larkin, the neighbor to the north which indicates that the Larkin's have no
problems with this house being moved there. That's another thing that we
probably would have asked for and it was volunteered. Of course, the last
thing would be the comments made by Mr. Courtney in terms of the Homeowners
Association. Maybe staff could repsond to those concerns regarding the
drainage and the elevation of this lot next to the }faneowners Association.
Could you do that for us Gary?
Gary Warren: We will be reviewing the grading plan that he has as it relates
to the site of our manhole out there and also the erosion control that was
mentioned in the staff report ~s to be reestablished and maintained.
Councilman Geving: Okay, so what I'm concerned about then in terms of the
Homeowners Association would be that we would maintain erosion control measures
for this lot.
Gary Warren: Right.
Councilman Geving: I have no other comments.
~y Council Meeting - May 9, 1988
Councilman Johnson: I see on the Certificate of Survey they show what I
believe are drainage draining to the sort of northeast away from, a majority of
the yard away from it and I'd just like to see that maintained. When the
actual drainage plan cc~es in. Otherwise it looks pretty good to me.
Mayor Hamilton: I had a couple of questions and/or conditions. During the
move I know there are a lot of trees and I'm not exactly sure how wide this
house is as it's going down Minnewashta Parkway but I wouldn't w~nt to see you
cutting tree limbs off or r~oving trees to get the house through. Do you know
that you can make it down Minnewashta Parkway without doing that?
Tom Bickle: Our mover has gone out there and told us that they measured it and
there are only two existing limbs. Tney said there was one dead limb that
actually maybe in the way but they felt that it was a dead limb and should cc~e
off the tree so whoever owned it... It's coming from the north off of TH 7 so
that would eliminate most of the obstruction going down Minnewashta Parkway.
Mayor Hamilton: Tnere shouldn't be much in your way then. I'd also like to
see a condition put in that any wires that need to be r~moved or moved w~uld be
at your expense and that they would be reactivated prior to, I don't know 6:00
a.m. or whenever in the morning that the homeowners would be affected would be
notified so if their electricity is off you'll let th~m know.
Tom Bickle: He also measured that and said that there's a cable TV wire that
runs in the lower portion that he felt may have to be lifted. Not disconnected
but lifted...
Mayor Hamilton: Other than that I have no other conditions or c(mm~nts. I
think it's a very nice home that should be moved in.
Councilman Geving: Could I then add to the conditions that are stated here for
us tonight with the four that are given to us by the city planner. I would
like to add number 5.
Mayor Hamilton: There are six.
Councilman Geving: Okay, I would like to make sure that the applicant advise
the Public Safety Director 48 hours prior to the move. Next, the applicant
must hook up to city sewer and water within the ordinance requirements of one
year.
Mayor Hamilton: Why not in~nediately?
Councilman Geving: Let's make it in~ediately.
Tom Bickle: We have that estimated cost.
Councilman Geving: So then it will be in~ediately. Next, that the house must
be situated on the lot so that it meets all city requirements and setbacks and
there will be variances allowed. Next, I would like to add that we maintain
erosion control measures on this lot so as not to impact on the Pleasant Acres
Homeowners Association lot to the south. Finally, the two items that you had
City Council Meeting - May 9~ 1988
Mr. Mayor in terms of the trees to be tri~ed, if there are any and all the
wires that are to be r~moved, will be put back at the applicant's expense.
Any others?
Mayor Hamilton: Item 4 deals with the erosion Dale. Installation of Type II
erosion control along the edge of tt~ fill area. We end up with 10 conditions.
Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the moving permit
for Thomas Bickle at 6701 Minnewashta Parkway subject to the following
conditions:
1. Cc~pli~ with the reccmnendations of the Public Safety Director's
memorandun dated May 5, 1988.
2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued' until the Building Official
de,ms that all Unifom Building Code requirenents have ~ met.
3. The mover shall comply with the City f~x3ineer's reccm~m~ation for axle
w~ight to be used during the move.
4. Installation of Type II erosion control (silt fence with staked haybales)
along the edge of the fill area.
5. Suk~ission of soil borings and an acceptable review by the Building
Inspector and City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit.
6. Suhnission of the necessary information to the City Engineer to coordinate
the final elevation of the existing manhold prior to issuance of a building
permit.
7. Applicant hook-up to city sewer and water inm~diately after moving the
house onto the property.
8. The house must be situated on the lot so that it meets all city
requirements and setbacks and there will be variances allowed.
9. No trees or tree limbs shall be rsmoved.
10. All wires will be replaced at the applicant's expense.
Ail voted in favor and motion carried.
CONSIDER DRILY ACCESS TO PLEASANT VIEW R(I%D, JIM HANSON.
Gary Warren: The property in question is Lot 3, Block 2, Fox Chase which is
located off of Pleasant View Road. This was an issue that was before th~
Council January 25th as a visitor presentation. ~%e issue at hand was the
property owner desiring to access Pleasant view Rsad along the western edge of
his property where the sight distance for our roadway is very critical. A
condition of the develou~ent contract for the subdivision had specified this
property to be allowed access to Pleasant view Road. However, recognizing the
Council Meeting - May 9, 1988
difficulty with sight distance it was stated and I will quote, "but the access
shall be located to maximize sight distances." We calculated that a sight
distance for 25 mph s~cd limit is about 165 feet on this roadway. Favoring
the eastern side of the property, which is shown here as a temporary
construction access right now, is the most desirable. There are two ways I
guess to achieve the sight distance standard. One is to have the access
located on the easterly portion of the property as specified in the develo[anent
contract. The other is to make some improvements to the sight distance
obstructions, which in this case are trees and a bluff along the road, to
accomplish that. Staff has met with Mr. Hanson who is here tonight. Upon
application for building permit the Engineering Department reacted to our
concern about maximizing the sight distance and we're not comfortable with it
as it was proposed initially on the west side. At that time Mr. Hanson had
petitioned the Council to see if a compromise could not be achieved since he
had a prefabricated wood foundation already manufactured and was ready to be
installed. At that time it was discussed the difficulties with utilizing the
eastern access was because of the trees and the steep slopes on the east side
and that w~ could possibly be doing just as much envirormental harm on this
side as we would on the west side with tree r~noval. As the site stands right
now, staff received April 20th a plan from Mr. Hanson. After staking out the
right-of-way which proposed locating the driveway pretty much as shown on this
sketch here and r~moving or modifying t_he side slope here to provide us with a
sight line that was necessary for the driveway. He had proposed a retaining
wall to try and save one of the trees and r~moval of one of the trees but in
all likelihood I just can't see where that would, I think in all practicality
you have to look at this option that would be r~noving three trees basically
and shaping this side slope. As I mentioned there is a t~nporary construction
access that has been on the property. I believe it was for the installation of
sanitary sewer connection. There's no question it is a steeper slope on this
side. So the issue at hand is exactly where the driveway access should be
provided. In either case, the east side or on the west side with modifying the
slope, the sight distance issue was addressed from an engineering standpoint.
Obviously the building constructed and the garage facing for an access from the
present configuration, there will be some hardships if they were to be required
to come in from the east side. The trees, as I stated in the staff m~no, maybe
there's a compromise that might be considered and that would be if the western
access is preferred or allowed, that there be some replacement as far as the
trees that need to be removed. In either case the homeowners is here tonight.
He's anxious to occupy. He's been given a t~r0porary occupancy certificate and
we're here to resolve the access issue. There are also m~mbers of the
neighborhood who are also present.
Mayor Hamilton: I guess I'd like to call on Jim. In reading the Minutes of
the January 25th meeting, I think I asked you at that time if you were willing
to work with staff to come up with a compromise situation with the driveway and
you said you were. I don't think that has happened. I guess I'd like to have
your comments.
Jim Hanson: We were out there about a ~=ek later with both members of the
engineering staff and looked the property over. In fact, as he mentioned,
since the wood foundation was made, one of the things that we did was to move
·
it from where we had intended to put it and we thought and some others thought
was the best place for it, to move it down to the place as it is shown here.
City Council M~=eting - May 9, 1988
That was done with the engineering staff.
Larry Bird: Maybe I could introduce myself and just say a few w~rds. My name
is Larry Bird. I an here in tw~ capacities this evening. I a~ the secretary
of Zachery Develol~nent Corporation. Zachery Develofxnent Corporation is the
ommpany that purchased Fox Chase frcm the bank when it went into foreclosure.
I'm also here on behalf of Mr. Hanson as an Attorney. I am one of the
attorney's at Fredrickson and Byron. I've looked into this mat~er and I want
to assure the City Council and the interested hc~eowners that Mr. Hanson is
aware of the concerns. He is very anxious to w~rk out arrangements that will
be satisfactory to all parties. It's my understanding from discussions with
the surveyor and others who were involved in this project earlier, that a
driveway location conforming to the develolznent agreement on the plat showed
the driveway basically as it is now but that was a conditional sort of program.
If you'll bear with me I'll just say that the develofm~=_nt agre~nent states that
Lot 3, Block 2 may access on Pleasant view Road but the accesses shall be
located to maximize sight distances. The exact location and design of the
accesses shall he approved by the City Engineer. It's plural because they were
also discussing another, lot. What we have done of course is to meet at various
times with the City Engineers. The City Engineers found our first proposal not
to be acceptable and suggested that the driveway be moved. At that point in
time Eaganfield and Nowack, our surveyors were brought out to do a number of
things but to chart a relocation of the driveway and to bring in an independent
consultant that they had recc~nended to explain what could be done on the
westerly side of the property to maximize sight distances. That independent
consultant's reomm~ndation was the removal of trees. Now you should
understand that what we want to do is just have a driveway and have everyone be
happy. For that reason we're basically willing to do almost anything practical
that will make everyone happy. We don't desire that trees be cut down. In
fact we'd certainly like to save ~. If the engineering' staff feels tl~y
must be taken down, we' 11 do that but perhaps there are other alternatives that
have not really been explored. For example, it is my understanding that on
Pleasant View Boad, there are a ntm~er of similarly situation properties and
that what the City has either required or settled for in the past was some
signage that certainly ~arned of a drive%~y ccmzing up and we are certainly
willing to purchase such a sign, obviously at our expense and to have it
installed at our expense. We are also willing to install, purchase and install
sc~e sort of a mirror, I believe it w~uld be a convex mirror but if I'm wrong.
If it's a concave mirror, obviously we'd buy whatever it is that's required and
mount that so perhaps strangers who might use our driveway ar~ not be familiar
with scme of the hazards, w~uld certainly be able to see oncoming traffic
before they might otherwise be able to see it without such a mirror. The
difficulty is that although one might, in a perfect w~rld, if things were being
created from scratch and we didn't have these extr~ely steep slopes on the
easterly approach and the high risk of envirorm~_ntal damage, it might be nice
to simply have the driveway relocated or located to that area. The difficulty
is that we built the property after we believed in good faith that we obtained
from the City Engineers approval for a driveway located on the westerly
approach. Not where it ~as originally shown on our drawings from Eaganfield
and Nowack, but slightly to the east. I know that one of the city engineers
and Mr. Hanson had stood outside in the cold winter w~ather looking up and down
Pleasant view and trying to find a good place ar~ t~ had basically decided on
a spot near the telephone box, which I imagine at that time ~as readily
City Council Meeting - May 9~ 1988
discernable along Pleasant View Boad. It was our impression that that was
okay. That they would consider the sight lines to be maximized and this would
be fine, go ahead and build it. We don't consider ourselves to be outlaws. We
have not tried to ramrod something past the City Engineering staff or the City
Council. We felt we had ccmplied with the City's justifiable requirements. We
still do want to do that but frankly, w~ located the house, and the house could
have been located in any of a number of ways but w~ located it and set it up in
such a way to have the driveway here after we believed, in good faith, that the
City had approved such a driveway. Now to have to relocate the driveway, w~
feel a rather extreme hardship and would leave us with a lousy driveway and
some unsafe conditions. I can only tell you that I once lost a client through
a similarly situation driveway and on an icy day she rolled out into the road
and was hit broadside and was killed leaving a husband and three very young
children. Now I understand that that slope is steep enough so one can not rule
out that sort of thing. None of us desire that sort of thing. What we really
want to do here, I believe is to find sc~ething that is going to be reasonably
safe and satisfy the neighbor's justifiable concerns. We're willing to do
practically anything that makes sen.se. If replac~nent of some trees is
practical and an effective way of solving some of the problems, we!d certainly
be willing to work with the City on that. And we're hoping that tonight we can
reach an accord that will keep the neighbors happy and will be satisfactory to
the City.
Gordy Whiteman, 825 Pleasant View Road: The trees in question and the side
slope in question, that's my land. I realize the city has right-of-way on it.
I would like to present the Council with a petition that the neighbors have
all signed and there are several pages of the petition. The point that we're
trying to get across in the petition, we're all for safety. What we are most
concerned with is that the roadway be changed for the sake of safety. We felt
from the beginning that the driveway should be changed. On your meeting of
January 25th, you were unanimous in instructing the City Engineer to work with
Mr. Hanson to make sure that the access onto Pleasant View Road was at a site
which maximized sight distance. If I can quote from that meeting, Mr. Warren
states, "where the current driveway is proposed, it's coming off of a curve.
Without getting into too many details, it is almost the worse location from a
sight distance standpoint." It appears to me, and I think I can state this for
many of my fellow residents, the homeowner Mr. Hanson has gone ahead, done
things his way, sc~ehow got the City Engineer, your staff to go along with him.
We were opposed to that. There are several other things I would like to say
but I think what I want to make sure that you understand, it's not an issue of
Mr. Hanson versus the Whit~man, Schwartz, Cunningham triangle. This is not a
neighbor against neighbor issue. We live on Pleasant View Road because of the
pleasant view. I think that perhaps Mr. Warren's interpretation of what
Pleasant View Road is differs from our interpretation. In his closing cc~ment
to you, in the letter regarding this meeting this evening, Mr. Warren stated
that this corner in question is a very difficult corner and I'll quote. "One
additional benefit of shaving t_he side slope in this curve and removal of these
trees will be to improve the .sight distance." Well, for us the sight on that
corner is beautiful. In September and October, it's breathtaking. We don:t
feel it needs any improvement. I' 11 leave it at that.
Jim Meyer, 6225 Ridge Road: I guess the concern, and we don't have a lawyer
here today from Fredrickson, Byron and that sort of thing but I must say that,
City Council Meeting - May 9; 1988
and maybe the engineers can help us in this, all of us who have lived here for
15 years or more have driven that same road and it sesms to me that the
driveway on the w~stern side, as you come around the corner of it, is really in
a more dangerous position for cars coming. If I could point this out,-you're
ccming around a very sharp curve which I don't think the photo really depicts.
I think if anybody on the Council drives by that, you'll see that you are on
this thing before you know it. I don't care bow far you cut this thing back
and in terms of the drop in grade ar~ so on. The question with the bend, move
the driveway, can somebody show me where the western boundary of this property
is? Of the Hanson property? They said they moved the driveway further east.
Where is the w~stern boundary of this property i'f it w~re moved? He ~msn't
moved a foot or 10 feet? Okay, so it was moved fr~n there down that 10 or 15
feet, is that right?
Gary Warren: I think the comment was the drive~ay was moved frcm where he had
originally proposed it, is my. recollection.
Jim Meyer: Okay, that's one of the questions is they said they did go along
with and move this thing and I'm just trying to figure out where because I
don't ~ bow .they had very much room to begin with.
Larry Bird: Perhaps I could help show you that.
Jim Meyer: So it's been moved a couple feet?
Larry Bird: No, it's been moved extensively. You Can see here, it's been
moved all the way over there. That's quite a distance. It's more than the
width of the drive~ay. Some 16 to 18 feet. The driveway is relocated almost
right next to the telephone box.
Jim Meyer: Maybe the engineers can help us. As you go down where they' re
using the construction driveway, which really, in many respects I think is a
superb place for the driveway. Again, I'm not an engineer and I know the
grade. Anyway you look at it c(~ning out of that lot and taking a left turn is
going to be difficult and you have to wonder whether there should have been an
access onto Pleasant view at all fr~n that lot. But again, that's another
matter and it's too late for that now. It see~s to me, I think and I think the
neighbors thing that that eastern driveway where the construction people saw
fit to use, that's been the ideal, that's been the one that they wanted to use,
would be a very excellent driveway. Here's another thing about it, sure it's
easy to take sight view when you kick it off of scmebody else's frontyard that
has lived there for 15 years. Take the driveway do~n to the east, and if they
want to get a line of sight then take it off their own property. Really. I
don't mean to be selfish about it but let's face it, the line of sight is.being
taken off of .Mr. Whit~nan's property. I just have a little probl~n with that.
Anyway, again as Mr. Whit~man mentioned, we're all interested in safety. It's
not a personal thing. It just doesn't seem right and I would bope that the
engineers could relook at that grade ar~ relook at the eastern boundary which
your Minutes recommended back in January. That's all I have to say.
Dean Wetzel, 6260 Ridge Road: I'm a 35 year resident of the area and the thing
that concerns me is the tendency to kind of downgrade the position of the
people who have lived here for so many years. That home was built and it
City Council Meeting - May 9, 1988
wasn't pointed out, the trees we're talking about are in the frontyard of this
hcme that's been sitting here for 53 years. Pat Cunningham's family built ~his
home. It sits right in here. Again, this is the frontyard of that home. It's
been there all these years. Sure we welcome new~c~ers to the neighborhood but
not when they come and destroy the frontyard of somebody who's been there all
these years to acccmodate what they w~uld like to have. That's the thing that
bothers me. The whole Fox Chase develo~ent, as w~ know, has had a lot of time
taken on by the residents. We talked about it for several years before they
went ahead and at that time there w~s concern about a number of the lots in
that develo~ent that from a practical basis were considered undevelopable.
Unbuildable and yet the permission was given. If you've driven down there
lately, one of the side hills that was scraped away, if you'll notice, the
battle looks like it's a losing battle to save that whole side hill. So
I think we have to have some concern with the natural lay of the land as w~ do
our building around here. I realize that we all do the best we can when we
look at it and it's hard to anticipate the problems but this one was
anticipated. It was spelled out and now the solution is going to fall on the
shoulders of scmebody who's been here a long time rather than the people who
made the mistake and that's what I object to.
Nancy Osgood, 745 Pleasant view Road: I think what concerns me most about this
is t_hat I am just appalled at this stage that Mr. Hanson has his, whatever, the
wooden supports are for his driveway. He's that far. I understand that the
truck ~as even there to pour the cement the other day. How has this gotten
this far without this thing being decided? Has Mr. Hanson gone ahead without
your okay? Where does the fault lie? How can this happen? S(m~eone is going
to, at a tremendous expense with this. Is this the first time this has
happened that it's gone this far? I hope it's the last time. Tnat is a
beautiful area. Those trees have been there for many, many years. We can
never replace those. I hope you consider that too.
Councilman Johnson: I see this as almost a self-created hardship. The house
was designed on a lot. It w~s designed knowing that there was a restriction on
the lot and the access was going to be at one place and it was designed
elsewhere. I was not of the understanding when we discussed this, we didn't
actually vote on it, and more or less directed the City Engineer to work with
the folks. That there was a chance of locating the driveway on the east side.
I've got a question for Gary, the City Engineer here, at the point that we
issued his building permit, did we have an agreement between your staff and him
as to where this driveway would be located?
Gary Warren: No. He was issued a building permit the next day based on the
Council action from his visitor presentation. I guess I'd like to clarify one
thing. Staff, myself and Larry did meet with him in the field and we
requested, after discussion, of moving the driveway to this telephone pedestal
which is what he's showing right now. ~nat a plan be submitted to us for our
review and approval because we didn't know exactly what the impact was going to
be on the trees or on the grading. As stated in the staff report, we didn!t
receive that plan until April 20th. Now the building was well along in
construction by the time we actually had the doc~ent for our final review.
The purpose for receiving that plan was so we knew exactly what the
ramifications were going to be for the placement of that driveway. We had the
right-of-way staked in the field which I guess served t~ purposes. One,
10
City Oouncil Meeting - May 9~ 1988
obviously to alert the neighborhood of what the property issue was, which it
did. The other was so w~ could deal effectively with what the proposal was
going to be.
Councilman Johnson: Is it totally infeasible to run the driveway down the side
and out that east entrance?
Gary Warren: The homeowner may ~ant to address that I guess as far as what it
does to his building.
Councilman Johnson: No, feasibility. Engineering feasibility.
Gary Warren: Feasibility of actually driving and accessing the property, yes
it's a stccper grade but you can drive up that slope.
Councilman Johnson: So it's still feasible to access at the point of maximun
sight distance. Is the point of maximum sight distance still the east access?
Gary warren: Yes.
Councilman Johnson: That's what we asked for.
Mayor Hamilton: Anything else Jay?
Councilman Johnson: I'm all for the east access.
Councilman Geving: It seems to me that on January 25th at our City Council
~ting we did approve the project with the one stipulation that staff work
with Mr. Hanson in determining the final site for the driveway. That was the
Mayor's comment. That's exactly what we directed staff to do. You're
ir~icating to me Gary, that you went to the field and I rea~_r that you wrote
a msmo to the file. Could you tell me the date of that m~norandum? It se~ms
like it was well over a month ago or 6 weeks ago. You wrote a letter to a file
and you sent me a copy.
Gary warren: If it's the letter where we had been talking to Mr. (llnningham,
it was a follow-up on a telephone conversation with ~ that we were going to
keep them aware of this driveway issue. That we w~re working with Mr. Hanson
to resolve the issue.
Councilman Geving: Basically your letter to the file, as I read it, indicated
that you had met. You had stated your views. It still hadn't ~ decided but
you were going to keep on top of this matter and nothing would proceed to the
point where it would be finalized until you were completely satisfied that it
was in accordance with the way that you would like to see the safety concerns,
the sight line, the maximizing of the sight line distances and so forth. Isn't
that correct? Okay. It seems to me that that's a key letter to me because
when I read my copy of it, I set it aside and said Gary's on top of this and
nothing is really going to happen that 'will'get out of line here. It's amazing
to me that you didn't get something back from Mr. Hanson then until April 20th,
which was considerably long after our meeting on January 25th when this whole
issue was settled, as far as I was concerned. That you were going to work it
out with Mr. Hanson. Getting to the point, I still feel that our direction to
11
City Council Meeting - May 9, 1988
the City Engineer is firm. ~nat's a Council direction. We approved of the
plan. The only one minor detail was the sight location for this driveway which
said in effect, make a site location that is safe to all concerned and maximize
the sight distances. I've driven by that corner several times, in fact as late
as about 7:00 this evening and I am confident that the only place to place the
access road to this garage and to this home is the site that w~ now call the
temporary construction access. As far as I'm concerned, the maximum sight
distances can be achieved if we move the road all the way to the east of this
lot line and put it in where that construction access was. It was good enough
to put construction trucks through there and bring up materials. Then as
I looked at that ~nbankment, it would be very easy to c~npletely level that
bank. It ' s about 12 feet tall but there' s nothing there. There' s a bunch of
scrub trees. In fact, there's only about a half a dozen of them. It would be
very easy to build an access to the garage. If you would redesign this garage,
you could have put your garage doors facing the Pleasant View, just the way I'm
describing but we have a situation here that I think is extremely important and
we must make a win-win situation and that is the safety concern is upper most
in our minds. Every individual who lives and drives Pleasant View Road every
single day, if we do not change this, will be in danger of their lives. I
guarantee you. You come upon that curve very quickly and before you know it,
you'd be right on top of this driveway. I think there's only one way to do
this, is to continue with our staff direction to Mr. Warren and emphasize even
more so now that we're closer to the situation, that this project can not
proceed until we are totally satisfied that Mr. Warren, our City Engineer,
maximizes the sight distance frcm a safety standpoint. So from my viewpoint,
the only access that's safe is the area that I will call the temporary
construction access site as the access to this particular home. End of
co~ent.
Councilman Horn: I have a question. Do you know the difference in the slope
of Pleasant View at the two different locations?
Gary Warren: The actual grade? The grade is not that much different, the two
of thsm. It lightens up a little bit as you go to the east.
Councilman Horn: That's my perception too. We would have less of a slope
which would mitigate somewhat of this ice conflict plus the fact .that it moves
it farther around the corner where the visibility seems to improve.
Gary Warren: Larry said it goes from 8% grade to 6%.
Councilman Horn: So 2% and our maximum is 7% I believe on new construction.
So that tome is just another reason to stay with the existing temporary
construction access. I don't buy the argument that you can't put an access
there. I think that with proper retaining walls, that you could have a good
access at that point. I don't think you'd have to destroy any of the trees in
that area with proper retaining walls. I don't think it's necessary to carve
down this bank. I know it may not be part of the property of the old
Cunningham property where it appears it's in the city right-of-way. It still
is in the extended portion of what would have been a portion of that property
and it obviously affects their sight line. I think there's another point here
too. Inmany new develotm~_nts we require berming for sound absorption. What
we'd be doing if we shaved this down is we would be lessening that berm and in
12
City Council ~k=eting - May 9, 1988
effect, I believe, would be creating a noisier situation for the property
adjacent to there. If I take all of those factors into account, it appears to
me that there are ways for the hcmeowner to use the temporary construction
access and I think a prime way to make that work even better, if you can't make
that corner, would be to put the door on the end of. the garage rather than the
side of the garage which many developers are firming to be a better solution
anyway. Aesthetically it seems to give a better look to construction so I
guess I have not heard anything that would create a tremendous hardship for the
homeowner to use that access.
Mayor Hamilton: I just have a couple of things. I would like to 'reply to
Nancy Osgood's cc~m~ents about city efforts. It's kind of frustrating I guess
s~metimes when you're a resident and you see things happening that you think
aren't right. I can guarantee you that the city staff and myself have been on
top of this project as much as you possibly can. We can't be out there
everyday obviously or every minute to keep an eye on the builder. In my
opinion that's been part of the probl~n. I do appreciate the calls that I've
received from the neighbors because it's alerted me to the situation that was
occurring out there and I was able to get in tough with the staff and go out
and talk to the builder and make sure that the project didn't pr~ any
further than what it already had. The frustrating thing is, to me, is that the
builder was doing some things I think, it certainly appears that way, that he
wasn't authorized to do and it makes it very difficult when you're continually
in that situation trying to keep an eye on a builder to make sure he doesn't
overstep his bounds, which he obviously did in this case. I don't, know at
who's direction. It may not be his fault. But I can assure you that w~'ve
been watching this situation carefully and our concerns were as great as yours
were. As I recall, when we first talked about putting a h(are on this lot., we
talked about accessing as far east as possible and the cc~m~nts were made, well
there's a lot of trees there and we don't want to destroy those because there
was a fairly significant grove of trees there and we didn't want to wreck ~
all. So the driveway may be best moved to the west a little bit. Then the
developer went in and the builder and they destroyed all the trees anyway so
I'm not sure why the comment ~as made in the first place. There were some nice
pine trees in there and as Dale said, there were some scrub trees in there but
there was a nice Stand of trees there and they plowed right through the middle
of them and probably those that haven't died yet will soon because you're
destroyed the root system. So since the access is there, I think it's a good
place for it to be and I think the configuration of the driveway could stay
paritially as it is. You could c~me up the hill and make a turn around so you
can get in the garage the way it's at or you can access your garage off of the
east side as Clark had mentioned. I'm not sure who designed this but I think
they didn't look at all the options that were available to you and I think you
ought to do that. In fact, you're going to have to do it I think. It --_----~s
like you need to go back and do a little more ~rk and I wish that you'd
work a little more carefully with the city.
Larry Bird: If I could, I'd just like to read into the record. I think that
your recollection of the date upon which that material was delivered to the
City is in error and maybe off by as much as two weeks. It was personally
delivered by Mr. Hanson and our business records will show the exact date upon
which it was delivered. This house could have ~ sited any of a number of
ways. It was sited where it was only after we understood w~ had gotten the
13
-54
City Council Meeting - May 9~ 1988
City's permission to have the driveway where it was. Now, as I said in a
perfect world I suppose we could figure out a way to pick up the house and
twist it but this isn't a perfect world and that really isn't possible.
Mayor Hamilton: I think we've gone through all this so what is your point?
Larry Bird: I guess my point is that I believe that there are ways of
comprc~ising. Putting those aside, because I think we've discussed those and
of course we just want to renew our point that we're willing to compromise and
work something out. Again, it's not we who are asking for any trees to be cut
down and your point about the other trees being cut down was necessary to get
the sewer and water in. If the City holds to it's position, it would be our
position that there has been a partial taking from us and you will leave us
really with no choice but to proceed in that direction because we did what we
did only after we received permission from the City to site the driveway in
accordance with Eaganfield and Nowack's alternative plan. W~ could have sited
it anywhere. If the City had taken the position that we're sorry fellas but
the driveway must be the easterly driveway, we wouldn't have been happy but the
house would have pointed in that direction. For the City to come now and say,
gosh w~ made a mistake. We didn't really mean for you to understand that you
had been given permission to locate the driveway as you located it, is really
harsh and unfair and it is not a hardship of our own making. It is such an
extreme hardship that you'll leave us with no choice but litigation. ~nat is
something we do not wish to do and I'm not trying to rattle sabers but I
think...
Mayor Hamilton: You've already done it. You can sit down because you rattled
your saber and that's fine. If that's what you'd like to do and if that's how
your client w~nts to go into the neighborhood, I guess that's up to you to
decide. I think we've heard enough and we're just replowing the same ground so
there's no sense in going on with it. Thanks. I'd like to have a motion on
this item.
Councilman Geving: I don't think a motion is in order is it?
Mayor Hamilton: I think just to clarify it, what I'd like to do is make a
motion that the driveway access to Pleasant View R~ad at Lot 3, Block 2, Fox
Chase, Jim Hanson's property will need to be accessed to the furthest east,
eastern most portion of the property possible. That our City Attorney prepare
Findings of Facts to show cause. Also that the developer not be allowed to
shave the corner and take down trees.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded that the driveway access
to Pleasant View RDad at Lot 3, Block 2, FOx Chase, Jim Hanson's property, be
accessed on the most eastern portion of the property as possible and that the
City Attorney prepare Findings of Facts to show cause. Also, that the
developer not be allowed to shave the corner of the property or take down
trees. All voted in favor and motion carried.
Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to amend the agenda to
discuss item l(e) at this point in the agenda. All voted in favor and motion
carried.
14
City Council Meeting - May 9, 1988
FINAL PLAT APPROVAL, CURRY ~ PHASE I I.
Barbara Dacy: The submittal for Council approval tonight is the final plat
which creates the r~maining lots in the Curry Farm subdivision. The final
plat. It is not a grading plan or... In the staff report I review all the
conditions fr~m preliminary plat approval. What I'd like to do is review what
appears to be one of the outstanding conditions that is under dispute fr~m
Centex and the property owners adjacent to the parcel, Larry and Kathy Kerber.
That pertains to the condition 14. The condition read in the approval of the
May 4, 1987 Minutes that the applicant shall suk~it a landscaping plan
providing landscaping for lots abutting the contractor's yard. In reading
through the Minutes it appeared that much of the discussion was occurring .
regarding screening between the proposed Devonshire Drive fr~m CR 17~s
Blvd. and Larry Kerber's property to the north. This represents Centex's
proposed landscaping plan. From the Minutes this landscaping buffer ~as to act
as a noise buffer and a visual screen from the people in the Centex subdivision
and the Kerber's contractor's yard. We had Mr. Koegler review the plan and he
made s~me c~m~ents and suggestions which are included in your report. Ho~_=ver,
in meeting with the Kerber's and Centex this afternoon, the request from the
Kerber's was that they felt that that landscaping requirement meant all the way
down the south lot line and along the west lot line at the base of Kerber's
property. So at this point staff is asking for the Council's clarification on
this one condition. It was our interpretation that it pertained to just this
area. However, there is an issue here that has been brought up by the adjacent
property owner. Secondary issues that arose out of the construction season,
out of Phase 1 were, and I'm going to try and surm%arize s(x~e of these and then
the City Engineer can help me out or clarify things but there was issues
pertaining to the clogged drainage facility through the rear of Kerber's
property as well as the concern fr~m flooding and ponding in the rear of
Kerber's property. Both Centex and the Kerber's have met several times ar~
those issues w~re also discussed this evening. ~hat was agreed upon was that
there would be a structure built in this creek area in the rear of the Kerber's
property which would allow Mr. Kerber to cross the creek and mow the remainder
of his property ar~ he w~uld consent to having his attorney draft a maintenance
agreement to allow the City to ccme in and maintain that ditch so it does not
get clogged again. Secondly, there is a contention on the Kerber's part that
ties in with this original plat condition about screening along the berm. Mr.
Kerber is saying that he won't go along with the fill proposal frc~ Centex
unless there are additional trees to break up the expanse of the berm along the
west property line. Another issue that was-addressed is, from Devonshire
Drive, Centex has agreed to give an access eas~ament to the Kerber property so
they may future resubdivide and get street access frcm the proposed roadway.
This area, which ~as originally plotted as Lot 1 of this Curry Farms
develo~ent would then be in turn conveyed to the City as an outlot so we would
retain this. Kerber's have also agreed to maintain the area. Not replace the
plants but would maintain the area. So, what do we have left? At issue, the
bottom line is that the Kerber's are conter~ding that the landscaping should go
all the way down the south lot line and the west lot line. There are also
other issues that are still outstanding from the construction season for Phase
1. That being the fill and the drainage issues and I forgot to mention the
turn lane issue into Devonshire Drive and additional landscaping for the corner
here. So you can tell we need Council clarifications on exactly what happened
15
City Council Meeting - May 9, 1988
on May 4th of 1987. I know the Kerber's are here and John Spiess from Centex is
here.
Mayor Hamilton: Gary, did you have anything additional you wanted to include?
Gary Warren: No, I think again after our meeting today there still are some
things that don't necessarily take Council action but the developer and the
Kerber's have to kick around a little bit more but for tonight's meeting at any
rate, the issue of the extent of the condition for landscaping is the key.
Mayor Hamilton: Is Mr. Spiess here?
John Spiess: Yes.
Mayor Hamilton: Do you have any comments you want to make?
John Spiess: Not at this time. It's only that we wanted to make sure that we
were all interpretting what was said at that meeting was that this was a
contractor's yard and that was what we were trying to screen. I think the
issue of abutting lots, etc., etc., was something that why it was said or why
it was even discussed at that point or what brought it about was that this is
what we were talking about here so that Mr. Kerber could park his trailers and
use his contractor's yard at this point without any undue problems to the
adjacent property.
Councilman Geving: Mr. Spiess is it your understanding that you have
responsibility for plantings in that south lot which is an outlot? Was that
understood on your part? That you would put the original plantings in there?
John Spiess: Yes.
Councilman Geving: You're willing to do that?
John Spiess: Yes. The plantings have been changed. We had proposed Norway
Pines at this point and it's been suggested that we use Black Hill Spruce as a
hardier variety evergreen for the salt, etc.. There are two ash trees and the
dogwood tree there with the intent that that possibly could be the access point
for Mr. Kerber when he'd like. At this time we're trying to get the access
closer to the house itself on Lot 1 of the Curry Farm develo~m~ent. ~ne issue
of the turn lane is that Mr. Kerber would like to see a be~m there so that he
may take more advantage of his property. Also, screen himself or his property
from that turn lane which was installed as per Carver County. The sight
distance there was a factor. We showed plantings 30 feet behind the property
line which is approximately 60 feet from the patchel edge of the blacktop road
there at CR 17.
Councilman Geving: What is your view about putting the plantings on the
western side of this property and the berming?
John Spiess: Our view, the plantings along anywhere else that we felt all
along this was the only area we've been talking about, we have discussed this
with staff and it was just that this area here was to give the contractor's
yard that screening from the rest of the property, we've also, in fact, with
16
City Council Meeting - May 9, 1988
our people who buy the lots and houses are purchasing the agresment that Mr.
Kerber does have a contractor's yard there and that is in writing.
Councilman Geving: So y~ur opinion always has been that there has never been
any question about the berming and the plantings on the western side of the Mr.
Kerber ' s property, is that correct?
John Spiess: Yes. There has never ~ any question about it.
Councilman Geving: The only discrepencies I understand it is in the height of
the berm?
John Spiess: Yes. According to Mr. Kerber and maybe long ago the site plan
was supposed to bermed up here. Right now it's very narrow there where it says
30 feet minim~. Probably 15 to 20 feet across and then of course it widens up
to the fence so the berm w~uld be narrow and tall there with a narow base. As
we've ~cn all along the highways and 'everything where they put berms, trees
they plant on top of ~ don't tend to do so well. They drain well but...
Councilman Geving: In effect y~uhave really done a lot more berming and
plantings that I anticipated, at least on the sou.th side of Mr. Kerber's
property and now from tonight's discussion, I've learned that y~u've even given
him right-of-way access to that road which was never in the original plans.
John Spiess: Mr. Kerber is Contending and w~uld like to have an access.
Therefore, eassment purposes that he w~uld grant to the City down into that
ditch. There's also a sewer line down there and it makes most sense to have
that across there. It's a pretty long piece of property for the h~meowner who
would eventually buy the lot where is now our model hcme a~d maintain that so
it's a low maintenance sch~m~e right now with the pine trees and mulch. Very low
maintenance.
Councilman Geving: Have you resolved the problom with the corner of the lot
where it's very low and water collects as it drains to the west. Right in the
corner where you've made the new berm. Have you resolved that?
John Spiess: We reached an agre~nent here with Mr. Kerber last week. A verbal
agreement, if you will. There's a letter I wrote to him which basically showed
this earth fill limit. We started off with a narrower version or a smaller
version down where that contour says about 958. 958 in here, wa thought that
maybe we'd fill that area down there to alleviate sc~e of the ponding that had
occurred. Actually what had occurred, it backed up on Mr. Kerber's property,
in fact back up into here somewhere, was that this pipe, culvert, 36 inch
culvert became plugged early this spring. Ice dam type of thing on this shaded
side and it caused us to back up. As soon as the City got in there, the City
crews, Mr. Kerber finally let them in and they came across here and put the
sewer cleaner in there and the water Was gone within an hour. It ponded. It
does flow here although it does flow slowly. We started out with this ~__ 11
bit of filling and then we cx~e to this agre~nent type situation here that w~
will in fact build this low spot up to about maybe 5 feet of fill' here. Raise
the sewer manhole and at this point, it's steeper fr~ this point to here and
then it's also, this would be about 5 feet of fill. This w~uld be zero. This
would be somewhere, 2 1/2 feet of fill and this would be zero over here so the
17
City Council Mseting - May 9, 1988
waker would still drain to a ditch now farther onto our property and against
our ben~ but it will drain to this drainageway which Mr. Kerber will give to
the City as a maintenance easement.
Mayor Hamilton: Okay, Larry do you have some co~m~nts you wish to make?
Larry Kerber: First of all on the fill issue. This filling is, as you know,
an attempt to alleviate that back-up that occurs and will occur again. It's
not just because a culvert plugs up. That whole creek from CR 17 to Centex's
culvert freezes up. It's froze up for as long as I've lived there and it will
continue to do so because like he said, it's flat. They now run water out of
their culvert year round where formerly that whole creek froze up every winter.
Now we're trying to run water continually at a trickle. As it comes out of
their culvert, runs on my side, hits that flat area of approximately 300 feet,
it freezes and dams up so the fill is an attempt to keep that water contained
within that creek. Working with Gary as another resolution to keep the water
moving during the wintertime is to take out my culvert and replace it with some
type of structure resembling a bridge so I can still get across my property.
Whether this is going to take care of it or not, I don't know. If the creek is
going to continue to freeze up. However, the fill, it was an attempt on their
part to keep it from backing up on my property. Once it gets to that point, if
the water does indeed freeze all the way up and gets to the height of the new
fill, I don't know what's going to happen. That's why I say, this fill is an
attempt to do this. It may be a final resolution. Another thing, on the fill,
it's not just one sided. Centex is bringing in the fill. I am taking down a
fence on my property putting it back up. I'm taking out 10 trees I have
planted there with no reimbursement to me. I am seeding that ground. Mulching
it and making sure the seed grows so it's not a one-sided deal. I~m putting
out plenty of my t~me to help with this fill project and I don't think it's my
responsibility but I'm willing to w~rk with them. I guess the trees gets us to
the screening issue. I told John I'll take out the trees there as long as
they're going to put something back. The screening issue states, landscaping
or screening on all lots abutting contractor's yard. I assumed it meant all
lots abutting my yard. I use my whole piece of property. I use the whole
south line. I have an upper garage. I have a lower garage. I've got stock-
piles. I park by trailers in that lower pasture. I can't this spring because
it's too wet. I can't get down there but as soon as that fill gets in maybe
that problem will be alleviated so I understood or I assumed it to be around my
whole yard. I don't expect a wall to wall stack of trees around my yard but I
expect some type of screening. I think I brought this issue up last fall that
nobody's been out and talked about that screening. I don't know how they could
approve it or why they signed the whatever you signed, the construction
agreement to go ahead and they never talked to me about what they were going to
do. Another comment I'd like to make about the screening, so far I know it's
nice screening but every project has an entry landscape plan and what they've
done so far is little more than an entry landscape screening. They've added a
few more trees at our request because their original plan had an approximately
50 foot opening between the two large shade trees which viewed right into my
yard which really was worthless as far as any privacy. Like I say, every
subdivision I've seen has entry landscaping. I just don't think adding a few
trees other than their standard entry landscaping is satisfying the condition
of screening my yard. Another thing, the trees aren't just for my benefit.
They' re not planted on my property. They're going to be on their lots.
18
City Council Mmeting - May 9, 1988
97
They're going to add value to their houses. Oertainly I don't think they want
that person further do~n in the model home there on the south side to have his
hack-yard looking into my stock piles of materials that I'm using. I don't
think it's just a one-sided thing. The trees aren't just for me. They're not
even on my property. I'm just asking for a buffer so people aren't looking in
and objecting to what's going on there. Another issue, that will bring us to
the right turn lane. That was not presented. I never found it anyplace on
page 1. I don't know if anybody knew it was going in. I certainly didn't
until they came out and excavated for it. In looking at other projects around,
the right turn lanes are usually contained with the boundaries of the project.
On mine, it was not because of the access there. Now I'm going to have a right
turn lane that's going to start 20 feet to the north side of my driv .eway, cut
across my driveway, continue along my property until their entrance. I think
the turn lane itself is dangerous enough for my driveway. It's creating a
situation of turn signals on. Are they turning in my driveway or to the
subdivision? Aside frcm the safety issue, I think I should have some screening
just like all their turn lanes are screened. I can look at other subdivisions.
I can look right up the street. I can take Saddlebrook. They all have berms
and trees contained within the subdivision. I think if they're going to put it
past my place, there should he some screening right at my boundary. Out here
the cars slowing down, starting up, turning in, they'll be able to look through
my yard. They're holding their landscaping screen back 30 frc~n ~ property
line. There's a wide open corner there. Approximately 30 feet or 40 feet of
that diagonal. Certainly I do have some trees there now. They are back
probably 40 feet from the lot line or 30 feet from the lot line. They're older
trees. Chinese Elm. They're only green for maybe 4 to 5 months out the year.
They aren't going to give me any screening from that turn lane. I guess that's
about all I have to say about it and I guess to touch on that right-of-way
easement that they've offered me, that is nothing other than what was stated at
the Phase 1 approval. I think Dale brought it up. It was in the Minutes.
Dick Putnam agreed to it. That long strip of land on Lot 1 should he given to
the City as right-of-way or should be taken as an outlot. So that's nothing
other than enforcing what was said in the original Minutes so I just don't feel
they have given me anything other than what they were suppose to or what was
agr~ to before this other issue came up. I guess that's about all I have to
say on it.
Karen Ren~er: This is not on the issue of Larry Kerber. My name is Karen
R~mmer. We own property to the northwest corner of the Centex develol~nent of
Phase 2. I believe it's Lot 1. Is that right?
Dacy: Right. Her lot is at the end of proposed Ashton Oourt.
Karen Iaam~r: When w~ bought our property 22 years ago, we bought a chunk of
land, the caretakers house out of the middle of Four F~adows and that's the. way
that has been. The address now is Teton Lane but we are really not on Teton
Lane. We're off a private road of Teton Lane extension. The road oanes fairly
flat, rises slightly and then as it gets to our property line, it rises
sharply. Our driveway is set in curbing. It ccmes up to the top of our hill,
comes around, down and connects again with the road that goes off this way that
used to lead into the horse meadows. Three sides of that driveway are
contained within our property. Set in curbing. The 16 foot eas~nent road,
access road on the bottcm is not our property but we have a permanent eas~nent
19
~l~yCouncil ~=eting - May 9~ 1988
over it. It is built right into our legal description. Centex has platted
that. Has disappeared that road completely. They have platted their lot
directly up to our property line. We have two concerns over this. One is
landscaping. If something is not done, we would not be really adverse to
vacating the easement but something has got to be done with our south road
because otherwise we're going to have a road that goes through three sides of
our property and flares into our neighbors yard and it's going to look awful.
So I've talked to Mr. Spiess about this and we haven't had an opportunity to
get together before tonight's agenda item. But a muchmore serious concern to
us is that we sit on a very, very high hill. The two lots to the east of us
are much lower. I'm very bad on grades, but it's got to be 15 to 20 feet
downgrade fr~m our house. From the highest point on our hill to those two
lots. I think our driveways are going to act like gutters. Just any w~ter is
going to wind up in the basement of those houses is our real concern if this is
not carefully done. We have been advised to get an indemnification from
Centex. If this should happen, people are concerned we're going to wind up
with lawsuits from our neighbors because that is clay ground and when it gets
very dry it gets just like brick. The water just washes right off instead of
soaking in. Similar problem off of our driveway. Certainly when they build
Ashton Court they're going to have to crown that and grade that properly. If
that does not tie in with our gravel driveway up to the property, once again I
think the water is not going to run properly, flow properly. So we've got a
concern about landscaping, which we don't think should be our expense and we
have a concern about the drainage. Thank you.
Mayor Hamilton: Gary, can you comment on Mrs. Rs~er's property? Are you
familiar with that?
Gary Warren: It's a new issue to me. I was going to ask John maybe. Have you
had a chance to review this?
John Spiess: Westwood Engineering, our engineer for the project, I've
discussed with him what we can do about the grades there. Right nowwe have a
grading plan which you don't have in front of you but it is a preliminary
grading plan that we're trying to figure out all of the grades and problems we
might have in Phase 2. We show over at Mrs. Remmer's, that the grade appears
very steep the w~y it's drawn right now. Our road, or our cul-de-sac Ashton
Court, will be filled up a certain percentage. The grade will be changed there
to actually bring that up a little bit and of course our house lot on Lot 1
there will be above the street level. When I spoke with Mrs. Rs~mer this ~=ek
over the phone, she and her husband would like to meet with me at some later
date. We couldn't do that right now so we planned next w~ek s~metime or the
end of this w~ek, if we can, to get together and go over some of the grading
problsms she has and the concern that if she leaves AshtonCourt in the dead of
winter and heads up her driveway, if she doesn't get a good run at it, she gets
stuck in the bottom and that's the way it's graded right now. It actually has
a flat spot just before you go up the driveway. I talked with Westwood
Engineering about doing something on our side to actually increase that grade
if at all possible. Of course, the grades from our Ashton Court leading over
into Mr. Donovan's and on and on, it just mushrooms out. However, I think with
a little work, we'll show how on the grading plan how we can in fact raise
Ashton Court a little bit to help gently rise up to her driveway instead of
just like it does now. It almost stops and then goes up. That's not the way
20
City Council Meeting - May 9, 1988
the final grading, or preliminary final grading plan, that Ashton Court is
intended to be nor does it show that way.
Mayor Hamilton: Would you want to ~t on the easement also?
John Spiess: The easement unfortunately was missed by our engi ~crs and missed
by our title company who researchs all our work for us. I've been in contact
with Ted Cameron who is the Carver County surveyor and he said that obviously
w~ missed it so at this point Mrs. Rsmmer has said that she would possibly
vacate that easement if she could be assured that the driveway, that's one of
the issues along with the driveway. Landscape screening.
Karen R~nmer: If I may just say, Centex has ~ .perfectly willing to discuss
it. It's just that w~ haven't had an opportunity to get together but I did
want to bring the matter up to you...
Kathy Kerber: I have a few things I'd like to add to what my husband had said
earlier. The first thing is about the screening. When John Spiess was out to
us on the 28th of last month, we talked about screening and we talked about all
the lots. He came to us and say yes, we can do that. We can screen along all
the berms in the back and the lots that abut our contractor's yard. He had no
problem with it. Then we didn't hear back frc~n him and all of a sudden we get
the packet from Barb Dacy and in here he's got just the front entrance screened
and that's all he wants to do. Now he comes and says one thirg to us, and now
he comes and says another to us. Also, another thing going back to the
drainage, I'd like to romind you that last September Larry ar~ I spent a lot of
time, a lengthy discussion on the drainage and at that time both Gary Warren
and Kevin Clark from Centex told us, almost gave us almost a 100% guarantee
that we would never have any drainage on our property. They even said they
were hacked up behind the Minnehaha Watershed District. Now w~ have the
flooding on our property this spring. Not only that, it ran into the sanitary
manhole on the corner of the property. The lift station down at Christmas Lake
ran day and night and it took thegn about 4-5 days to figure out what the
problen was. Now these people are saying we're never going to have a problom
and obviously we have. There's a mistake made. I think sc~ebody should
correct it. It shouldn't be us. And based on this, Centex would like us to
sign, saying that they are totally free of any responsibility to us if we allow
th~m to fill our property. I don't think that is fair because both Centex and
Gary Warren told us last year that we would never have a drainage problen. Now
baesd on that, how can we say yes, we should go ahead and consent to this, that
we're never going to have a problom again. That just can't be. That's all I
have to say.
Mayor Hamilton: Gary, do you want to c(mment on that?
Gary Warren: The flooding problem caused by the culvert, it has flooded in the'
past as I think even the Kerber's will acknowledge and it just flooded out in
an area to the west of the property that didn't have the retention basin in
that location. The statements that we made were that the run-off rates and
they were accurate stat~nents, the run-off rates are actually reduced from what
the pre-develolm~-nt rates are because of the detention ponds. Our sanitary
manhole in the southwest corner of the property has evidence that it's taken
water from previous years prior to, we found debris and things stuck in through
21
City Council Meeting - May 9, 1988
the manhole ring so there's evidence that that manhole has had water probl~ns
even before this year so I guess I find it hard to believe that it has all been
just as a result of that detention pond.
Jack Fess: I live at 6280 Ridge Road. I built a new house there 6 years ago
on former John fl]ward's parcel and we're very involved with the lake as you
know fr~m the last go around that we've had over the last 2-3 years. We' re
very concerned, I'm very concerned relative to sc~e of the precautions that are
taking place relative to this develol~nent. Relative to that creek. Relative
to the fertilizers in the future and what's going to be done to make sure that
our lake is not contaminated. After all this has been said and done, all this
time we've spent trying to preserve these lakes around here, if for some reason
we went through the horse farm problem, that we contaminate Christmas Lake
because of the develotz~ent over there, it would be terrible. Shame on us so
I just want to put into the Minutes that a report got out on our lake last week
that there was possibly an overflow in a develol~nent. Our Homeowner's
president was called. The Watershed I believe was being called and I guess the
main thing we want to do is not create a problem here. Tne bases are covered
but I think we better make sure the bases are covered. I want sc~e assurance
that the bases are covered and the future problem, not only with fertilizer but
do we have a potential problem over there with this problem that we spoke to
here tonight of running into that lake there. Tnat is obviously where the
water goes into that lake is out the other end into Lake Minnetonka. So thank
you.
Mayor Hamilton: I had heard that same thing Gary, that there was a report out
on Christmas Lake that the water quality had declined some and I don't know if
there was any specific reason why or if they knew why. Had you seen that?
Gary Warren: I haven't seen a specific report. I know that, as Mrs. Kerber
eluded to, our pump station there was working overtime because of the water
that was backing into that manhole and one of the side benefits of being able
to raise, add the fill here to this corner of the property would be to get our
manhole up an addition 5 feet and out of a potential ponding area. So that's
the only thing I can elude is that would relate to that occurence.
Mayor Hamilton: Should the ponding areas that have been in place in this
develolm%ent, shouldn't they really take care of a great deal or a major portion
of any run-off, the nutrients that are going to come off of the yards?
Gary Warren: The series of ponds that we have on the develot~nent definitely
have some benefit to cleaning the run-off plus the fact that a lot of the
nutrient hit, so to speak, I would say was probably frem the horse barn and
that being gone now, we should say some good benefits in the quality of run-off
coming frem the develol~nent.
Councilman Johnson: Do we have any, it seems like there are several
outstanding preliminary plat conditions. This seems to be the time. Are there
only two l~hases in this project? Phase 1 and Phase 2? We're through, we're
out, we're gone?
Barbara Dacy: That ' s correct.
22
City Council Meeting - May 9~ 1988
Councilman Johnson: Okay, this ~ to be the time to ge~ the conditions
fulfilled. This is our last level. If they get Phase 2 final platted right
now ar~ get the go ahead to go, I guess w~ have grading pennits and a few
things like that to hit them with. Have most of these conditions, I see you
have 1, 2, 6 and 1~-15 basically here. How are we getting on filling those?
Barbara Dacy: Basically the only condition that needs clarification is the
landscaping condition on 14. I've addressed all the other ones that are noted
there and that's the main issue. How much landscaping should be along the
property line?
Karen I~mner: Excuse me. I'm sure I'm out of order but I'm very new to this.
Do I understand that the City Council does have the authority then, if they
directed Centex to be responsible for this landscaping to Kerber's, you could
so direct ~ to be responsible for landscaping for us?
Mayor Hamilton: That's correct.
Karen Remm~r: Then I would like to request that. I'm not sure that's part of
those 14 items.
Mayor Hamilton: I'm sure we'll address that in our conditions.
Councilman Johnson: There is a slight difference in .that the lar~]scaping
directed at the Kerber's was to protect the people in the subdivision from the
contractor's yard as much as the contractor from the subdivision. It really
has, in my mind, has the reverse purpose. We have a contractor's yard adjacent
to the subdivision and generally we require the contractor to put up benms. To
put up trees and everything. In this case, we're requiring the new guy to put
it up because it's an existing contractor's yard. It's kind of an opposite
situation. Other contractor's yards around town we're going after the
contractor's to replant their trees and put their bexm~ up and k~-~cp their berms
going to protect the City from the contractor's yard but I think you can work
with Centex. Centex will work with you. They have shown that they will do
some working. I know they've had a difficult time on this project. I think
there are s~me nights that they probably shake their heads at the end of the
day. I guess what I just said about contractor's yards is I had the feeling
that we were protecting, we're talking about the berming here. We weren't
talking about protecting the contractor from the adjacent h~=s but the
adjacent h~mes from the contractor's yard. Now if they don't do anything
bet~aen the house on Lot 1 and the contractor's yard, then that home has had no
shielding so I can see going down a little further down than what they're
considering the outlot so that the angle from that h~me into the contractor's
yard is shielded if possible. There is an elevation probl~ there. There may
not be a lot they can do along there. I don't personally consider the backyard
even though there is s~me uses going on there, I've never reviewed Larry's
conditional use permit to see whether that's a part of the contractor's yard or
not but primarily the contractor's yard to me is the front area where the house
is and where he does a majority of his work. Or a majority of the mov~_nt of
his vehicles. That's what I would see being protected but I believe we
probably should c~e down a little further than that outlot to catch that angle
between the house and his main barn there. The fillirg looks to he solving a
bit of an existing problem but one that has been exaggerated by having the pond
23 :
there. By putting up the berm where the water used to back up and go onto
what's now the Curry Farm's property, it now backs up onto Kerber property so
in my mind there is a direct cause and effect there in that the flooding used
to occur elsewhere. Where there always has been flooding, it has probably been
exaggerated by the filling but that's only an impression. In order to really
find that, we'd have to lift that. I think there is sc~e give and take. That
the filling is going to help the Kerber property in future sales or whatever
and I think there's been some good negotiating going on there. I see s~me give
and take on both sides. ~nis winter has not been that wet of a winter. If we
had backing up problem this winter, I think we can think back about 3 to 4
winters ago and it would have been considerably worse. I hope that on the
Re~mer property we can get scme landscaping. I don' t know how much landscaping
can be done if you're that much higher. It's tough but this is kind of a last
minute thing. I would like to see some work done there. Obviously the
easement is a legal problem that will have to be worked out and that seems to
your ace in the hole. You've got his eas~ent. So that's where your
negotiating point comes with him on the landscaping. I'm not 100% sure that
the City can require the landscaping there. It's generally for noise and other
things to protect both existing hc~~rs from new traffic. It's not like
they're putting a highway next to you or one of their main roads,
Karen R~m~er: No, but it certainly makes our property look lousy. If the road
connects to nothing. Our road goes around three sides of the house and runs
into the neighbors yard.
Councilman Johnson: Yes, that part they have to work out. I'm not sure on the
landscaping because obviously I haven't gotten out and looked at your probl~n
because I only heard about it right now.
Karen Ren~er: I just thought the landscaping could do away witl% that south
road is all.
Councilman Johnson: I think we're working in a void here until we actually see
something. Is staff confident that we've got enough here to get everything?
Barbara Dacy: Again, as far as the Rs~mer entry is concerned, grading issues
obviously have to be addressed during the plan and specification reivew so
there is another step here. Unfortunately, the specific condition of approval
on landscaping pertained to the Kerber's and not to the Re,her's so you need to
look at what was approved during preliminary and is the Council satisfied with
those conditions to give final plat approval for the second phase.
Councilman Johnson: Okay, then to put it real easy, I believe we've got enough
for final plat approval of the second phase except for I'd like to make sure
that the angle between the house on Lot 1 and the contractor's yard is
effectively covered by screening.
councilman Geving: I think we do not have enough information from my
standpoint to do a final plat approval tonight for the second addition. I
pulled this off the consent agenda tonight specifically because the last
sentence says that staff would meet with Centex and the Larry Kerber's this
afternoon to resolve the outstanding issues. I don't believe that's happened.
I know that you met but I don't believe the issues have all been resolved. Now
24
City Council Meeting - May 9, 1988
tonight, I hear a new player enter the field, Mrs. ~ and I think w~'ve got
some new issues. I'm not convinced that the 8 itsms that are listed on our
final plat approval here have ~-~n totally resolved. On item 14, my impression
was that Koegler w~uld go back ar~ do some landscaping and that there were to
be an agre~m~ent finally between the Kerber's and Oentex on the noise barrier
and visual barrier, and I don't know if that's happened. I'm not convinced
that we'll ever get 100% approval fr~m anyone on this. There has to be a point
in which the Council says that's it and make a decision. Maybe that's.what
you're asking for Barbara. In your view, Barbara, can you say that all the
cor~itions for final plat approval have bccn met by the developer in this
project?
Barbara Dacy: I can say for the exception of ntm~er 14 and that's why we ~
Council clarification. Because the way the condition was worded is different
fr~m the discussion during the Council minutes of May 4th and each party, staff
feels that the landscaping between Devonshire Drive and Kerber's was what was
discussed. However, the Kerber's feel that it should go all the way down the
south lot line and along the west lot line too. We met this afternoon and
those positions were reaffirmed and the decision was well, we have to get the
Council clarification on how they interpretted their actions.
Councilman Geving: So you're really only looking at it~ 14 at this point?
Barbara Dacy: Right.
Councilman Geving: Everything else has been met in your view and the remaining
issues, the comments that have ~n made mostly tonight by various individuals
are, in your opinion, are they personal in nature? Personal wants over and
above the requirements of our ordinances?
Barbara Dacy: As to the fill issue and the turn lane issues and so on, those
occurred as a result of the Phase 1 construction ar~ will have to continue to
be worked on and an agreement signed and so on.
Councilman Geving: Okay, but if we went ahead with tt~ plat approval of the
second phase, that still w~uld be an outstanding issue as far as the grading
issue and the berming and so forth?
Barbara Dacy: Grading plans for Phase 2 will have to come back.
Councilman Geving: I guess from my viewpoint Mr. Mayor, if we could just zero
in on 14 and resolve that, maybe we could move ahead. That's all I have.
Councilman Horn: I think this is, as several people have c(mm%ented, a
difficult issue. I think there have ~ a lot of compromises that have
happened and maybe s(x~e changing expectations of what's required. I remember
when we granted the contractor's yard, an expansion to the garage area there
which ~_~med quite large at the time, it s~ to me that the purpose was to
enclose as much of the operation as possible. Make sure we had indoor storage.
It disturbs me a little this evening to find that there is an intention to park
machinery in the back part of the lot because I thought the intent of this
expanded area, which we approved on a conditional use permit by the way ~hich
can not be overintensified, is being cont~m~plated. It may have ~ stated
25
City Council Meeting - May 9~ 1988
then that it is not clear to me that there would be areas of material storage
on the lot either. Contractor's yards in my opinion are somewhat interim uses
of property until an area gets totally urbanized, to allow that kind of
business to exist in an area that a person can allow it to happen without
paying the exorbinate costs of settling in one of our c(mm~rcial areas. In
fact, I pushed to have that happened because I think it's important to have the
independent contractor's in our area. On the other hand, the statement that I
recall when it comes to the screening issue is that they screening issue would
be resolved to the Kerber's satisfaction. ~nat's the c(mm%ent that I seem to
recall. Whether it's accurately reflected in the Minutes, it's not stated and
I'm not sure it w~s clear in any of our minds as to just how far that ~ent. I
didn't feel at the time it was our intent to totally screen the develo~x~ent
from the contractor's yard. I felt that the bigger issue at that point was
protecting the Kerber's from the impact of a development adjacent to his that
could affect a future plan he may have for developing his property. Tnat
seemed to be a big concern at that point, is that if he were to develop at some
later point, his property would not have the same value that it did. I think
Dale hit it right on the head when he said it has to come to a point of where
do we say that this is enough and that people have gone as far as they can in
meeting the intent. I was surprised to hear several of the issues that have
gone on beyond what we had discussed in the past but I do feel that there can
be more of an effort made to screen that property. It's not clear in my mind
whether it makes sense to screen the whole western side of the property. It
would appear to me that it may be more reasonable to screen that within the
applicant's property rather than on top of that berm. I think the realities of
the dry periods that we have in this state make it very difficult to grow
certain things on a berm. It's not clear in my mind at this point what's
reasonable. I do recall some of the statements made and I think it's a tough
issue. As I drive by there, it seems to be getting better and better every
day. I think the major concerns I had at the beginning of the project are
being resolved at this point. I think we're getting very close to getting it
resolved.
Mayor Hamilton: I agree with the others that 14 needs to be worked on sc~e and
I would like to see it worked on to the point that Larry and his wife agree
that the landscaping that's being done is in agreement, in reasonable agreement
with th~u because it's similar to a case w~ had in here a couple weeks ago. We
tried to hold it up contingent upon another person's approval. It's really
difficult because it could go on forever. Larry may never be satisfied. I
don't know if that would be the case but it's possible but I think you need to
be reasonable and I think that you will be and I firmly believe that. I think
Larry has some very good concerns. Especially berming by the turn lane. If he
has had to remove some trees off his property to acccmodate the fill, I think
those trees should either be replaced for him or a similar type tree put in.
Development that takes place, in my opinion shouldn't cost a neighboring
property owner a great deal of money just because a development went in. So if
you had to remove trees, I think they should be replaced for you. I would also
like to see a condition put on that the landscaping and easement issues are to
be resolved with the Rs~mer property as a part of the plat approval and I would
really like to see, and I'm not sure how we accomplish this but I think it's
important that somehow we test the run-off coming off this property going into
Christmas Lake. Now whether or not the City accomplishes that in conjunction
with the developer or with the Watershed District or how we go about
26
City Council Meeting - May 9~ 1988
!05
accomplishing that, I think that I would like to see that be a condition that
w~ at least work with the developer ar~ do s~me testirg of the run-off to see
what the condition of it is so we know what's coming off of there. We can
monitor it from time to time to make sure that it's improving. I believe what
Gary's saying is correct, that it probably will improve the condition overall
but let's see what it's doing right now and monitor it to see if it doesn't
improve over a period of time. Those are the conditions I would like to see
put on for the approval of the final plat. Would that be reasonable with you
Barb? Would those issues be reasonably easy to clarify?
Barbara Dacy: Again, the ~ issues can be addressed during plans ar~
specifications or the grading plan for Phase 2.
Mayor Hamilton: Okay, but I w~uld like to see you make it a cor~ition so that
does get accomplished so that Mrs. Rem~_r is satisfied that all of her concerns
are met.
Councilman Geving: Is it your advice then Barbara that we table this it~ for
another tw~ ~ks?
Mayor Hamilton: I think we can move ahead with the approval with the
conditions can' t we?
Barbara Dacy: If you so choose. Again, the landscaping issue is really the
main issue of dispute.
Mayor Hamilton: But that can c~me back to us on another, can't that c~me back
as a consent agenda item again? The landscaping issue.
Barbara Dacy: Right, if you wanted to approve the plat subject to a revised
plan coming back for Council review, that's up to you.
Mayor Hamilton: I guess I'd like to see it approved tonight with the three
conditions that I mentioned. The landscaping plan. The resolution of the
~ property concerns and the testing of the run-off into Christmas Lake so
we can at least see that those items have ~ addressed and that they've
resolved to all those concerned.
Barbara Dacy: The laa~mer grading issues really, because they involve grading
ar~ detail analysis of the grading plan, we won't be able to resolve those
until we get a grading plan in. F~nn~ile the developer does need to final the
plat and so on to get the d~ts prepared. I want to make it clea~ to the
Council that you will have a hook in that issue with the grading plans.
Mayor Hamilton: Okay, so we'll have to see a grading plan prior...
Barbara Dacy: Before even an attempt to resolve their issue.
Mayor Hamilton: Okay, so the~ that should not be a condition. We could have
two conditions. Your issue is still going to be resolved.
Larry Kerber: Can you touch on that turn lane issue because I guess, my big
concern with that is, I had no idea that turn lane Ms going to pop up until
27
City Council ~3eting ' May 9~ 1988
they came out there and dug up the road and started paving. I would like to
see some screening.
Mayor Hamilton: I would like to see the berming of the turn lane, as I had
mentioned, included with the landscaping plan as a part of that review.
Gary Warren: Landscaping acceptable in lieu of berming? Berming and/or
landscaping?
Mayor Hamilton: Sure, I think so. I think it should be shown to Larry so he
can see how it will look.
Councilman Johnson: A caution on testing of run-off at this point because w~
have no baseline data as to what the run-off quality was prior to this point.
While I think it actually is a good idea but if the numbers come out, w~ don't
know what has caused those numbers. It may not be Centex. It may still be
continuation from the old horse barn, etc., if the numbers come out high.
While I'm supporting it, I just wanted to throw a word of caution in there that
it would have been nice, again to have made this test once prior to any
construction and then done it after the construction to see an improvement type
situation. Unfortunatley it's too late.
Mayor Hamilton: I agree with you but I would like to start scmeplace. If we
start now in testing and we see what we've got, if it appears to be bad,
I think we can make some adjustments further on down the road. Whether it's to
make the sediment pond deeper, wider, something to affect the run-off.
Councilman Johnson: I agree. The other thing I'd like to do, they're now
changing to convey to the City an outlot and they're going to be placing
plantings in that outlot. New plantings, the first two years of the plantings
are the most critical years. I'd like to see that Centex is responsible for
those plantings for a period of two years.
Mayor Hamilton: Is that normal?
Councilman Geving: I think one growing season is normal.
Gary Warren: Usually one growing is normal.
Mayor Hamilton: When they're on berms though, they can last a year and then
die the second year.
Councilman Johnson: The difference here is a lot of the plantings go on their
property that they're new homeowners are going tomaintain it. This one has to
go, the City will have to start maintaining this property and from what I've
been catching from certain landscaping folks is that beyond the first year, the
first two years is when you reallyhave to keep that stuff well watered until
the root systems are well established so I'd like in this case, since the City
is taking on the responsibility and they're going to be owning the
property, I'd like to see that we have good healthy stuff growing there and I'd
like to go two years instead of one.
Mayor Hamilton: Okay. Anything else?
28
City Council Meeting - May 9; 1988
Councilman Johnson: I haven't _b~a___rd from the other three as to what their
defintion of landscaping is. I think w~'re at a point on it~n 14. They've
been negotiating a long time and they still ~.~---n to be a long ways apart. I'd
like to know the guidance from 'the rest of the Council on whether they believe
landscaping should go all the way down the south property line and all the way
across the w~st property line or whether wa should extend to this limit or as I
said, extend further down which I've made my thoughts known. I think staff
wants that type of guidance and we're at the point where we're not going to
resolve it without it.
Mayor Hamilton: Since I have a great deal of confidence in our staff to
resolve this issue, I think that they should review the lar~scaping plan and.
make what they think is a very reasonable suggestion for both sides and present
that back to us. Hopefully it will satisfy the Kerber's and it will also
satisfy Centex. I feel that the staff is in a position to negotiate with both
sides really to reach a mutual agre~uent and bring that back to us and I'd feel
very cc~afortable with ~ doing that for us and then having us review it and
approve it.
Karen Rsm~_r: Just one more point. I didn't say this very well but Mr. Horn
touched on it, for the 22 years that we've lived in our little house in the
middle of four meadows, our landscaping did tie in with the meadows around it.
Now the Centex is c~ming in to change it and unless our landscaping is changed,
then it will no longer tie in and I think it will diminish the value of our
property. We aren't asking for anything outrageous. We just want our lawn to
tie in with our neighbors. I first brought this to Barb Dacy's attention about
tw~ w~eks ago when we became aware of the easement. She has a rather lengthy
letter from me on this that. she said was not in the package. ~nat's our only
concern. We don't mean to be difficult or tie anything up. We just want to
tie in with the new feel for our neighborhood.
Mayor Hamilton: I think we understand that and I think those are the issues
that will be addressed for you and be resolved.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the final plat
approval for Curry Farms Phase II with the comdition that staff w~rk out a
reasonable solution to the landscaping plan bet~---~n~ Larry Kerber and Centex ar~
that testing be done concerning the run-off from Curry Farms into Christmas
Lake. All voted in favor and motion carried.
SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST AT 3621 IRONWOOD ROAD, CHARLES ERICKSON.
Mayor Hamilton: This was on the agenda for the Board of Adjustments ar~
Appeals. Dale, maybe you can tell us what happened?
Councilman Geving: Earlier this evening the Board of Adjustments and A~peals
met and discussed this it~ and we had a split vote on the approval. One board
member voted for it, tw~ members voted against it and it's being brought before
the full Council for further consideration.
29
Mayor Hamilton: Does the Council ~ staff presentation on this? I think
it's fairly straight forward what the applicant is asking for unless you need
more data. We did receive a letter which I'll call your attention to, from the
neighboring people saying they felt it was a good idea to do the project. From
my standpoint, I talked to Barbara this afternoon and I'm in favoring of
granting a variance and I wish there was another vehicle in our ordinance
somehow to allow the type of thing without having a variance process.
Variances are the most way to go to get this type of thing accomplished and if
it was kind of middle thing we could do rather than a variance and rather than
a conditional use to accomplish this thing because it is an improvement to the
property. It is a nice addition to the home. It's an asset to the
neighborhood and you're still leaving plenty of space between the house and the
property line so consequently I have absolutely no problem with it.
Councilman Johnson: I'm going to continue my steadfast, hopefully it's
steadfast, going along with you have to meet the conditions of a variance and I
do believe that we need to, this is one that if there was a way, I agree with
you Mr. Mayor, this is one that I wish our ordinances ~ould allow.
Unfortunately, our ordinances do not allow this one. Just because we think
it's a good idea to drive 50 mph during one w~ek in a 35 zone, doesn't mean
we're allowed to do that. Our ordinance really says that this is a convenience
and not a hardship. I'm going to be voting against it unfortunately.
Councilman Horn: Just a co~ent. I think one of the things we always have to
look at on these is whether reasonable use is being denied. It appears that a
substantial improvement could still be made to the property that w~uld not
require a variance. To me that's key in this case. I would definitely go along
with your thinking that it does improve the property however I feel that
improvement can also be made without the variance.
Councilman Geving: I sit on the Board of Adjustments and Appeals and we see a
lot of cases. Many times it's cut and dry because there happens to be an area
where you just can't build in any other manner on the lot. Maybe a large tree
inhibits the building and so a variance is necessitated. In this particular
issue, we have to remember one thing. That the lot predates many of the things
that happened within the City of C~anhassen and when this home was built as a
rambler style home, even though there's 61 feet to the east lot line and only
18 to the west lot line, you have to remember that it was never intended to be
expanded at any time. The same people have lived at this home for some 34
years and now economically they find it available to them to make a substantial
increase to the capital outlay of the property. Beautiful addition of the
master area of 12 x 24 feet. Significant increase to the property value.
Certainly if they could have turned back the clock 34 years and thought what
they might do sometime in the future, they would have pushed the whole house to
the east of the property line and could have very easily met the requirements
today for the setback. There is no objection from the property owner to the
west. In fact, it's a very large piece of property. It's 20 some acres of
vacant land. Someday it will be subdivided I suspect. We don't know when and
how it will be subdivided and certainly a 4 foot variance leaving a sideyard of
6 feet is not going to inhibit any future development on that property to the
west. I strongly feel that there are times when variances, and that's really
what a variance is, it's a variance from our ordinance and there is no intent
30
City Council Meeting - May 9, 1988
109
here to destroy the ordinance' because ~ really have to look at the property
and I think we're still in line with the intent of a variance. Is to provide
for special considerations and special circtm~tances. I think this is a
special circumstance that the Erickson's have. I vote for the variance for
that reason.
Mayor Hamilton: Mr. Erickson, you had something?
Charles Erickson: Yes. I realize that what we're tryirK3 to accomplish here is
to give some evidence of the hardship presented by the property in terms of
it's layout. These pictures represent the end view of the west end of the
house where the proposed building is going to go. You can see, it was the
zoning committee's original idea that we might possibly go out the front of
that end of the house. There is a large cedar tree there that would prohibit
that type of building. Also, it does not k~-cp in co~enm/re value of the house
of it's rambler configuration. As you can see, it's not a long hcme to begin
with. Going to the east is obviously prohibited because that's the kitchen and
livingro~n end of the hume where other improvers have already been made so
really the side lot sitting there. There's a garage on the north side which
prohibits going off that direction also. To the north side. So to keep in
line with the house, the only direction this could go lengthwise, the only
feasible direction unfortunately...
Mrs. Erickson: What we're trying to do is keep it consistent with the rest of
the homes on that side.
Councilman Horn: What prevents it from going to the north?
Charles Erickson: There's a garage. You can see that the picture of the
garage was shown in one of those pictures, on the north side.
Mayor Hamilton: It's a nice addition and I think it's one that ought to be
~lished o
Councilman Johnson: Is the garage in the setback?
Mrs. Erickson: It's detached from the house.
Councilman Johnson: Have you talked to your neighbor about getting 4 foot of
their property?
Charles Erickson: We have a letter stating he has no objections to it.
Councilman Johnson: No, I'm saying you can avoid the variance by buying 4 foot
of his property along your property line.
Mrs. Erickson: I'm sorry my husband is not here tonight but we did not discuss
that.
Councilman Johnson: If you move your property 4 foot, you've got your thing
and we don't have to approve a variance at all. I don' t know what he would
charge you for 4 foot by 10~ foot or whatever w~ have to do. Probably some
kind of an angle though.
31
City Council Meeting - May 9~ 1988
Mrs. Erickson: You mean take 24 feet lor~ and 4 feet wide?
Mayor Hamilton: Whatever the length of lot w~uld be, your neighbor's lot, he's
saying for you to buy 4 foot of depth into your neighbor's lot.
Mrs. Erickson: It goes from the lakeshore of Minnew~shta to TH 7.
Councilman Johnson: Your property doesn't.
Mrs. Erickson: Yes. We have an easement over that road but our lot is 450
feet deep.
Mayor Hamilton: It sounds like a prohibitive type thing.
Councilman Johnson: I'm saying it hasn't been explored and that's another way
to avoid the variance.
Barbara Dacy: What she's saying is that the McCallup's goes all the way out.
Mrs. Erickson: No. Ours goes about half way.
Barbara Dacy: ~hey'd have to cut it off probably even with the Ironwood
private eas~nent where it goes east.
Mayor Hamilton: One of the things we have to do I think when we're making
these kinds of decisions is to be reasonable and sc~netimes the variance process
in my opinion is not reasonable. When you buy a piece of property you buy the
whole piece of property. You should be able to use that piece of property form
border to border. As long as you don't start building on your neighbor's yard,
I don't see why you shouldn' t be able to use the property that you bought.
Mrs. Erickson: I think it would be prohibitive for us to have to buy that much
land just to build a 12 x 24 foot. We just couldn't afford it.
Councilman Horn: Has staff gotten any other input based on the discussion of
this it~n that they would change their rec(~mnendation?
Barbara Dacy: No, we can't based on our reading of the ordinance.
Councilman Horn: Is this an additional room?
Mrs. Erickson: Amaster bedroom and a master bath is what w~ would like to add
to it.
Councilman Horn: Okay, and that's a total additional room rather than
expanding existing ro~ms that are on that side of the house?
Mrs. Erickson: Yes.
Councilman Horn: So an 8 foot wide room would be a litle bit snug.
Councilman Johnson: I'm trying to think of ways around this. Another one
would be a 4 foot construction easement or something that would have to be
32
City Council Meeting - May 9, 1988
almost an ordinance change to allow such that you could get an easement onto
the neighboring property to maintain the same 10 foot setback so any future
home built on the neighboring property, if it's subdivided, they still have
the, what we' re trying to get is 20 feet bet~---~n~ homes. 10 feet between you
and your property line and 10 feet between them and their property line. They
come in, they do the same thing. Pretty soon you' re got two houses butt up
against each other. ~nat's a fire hazard. So Barb, is there such a thing as a
construction easement or such an easement that their next door neighbor could
give then.
Barbara Dacy: The ~Callup's would have to agree to. record a restriction
against their property beyond the requir~nent of the zoning ordinance' to really
build 14 feet from that line instead of 10 feet.
Councilman Johnson: So I'm saying, I've proposed two alternatives that have
not yet been looked into that would solve both of these problems.
Barbara Dacy: But you would still have the need for the variance because the
lot line r~mains as is with or without.
Councilman Johnson: The second, we'd have to change our rules to allow such a
thing without a variance.
Barbara Dacy: Right and staff is hesitant to recc~man~ that on an ongoing
basis.
Councilman Johnson: I think we have to look at something because ~hen
reasonable things come in.
Robert Pierce: I just happened to looking a little bit at that parcel and ~n I
correct in assuming, I believe there's 300 feet of lakeshore? I believe it's
300 feet and if I was the M~Callup's the last thing I'd do is give up 4 feet
knowing how difficult it is ar~ how precious and your ordinances on the
lakeshore. It just so happened that I was looking at that parcel and I know if
I owned it and I'd need every foot of that lakeshore. I wouldn't part with it.
It's a very expensive parcel.
Charles Erickson: It would be extremely prohibitive to purchase the land. The
fact remains that we've got the permission from the McCallups.
Mayor Hamilton: What I'd like to do within my motion, say that the Attorney
prepare Findings of Facts why this should be allowed.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the 4 foot sideyard
variance request at 3621 Ironwood Road for Charles Erickson and that the City
Attorney prepare Findings of Facts stating why the variance should be allowed.
All voted in favor except Councilman Johnson who opposed and motion carried.
Councilman Horn: I think to expand on this. %he key Findings of Facts on my
part was I don't believe there is another reasonable use. I don't think that's
staff's recc~m~%dation of a narrower addition is reasonable.
33
City Council Meeting - May 9, 1988
Mayor Hamilton: I think the Findings of Facts should show that there is a
garage on the north side. There is valuable trees on the one side. There is a
kitchen and whatever on one end so you're not going to build a bedroom off of
your kitchen just because you happen to have more room on that end of your
house so I think there are reasons why you should be able to do it.
Mrs. Erickson: The land, the lot that he has looked at, that used to be a
greenhouse there. Smith Greenhouse and right next to our lot line is a road
that went down into the greenhouse so there's never been a building anywhere
near that line. I don't know what happens in the future. How they w~uld build
it but there would have to be a road going down in there anyway.
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 20-263 (6 & 7) OF THE RECREATIONAL
BEACHLOT ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE LOT DEPTH REQUI~ FOR A DOCK AND-ONE CANOE
RACK/DOCK REQUIREMENT, ROBERT PIERCE.
Barbara Dacy: Could I make one clarification in the Planning Cc~x~ission action
on page 6 and 7 of the staff report. There are two issues. The number of
canoe racks for the beachlot and the lot depth for the beachlot. ~ne
recommendation from the Planning Commission as to the canoe racks is listed
under (6). 20-363(6). Basically what the Planning Cc~mission said is that
they w~uld allow enough canoe racks so you could have one slip per rack per lot
with a maximum of 7 racks per beachlot. Secondly, as to the lot depth issue,
they kept the 100 feet lot depth requir~ent but said that it could have a
street right-of-way included in that calculation. Tne way that the staff
report reads is that it's exclusive of the street right-of-way. When you read
through the Minutes of the Planning Commission was saying it is inclusive so we
just wanted to make sure that that was understood by the Council.
Councilman Geving: So it's inclusive rather than exclusive?
Barbara Dacy: Right.
Councilman Johnson: I don't think one canoe slot per lot is needed. I don't
think every household is going to run out and buy a canoe and put a canoe out
there. I thinkmaybe one in three, one in whatever. Even if everybody did own
a canoe, they're not necessarily going to be canoeing on that lake. They may
be a boundary waters canoe or whatever, going someplace else to canoe. I just
think 42 canoe racks, which would be 6 canoes in 7 racks is a heck of a lot of
racks. You're going to need one huge beachlot. I think the size of the
beachlot is going to have to say howmany canoe racks. If you take a 30,000
square foot beachlot and put 42 canoes on it, you're not going to have much of
a beachlot left. That thing is going to be very, very unsightly as far as I'm
concerned. I'd like to see that taken down to 1 in 3. Somehow or another
restrict the number of canoe racks against square footage of the beachlot. I
really think Dave Headla had a good idea too on the larger the piece of
property servicing the beachlot, the larger the beachlot should be. So if
you're servicing 200 homes with a beachlot, that beachlot needs to be
significantly larger than a beachlot servicing 18 homes. Right now we have
nothing in here to do that. 30,000 square may not be there. As it's
written, I'm not too wild about this. I think 7 racks is too much. You'd have
to have one beck of a big subdivision. I don't know how to do it tonight so
34
City Council M~eting - May 9, 1988
113
I'm really going to vote against both of ti%sm because I'd like ._- staff to
relook at 7 racks per beachlot to see if there's someway we can put a slidirg
scale on beachlots for the intensity. That's my primary comments.
Councilman Geving: I w~uldn't want to water down our ordinance for any
particular applicant. Especially if it might set a precedent for sc~e pending
or future litigation and I'm thinking particularly of Sunnyslope here.
~hatever we do, we have to be very careful and that our Attorney should give us
advice on exactly what we can or cannot do so that we do not limit ourselves in
that Sunnyslope situation but that we should continue to meet the intent of the
ordinance. I think what the Planning C~z~ission attempted to do here was very
good. Sc~eone suggested for example that we have at least the 100 feet of lot
depth where the dock is proposed to be located but then for a distance width
wise of 30 feet. I kind of like that. $~here they cannot meet the 100 feet or
where they just -m~ct it for example, they should have an area big enough so you
could put the dock in and have s~me ro~m on each side of it. I kind of like
too what was given to us fr~m the Planning ~ssion on page 3 on the number
of docks should be tied to something or the number of canoes should be tied to
s~mething. So at the top of page 4, the wording that staff r~nds the
canoe racks be a permitted use on a recreational beachlot and the number of
canoe racks be determined as a part of the conditional use permit review, I
kind of like that. I thought that was a good alternative. I really don't have
a lot of problems with the language. Do we have any situations where a
recreational beachlot is bisected by a roadway or ~here it could he bisected by
a roadway? I was thinking of this addition on North Lotus Lake where we did
have the road that was separated the lake from the actual lots. Do we have
anymore of those in the city?
Barbara Dacy: No. To use your term bisected, there are no instances in the
city where we have the lake, beachlot, road, beachlot. So the intent of the
fk~mission's action was to keep that 100 foot, in the Planning C~ission's
term, buffer. That if in the example of the west side of Lake Minnewashta
where you do have the narrower parcels and if they still can meet the 30,000
square feel, still can ~m~ct the 200 feet of lake frontage, that they would
allow that 66 feet right-of-way width as part of the 100 foot calculations. It
was intended to accomodate that type of situation because we still have that
buffer between the beachlot and any existing homes.
Councilman Geving: Okay, and I like that because the only place where we have
that meandering nature really exists right now in the Lake Minnewashta Parkway
I believe. I don't know of any other areas that are like that.
Barbara Dacy: Right. The other situations are, you have the beachlots and
then there are the homes directly abutting the beachlots.
Councilman Geving: I don't really have any other comments. I think the final
resolution here on both these issues are to my satisfaction.
Councilman Horn: My initial reaction was that we should not give any more on
beachlots. I 'm tired of every beachlot cc~ing up saying they're unique and
that we should allow ths~ in this case. However, after my initial reaction to
this, I tried to look at the reasonableness of the request and it appeared
through an overall area request that it wasn't terribly unreasonable. I too
35
114
City Council Ma~ting - May 9~ 1988
like some of the recoamendations that the Planning Cxan~ission gave. However,
I have a real problem with 7 canoe racks carte blanche without some method of
screening them. Part of our concern, obviously in the ordinance is
intensification of lake use but on the other hand we can't allow sc~ething that
would become unattractive to happen. As we've seen on these beachlots, while
sc~e of them are maintained very well, others just throw up anything they can
get away with down there and we all know where those are. So I think ~ have
to be very careful in allowing anything that would further intensify either the
lake use or the vJ. sual pollution of lots along the lake to both the neighbors
and any passers by so I had a real problsm with allowing 7 canoe racks in any
particular lot without sc~e kind of screening reccmm%endation to it. As far as
the compremise on the 100 feet, I think there's some reason to go along with
that based on road right-of-way and what you include and what you don't include
but I have a real problem with 7 canoe racks.
Mayor Hamilton: If you want to put 100 canoe racks in there, I think it's a
great idea. What we're trying to do is encourage use of the lakes, not
polluting them and I don't believe that paddling a canoe pollutes the lakes
any. It encourages use and it gives people the opportunity to get on the lake.
It's not a use that's going to create a problem for the lake and I think
whether it's 7 or 70, I think the more people we can allow to use the lake, the
better it is and if ~'re using it with a canoe or a sailboat, that's even
better. As you Walk around Lake Harriett, as an example, you see that they
have canoe racks and docks built for neighborhood use and it's done very
nicely, very effectively and they usually have th~m buffered by a w~eping
willow or sc~e other type of tree so really from the street you don't notice
them so much and people can use the lake and they're out there in a vehicle
that's not going to cause any pollution. I had a question on the 30,000 square
feet. We're talking about 200 feet of lake frontage and 100 feet of depth and
which comes up to 20,000 square feet but then ~ say in addition, 30,000 square
feet of land is required. Why aren't we consistent in saying if you're going
to have 200 by 100 to have 20,000 square feet?
Barbara Dacy: When the lot area requirement was made a part, I think it was
the 1986 amendment to the ordinance. Tne 100 and 200 are minimums and the
30,000 square feet was an extra 10,000 square feet to make sure that we had a
substantial lot area to require a dock in the beachlot. I realize that they
don't equal one and another but during that 1986 amendment process, that's what
was determined as being adequate for one dock.
Mayor Hamilton: I remember that too but it just doesn't, I don't know why we
did that and I don't know why it should remain. I'd rather see something
that's consistent. When you look at 200 and 100 you think, 20,000 square feet
is what you need to have and then we suddenly add another 10,000 just for the
fun of it I guess.
Barbara Dacy: A similar situation I can draw for you would be in our zoning
ordinance for the lot size. Minimum dimensions are 90 feet wide and 125 feet
deep. They are established minimums and the 15,000 square foot lot size does
not equal 90 x 125.
Mayor Hamilton: I don't have a real problem. It didn't seem to be consistent
and that was my primary question. Mr. Pierce did you have any comnents you
36
City Council Meeting - May 9~ 1988
wanted to make on this?
Robert Pierce: I understand what w~' re looking for and I thought the ordinance
did limit it to the anount, I'm not sure if I'm corZect on this but limit the
beachlot use, isn't there a depth on that? That only certain people within a
certain amount of feet?
Councilman Geving: That's that 1,000 feet.
Robert Pierce: I kind of thought that would probably limit your useage to a
certain extent. We're just looking to have 15 slips or racks. One per lot and
I think that is defined as non-motorized use such as a sailboard, canoe.
Something that's specifically designed to fit on the racks and no motorized
watercraft. That's basically our intent. We intend to spell that out very
clearly also that the overnight storage on the dock w~ are going to assign to
the lots. I know you've had some trouble with some things that developers
maybe s~me misconceptions. We certainly don't want that with anybody and we' 11
work very hard to convey that on in a real straight forward manner and think we
can do a real nice job.
Councilman Johnson: I wanted to ask Dale, he said he didn't like the 7 canoe
racks but he likes the reccmnendation. The recc~m~ndation is for 7 canoe
racks.
Councilman Geving: I think the reco~nendation here is tied to scmething. It
has a reason. In this particular case, the number of racks shall not exceed
the amount of storage necessary to permit one rack per lot served by the-
beachlot. However, in no case shall there be more than 7. I suspect we could
have picked 3, 4 or 5. I'm thinking of a large develolmment. 42 canoes is not
a lot of canoes if you've got a 20~ unit develolznent.
Councilman Johnson: On a 30,~0 square foot beachl0t, 42 canoes is a lot of
canoes. I think what you said earlier when you w~nt back to page 4, whatever
it was, and said that it should be, the number shall be decided upon. I think
that should be added right in there.
Barbara Dacy: I have a cc~lpromise. Mr. G~ving's per staff's original
reomm~ndation that it would be left up to each individual conditional use
permit application. The Planning Ccumission on the other hand was concerned
that we didn't establish a maximum. That there were no guidelines. So we went
back and calculated what would be the most intensive number of lots you could
have that would use a beachlot within 1,00~ of a beachlot. Using some existing
examples, we came up with anywhere between 38 and 42 so a cc~prc~nise position
could be if the Council wants canoe racks are a permitted use and not specify
the number of rack spaces per lot but just say up to a maximum of 6 or 7 or
whatever you feel is appropriate. That you would especially not like to see
any more than 6 or 7 racks per beachlot, if you ~nted to do it that way. So
scm~body could come in and propose 2 or 3 and you would still have the ability
to say well, even 3 is too intensive.
Councilman Geving: For that particular sized lot.
37
City Council ~eeting - May 9~ 1988
Ray Roettger, Dartmouth Drive: I just want to make sure that, I was here then
for the Planning decision, I think you're really compromising by going and
including this 66 foot wide road because you really end up with a 32 foot wide
strip. I think the 30,000 feet in there perhaps was in there for a good reason
so you get an average like three-fourths of an acre. What is left after you
take that road out would be less than the width of this room which could be
quite narrow so I want to hear your opinion on that. I don't have any
objection to one canoe per lot. I agree with you people that there's a limit
to it. I did check with Barb after the Planning Commission. Were w~ hearing
the same thing or thinking along the same lines and that was, Barb did confirm
that they were talking about one dock, which you haven't discussed yet, with
three boats which would be one for each one of the front lots but I thought
Mr. Pierce was thinking along different lines where he was thinking of three
docks with three boats per dock. You clarified it for me that it was one dock
with three boats. I just wanted to make sure that didn't slip by and also the
fact that other people would not be mooring a lot of boats out there.
Barbara Dacy: ~ne ordinance does restrict the amount of moorings also and
moorings were not proposed as a part of this conditional use permit.
Ray R~ettger: So it would be one dock for the three boats?
Mayor Hamilton: Yes, it would be limited to that.
Mary Jo Moore, Dartmouth Drive: I've been here several times on this same
issue. I have the beach ordinance which also says that it's for the use of the
waters. I was at the Planning Cc~ission meeting when they held the public
meeting. They disregarded everyone's c(mm~ents regarding changing this
ordinance. There was no one for it. Most people agreed to a variance for Mr.
Pierce for canoe racks but they did not want to see an ordinance changed for
one developer. Because you can't a variance, now change the ordinance. ~nat
was totally disregarded and they went ahead and made their reconm~endations.
They took into account a road, which I think is a safety hazard. The beachlot
ordinance was not strictly just to buffer the neighboring people. It was also
lake useage and there's an awful lot of traffic on Minnewashta Parkway. Now
you're taking into account a roadway, a very busy one, plus it could be
expanded. ~nere's been talk of even expanding Minnewashta Parkway. You don't
have much room inbetween the lake and the road. Just the grade of the lot
doesn't allow much down there. The Planning Cc~mission also, I think one
msmber should have abstained from voting which I mentioned to him because he's
in exactly the same position that this property is in and it looks like a
conflict of interest to me. I don't think the Council should look at changing
the ordinance for one developer that comes in. He can sell those lots. He can
develop the lots. They're doing it all the time without having lake useage and
they're getting good homes in but when you can't get a variance, change the
ordinance? You've got to take into account your residents too. That's all I
wanted to say.
Mayor Hamilton: I think we take them into account all the time.
Mary Jo Moore: The Planning Commission did not. They disregarded everything
38
City Council Meeting - May 9, 1988
117
Councilman Johnson: I want clarification. Now that this is inclusive of the
street right-of-way, is that only for the 30,000 square feet, w~ don't include
the street right-of-way?
Barbara Dacy: Right. It's just for the lot depth.
Councilman Johnson: For the lot depth w~ do include the street right-of-way
but they still have to have 30,000 square foot exclusive of the street right-
of-~ay so we've still got a 30,000 square foot lot?
Barbara Dacy: Right.
Councilman Johnson: I do have a lot of feelings, in the same manner, you name
slipped by me but we keep changing ordinances and it's like a revolving door
you know. Tnis didn't fit so let's change the ordinance and make it fit.
Whatever versus what's best for the City. I'm not totally into why we had the
100 foot depth, what it's purpose ~s. We had a committee study this.- I'm not
sure if we're really ready to change it at this time. I think that what I'd
like to ~_~c, is not change, I'd like to keep that exclusive of the street
right-of-way at this time until further study. I'm really not, for scme
reason, that dock bothers me when there's that little room betw~=en it and the
street. I'm not 100% sure why but I'd like to also see that we put screening
requirements in on the canoe racks so they're not just sitting there. ~nat we
have it right in there as a conditional use. That they shall be screened ar~ a
number of them shall be determined during conditional use permit. Hopefully
we'll take both of these issues separately. Section 20-363(6) and (7) and vote
on them separately.
Barbara Dacy: Mr. Mayor, just a reminder. For each motion to a~end the
ordinance it takes a four-fifths vote. So in order for the motion to pass all
four of you would have to vote an affirmative vote.
Councilman Geving: I think if we do have a dissenting vote on either or both
of these, and I get the impression that Jay might not vote for ~, I don't
know. Then I think we should table it until we five m~ers here.
Councilman Johnson: I've discussed this Councilman Boyt by the way and he's
against both of them.
Councilman Geving: I think rather than killing this and then having to bring
it back, I think the best thing to do is just table it. I don't think it's
going to hold Mr. Pierce up any.
Robert Pierce: I guess the time schedule that I'm most concerned of is, we're
in the process of putting our covenants, building restrictions and covenants
together and this issue is going to determine the square footage that we're
going, if we can't come to terms on this until six months fr~n now or whatever,
then the square footages have to be reduced. The light useage that we're using
here is going to, with the useage of the docks and the canoe racks, which is
relatively a light useage for this size of parcel, will enable us to build and
use a nicer developer. It just makes a tremendous difference for a very easy,
what I see as a very reasonable trade-off. One other thing, I felt ar~ I got
a little different, I didn't feel a lot of animosity at ~ first meeting from
39
City Council Meeting - May 9, 1988
%he people. Especially with ~his and I think their biggest concern w~s the
buffering between homes. Making sure that, a lot of people are on a narrow 50
foot beachlot and houses are adjoining it and I can see their concern if w~
were trying to do that but I think we've provided such a wide buffer zone. I
go out on Lake Minnetonka sometimes with my kids and the beaches ~ go to, as a
rule, are no deeper than anywhere from almost zero, 1 or 2 feet to 6 or 8 feet.
A good share of them are that and they'll be far heavier uses of those beaches
than will be at this and we have just an i~mense amount more roc~ than they
have. There's just no comparison. The likelihood of every party in there
being down on that beach, even if they were, there's plenty of room but the
likelihood of that happening is really slim. I feel that the area and all
that, we've got enough to handle far more lots and families than that.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconed to table the Zoning Ordinance
Amenc~nent to amend Section 20-263 (6 & 7) until a full Council is present. All
voted in favor except Councilman Johnson who opposed and motion carried.
Councilman Johnson: Can I make one additional co~ent for staff to think
about? 30,000 square foot of useable area versus hillside because you're
looking at how intense you're going to utilize a beachlot. If you!ve got a
beachlot t_hat's 30,000 square foot of unuseable land and 400-500 square foot of
useable land, do you really have a beachlot there?
Mayor Hamilton: Then you should give credit for having additional lake
frontage. In other words, you' ve got 520 feet of lakeshore, how do you get
credit for that? You've got 520 feet. Think about it. ~nat you're not
allowing the man to use. It's got to worth something.
Councilman Johnson: I think we're reacting to a specific thing here.
Mayor Hamilton: Of course you are. Don't you always when there's a request to
change an ordinance? You've co~men~ these things, we should consider
changing thom. Are they written in stone? Are we never to look at these to
change them? Good lord man, you've got to use your head too. You've got to be
reasonable.
Councilman Johnson: You've got to look at the whole city.
Barbara Dacy: I was just going to mention that the request for this particular
amendment was for the lot depth and the number of canoe racks. ~ issue of the
lot area was not specifically advertised for. I can check with the Attorney to
see if that could be included in Council's action but we may be overstepping.
I'll check into it is what I'm saying. If we can actually amend the lot area
requirsment.
Councilman Geving: You weren't asked by the Council to do that.
Mayor Hamilton: I hate to table it but it wasn't going to pass so we.might
just as w~ll see if we can five here and somehow convince Bill.
40
Ci%y Council Meeting - May 9, 1988
119
SIGN PERMIT VARIANCE TO PLACE AN (~F-P~SE SIGN FOR HERITAGE INN MOTEL,
DONALD KRUEGER.
Barbara Dacy: I have no report and I don't know where the applicant is.
.
Mayor Hamilton: Well, he's had plenty of time to get here.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Geving seconded to deny the sign permit
variance request #88-2 to install an off-pr~mise advertising sign on TH 212.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
APPROVAL OF CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR PIONRRR TRAIL. (COUNTY R(I%D 14).
Resolution 988-41: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Geving seconded a
resolution approving the plans and specifications for reconstruction of Pioneer
Trail (County Road 14) as presented by Carver County. All voted in favor and
motion carried.
Resolution 988-42: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Geving seconded a
resolution establishing no parking zones on both sides of Pioneer Trail fr~n
TH 101 to the Hennepin County line. All voted in favor and motion carried.
Councilman Geving: I do want to ask you Roger, as long as we've got you here,
is there a likelihood that this could be constructed at the end of this fiscal
year? The County fiscal year of this year?
Roger Gustafson: No. We have right-of-way to acquire and...
Councilman Geving: Okay, there was a comment in here that it possibly could be
constructed this year. Just so no one is misled by that. So construction is
really set for 1989.
Roger Gustafson: That's correct.
APPROVAL OF 1988 PARK DEDICATION FEE SCHEDULE.
Resolution #88-43: Councilman Horn moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded approving
the reconm~ended Park Dedication Fees for 1988 as presented. All voted in favor
and motion carried.
SOUTH r/YI~S LAKE BOAT ACCESS.
Mayor Hamilton: Tne only question I have Jim is, when ~ put these signs up,
do we need to include on the signs that violators will be towed or may be towed
or some such verbage so they know?
41
City Council M~e~ing - May 9, 1988
Jim Chaffee: Yes, that' s part of this proposal tonight. If you're ready, I' 11
get into the gist of this. I apologize for the lateness of the ordinance. It
came across my desk this morning. Hopefully you've had a chance to glance at
it and I' 11 make conxnent to it through the proposal here. As you may r~m~ember,
two w~eks ago this body passed a resolution which prohibited the parking of
~upty boat trailers along South Shore Drive, South Shore Court and Hill Street.
...to make sure that they would not violate the ordinance. Comments at the
time were that at $10.00, it's a reasonable fee for a recreation of sorts on
w~eker~s. For anyone to come pay the $10.00 parking fee. Comments at the time
were to pass an ordinance that would fine the violators to an extent that would
in effect prohibit them, just by the fine alone. Then also entertain a motion
of towing. We have done that. The City Attorney has looked at it and drawn up
the ordinance. Just to give you a little background. After the meeting two
weeks ago, we did put up signs right off TH 101 there and right here. Now they
are handmade signs but they're large signs and I don't know if anyone has seen
them. It says that those two entrances to South Shore, there is no empty boat
trailer parking on the streets. Again, these are hand painted signs. We have
ordered the regular signs to be posted there. The regular signs are going to
be a little larger than the ones you see now. Last w~ekend was a fairly warm
w~ekend and we had vehicles that were parked, the boat access is right here,
vehicles w~ had parked were up and down here. At one point we had a dozen
vehicles parked with their trailers. We had residents coming in and
complaining that Monday about the parking. We did take enforcement action at
that time. We did have deputies up there issuing warning tickets and real
tickets at the time. So as you can see, these signs here were disregarded by
these people. One of the comments that Councilman Boyt made last week was that
it would be an extreme penalty for someone to drive in here and miss this sign,
empty his boat down here and then park along here. It is possible that you
would miss these two signs no matter which way you came in so the proposal
before you tonight is in addition to these signs that you see there, we will
post a sign there and we will also post a sign on Hill Street so anywhere
you're going to be parking there, you're going to have to go by a sign. In
addition to that, we'll have a sign as you go down into the boat access that's
in red letters that says Notice, Parking ~npty Boat Trailers Prohibited.
Violators Subject to Tag and Tow. That's going down in as you're dropping the
boat off. We're also proposing to put a sign there as you're coming back out.
Same exact sign only facing the other way saying, Notice. The same thing. In
effect then, no matter where you come in and drop your boat off, you will pass
a sign three times. The large sign three times. If you park on Hill Street,
you've passed it four time. We feel that's plenty of notice for violators. If
they do intend to park there, that they have no excuse if they do get tagged
and towed. We're also proposing that we take this enforcement action in
graduated steps. We think, ~ really think that the signage is going to be
enough and we'll use it as such and we'll write tags in that manner. If that
doesn't work then we may have to resort to towing.
Councilman Horn: Are you going to put the amount of the fine on the sign?
Jim Chaffee: That's our proposal down in this area right here on these signs.
We'll put the amount of the fine there. I also draw your attention to Section
4 and 5 on the ordinance itself. Section 4 outlines the penalty and Section 5
will outline the impound under the tow.
42
City Council Meeting - May 9~ 1988
Councilman Geving: J/m, I have a question on unloaded boat trailers. Isn't it
possible that someone could come with someone else and park a loaded boat
trailer in any of those four areas and escape Ia)ur ordinance?
Jim Chaffee: Yes.
Councilman (~eving: ~hen you say no person shall park an unloaded boat trailer,
I would rather change that just to a boat trailer. Take that unloaded out of
there. ~nen I would like to have the papers, since we have the Villager and
the Herald here, to pick up on this and get the widest anount of local paper
notice out. Are you fr~n South Shore? Okay, South Shore, excuse me. But to
have the papers give us as much spread as w~ can on this because it's impor~t
to get the word out to people not to violate this ordinance. It will cost you
money. So if you could do that for us, I think that will help.
Councilman Johnson: I think there ~as some issue and I think Don and Todd are
checking on this, whether this actually got published as such. We may be
seeing this again. Is this a first reading? Second reading?
Jim Chaffee: This is a second reading.
Councilman Johnson: Was the first reading published?
Mayor Hamilton: It doesn't need to be. The first reading was two w~eks ago.
Barbara Dacy: It's not a zoning ordinance a~dment, I don't think it has to
Jim Chaffee: The City Attorney says it' s just an internal matter only. It' s
not state law.
Councilman Johnson: Okay, so for this kind of ordinance al%endm~lt wa don't
need to have it published as such?
Jim Chaffee: After the ordinance is passed we publish it and then it takes
effect but up until now...
Councilman Johnson: Would it be more distinct instead of just saying boat
trailers, that still leaves to wonder whether a loaded or unloaded. Say loaded
or unloaded boat trailer? Rather than be general, be specifically included?
Councilman Geving: I think just killing the word unloaded is fine.
Councilman Johnson: In our definitions w~ talk e~ty trailers so ~'d have to
redo our definitions also.
Councilman Geving: Just put boat trailer.
Mayor Hamilton: On the definition just cross off the word emuty ar~ say boat
trailer...
Councilman Johnson: Motor vehicle period.
43
City Council Meeting - May 9, 1988
Resolution 988-43: Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton .seconded to approve
the second reading and adopt Ordinance 1217 regulating the parking of boat
trailers on South Shore Drive, South Shore Court and Hill Street and direct
staff to place the signs immediately. All voted in favor and motion carried.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING SOUTHWEST TRANSIT, COUNCILMAN JOHNSON.
Resolution 988-44: Councilman Horn moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve
the resolution to support the Southwest Metro Transit. All voted in favor and
motion carried.
OAKWILT, COUNCILMAN HORN.
Councilman Horn: I think there w~s a good article this last week about oak
wilt and I just had a question of staff. Are we strictly relying on the city
forester to enforce and inform that or do we have scxueone on the Planning staff
who advises developers about damaging trees and things ar~ that they're
susceptible during the months of May and June?
Barbara Dacy: I know that the planning staff does not do that unless the
engineering department in their plans and spec review includes that type of
condition.
Councilman Horn: I would like to see a notice go out to all of our developers
outlining that because I think it's very critical that they do take extra care
during those months. I was quite surprised that it seems that simple to
control if you just don't damage the trees during those months.
Barbara Dacy: Where did you say that article was?
Councilman Horn: It was in the Carver County Herald.
Councilman Johnson: It was also the Star and Tribune. Tnere were several
recent ones. In fact my wife had me xerox one of them which she is now
distributing to various people where she sees theyhave damaged oak trees.
Mayor Hamilton: Then Dale had an item on recognition.
Councilman Geving: I think we glanced over this at the meeting quickly and it
didn't get proper recognition. I just want to say frcm~my standpoint, I don't
know if the Council wants to take this up or not, but my thanks to Clark Horn
for all the work that he's done with the Southwest Corridor Coalition and the
transportation of TH 5. I think Clark and a number of other people worked hard
on that and you specifically as a councilmember Clark took it upon youself to
attend many morning meetings. Many late night meetings and I think that
efforts has been successful and by 1990 we're going to see the parition of a
44
City Council M~eting - May 9, 1988
lot of hard work so I just personally want to say thank you to you from my
standpoint and I think I speak for the rest of the Council on this.
Councilman Horn: Thanks Dale but I think the...
Councilman Geving: W~ don't give enough recognition to people who do these
extra jobs.
Councilman Horn: I think ~ have to give a lot of recognition to the Chairman.
He did an outstandirg job.
Councilman Johnson: Staff too. Staff did a tr~mm~dous amount of work on this.
Of course w~ have to tell Dick that CR 17 is not at the far end of Chanhassen
as his latest letter says. All the way to the w~st end of f~anhassen. ~ne
battle's not over. We've got a schedule saying 1990. Now w~'ve got to make
YnDot stay on that schedule but the first battle of the ~ar has been fought and
supposedly won.
Councilman Geving: That's the point that I was trying to make. It takes
people with their dedication of time and effort to keep that thing going.
Councilman Johnson: There's a tremendous ~nount early Wednesday morning
meetings.
Councilman Horn: The other thing to remmnber is w~ still don't have a schedule
for four lanes beyond Chanhassen which has to happen.
DOWNTOWN SIGNAGECONCEPT, CITY PLANNER.
Barbara Dacy: The Planning Oan~ission discussed this at their March 2nd
meeting and they liked the concept that was presented by staff and w~ felt that
because' of their cum~_nts at that meeting, that generated the need for some
more analysis and for scme more study but w~ thought and the Cc~mission agreed
that w~ should determine whether or not the Council agreed in concept with the
proposal before w~ do any additional study. If you do agree with this
proposal, then w~ would take it to the Chamber of Conm~rce at this time right
now to gain their input also. Basically the proposal is that in the downtown
area, outlined by the dashed line on the overhead, that the City would restrict
the construction of pylon signs for individual lots and' in it's place come up
with a district sign identifier and since some of these drawings are included
in your packet so you get a feel for what would be proposed. Ins _teaa__ of
individual signs saying AMOCO station, retail shop, beauty salon, that ~ would
create one pylon sign making it larger t/man typically required announcing the
particular area that the shopper is located in. So w~ came up with 6 or 7
districts and the black dots on this map show where those district
identification signs are. That's one concept of eliminating individual pylon
signs and creating district area identification signs. Staff feels strongly
and the Planning Cc~nission did too as to this can help the visual image and as
a part of the overall downtown redeveloIm~ent process, cleaning up the visual
lar~scape. Removing the overhead power lines. Having a consistent form of
signage in the downtown area as you enter downtown Chanhassen. Secondarily,
this has ~ talked about by the Council also in regards to major entrance
45
124
City CouncJ. 1 Meeting ' May 9~ 1988
signage and this w~s discussed by the Council and the Chamber of Con~erce
proposed their area identification sign. That at strategic locations into the
downtown area and into the City, that we would construct what is being called
an entrance monumentation and some of those locations are at TH 5 and TH 101.
At Market Blvd. and TH 5. At the new intersection, which is not shown on this
map here but will have is the new TH 101 realigrment and the intersection with
West 78th Street. Recommendation out of the Planning Commission was that maybe
we should go beyond those boundaries even more and look at the entrance
into Chanhassen and the ~en Prairie/Chanhassen border. So those are the two
concepts. The district area signage and the entrance mon~m~entation signage.
So what we need from Council is whether or not you agree with these concepts.
If so, then staff will take the next steps. Talk with the Chamber of Co~nerce
and do the additional research that the Planning Cextmission wanted.
Mayor Hamilton: I think that's a good idea. I can't say that I agree with
your concept but I think that it ought to be studied further.
Barbara Dacy: Ultimately this would lead into the sign ordinance amendment for
this area.
Councilman Geving: I would like to see us take the initiative, we have an
opportunity right now to clean up a lot of things that are in our downtown
area. I'm thinking specifically of the pylon in front of Kenny's for example
on the corner. I think as we redo our downtown, s(x~ething like that should be
wiped out of there. That should be taken out of there. Kenny's will have a
sign on there exterior there. You'll be able to know that it's Kenny's and the
pylon can come down. If we don't do it now, what we're really doing is putting
in place something for a future council because you say in here, as something
burns down or is destroyed or replaced, let's not wait for that to happen. I
think this Council can make it happen now and remove it now.
Mayor Hamilton: It'd be more like a keyask type of signage you'd have up there
right?
Barbara Dacy: In. fact the Cc~mission wanted us to look at expanding this
concept into the western commercial area, the business general area to the
west of downtown also which can be a little more controversial because there
are more free standing uses potentially located in that area whereas in the
downtown area there is a tendency for the strip malls and the shopping centers
and so on. But the Commission felt strongly enough about this issue that they
said, let's look at expanding it all the way down to Powers Blvd. and creating
one consistent street of signage.
Mayor Hamilton: As a part of that, did you also look at the possibility of
putting some type of keyask someplace in the downtown area where people could
put their public notices on? Whatever it might be. Where you go around now
and they're nailed up on everybody's wall. It'd be nice to have a public
notice keyast. A round thing where people can put up things that are going on.
Councilman Geving: Like would people use them for garage sales and things like
that?
Mayor Hamilton: Sure. Use it for anything you ~nt to put on it.
46
City Council Meeting ' May 9~ 1988
125
Councilman Geving: A public display area. Could I ask a question that's kind
of related to this and that is, how long do w~ have to continue to talk about
West 78th Street and West 79th Street. ~en ~ named Market Blvd., I thought
w~ were moving in the right direction. Aside fr~n calling 78th Street Main
Street or something like that, I'd like to ~ us name those streets once and
for all. Certainly there's lots of good names that the Chamber or scme/x~y
could c~me up with to describe 79th Street and what ~ now look at as 78th
Street. 77th Street if you like. Our downtown area. To me 78th Street
doesn't say it. I think ~ can get a little classier and have some kind of a
campaign to ccme up with some good downtown rmmes for those two key streets
that will key into Market Blvd..
Mayor Hamilton: We had talked about doing that at the Chamber Once ~hen the
construction was done.
Councilman Geving: Now's the time to do it Tcm~. Before ~ get too far down
the road on this.
Barbara Dacy: Especially for changes of business addresses.
Councilman Geving: I'd like to see us do that. I don't know if the Chamber
would take the lead on that or who would. Now's the time if w~'re going to
ever do it.
Mayor Hamilton: I think the Chamber would do it again. We just ~ to have
more specific guidelines than what ~ used last time.
Councilman Geving: Can ~ move tonight as a group to suggest that and direct
staff to meet with the Chamber and see if ~ can't work out names for our
downtown two streets?
Mayor Hamilton: Sure.
Councilman Geving: I'd like to see that. I really would. We have an
opportunity to do it. This Council can make it happen.
Mayor Hamilton: I think the Chamber Executive Ommtit.tee is meeting either
tc~orrow or Wednesday and I'll bring it up as a part of our business.
Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Geving seconded to adjourn the meeting. All
voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 pan.
Sutmit~ by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann O~im
47