1985 07 15
I
I
I
REGULAR CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MEETING
July 15, 1985
23
Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order. The meeting was opened with the Pledge
to the Flag.
Members Present
Councilman Horn, Councilwoman Watson
Councilman Geving, and Councilwoman Swenson
Members Absent
None
Staff Present
Don Ashworth, Barbara Dacy,
and Bill Monk
APPROVAL ~ AGENDA: Councilwoman Watson moved to approve the Agenda as presented
with the following additions: Discussion on bowling center, discussion of Lake Susan
Park Shelter, Sue Albee Resignation, and an update report on Lake Virginia/Lake Ann
Interceptor. Motion was seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor:
Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No
negative votes. Motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilwoman Swenson moved to approve the following consent agenda
items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations:
l.a. Approve Plans and Specifications for Chestnut Ridge 6th Addition
and Trapper's Pass, Lundgren Brothers.
b. RESOLUTION #85-37: Resolution Regarding Hazardous Conditions,
7600 Erie Avenue.
Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor
Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative
votes. Motion carried.
VISITORS PRESENTATION:
Jack Melby: I am from the Lotus Lake Homeowners Association and we would like the
City to consider changing the water surface useage ordinance. We would like it to be
changed from five boats to three boats per dock on the lake. The reason for our
request of this change is to protect the lake from over surface utilization.
Steve ~ I live on 920 Western Drive up in the Carver Beach area. I had a letter
delivered today addressed to the City Manager and all the City Council members
regarding the mishap we had last week with the broken water main. I suffered some
damage as a result of that and I have itemized those costs in the letter. It damaged
my water softener and plugged up my plumbing system.
Mayor Hamilton: This will be discussed at the end our agenda this evening.
Presentation of Alternative Transit Concept eMTC opt-Out):
Richard Wolsfeld: In terms of the process we are going through, our objective is to
develop a transit implementation plan for the area including Chanhassen, Chaska, Eden
Prairie, and Shakopee. We have looked at the existing service, we have looked some
~11 t Cy,
~,- -_.:...../
Council Meeting, JUly 15, 1985
-2-
potential transit service, we have talked to a number of businesses in the area, your
staff has participated in the project to identify transit needs, we have also got
some objectives from each of the four communities and we are now to the point where I
we have defined some alternative transit service concepts and we are beginning that
evaluation. Before we came to you with a specific plan, we thought it would be good
to touch base while we are still in the conceptual development phase in order to get
input. I would say in terms of evaluating the system, we are looking at two things.
One is it's cost effectiveness in terms of financial performance and then is it going
to generate the ridership, that it is going to make it feasible and we keep cycling
until we do that. In terms of the existing service, with the four cities there is
some express sevice which runs in the morning to 53J service, which services downtown
Minneapolis with also some express service in Eden Prairie, which heads to downtown.
In addition, you are touched with route 67E and 67f which dip down into the study
area. In terms of those characteristics, the 55E and 55J routes, which run in the
morning and in the afternoon, the 55J is the most productive route. It carries
approximately 350 people a day. Route 55E carries about 120 people a day. The 54
local service carries 160 people and from the study area, essentially Chanhassen
passengers, there is approximately 20 people that ride 67E and 67f. We look at what
it costs in terms of subsidy per passenger, the cost per day and the revenue per day.
The cost per day, like the 53J is $900 and would cover $400 of revenue and that
results in that subsidy per passenger of about $1.70. To make up that deficit, there
is a mill levy, which is levied acroSS the metropolitan area. Currently, Chanhassen
pays $210,000 into that in property taxes to support transit services in the area.
One of the concerns is, "are you getting the value for that dollar." One of the pur-
poses of the study was to look at the existing transit services, look at new and more
inovative ways to provide transit service and do an evaluation of what local units
are paying in terms of property tax support and what kind of service they are
getting. We have a list in terms of input on some specifics in terms of transit ser- I
vice priorities. There were five of them from Chanhassen, the first being commuter
service for the business park areas, both to and from Chaska and to and from points
in the east. You will hear that as kind of a common theme as we have met with
Chambers of Commerce in both Chaska and Chanhassen, there is a significant interest
in how they can tap the labor market that exists in the metropolitan area to the east
in terms of increasing those employment opportunities. They generally feel that the
people to the west have been and are continuing to car pool to work. They generally
live in smaller communities, they know each other and it is very easy. They have
found it very difficult to tap the labor market to the east. Secondly, is some
demand responsive service, to service the elderly and the downtown. Thirdly, is the
ability to provide better connections to the transit service that exists in Excelsior
and the other northern communities and then looking into how you can coordinate any
transit or transportation services with your development program. Lastly, is intra-
community service in terms of tieing some of the activities within in the community
together. I have a graph that shows part of the problems of providing transit ser-
vice. It shows the work trips to Chanhassen and there is a fairly broad distribution
of those work trips throughout the metropolitan area. Obviously, if you are trying
to service these travel desires with transit, you need to have a significant number
of people moving between an origin and an origin location and the destination in
order to make it cost effective. There is a fairly broad distribution of trips to
and from your area. In terms of the transit service demonstration project and where
we are in terms of the service plan, there are five points. A summary of those per-
ceived transit needs. Look again at some travel patterns a little bit more specifi-
cally, look at the mid-day situation, talk about the service plan and then talk about
the relationship between the public and the private. If we identify, from the public I
sector's perspective, what their perception of transit service needs are, we iden-
tified six needs. They are A) an out commute, which is presently being serviced by
the express service to Minneapolis and other service points and people have said
I
I
I
.~
I ~
Council Meeting, July 15, 1985
-3-
they want to continue at a minimum at the existing service, plus make improvements to
that. B) this is what we call an in-commute. Some people will call that a reverse
commute. But an in-commute to the area will provide accessability to employees from
employers. That was very high on your priority list. C) Mid-day internal trips and
internal service in terms of linking areas. D) There is the mid-day internal trips
and internal service, in terms of linking areas, and mid-day special services to serve
senior citizens, to serve other people that do not have vehicles available, under 16,
over 65 or whatever the case may be. E) An out-commute to nearby communities and
Chaska has identified service to St. Thomas College as an important location. So
what we have heard from you is tapping the labor pool to provide opportunities is
important followed by mid-day service by out-commute to other internal mid-day ser-
vices. In terms of the conversations that we have had with private employers we have
had in the area, they have identified three major areas. 1) to be able to attract
people, on a relative basis, the low wage employment opportunities from other parts
of the metropolitan area. 2) To improve internal circulations, so that people do
live in the area can use the employment opportunities. 3) They mention to minimize
the public subsidy for transit. We also documented some numbers on each of four dif-
ferent catagories. One is, "what is the potential in terms of people in-commuting to
the area for work trips." We took different employment locations in the four com-
munities and we looked at various origins and documented from our travel surveys the
number of people that go from Chanhassen to Minneapolis. There are 225 people that
live in Minneapolis that work in Chanhassen, 300 people that live in Bloomington and
work in Chanhassen, 50 in Edina, 50 in Hopkins, and 75 in Minnetonka. Just to get a
handle on that potential, we took approximately three percent of those trips to get
the potential transit ridership. Actually that three percent is kind of a metropoli-
tan wide figure. Out here I would say it is closer to .001 percent of travel being
on transit. If you did capture three percent, you would have 22 riders in-commuting
from all of those communities. Obviously, very difficult to serve with a 48
passenger MTC bus if we are going to talk about cost effectiveness.
Mayor Hamilton: So if you have good service, your ridership should go up.
Richard Wolsfeld: Yes. That is a very good point. That may happen in terms of cap-
turing a larger share of that. The thing that we heard from employers over and over
again was, "these numbers do not make much difference because we are trying to
attract an employee that currently is not living in Bloomington and working in
Chanhassen and he is not making the trip right now." So we are trying to increase
employment opportunities and tap that market. So we need to provide the service and
then work with the public sector to see if we can get employees to ride transit and
to tap that market. We looked at this data, but in terms of the concept plan, this
really is useful, but what we are trying to do is really going to end up being an
experiment to see if we can capture that potential and turn it into reality. But
three percent would still be an agressive capture rate for the 225 that live in
Minneapolis. The other problem is that Minneapolis is a fairly large area and those
225 are spread throughout the area. Another market is the inter-commute. How many
go from Chaska to Chanhassen, Eden Prairie to Chanhassen, Shakopee to Chanhassen, and
then how many live and work within Chanhassen. There are presently 200 people moving
from Chaska to Chanhassen, 300 from Eden Prairie to Chanhassen, 300 people live and
work within the community and in Shakopee there is 125. Taking that same three pre-
sent, there are 28 potential riders in terms of that market.
Councilwoman Swenson: When you arrived at your figures, the figures of the people
coming from Chaska, for instance, to Chanhassen, I noticed that you took the
license plates and the employer figures in zip codes. Is this a combination of
those? If you used the zip codes from Chaska to Chanhassen, your figures will be
off.
Council Meeting, July 15, 1985
-4-
Richard Wolsfeld: We used a combination. In some cases it was very easy to get
employer data in terms of talking to the large employers where they could provide the
data for us. In other cases we had to supplement that information. It is somewhat I
difficult data to collect without doing a very expensive face to face interview. We
did have some problems with zip codes not coinciding specifically with the municipal
boundaries. The next thing we looked at was the out commute, which is a summary of
that current ridership where there is presently 300 people going to downtown
Minneapolis from the the Chaska, Chanhassen, Eden Prairie area and this is the
prairie express and the 20 people going from Chanhassen via Excelsior. That shows
you the current market, which is fairly strong in terms of downtown Minneapolis out
to this area. In terms of mid-day generators, there is a whole series of them in
Eden Prairie, Chaska and Shakopee. In Chanhassen, we have identified three, the
central business district, the medical clinic and the bowling center. Let me get to
the concept of a service plan. From the numbers that you saw, it appears to us to be
extremely difficult if you go after a single market with a single service type. So
what we are attempting to do is to establish some transit routes that attempt to
serve multiple functions. We want to, on a single route, provide in-commute service,
intra-community service, inter-community service and link other facilities. What we
are proposing is essentially, along the Highway 41, Highway 5 corridor is a route
that provides those multiple functions and that it kind of focuses on the Eden
Prairie Center. So for the peak hour service, we would see some service in the
Bloomington/Richfield area, from downtown Minneapolis and from the Hopkins area that
would do a residential collection and would then distribute along Highway 5 and down
Highway 41. Hopefully, we can capture for the in-commute service. The type of ser-
vice we would propose is what is called a route deviation. That means that a bus is
allowed to deviate from the route to provide a more personalized service and to
deliver people to the doorsteps along the route. Standing out on Highway 5 in the
middle of January gets to be a pretty lonely wait. To p~ll off the route and provide I
that more personalized service, it increased the travel time in order to do that, and
there is a fairlY sensitive trade-off between trying to keep a reasonable travel time
and a higher level of service. That route deviation is one way to do that. If you
don't add extensive time to the travel time, people will wait that extra time or take
that extra time to deviate to provide that service. At the same time that this
vehicle is running along Highway 5 and Highway 41 doing an in-commute service, if
someone happens to live in Chanhassen and work in Chaska, they can get on that same
bus, and as far as they are concerned it is a inter-community transit system.
Similarly, someone in Chaska can get on it and go to the Eden Prairie center if they
happen to work there. As that service continues during the day, it continues to pro-
vide multiple functions in terms of providing linkages within the community, linkages
between the communities and linkages to other transit services in the area. So we
have a series of routes which focus at the Eden Prairie Center in terms of one of the
stops, but then through their route location, running all day long, they begin to
service those multiple functions to serve the in-commute, the out-commute, the inter-
community and the intra-community transit functions. Another service that the City
of Chaska identified is that St. Thomas College is attempting to establish a much
more active evening program. They have programs with the Normandale Community College
where a series of students take classes. If that service could run in the evening, it
would haul students from Normandale over to St. Thomas College and back, but someone
in Chanhassen could do that as a way in the evening to get from Chanhassen out to St.
Thomas College or from Chanhassen over to the Eden Prairie Center or wherever. We
think the highest probability of having a success is to have all day transit service,
but as that transit service functions throughout the day, different users will view
it as performing different functions. By overlaying those functions, we hope we can I
build up the ridership to the point that we have a feasible transit system. We have
also spent a lot of time talking with the project management team about the concept
of starting small, having sucesses and building on those successes as opposed to a
I
I
I
-.". is .,--..
' .
-',-"- -:_"::
Council Meeting, July 15, 1985
-5-
much more aggressive, more expensive program, which if it is not successful and you
cut back, presents a fairly negative image in terms of transit service. We also think
that this program has to be a combination of responsibilities between the private and
the public sectors. We identified three different options in terms of that rela-
tionship. The first is in terms of private sector participation. The first would be
one of making information available to the employees, generally, employers are doing
that now. Second, would be participation by the employers in two ways. One is
called the users side subsidy, which simply means that they would offer $10 a month
off the transit pass for employees, probably justified ~y the fact that they have to
provide a parking space, which costs them $500 to $600 to build and if they don't
have to provide that parking space, they might be able to help their employees ride
transit. A more active marketing program in terms of making the services known to
their employees and then active participation could include assistance to employees,
a much more active and stronger marketing program and went even to the concept of
listing private contribution to operating the bus. With our dicussions with
employers in the area, they would reject that in that they are paying 1; mills in
property taxes already to support transit service and then to come in and ask them
for an increased contribution on top of that, that is probably more than most of them
would take. I think the point is if employers really want to attract employees and
that service is put in the street, their personnel have to work with the public sec-
tor in terms of making that service known to people and we think it is going to take a
much longer start up time period and we shouldn't be looking at a start up period.
It is probably a one year to a year and one half evaluation period, because that
ridership is really going to build as employment changes in the area. That is an
overview of where we are. What we will do now is, if we get a general concurrence in
terms of that concept, we will then do a specific financial plan in terms of what it
is going to cost to operate, what kind of revenue we expect, and who should operate
the service. The regional transit board has been created and they have been given
some direction to look at private operations under contract to the public sector for
trying to reduce the cost of providing the transit service. We will put that into an
implementation program and I believe then we are due back here in late August.
Councilwoman Swenson: I would like to see a little bit more of this on the northern
part of the City. I am not seeing anything addressed for bringing the transit in
from the north or from the west. I see we have 14 percent coming in from the north
and 10 percent from the west, which I haven't seen addressed at all. I am par-
ticularly interested in how we can bring in the transit with our proposed downtown
area. As you know, Chanhassen does go up to Excelsior and Shorewood in that area. I
think we need to do everything we can to encourage people within the City from that
area to come down here rather than taking buses and going into Knollwood or whatever.
By staying with just this area, we are even dividing ourselves more from the northern
area.
Richard Wolsfeld: In terms of the employers to the west, it was without fail that
employers told us that "we don't have any problem with employee accessability from
the west." They said generally, the characteristic is people that live in those
areas, they know each other, they know where each other works, they have been car
pooling for 5 - 15 years and it is a part of their life style and they said if you
tried to compete with that with public transit service you would go broke doing it,
because people aren't going to change those travel patterns. We took their direc-
tion. In terms of connection to the downtown and in terms of providing services to
the commercial area, one of the transit service concept, which is the route
deviation, we probablY would even run that route off of Highway 5 through the down-
town and back on and not just stay on Highway 5. In addition, if a passenger says
they are a quarter of a mile off the route or some distance off the published route,
~~t
l~~
Council Meeting, July 15, 1985
-6-
they simply make a call and the route deviates and picks them up. Generally, what
happens is that those patterns become very repetative. You do one of two things.
You can have a standing reservation, or you either get to the point where the travel I
demands are such that you adjust the routes to more efficiently pick up your
passengers. Another one is, if that market grows, we would see adding some addi-
tional services to build on this base. At this point, we think our highest probabi-
lity for success are the numbers that we have laid out. If, through that route
deviation, we begin to see travel patterns that change, we can then adjust those
routes, or add a route, split one route into two, to service the development that you are
talking about or those changing travel patterns.
Mayor Hamilton: Another thing to consider, I think, would be the senior center in
Excelsior. Many of our senior citizens attend functions there.
PIPER RIDGE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT NO. 85-4:
Bill Monk: The other day we took bids on the Piper Ridge construction project.
There were seven bidders and the low bid came in and appeared to be Yolk Trucking &
Excavating with a bid of $110,250. Next in line was Burchett Brothers at $119,719.
We did find in going through the bids some irregularities in the Yolk Trucking and
Excavating bid. The main problems had to do with the unit prices. Since the City
uses unit prices to determine bids where there is a discrepancy in multiplication,
that bid actually came out at $356,567.50 because of those errors. This bid tab is
included as well as a copy of the two low bids and it is the recommendation tonight
that the bid from Burchett Brothers, Inc. in the amount $119,719.00 (including the
deduct) be accepted at this time.
Councilman Geving: Did Mr. Yolk realize when he made his bid of $110,250 that the
unit prices that he was quoting for the two items, for the fittings and for the one- I
inch copper surface pipe were, in fact, not based on the unit but in quantities. I
think that is where the discrepancy is. Obviously, there is $152,000 on the engi-
neers estimate of $2,660, and the fittings, $96,000 versus $825. It is obvious he
made an error. But he really didn't make an error on his formal bid. What respon-
sibility does the City of Chanhassen have to clarify that bid with Mr. Yolk before
we reject his bid. LAST SENTENCE AMENDED 8-5-85.
Bill Monk: In the specs in several places it says that the bids are based on unit
prices. In other words, when a discrepancy comes up like this, it becomes a legal
question on how the specs were written. It leaves the City very little option and
Mr. Yolk had placed the wrong bidding in the bid. He switch them and that is an
irregularity that we can accept because an honest mistake was made. When we looked
at the unit prices, the unit prices for those items had two too many zero's. The
specs do not allow for any error in the unit prices. If the error had been in the
total, it would have been overlooked. I did talk with Mr. Yolk and told him of the
problem. He was dissappointed, but he did understand.
Councilman Geving: He did understand and he would not protest?
Bill Monk: Yes, he did understand, and to my knowledge he won't protest.
Mr. McCombs: There were some other irregularities too, to even complicate this
further. There are specifications required that any changes be initialed. If you
notice on items 5, 6, 7 and 15, he had crossed out and changed an error. That tech-
nically could have eliminated the bid.
Councilman Horn: He did agree that these were errors?
I
-~.- ()j
Council Meeting, July 15, 1985
-7-
Bill Monk: I pointed them out and he said, that's the way it goes. I think that was
his exact comment.
III Conncil..n Hocn, H, didn't ..nt to .ithdc.. hi. bid?
Bill Monk: No. Once the bid is submitted, it cannot be withdrawn. Once it has
been opened to the public, it has to be registered and listed as a bid. He did
understand the irregularities. I told him that we would have a very difficult time
accepting it and he understood.
RESOLUTION 0 85-38: Mayor Hamilton moved the adoption of a resolution accepting the
bid of the Burchett Brothers, Inc. in the amount of $119,719.00 (Including the
deduct) for the the Piper Ridge Construction project No. 85-4. Resolution was
seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton,
Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes.
Motion carried.
MINUTES:
Councilman Horn moved to note the Planning Commission minutes dated June 26, 1985.
Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Swenson. The following voted in favor: Mayor
Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative
votes. Motion carried.
City Council Minutes, ~ lL 1985: Amend page 4, paragraph 15 under VARIANCE
REQUEST TO THE REQUIREMENTS Of THE BEACHLOT ORDINANCE fOR PROPERTY ZONED R-l, SINGLE
fAMILY RESIDENCE, 3900 RED CEDAR POINT ROAD, PLOCHER & GESKE: Councilwoman Swenson:
Do our ordinances, which remain more restrictive prevail?
I
Amend page 9, paragraph 3, under VARIANCE REQUEST TO THE REQUIREMENTS Of THE BEACHLOT
ORDINANCE fOR PROPERTY ZONED R-l, SINGLE fAMILY RESIDENCE, 3900 RED CEDAR POINT ROAD,
PLOCHER & GESKE: under the motion: Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Swenson for
discussion.
Amend page 9, paragraph 10, sentence 4, under VARIANCE REQUEST TO THE REQUIREMENTS Of
THE BEACHLOT ORDINANCE fOR PROPERTY ZONED R-l, SINGLE fAMILY RESIDENCE, 3900 RED
CEDAR POINT ROAD, PLOCHER & GESKE: Councilwoman Swenson: We are actually lessening
the use of this area.
Amend page 16, paragraph 3, last sentence, under CHANHASSEN BOWL CONNECTION CHARGES:
Councilwoman Swenson: I understand that this money was going to be covered by other
income that we were going to get from this building and I am totally in shock when
somebody tells me that we are lending $200,000 at 3 percent, and we are going to bond
the people of this City for more to make up for it?
Councilman Horn moved to approve the July 1, 1985 City Council minutes as amended.
Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Swenson. The following voted in favor: Mayor
Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, and Councilman Horn. Councilman Geving
abstained. Motion carried.
I
APPROVAL Of ACCOUNTS:
Councilman Geving moved to approve the approve the bills as presented, checks 0022645
through 0022732 in the amount of $1,479,062.07 and checks 1025253 through 0025359 in
the amount of $1,017,372.62. Motion was seconded Councilwoman Watson. The following
voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and
Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried.
1: L: (/-;
JL -=':...'
Council Meeting, July 15, 1985
-8-
LOT AREA VARIANCE REQUEST, 6590 CHANHASSEN ROAD, OTTO FLOM:
REAR YARD SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST, LOTS 1348-1352, CARVER BEACH, HARLAN KOEHNEN:
The two above items were approved unanimously at an earlier Board of Adjustments and I
Appeals meeting. Therefore, no action was required by the Council.
RECONSIDERATION Qf VARIANCE REQUESTS lQ REQUIREMENTS Qf THE BEACHLOT ORDINANCE, RED
CEDAR COVE, 3900 RED CEDAR POINT ROAD, PLOCHER/GESKE:
Councilwoman Watson moved to reconsider the Variance Requests to Requirements of the
Beach10t Ordinance, Red Cedar Cove, 3900 Red Cedar point Road, Plocher/Geske. Motion
was seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton,
Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, and Councilman Geving. Councilman Horn opposed.
Motion carried.
This item will be back on a the Council agenda August 5, 1985.
SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR EXPANSION Qf AUTO BANK WITH NEW CANOPY AND ENTRANCE, 680 WEST
78th STREET, STATE BANK OF CHANHASSEN:
Barb Dacy: The applicant is the State Bank of Chanhassen located just to the south
of the City Hall. The bank is proposing to expand and remodel its existing facili-
ties for two future additions of 4,600 and 2,400 square feet, along with five drive-
through lanes. This was considered by the Planning Commission at their June 26th
meeting and approved conditioned on the installation of concrete curbing along the
perimeter of a variance. Secondly, which merits the discussion that the easterly
access be an exit only and be closed when the north/south segment of Coulter Drive is
constructed and an access drive built to that. As you recall, during our downtown
redevelopment planning process, we identified a need for a north/south segment bet-
ween West 78th Street and the City parking lot. The applicants proposed an access
drive to match up to the existing "S" curve there. Originally, it was staff's recom- I
mendation to move it to the west. However, upon reconsideration we discussed with
the applicant, moving that to the west would cause a dead end situation at the
entrance of the bank, so in the alternative we are requesting that you approve this
proposed access and we will install the appropriate stop signs, etc. to control this
turn. Based on the Planning Commission's action, we are recommending approval of the
proposed site plan and expansion based on the curbing installation, the access
requirement that I just mentioned and the basic landscaping requirements that we nor-
mally require.
Councilman Geving: Why did you reconsider not moving that access to the west and by
how many feet are you talking?
Barb Dacy: We originally recommended that it be located in this area here so that
you would have a straight shot and because of the curving action of the curb.
However, the bank folks pointed out to us that if this were closed off, that traffic
would come in here and it would be more or less a dead end and they would have to
perform an odd traffic movement to get out. So we felt that by signing it that we
could accommodate their concern better.
Councilman Geving: But as a Planner, don't you really feel that the best possible
access is the western most part of the parking lot?
Barb~: That was our original consideration. However, the north/south road is
going to be constructed.
Councilman Gevinq: Someday. It may never happen.
I
Barb Dacy:
one in case
We would prefer that this be the access and that would be the temporary
that north/south road wouldn't be constructed.
I
I
I
-: /; f7
_'.. /.~:!: r
Council Meeting, July 15, 1985
-9-
Councilman Geving: But it seems to me that if we place the access furthest to the
west on the bank parking to Coulter Drive, we then don't have to worry about the
immediate or some potential of Coulter Drive being straightened out. I don't know
when that is going to happen. I think what is being proposed here is we are actually
creating more of a bottle neck than what we already have. I am not so sure that I
really like that.
Bill Monk: I think I have gone through the same process as Councilman Geving has.
When I first looked at the plan my first reaction was that because of the "5" shape
nature over here, it presents, at least in the short term, an odd movement. Several
points were raised and they are good points. One, this is the main entrance to the
bank, it is a way orienting towards the City Hall and that is the direction we would
like to see, but it does create a dead end here. So if people come in and there is
no parking spot, they have got to, literally, back out, which is not the best set up.
Two, with the entrance here, you do open up the possibility even more and just pass
through it. It's a straight shot through and people may use it as a short cut. If
this did go, I believe it can be controlled by placing a stop sign at this location
and a stop sign at this location. It allows this movement to flow freely, this one
to stop and check what is going and move which ever direction. By doing that, I
believe, that we can handle the traffic in the interim. This may not happen for
quite awhile. When it does, this presents no problem. In the interim, I believe
that getting into the main entrance and a view and the overall affect, I believe we
can handle traffic.
Councilman Geving: let's take the person who is not going to go through the drive-
in. He comes in on the west side, and I understand the west will be the entrance to
the bank off of County Road 16. You come in there and go north and we are right at
that point there and we find our parking spot, do our business and come back out.
Where will we generally gravitate to. Will we go back down and go out or will we
tend to go to Coulter and go either east or west, is that the way the traffic is
going to flow?
Bill Monk: I think that you are going to see that a lot of the traffic that comes in
here will actually go back out onto the County Road, because they are either going
into town or they are going home or where ever. Of course, somebody is going to come
through here and it is going to increase the traffic that goes through here. This
movement, I think, is going to be popular.
Councilman Geving: If this gets approved by the Council tonight, I really think we
are creating a very bad situation. We already have a bad situation with the "5"
curve. We, as the City, should straighten that out somehow so that we can continue
to let the people go through onto Coulter without having to make that sharp curve in
the parking lot. Bill, could you work up something, to straighten that out, at least
in our own parking area at the expense of maybe one or two parking spots so that we
don't create a traffic hazard right in front of our own building.
Don Ashworth: That is part of the proposal by Brauer. That is really an extension
of that north/south road that is made a priority by the bowling center coming up to
this section and really making that road. So you will actually see that within the
next three to four month period.
Councilman Geving: That is reasonable. I am satisfied.
Councilwoman Swenson moved to approve the Site Plan Request #85-3 for expansion of
the State Bank of Chanhassen auto bank and two future additions of 4,600 and 2,400
square feet and a message board subject to the following conditions:
. /i ,-."
't~ L!_t:\
_'_ ____-0.-/
Council Meeting, July 15, 1985
-10-
1. Installation of concrete curbing along the perimeter of all paved areas.
2. That the easterly access be exit only and be closed when the north-south
segment of Coulter Drive is constructed, and an access drive constructed
from the parking area to the new road.
I
3. That the landscaping meet the minimum requirements of the city as follows:
- Minimum 2! inch caliper for deciduous trees
_ Minimum 6 foot in height for coniferous trees
- Minimum 24 inches in height for shrubs
Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor
Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative
votes. Motion carried.
SOUTH LOTUS LAKE:
---
APPROVE LAWCON GRANT APPLICATION FOR BOAT ACCESS/PARK IMPROVEMENTS, CITY OF
CHANHASSEN.
PRELIMINARY AND FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN REQUEST FOR ~ ATTACHED AND DETACHED UNITS
WEST QI AND ADJACENT lQ HIGHWAY ~ BLOOMBERG COMPANIES.
Approve LAWCON Grant Application for Boat Access/Park Improvements, City ~
Chanhassen:
Councilman Geving moved to authorize the Mayor and Manager to sign the contract
switching the park/boat access grant to the Bloomberg site; to authorize preparation
of detailed plans and specifications for the park/boat access; and authorize prepara-
tion of the feasibility study for the road improvements from Highway 101 to the park
entrance. Motion was seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: I
Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No
negative votes. Motion carried. RESOLUTION #85-38A
Preliminary and Final Development Plan Request for ~ Attached and Detached Units
West ~ and Adjacent ~ Highway ~ Bloomberg Companies:
Barb Dacy: The site plan that was originally submitted to planning staff in April,
originally proposed 73 units with a combination of single family, twin homes, and
duplexes and condominium lots adjacent to the park area. Since that time there have
been a few revisions and two hearings in front of the Planning Commission. The
Commissioners recommended approval of the preliminary and final development plan with
the rezoning to P-1 subject to the following conditions: There were four lot line
rearrangement conditions that we outlined to the Commission at that meeting as well
as recommendations from the City Engineer regarding drainage and the location of the
cul-de-sac in the northwestern part of the site. The Commission also recommended
that a trail easement be identified between the condominium area and Trunk Highway
101, that the gross density of the site be 2.7 units per acre, the impervious surface
ratio of the condominium area be reduced to 40%, that the drainage from the site to
the lake shall cause minimal degradation, that the West 77th Street access not be
connected at the present time, but there should be a provision for a future connec-
tion, and the Commission recommended that the City Council consider retaining a traf-
fic consultant to advise the Council of the most appropriate access to Trunk Highway
101 into the proposed site. Since the Planning Commission action, the applicant has
revised his plans in the following manner: he has eliminated two duplex lots in con-
formance with staff's recommendation, he has eliminated the odd lot line arrangement
in the extreme northwestern part of the plat, increased the lot area of the lot at I
the corner of West 77th Street and Southshore Drive and has shortened the cul-de-sac
again by approximately 100 feet which was recommended by staff. The Planning
Commission recommended a gross density of 2.7 units per acre, the applicant has still
maintained his proposed gross density of 3.1 units per acre. We had the applicant go
I
I
I
Council Meeting, July 15, 1985
-11-
-;.' (:I' l~
_.~.- '~.'.:_.)
back and check the impervious surface area ratio of the condominuim area, double
checking the condo units, the driveways and the proposed access drive that would be
maintained by a homeowners association. He has confirmed with us that the impervious
surface ratio is 36 percent. I would like to review the density of the proposed pro-
ject. The gross denisty is 3.1 units per acre. This is calculated by excluding the
acreage for the park area. The comprehensive plan recommends development density of
between 1 to 3.4 units per acre. The density as proposed is your maximum for this
land use, but has been reduced since the original time of application. Lot sizes:
The average lot size for the single family lots is 19,000 square feet. The median
lot size is 16,500 square feet. The average size of the duplex lots is 7,198 square
feet. The density of just the single family area is 2.29 units per acre. The den-
sity for the duplex lots is 6.05 units per acre. The density for the condominium
area has remained at 8.8 units per acre. The overall net density, substracting the
road right-of-ways, etc., is 4.58 units per acre. The proposed land use pattern is
attempting to match single family lots with existing development on the adjacent
sides of the plats, across from Erie Avenue, adjacent to the Hill Street neighborhood
and there are four riparian lots approximately located on Lotus Lake. As you move
toward the center of the property, the land use changes to duplex units and then in
the center of the proposed development, across from the park and Chanhassen Meadows,
are 31 condominium units. The proposed intent here is to change land use styles and
intensity as you move toward the center of the site. We still have a minor recommen-
dation on the lot arrangement of lot 4. It is split by a utility easement on the
east side adjacent to the Hill Street neighborhood, and we would recommend that the
rear lot line be moved back 10 feet. This will allow a little better area for a
buildable area. Street Design: Staff is maintaining its previous recommendation by
proposing two access points on TH 101, however, the westerly most access be a right-
on only turning movement to prevent short-cut traffic through the West 77th Street
neighborhood. The existing Hill Street connection is proposed to be closed and a
frontage road or another drive constructed from that street to the proposed
Southshore Drive. Drainage and Grading: Of most importance was the impact of the
proposed cul-de-sac in the northwest part of the site. Orignally, it extended 200
feet more to what now is being proposed. It is now out of the ravine that exists,
however, we still recommend, as stated in the Engineer's memo, that certain catch
basins, storm sewer improvements be constructed to meet the Planning Commissions
recommendation of minimal degradation onto Lotus Lake. A drainage easement will be
required in the area of the ravine to preserve that slope and that slope will also
serve as a drainage function as well. This is a required review by the Department of
Natural Resourses (DNR). They have indicated to staff that they will approve the
proposed development based on the following five recommmendations: Their major con-
cern is the preservation of the slope in this area. Normally the four riparian lots
would have the right to have one dock and up to five slips. However, they are
approving the plan based on the requirement that these four lots share a dock and up
to four slips. This would be accomplished through an easement and each lot would be
restricted through the sale to use only one dock.
Councilman Horn: You said the DNR recommended that?
Barb Dacy: Yes. Secondly, identification of the ordinary high water mark on the
plat; thirdly, indication of a little more information and sensitivity to the
building area of Lot 17. The ravine will influence the buildable area of this lot
and the DNR has requested that the applicant submit plans telling exactly where a
proposed housing pattern would be placed. Fourth, the riparian width of Lot 20 must
be increased to 75 feet; Finally, the DNR is requesting that the slope be reserved
and preserved as a conservation easement below a certain contour level of 930.
Through these recommendations, they feel assured that this slope will be preserved.
The applicant has submitted a landscaping plan basically indicating the required one
tree per unit along the boulevard area. However, staff is recommending additional
Age
Council Meeting, July 15, 1985
-12-
trees and landscaping at the rear of the duplex lots, at least one per each duplex
unit. Parks and Open Space: The Park and Recreaction Commission recommended that
the City pursue negotiations with the developer as to acquire Block 4 adjacent to the I
existing City site. It is basically triangular in shape and the Park Commission felt
that this would be an adequate site for tennis courts, volleyball or basketball
areas. Additionally as recommended, the Planning Commission wanted to identify a
trail easement between the condominium area and TH 101 to provide pedestrian access
to the park. Staffs' recommendation is approval of the proposed plan subject to: 1)
Compliance with the recommendations contained in the City Engineers's memorandum of
June 10, 1985 including revised grading and drainage plans. 2) Identification of a
trail easement in the condominium area. 3) Rearrangement of the lot line of Lot 4,
Block 1. 4) Formal receipt of DNR Commissioner approval and implementation of their
recommendations. 5) Watershed District approval. 6) Revision of the landscaping plan
to show one tree per duplex unit at the rear of the lots.
Councilman Horn: You didn't recommend any of the recommendations that the Planning
Commission had suggested, is that what you are saying?
The following is the list of the Planning Commissions'recommendations:
1. Compliance with the recommendations contained in the City
Engineer's memorandum of June 10, 1985, including revised
drainage and grading plans;
2. Elimination of Lot 6, Block 1;
3. Lot line rearrangements of Lots 2, 17, and 21, Block 1, and
Lot 4, Block 2;
I
4. Lot 14, Block 1 should be a single family lot.
5. Identification of a trail easement in the condominium area.
6. That the gross density be 2.7 units per acre.
7. The impervious surface ratio in the condominium area be
reduced to 40%.
8. Drainage from the site to the lake shall cause minimal degra-
dation.
9. The West 77th Street access not be connected at the present
time, but there should be provision for a future connection.
10. The City Council should consider retaining a traffic
consultant to advise the Council of the most appropriate
access to TH 101.
Barb Dacy: Yes, the Engineer's memorandum, recommendations 2,3 and 4 have been met
by the applicant, 5. is consistent; The gross density is not; the applicant has met
the imprevious surface ratio; and we believe through our recommendations with the
drainage plans that they will meet the intent of the Commissions' recommendation to
minimize degradation on the lake; and 9 and 10 is different as well, we maintain our
previous position that we presented to the Planning Commission on traffic.
I
Councilwoman Swenson: What was your position on West 77th Street?
I
I
I
T J~,:::
Council Meeting, July 15, 1985
-13-
8ab Dacy: That the proposed connection take place and that the westerly access have
a right-on turning movement only. West 77th Street would be connected to South shore
Drive, whereas the Planning Commission recommended that it not be connected.
Councilman Horn: There would be no access coming off from TH 101 onto that loop?
Barb Dacy: Correct.
Mayor Hamilton: If West 77th Street were not to be connected, how would TH 101
access the westerly most access.
Barb Dacy: What the Planning Commission was saying is that if West 77th
not connected, the development would operate on its own, self-contained.
did recognize that it may have to be connected in the future.
Street is
But they
Mayor Hamilton: So the access onto TH 101 in both cases would be a complete access.
Councilman Gevinq: As I look at the plan, I think there are a lot of things here
that kind of bother me. I think we are finding an awful lot of condominiums in the
middle of this plan. My personal feeling is that the number of 31 is far too many.
I would eliminate about 5 of those condos. I would like to see the lot closest to
West 77th Street, which is to the north of 77th Street, remain a single family lot,
but the lot identified as number 1 and 3 be combined into a duplex lot so that if you
were to take a line and draw it east and west along the lot line between lots 2 and
3, extend the duplex lot and leave the lot on the corner facing West 77th Street as
single family home. That would eliminate one lot but would make two very nice lots
out of it because even the very smallest lots in the plan are 10,200, 10,300 and
13,500. They would make two very nice lots and would give you good separation bet-,
ween existing homes on 77th Street. I would like to see the berming of all of the
land adjacent to TH 101 from the east most entrance all the way to the west most
entrance. I would like to see the gross density not greater than 3 units per acre.
I would like to see a traffic signal or signals in the area near Hill Street as you
come west along TH 101 because that is going to get a lot of traffic and I would like
to see in the future some kind of overpass from the apartments, the Meadows, to the
park area. Apparently, there are a lot of children in that area and they are going
to be crossing that highway. I know of no other way to get these children across the
road and in some future time that is a valid recommendation. I mention that my per-
sonal desire is to leave West 77th Street closed, but to have the developer build it
so that if we ever do it in the future, it is not done with City taxpayers money, but
we would keep West 77th Street closed. What to do with Hill Street? I am a little
bit confused as to where we should go with Hill Street. I do feel that we have to
keep the east end of Hill Street open because the plows have to get in there to do
their work and they flow through there. If we try to make a cul-de-sac somewhere in
there, I am afraid there just isn't enough room to make that kind of an arrangement,
so I think we are going to have to keep Hill Street open to the east. I think, too,
that the impervious surface ratio must be less than 40, and we must have looping of
the water. I have been thinking about the parkland area for children to play, etc.
and I think we do that correctly. The area that is adjacent to the parking lot might
be okay, but we already have a small parking area or play area south of the pump
house and maybe that would really be better for a tot lot or something of that
nature. I am not sure that we want to buy that land since we already own several
acres in the middle of that park. I think that, overall, the plan looks reasonably
good to me, but I do think there are far too many condominiums being planned. I
would like to see that reduced from 31 units to 26 units.
Councilwoman Watson: My basic concern was density. I would rather see the gross
density closer to 2.5 units per acre. Basically, the single family lots are a nice
size. But some of those duplex lots, by the time they are split in half, are awfully
'.! hC)
-,~U'.(~I
Council Meeting, July 15, 1985
-14-
small, and there are way too many condominiums in there. I like Councilman Geving's
idea of some kind of a berm along TH 101. I think that would give those people more
privacy in the condo area. One of my big concerns was the access across TH 101. I I
don't even know how that could be done, but you are going to have people walking
across a section of the highway. The speed limit is pretty good there and I would
hate to think of the kids that are trying to cross the road. I also think that West
77th Street should be left closed at this point. I don't think there is any need to
open up that neighborhood. I think this neighborhood can manage just fine on its
own.
Councilman Horn: I think most of the people know that I live in that neighborhood
and I was very happy that Mr. Bloomberg was going to develop that area. It is
obvious that a lot of us moved here years ago, and there has got to be development
there sometime and I can't think of a person that I would rather have develop that
area. He has always done a good job in the other developments that he has and I
think most of us in the area feel that way. My comments lie reasonably along with
the Planning Commission recommendations. I couldn't find anything that they
suggested that deviated from my thinking.
Councilwoman Swenson: I agree thoroughly in the reduction of the density, but I
would reduce them differently. Instead of taking out the condominiums, I would
rather see those duplexes gone and have single family houses and reduce the overall
density by making those all single family lots and leaving the condominiums. I am
not as concerned with the condominiums as I am about the smaller lots with the
duplexes. I also concur that I don't believe that West 77th Street should be open.
Mayor Hamilton: I agree mostly with the comments that have been made. I, too, would
like to see the duplexes dropped out and leave the condominiums pretty much as they I
are. I have mixed emotions about West 77th Street. I think that if you close it off
you lose the cohesiveness in your community. You are creating another island, which
we already have a lot of. It would be nice to tie the town together a little bit and
include the residents that would live here and let them flow into the rest of the
town more easily. I live in that neighborhood also and it would certainly create more
traffic past my house and I would be willing to accept that. I am also glad that Mr.
Bloomberg is planning to develop it. I think this is a very nice development. The
gross density issue is a problem for me also. I would like to see that drop a
little.
Councilman Geving: I would like to go back to a point that Councilwoman Swenson
made. I think she hit upon the very thing that I was looking for. I believe that
Councilwoman Swenson's idea will work, that if we were to take out all of those
duplex units on the west side so that they will all become single family lots, I
think that would make a very nice development because these are small lots. I am
only talking about those that are on the west side. I think she has a very good
idea there and that will give us the density figure that we are looking for, so I
would buy that.
Councilwoman Swenson: I counted
nate those, it would eliminate 8
sity that we are talking about.
about having duplexes facing the
that there are 8 duplex lots. If we were to elimi-
lots, which would bring us down almost to the den-
That is all of the duplexes. I am not too happy
park area for one thing.
Councilman Gevinq: You have got to remember, Pat, they are going to be very high and I
they are going to have beautiful views there. They are going to have a most spec-
tacular view of the lake, even though th~y are going to be looking down onto the boat
access. I think that they are going to be very nice units.
I
I
I
f r--~,
. ~
-...;.....,....,;.
Council Meeting, July 15, 1985
-15-
Councilwoman Swenson: They probably would be. If you look, you have got a 15,000
square foot lot there and 7,500 for a duplex. We are all trying to get this density
down. I guess my proposal would be to take out the duplexes. We are eliminating 8
lots and that can conceivably bring us down to a respectable density. Those lots,
I am sure, are not going to be a problem as far as the developer is concerned,
because they are very much saleable. I am somewhat concerned with the four riparian
lots. What is the drop there?
Barb Oacy: The slope is over 20 percent. It is quite steep back there.
Councilwoman Swenson: What I am afraid of is that if we do this we are unwittingly
going to create another beachlot and down the road we are going to have problems. If
we create another beachlot in there, sooner or later, we are going to have a lot of
people who are going to want to get into this beachlot. Is it possible to have a
private easement on one or the other of these lots and have the access to the other
lots, but let each one have its own riparian rights. let everybody have access with
one entryway down to the water and then have a private walkway across those four lots
so that each lot can still have its own dock.
Barb Oacy: I think you are getting toward what the ONR wanted. They wanted to pre-
vent four separate lots, four walkways, steep stairways, and grading clearing. They
wanted to consolidate that into just one rather than promoting the destruction of the
clearing of the vegetation of a full slope.
Councilwoman Swenson: I agree with that. I would like to see just one dock, but I
don't think that in the long run it is going to be successful and I think we are
going to wind up with a much greater intent to be on that property than it would be
if we let these people have the riparian rights. So I am opposed to doing it any way
that we can't retain those riparian rights.
Mayor Hamilton: You would think that we could control that. Whoever purchased those
lots could put a walkway down there but they can't cut anything out, you could clear
a path to put your walkway down but that is it.
Barb Oacy: That is the intent of the conservation easement as well. That more or
less eliminates anything. The slope is, I believe, quite preventative from
pedestrians walking from the upper area. I think they would use the park site before
they would even think of going through those private lots.
Councilwoman Swenson: The conservation easement sometimes becomes confused with
beachlot. I have had enough headaches with these. I don't want anymore.
Barb Oacy: I don't believe it would conflict. A conservation easement, as far as
staff is concerned, is not a beachlot. It is a vehicle to preserve vegetation and
the beach area as it is.
Councilman Horn: But it strikes as common ownership. Anytime that you have common
ownership you are not going to get the type of maintenance that you get with a pri-
vate ownership. I agree with Councilwoman Swenson. Each owner should have their own
riparian right.
Councilwoman Swenson: I would go along with a common walkway down to the dock, or
even the Mayor'S idea of having individual walkways.
Barb Oacy: So you have a compromise situation with a common walkway, however, each
riparian lot have one dock each.
Councilwoman Swenson: Yes.
c r- ,~
'1' h,['
(' .1./ -..-
Council Meeting, July 15, 1985
-16-
~ Oacy: We can pose that back to the ONR. I think their primary concern was pre-
serving the slope and conserving the vegetation in that area.
Councilman Geving: I think that one of the problems that we always face with our I
lakes is that riparian rights to an individual, which are very important, especially
when three of those lots look l~ke they have at least 200 feet of lakeshore. You are
talking about an assessment of somewhere between $650 and $800 per foot. If I bought
that lot, I would sure want to be a riparian owner of that lake land and view my lot
and my dock because that is very expensive property. I think we have to maintain the
integrity of that thought. When any of those lots are sold, they are going to come
in at a very nice price. So, I am very much in favor of talking about that and
maybe having one access route to get to the lake, but I would be very much in favor
of giving them each a dock.
Councilwoman Watson: I am not even so sure that you should give them a common
access. If these people own this land, it's not going to be easy, but if they want
to make a path down to the lake, I think they are going to make a path down to the
lake of their own. People who buy a single family lot, they buy it because they want
to do their own thing on it. They don't want to share it with their neighbor. That
is a condominium feeling. You don't have that condominium feeling when you buy a
single family lot. You want to build your house, when you have a lakeshore you want
your access to the lakeshore, you want to do your thing with your property. You
don't want to have to coordinate with the neighbor as to how many steps you are going
to have and what they are going to be built out of. That is just like convenants or
a homeowners association. I don't think they work.
Councilwoman Swenson: Do we have a method by which we can control that type of
thing? Would that be under the developers contract to prevent clearing other than
that which is necessary.
I
Barb Oacy: In a lot of cases subdivisions will put conditions of approval into the
development contract. In this case that could be a vehicle as well.
Councilwoman Swenson: Councilman Horn so frequently says, put it somewhere so that
when people go down to buy the property they can read it on the deed. The develop-
ment contract somehow never gets seen by a lot of people.
Barb Oacy: That was our intent also, individual lot restriction.
~ Schmieq: I live at 200 West 77th Street. I like the idea of single family
homes. It does work into the plan well. The neighborhood is very very concerned that
77th be left as it is. I think it is still workable with the access. We are extre-
mely concerned about that being a one to one problem solver with the apartments. As
far as the later use, we have kind of dealt with this issue every year and the
planning stages going on, and I think now is the time when this gets developed that
it does do that.
Henry Sosin: I think it is just beginning to dawn on me what has happened in the
last three minutes or more specifically, in the first 45 seconds or so of this
discussion under part A. where it says approve lAWCON grant application for boat
access/park improvements, City of Chanhassen. As I glanced through the packet I am
advised that what you just did was, okay, agree to a pass through location of a boat
access in that park at that site. Is that correct?
I
Mayor Hamilton: We approved that the Mayor and the Manager can sign the lAWCON grant
application so we would receive the funds to handle that, yes.
-I
I
I
Council Meeting, July 15, 1985
-17-
Henry Sosin: You approved that this is where a boat access is going to be on lotus
lake?
Mayor Hamilton: That is correct.
Henry Sosin: I guess I compliment you for engineering that in 35 seconds when you
have a lot of people here who are deeply concerned and who have asked a lot of
questions before and never got any answers at all or got very few. As you know, this
has been talked to death and it seems like the talking has gone one way. I am deeply
disappointed.
Mayor Hamilton: I don't know how it can be one way when there has been committees
formed and discussed this thing for the last two years of which you were a part of
and had as much input as you wanted to. We have talked to all the experts that we
could find and that you could find and we took all of that input, discussed it, and
talked it over. They were all at the meeting and it was open to the public. Based
on the information that was gathered, this site was selected. We went back to the
DNR, who were the ones that initiated this, as you know. We told them that we could
not put the access in for the amount of funds that they had targeted for this par-
ticular access on lotus lake. We told them that we would need additional funds to
put in and in order to do it at this site they would need to approve additional
funds. That has taken approximately two years. The funds are available, the site
has been selected, it took a very long process, and it hasn't been a very good pro-
cess, and at this point I see no reason to continue discussion about something that
has been discussed for two years and input by the public would be reviewed by the
citizens committee. AMENDED 08-05-85, PAGE 4.
Henry Sosin: There were other points that were brought up and there were other
points that were made at the Planning Commission that have not been answered.
Because it has been discussed and because people may be tired of listening to it
doesn't mean that is the best possible solution. I appreciate what you have just
done in 35 seconds. It was very slick and I don't appreciate it.
Georgette Sosin: Not only do I not appreciate it, I am very angry. It makes me very
disappointed in our City process. All of us who came here tonight came in good
faith, came with the idea that we would have an opportunity to not only hear what you
have to say, but that you hear what we have to say. Not only that, but to take into
account what occurred at the public hearing, which was very highly negative, if you
read your notes. So you have, not only hood winked us, but had us sitting here
without our knowing what was done, and I for one am extremely angry.
Jack Melby: I live at 40 Hill Street. Friday I gave Barbara a copy of a letter from
those of us that live on the north side of this property put together for your
review before this meeting. Did you all get a letter?
Councilman Geving: Yes, we all have a copy.
Jack Melby: I would like to give you a signed copy. I, too, am just amazed that
what has occurred here this evening.
Councilwoman Swenson: My recollection of this is that we were all set to go on the
north end of this lake. There was great opposition for that because we were going to
change the ecology of the water. The DNR site was not, obviOUsly, very acceptable
for many reasons and I am surprised that there is as much reaction that there is
because I, too, felt that we have done everything we could to satisfy people and show
that we were intent on trying to preserve the water. I think you should also know,
people, that this is not the end. The questions that you have referred to have yet
to be answered. This meeting tonight was merely to approve the application. We will
SECOND SENTENCE AMENDED 08-05-85, PAGE 4.
,1 p' D.,
}_ [t,U'
Council Meeting, July 15, 1985
-18-
get to the subject of how we are going to control the gate. All of these things are
going to be addressed. This is going to protect the number of boats that go in the
lake, and all of these questions that you have asked will be addressed. We have not I
just said that we are going to do all of these things. Yes, the boat launch has been
app,oved, b,t the method io how it ia .oio. to be haodled, all of theee thio.a a'e
going to come up. We have your input, which is wonderful and I am just as concerned
about wanton use of the lake as anybody else is. I have experience with this. I
live on the lake with a public launch across the lake from me, and I am sympathetic
to everything you are saying, and I promise you, they will be addressed.
Jack Melby: After witnessing what I have seen this evening, I find that kind of dif-
ficult to believe. There are certain things that both people that live to the north
of this development want to bring to your attention. We did it by the process. We
came to the Planning Commission meetings, we stated our opinions, we stated our con-
ce~ns, we have documented our concerns and before we get a change to talk about these
things, the approval process is already under way. That doesn't seem to me like that
should be processed. It certainly appears to me that there is no consideration given
to those people, those of us who live on the north side of this development. There
has been a good deal of consideration, primarily because of numbers, to the south
side of the development. We were waiting for our chance to speak and it appears to
me that the opportunity has been taken right away from us.
Councilwoman Swenson: I honestly don't know how you can say that because the whole
thing has been going on and everybody has had many many times to put input in. I am
just amazed because I thought the subject had really been thoroughly taken care of.
Councilman Geving: Mr. Melby, I read your letter and I think the points that you
make are very appropriate. Six of the seven items that you have delineated here 'I
really are items to be discussed at some future meeting. for example: berming of
the neighborhood from the water runoff if the park is approved; building a fence and
trees on the berm; reducing the hours of the park; taking precautions to prevent
further drainage into the 101 culvert; building the park a good distance from the
neighborhood to limit the possibilities of vandalism; and taking extra safety pre-
cautions to prevent accidents on Highway 101 near the park entrance (i.e. reduced
speed, stop lights, etc.). I think all of your comments are really very appropriate
and will be saved for the time when these items are discusse~ when we start to talk
about specifics of rules and regulations for running the park. All of these will be
included, I can assure you that. We are preliminary on them. The only item that is
not premilinary is the first one, shifting the boat landing to the DNR site to more
fairly split the nuisance problems between neighborhoods.
Jack Melby: I was listening to Councilwoman Watson earlier and she was talking about
the concerns of those individuals that haven't even moved in yet, about the riparian
rights that they have. I would like to have you folks show us the same concern for
those four families that live north of this project that are already living there.
You talk about the condominium aspect, my front yard is directly in front of those
condominiums, directly above my front yard. There is absolutely no privacy what-
soever. The park, the access, all of that is directly associated with our four
family neighborhood. I would like you to give us the same consideration that you
gave those people that haven't even moved in yet.
Councilman Gevinq: Here again, that is your item number three, placing a fence and
trees on the berm for privacy and protection of the neighborhood from the park. That
is to be discussed. We haven't even talked about the planning. We haven't approved
the plan. So those items that you are speaking of, of divorcing your area from this-
plan are going to be discussed .yet tonight. If you stay and listen, Mark Koegler
I
I
I
I
-0F
Council Meeting, July 15, 1985
-19-
will make that presentation on how he intends to berm and how he intends to make
plantings for the park area. That will separate your area and hopefully satisfy your
request. You will have the opportunity to participate when we start talking about how
we are going to run this park and how it will affect you as a homeowner in that area.
Councilwoman Watson: I don't believe that I made any comment regarding those people
and being that concerned about those people and those riparian lots. All I said is
if they bought those lots, they probably would want the same use of those lots as
anyone else has that owns riparian lots.
Jack Melby: That is exactly how I heard you, and all I am asking is that you
show the same concern for those people that already live there.
Councilwoman Watson: I think we have.
Jack Melby: I don't think so. But I will watch the process.
Councilman Horn: The only issue there was the dock issue.
Councilwoman Watson: All I was saying is that they would probably want to get down
to the lake and I still think that they will want to get down to the lake. I don't
see that as a major concern.
Jack Melby: You were talking about the riparian rights and I am asking for that same
concern.
Councilwoman Watson: I am asking as a citizen who doesn't own riparian rights for
the right to be on the lake. The minute your foot is wet you are not on your pro-
perty anymore, and I would like the same privilege you have for the use of that
lake.
Jack Melby: Well, all you have to do is pay as much money as I did for my place and
pay my taxes.
Councilman Geving: Mr. Melby, are you representing a group from your homeowners
area?
Jack Melby:
Four families.
Councilman Geving: I want to make this very clear to our City staff that any future
memorandums or City staff input that comes to the Council and to the Planning
Commission should be directed to those people who represent homeowners associations
or groups within the area, such as Mr. Melby. If there are any other homeowners
associations that are affected by this development, we will make sure that any docu-
mentation that we present to ourselves or to the Planning Commission gets into your
ha',ds.
Georgette Sosin: We received a letter saying that the meeting had been changed con-
cerning the public boat access to tonight and that discussion would be tonight. That
came directly from Barbara Oacy and that is why we were here. There was no
discussion. That is why I wondered why we came. We did get a note from you and we
have been very conscientious about it, but that doesn't mean a thing.
Mayor Hamilton: All of us unanimously and independently felt that what had happened
in the proposal that was before us is merely to approve the signing of the lAWCON
grant so that we can receive the funds. That process has gone through a long, long
iL0
Council Meeting, July 15, 1985
-20-
process that we have talked about.
going to happen because if we don't
ahead and put it in their site.
We could talk about this forever, but its not
move ahead with this one, the DNR is going to go
I
Georqette Sosin: That is exactly what we wanted to discuss with you tonight, exactly
that point about the DNR putting its own site in. That is something we had recon-
sidered because there is no old issue in this City. Every time an issue is made, it
seems to resurface. I have been to many many meetings and we have never been pre-
vented from discussing, whether there was a formal public hearing or not a formal
public hearing. This is the first time that I have, since I have been interested in
this City Council, come to a meeting where an issue that is this controversial as it
is was slipped under the table.
Mayor Hamilton:
realize that this
been going on for
I don't think anything has been slipped under the table.
was that controversial. How long do we have to discuss
two to three years now. Everbody has had their input.
I didn't
it? It has
Wes Arseth: What I am wondering about is where is all the money coming from that
is going to pay for this? We are going to pay for it, right?
Mayor Hamilton: No, the DNR is paying a certain percentage.
Wes Arseth: This is one thing that has never been answered, where all this money is
coming from, the maintenance and everything. You will not answer us on that issue.
Don Ashworth: The local share is 25
The total of the grant is $118,000.
be constructed within that amount.
percent, the federal state share is 75 percent.
The engineer's estimate shows that the park can
I
Wes Arseth: What about the maintenance, the year to year up keep?
Don Ashworth: We have never included the maintenance costs associated with any of
our neighborhood parks. That area was defined as a deficient neighborhood park area
for the last ten years. The proposal is soley one of providing a facility in that
neighborhood.
Wes Arseth: But there will be a cost, right?
Don Ashworth: Yes, there are costs associated with maintenance with any of our neigh-
borhood park facilities.
Wes Arseth: Isn't it true that with the DNR there will not be cost on a year to year
basis as far as maintenance? If the DNR puts it in on the east side, there will not
be a maintenance cost to the people in Chanhassen, right?
Don Ashworth: That is correct and there would not be a park.
Wes Arseth: There would be an access, but there would be no maintenance fees that
are generated by whatever is required to maintain the access.
Don Ashworth: I hear two separate questions. One is regarding the park and one is
regarding the access.
I
I
I
I
Council Meeting, July 15, 1985
-21-
Wes Arseth: The access is the one that I waS concerned about.
Don Ashworth: I don't know if a yearly maintenance cost is associated with the
access itself. Yes, there would be a yearly maintenance cost associated with the
park area. If there were a maintenance cost associated with the access itself, it
would be difficult to put a dollar amount on it. It is a very limited area.
Henry Sosin: The climate has changed in the past six months, it seems. The DNR is
not as rigid as you once thought they were. They claimed they came in and said that
you cannot use Carver Beach for the following reasons; the major reason they had was
parking. They would not allow split parking. At this proposed site here, they do
accept split parking. They are having two or three slips down below for any guests
and the rest of the people up in the park. In the last month or six weeks the DNR
has relaxed their rules to accommodate an access on Christmas lake. They are even
allowing them for a certain period of time to control motor size, and the people who
live on the lake do not control motor size. So apparently you have been negotiating
with the DNR. It is very possible that they would allow split parking, which was
proposed at one of the other original sites, now it has never been presented to them
again. The major problem with the east side of the lake is the traffic problem. The
west side of the lake would be far superior. There is one potential spot already
present, that everybody khows, and that is the parking problem that the DNR might not
accept, and the other is that there is other land on the west side of the lake that
is currently be proposed for development that might be a suitable spot.
Mayor Hamilton: Even if they allowed split parking it would be difficult for me to
believe that they would allow split parking at Carver Beach when you have to walk a
mile to get to your car.
Councilman Horn: We have another issue too, and that is we have jocked around with
this lAWCON grant so much, if we tried to change it at this point we would probably
lose the whole thing. We barely got it this time.
Mayor Hamilton:
questions - what
discussed in the
aren't they.
We can certainly ask the questions of DNR and go back and ask the
about split parking, what about some of the issues that we have
past that they said "no" to. Are they in line to negotiate now or
Ron Harvieux: I live at 6605 Horseshoe Curve. In light of what was just said, I
don't know if I understand what you just did just now. According to what you are
going to ask the DNR, is it going to be subject to any public interpretation of
review or is it going to be something that is just going to happen and we will hear
about and answer somehow?
Mayor Hamilton: We will put it back on the agenda again for more discussion and see
what Barb brings back to us as to what the DNR has to say.
Ron Harvieux: So then what had happened in the first minutes of this meeting, is it
going to change? I really don't understand the first minutes. I didn't know that we
have approached that part of the meeting.
Mayor Hamilton: When the DNR told us that they would approve the funds for us, we
had 30 days in which to sign the grant or lose it. I suppose we could still not sign
it and just let the thing go on forever. If they decide to put their boat access in
on their property, they can go ahead and do it. In the meantime we can still ask
Council Meeting, July 15, 1985
-22-
some questions. We don't have to accept the money, we can still say that we are just
not going to sign it on time, although this Council has voted to approve myself and
the City Manager to sign.
I
Ron Harvieux: I know you did approve something very early on in the meeting. Is
this disapproved or does that march forward.
Mayor Hamilton: It is not disapproved, but we are going to ask some questions first,
then we will probably discuss it again and see what we want to do.
Will we be notified about that, Tom?
Mayor Hamilton: Yes.
Harvey Parker: I live at 7480 Chanhassen Road. I, like you folks, have sat in this
chamber and heard more about this access than I care to remember. However, at the
last Planning Commission meeting, I am frankly kind of disappointed at the turn of
events here because at the last Planning Commission meeting I discussed some concern
in regards to the traffic problem. I have suggested that some consideration be
given to some alternate sites. I don't like either one of them because of their
being on Highway 101. After discussion was closed, there wasn't any metion made of
the possibility of even considering anything else. I don't know if it was reflected
in the minutes or not, but one thing I do know that was reflected in the minutes and
has been brought up about the change in stance, as it were, of the DNR and their
flexibility. Frankly, I am disappointed that those considerations were not pursued.
I think that since this is quite a controversial issue, I think those things should
have been looked into before now.
Mayor Hamilton: This has been a continuous process, as you know, and it has gone on I
for so many years. At the conclusion of the Citizens Committee they recommended this
site in the first place, and the grant money was applied for. It has taken two years
to get that. Now that has been a continuous process of the City working on that,
working with the DNR almost every month trying to find out where those funds are and
are we going to get them. There was a time when we didn't even think that we were
going to get them because we needed additional funds, even the DNR said that we pro-
bably wouldn't get them. It has taken a long time and it has been a continuous pro-
cess and I feel that if the out cry here was so strong, yourself or somebody else
should have come forward a long time ago and said, listen, we want to look at this
thing allover again and let's kind of hold off. I haven't heard anybody coming in
and saying that they want to go through the whole process allover again and look at
alternative sites. We looked at every site on the lake and there were three and this
one came out to what we thought was the best choice. I think everybody on the com-
mittee thought it was the best choice.
Harvery Parker: To me, I feel so strongly about the traffic factor that if another
committee is necessary to be formed to look at all the sites, please do so because I
think the traffic situation is going to be a Pandora's box.
Councilwoman Swenson: That was one of the arguments that was made against the east
side, DNR site, because the traffic was too close, it was too close to adjoining,
people with riparian rights, there was limited parking, there was very bad visibility
there with trailers going in and out and this was one of the reasons why the DNR site
on the east side of the lake was rejected. It was rejected by the populous as well I
as the committee.
It was not rejected by the committee. The committee recommen-
dations were that staff look into the south side possibility and the second recommen-
I
I
I
Council Meeting, July 15, 1985
-23-
dation was that the lAWCON funds tend to be used for the ONR site or if not allow the
ONR to put in their own at the ONR site, the third was that if you couldn't use
lAWCON funds at either of those, that you shouldn't apply for the lAWCON funds.
Mayor Hamilton: Is there any comments on the Bloomberg site?
Councilwoman Swenson: As I understand it, we have agreed to eliminate the duplex
units.
Barb Oacy: Eliminating the duplex units would bring the density down to 2.72.
Councilwoman Swenson: The next one was that we were going to close off West 77th
Street.
Barb Oacy: I would like to make a comment to Mr. Geving's items about the berming
along the north side of Highway 101. Is that in addition to the landscaping that is
being proposed by the applicant and by the Park Commission?
Councilman Geving: I don't know the extent of this landscaping plan. My proposal is
to make sure that the berming happens on the south side of the development or the
north side of Highway 101 between the two access points.
Barb Oacy: There are some existing trees there.
Councilman Geving: I want berming.
Barb Oacy: They are proposing vegetation all along here.
Councilman Geving: Will it be elevated?
Barb Oacy:
No, it is not proposed.
Mayor Hamilton: I could see berming along the edge of the park as it backs onto the
condominiums there, but why berm along the street?
Councilman Geving: I think the berming aspect came from a recommendation from the
Hill Street people.
Councilwoman Watson: Just so that there is an aspect of privacy provided from the
public areas to the more private areas.
Councilman Geving:
curve and you look
would like to keep
I kind of like when you drive on TH 101 and you go almost to the
up at the end of the lake, you can see the lake from there. I
that view.
Councilman Horn:
is a good idea.
I think Mr. Bloomberg was interested in that too, and I think that
I would be a little concerned about berming if we block that.
Councilman Geving: Mr. Koegler, maybe you could address some of the comments that we
have already made that if we did eliminate the duplexes, what impact on your plan
would it have.
~ Koegler:
of the plan.
Realistically, that will have very little impact on the park portion
We are not really proposing any development back in that portion that
Council Meeting, July 15, 1985
-24-
is either going to impact a duplex or a single family home. The slopes in there are
really prohibitive and we have got a very fine protective tree cover that is in there
now. So those are somewhat exclusive. When I waS out there I was asked to respond I
to what the park plan had shown for the landscaping along TH 101, that has become a
discussion with the possibility of berming throughout all of this portion. Mr.
Bloomberg has made his point all along that he wants to preserve some of the lake
vistas. He thinks as a resident, that would be advantageous. We don't disagree with
that. There are some significant vistas along TH 101 looking down. We think, par-
ticularly with the park there, that will be preserved primarily in an open space type
of situation. We have to balance that thought with if a softball diamond goes in
here or some other active use, how are we reasonably going buffer and provide safety?
So we are looking at a massive plant material along this portion. It would be
something of a lower form of only 6 or 8 feet tall. It would not provide as much of
the view inhibitor, but would provide a physical barrier along with fencing to
control movement. As the plan sits right now, we have not shown any berming along
this portion. Essentially, this is somewhat of a higher plateau, it drops off to a
ditch section and comes back up somewhat to the road elevation. So berming in there
is going to require quite a bit of fill to be brought into this portion at least and
is literally going to compound the difficulty with putting a softball diamond or
something else in there. We are not going to be able to get the drainage that we
presently have coming off of TH 101. I should indicate that the developer had
received a copy of the preliminary park landscaping plan and they were looking at
coordinating the plant materials all throughout this area, so we are working together
in that respect. What we have done through the park area itself is we tried to pro-
vide an attractive boulevard type of entrance. We are using overstorage trees,
maples primarily, to kind of deliniate the park area. There are two philosophies
that have been expressed so far and I don't know that we have got a clear cut deci-
sion as to which we will do. What we had defined originally was a berm that came all 1
the way through here. We are cutting the parking lot down so that we are getting out
of sight as much as possible. We were coming in with some berming through this por-
tion, which would help restrict the view from the adjacent lots as well as from the
public coming at large. There is another side of that one that was brought up at the
Planning Commission, which we think is a good suggestion and we responded and that is
that the parking lot in this area are the primaries that we have to look at for
detention for storm water. The Planning Commission directly suggested that we look
at putting a small detention pond in this area, which would obviously replace the
berm. So we have a berm portion, basically, coming back through here that would drop
out to a flat situation with about a 2 to 3! foot swale that we would use to assist
in holding some of the storm water in conjunction with holding it on the parking lot
as well. Those are the kind of things that we are looking at. (Mr. Koegler was
referring to a chart throughout his presentation.)
Councilwoman Swenson: Will that landscaping hold to protect Mr. Melby's property?
Mark Koeqler: We have tried to be sensitive from the beginning and Mr. Melby has
some real concerns. But providing an extensive buffer plant material through here,
we have suggested, at least initially, a heavy planting with some Spruce and Dogwood,
which we think will provide year round physical and visual barrier through there.
Additionally, the Park Commission had concurred with our recommendation in ringing,
basically, the entire boat access with a bollard and chain setup. I believe the
residents may have some feeling that fencing is additionally needed. From a staff
point of view or from a consulting staff point of view, we don't concur with that.
What we try to do in the design of the park, is we tried to keep the park development
away from his property as much as possible. We can only do that within certain
constraints. Our biggest constraint is the tree cover that I mentioned before. We
'I
I
I
I'
-, ~ .-r; :.c"-
Council Meeting, July 15, 1985
-25-
have a beautiful stand of oaks there that we want to preserve. That was a goal right
from the beginning. We have pushed the access away from his property as much as we
reasonably think we can, we provided the picnic drop off, the picnic area, and the
walkway all on the other side of the driveway specifically to keep the public away
from Mr. Melby's property. We are not providing anything that would attract users to
the private property side of the park. Additionally, we are proposing that there
be signage through there also.
Councilwoman Swenson: How far west is the boat launch from the Melby property?
Mark Koegler:
access itself.
wi dth.
We are about 125 feet or so to the property line to the center of the
So about 120 feet, which is pretty much a standard residential lot
Jack Melby: My house, as you can see, is set back well from the lake, as well as the
other neighbors homes. We can't see some of the lakeshore from our home as it is,
much less at night. Our private property and boats is exposed to all kinds of van-
dalism simply because that park is going to be open 16 hours a day. There is an
immediate intrusion on all kinds of privacy issues that I don't think has been con-
sidered.
Mayor Hamilton: I have got to think that is an issue that we will deal with. There
is the possibility of fencing as Mark has alluded to and that is something that we
need to discuss with Mark.
Ron Harvieux: I don't know if this is the right time, but could I revisit the issue
of the boat landing only to eliminate some wasted time. We would like to ask the
Council to clarify that they will rescind their previous vote on the LAWCON funds and
doing that with the next step of going back to the DNR and asking questions about other
access sites and sharing that information with the public. I think we heard a deci-
sion, I am not sure if we did.
Councilman Geving: You didn't hear one from me.
Ron Harvieux: What did we hear, I am not sure we understand.
Councilman Geving: You heard some discussion on direction to the staff to contact
the DNR.
Ron Harvieux: I am not sure I understand what that does. How does the public, who
is very concerned, and what we have tried to do tonight and try to do through the
process up until tonight, how are we going to have any security that we are going to
be heard.
Mayor Hamilton: I assure you that I will not sign the LAWCON grant application until
we have recieved comments back from the DNR.
Ron Harvieux: Could I have that insurance from everyone else, or is that just a one
man stand.
Mayor Hamilton: We don't get the funds until I sign it.
Ron Harvieux: Could we understand that response before you make a decision.
Mayor Hamilton: Sure, you will be informed.
(~6.
\;"')1 .1J
Council Meeting, July 15, 1985
-26-
Mayor Hamilton: I was going to suggest and Mr. Bloomberg agrees with us that we
table the preliminary and final development plan until such time that Mr. Bloomberg
has had an opportunity to read our comments and then put it back on the agenda for
August 5, 1985 so that Mr. Bloomberg can make his comments and review our comments
this evening.
I
Councilwoman Swenson: Should we review our recommendations?
Councilman GevinQ: I think we need to identify them.
Councilwoman Swenson: Our first recommendation that we would make would be to elimi-
nate the duplexes, which reduces the density to 2.7; close 77th Street; that the
berming would be appropriate; and the individual riparian rights for docking would be
retained.
Mayor Hamilton: And that the development contract states that there be no cutting
other than to put a walkway down to the dock.
Councilman GevinQ: I had made a recommendation on the corner, making 2 lots out of
the proposed Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1.
Mayor Hamilton moved to table the preliminary and final development plan request,
Herb Bloomberg, until the August 5th meeting with the specific comments noted by the
Council members. Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Swenson. The following voted
in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and
Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried.
Herb Bloomberg: It was interesting to get the transcript from the last meeting, but I
I am rather positive that the transcript will show that there is, perhaps, not one
iota of argument of the points brought up that have not been reviewed before. The
use of TH 101 and where this access will come, we will make a beautiful park and
nothing but a beautiful strip and keep preserve of the view of the lake forever and
building this all in the frame work of the very minimum use that is prohibited by the
DNR. So any traffic that comes in there comes off the state highway. There is no
way that everybody is going to be happy. We do have a democratic process and we can
hear all sides and when it is all done we have to take a vote and there are going to
be winners and losers. In this particular case, if the losers accept the plan I
think that time is going to prove that their fears were completely unfounded. I am
still completely open in what we do with the land. I can build very small inexpen-
sive, but I think, good looking houses, for poor people or I can build on the other
end of the account. I think this will be an interesting mix. I am really looking
forward to it. I am not looking to sell this property, I want to build it.
HIDDEN VALLEY ESTATES, NEW AMERICAN HOMES:
~ Evaluation ~ Environmental Assessment Worksheet.
B. Final Plat Review.
---
~ Ordinance 47-BB Rezoning the Property from R-lA ~ P-l and ~
Second Reading.
Evaluation of Environmental Assessment Worksheet:
Mayor Hamilton: Unless the Council members have any questions, I think it is rather
straight forward that we don't need to have one.
Councilwoman Swenson: I disagree. I would not vote for that. I think any time that
we have a situation that is going to negatively affect two of our lakes in the manner
that this will, we should have an EIS.
I
I
I
I
Council Meeting, July 15, 1985
-27-
Councilwoman Watson: Sometimes I think we are real quick because these are time con-
suming. I know that does add several months to the process, even though through
reading this there isn't anything that jumps out and says that there should be one.
There are certainly questions that would justify doing it as well.
Barb Oacy: I believe you are speaking directly about the water quality issue. It is
something that staff has been concerned with as well. We have met with the develo-
pers, met twice with the Met Council staff to try and address those issues. Hidden
Valley being a part of the larger watershed district that much of the drainage runs
through the Hidden Valley site. So the Met Council realizing this, recommended two
recommendations that the applicants install in their storm water management plan to
help control that very issue. We feel that what is being proposed by the developer
and what the City intends to do in its storm water, water management plans with the
downtown area and the overall watershed area as a whole that will address the
phosphorous issue into Rice Marsh lake and lake Riley.
Councilwoman Swenson: I am not referring strictly to the quality, but I am talking
about that the fact that we have a potential increase of a 100 percent run-off into
the lake after urbanization. I don't think that is acceptable.
Mayor Hamilton: But a
is there now? Is it a
A 100 percent increase
100 percent of what is already there, what is
prohibitive amount that is running off now?
is very insignificant.
the amount that
I would think not.
Counciwoman Swenson: It says there is no question that the problem cannot be
ignored. I am not satisfied. I am not able to okay something like this. I have
rarely seen this much that has had to be addressed in an EAW report. This should be
taken care of and if an EIS is going to tell what it is or tell us how to do it, then
I certainly think that is what we should do.
Councilman Horn: I certainly share Counciwoman Swenson's concern. I guess this is
one of those issues that we find so many things on both sides of the issue that I
think it is hard to come to a conclusion. I am very concerned about what could hap-
pen to lake Riley. If I really felt sure that an EIS would find out something that
would save us from making a huge mistake, I would be all for it. In the past I have
kind of looked at these things as delaying the process, which disturbs me. It
would be nice if we could get this information without having to delay them for 3 or
4 months. Is there any type of procedure that we could go through that would insure
the quality of the lake without going through a formal EIS, is one question I would
throw out to staff if they could try and get an answer for. The other thing is a
fact of life, if you are going to develop you are going to increase your runoff and
it is just going to happen. The only way you are not going to increase the runoff
into the lakes is if you stop growing. The question in my mind is how do you do that
effectively and how do you minimize the negative effects. The question of the total
runoff alone is, to me, something that is inevitable. If we don't want that, we
shouldn't live here because it is going to happen. But what we do is we try to make
it work the best we can. The question that I threw out is a general question to the
staff and to the Council, have we done everything we can without unduly delaying the
whole process for this development to assure that we have satisfied the best needs of
the lake?
Bill Monk: I believe we are all starting at the same point and working in the same
direction. I think Councilwoman Swenson and I have a basic disagreement on the
ponding and what you can achieve through ponding. Councilman Horn is correct when
he says that any time you develop you are going to increase the runoff and in most
f '" ~
,
e
Council Meeting, July IS, 1985
-28-
cases you will double it. An example of another site in town that will have the same
effect on Lake Riley is going to be the Chanhassen Lakes Business Park, third addi-
tion. The downtown area will have the same effect. In my earlier memo I tried to I
set out what I thought the City's best plan of attach would have to be. I still
believe that intermediate ponding in the downtown area, by the business park and
through any site that develops, given its natural topography and whatever you can do
with it, is the only and best way that we can proceed. I truly believe that what
they are proposing in this plat is all that can be done, not only to handle the 48
inch pipe that already is outletting on their property and eroding probably, but to
handle their own runoff. It will have an affect on Lake Riley that I believe is
within reason. I am much more concerned with the downtown project and with the
industrial project north of Lake Susan. We are building large ponding areas and in
some cases even creek diversions into those plans to try and help the lake as much as
we can. We went over this quite a bit with the Met Council staff and at the
beginning, I think, they were very concerned and didn't want to budge from this
because of the studies they had done previously. After reviewing the data with them
and coming down to finding it generally consistent with their plan with two minor
additions, one being a dissipation system and the other being silt fence that is
religiously monitored. I can go no further than to say that the people concerned in
these areas believe that everything that can be done is being done. Lake Riley pre-
sents a special problem for you because we will be working with Eden Prairie and the
Watershed District to try and work directly on that problem and I do believe that we
are proceeding in good faith. I do not believe that we will get any additional input
that will help us with this development through the EIS process.
Councilwoman Swenson: Are the communities discussing, to the best of your knowledge,
the problem that has worked reversed, which alleviates the problem as it happens or
are the citizens of Lake Riley going to have to live with this mess? I am not going I
to okay any type of development that is going to have an adverse affect on the lake
until such time that the agencies involved say, "yes, we are going to take care of it
at this end."
Bill Monk: In working with the work that I have done so far with the Watershed
District, and most of it has been preliminary, the biggest single item they believe
will slow down this process is the intermediate ponding. There is the removal of
weeds, there is the fish and you can work on those things at this time to try and
better a lake quality. But in the long term, the Watershed District, and I agree
with the approach, intermediate ponding to allow sedimentation and some nutrient
stripping before it gets down there is the only realistic alternative. And that is,
I think, the direction that this City has had because it is the only way that you can
handle the increased runoff. The runoff increases. You would have to put a mora-
torium on development to stop that increase in any of our watershed areas.
Councilwoman Swenson: I guess the concern is that some years down the line, I don't
want to find that Lake Riley is in the same condition that Lake Polaski is in. You
keep pouring all that water into the lake and the drainage going out of the lake
isn't adequate to keep reducing it. Since we have moved into our property we have
lost over 10 feet of shoreline and we are well in violation of the distance that we
are suppose to be from the water. It keeps eating away and it is going to keep on
going. This is the first year in eights years that the water hasn't been up lapping
at the shoreline. This is not an idle concern. I am worried about it because I can
see that this is coming up and we can't berm it. Everybody is having this problem.
Bill Monk: The elevational problem is something that can and we will address as a
part of the review that is being done now because it does have a natural overflow.
I
I
I
I
!~ -'
Council Meeting, JUly 15, 1985
-29-
Councilwoman Swenson: It is plugged up 90 percent of the time.
Bi 11 Monk:
--
far as the
a separate
quality, I
Then that is something that we have got to address as a separate issue
lake quality and is something I can take up with the Watershed District
issue. That we can address and I will address. But talking water
believe this development is doing everything.
as
as
Councilman Gevinq: I am fairly well convinced that if we do everything possible and
feel satisfied in our own mind that our Engineer in working with the DNR and others
can convince us that we have done everything possible to make sure that the water
doesn't runoff at a rate that will cause harm to lake Riley, then I think we ought to
move ahead with the project. I am not so convinced that an EIS is going to tell us a
whole lot more than what we already know. I think that the cost for the EIS and the
time is not going to be sufficient. I would like to see us move ahead and get this
project started.
Mayor Hamilton: I just don't think that the EIS is going to tell us anything that
we don't already know. I think we have rather complete information, but I can
understand Councilwoman Swenson's concern. I don't want to ruin the lakes either,
but at the same time just to make someone jump through another hoop just to make them
jump through the hoop doesn't seem to make any sense to me. I don't think we are
going to get any additional information. As long as we continue to monitor how the
development is progressing and making sure that every possible thing is being done to
mitigate the runoff, then I think we have done what we are suppose to do.
Mayor Hamilton moved to approve that "The City of Chanhassen as the responsible
government (RGU) finds that the Environmental Assessment Worksheet for Hidden Valley
Estates and the Addenda made a part of the EAW is adequate in assessing environmental
effects as well as identifying mitigative measures. Recommendations of the
Metropolitan Council and the Minnesota DNR must be implemented by the developer as
stated in their letters of June 24, 1985 and June 5, 1985 respectively. Because
there are no substantial adverse effects generated by the Hidden Valley Estates deve-
lopment, the City of Chanhassen establishes a "Negative Declaration" meaning that an
Environmental Impact Statement is not necessary. Motion was seconded by Councilman
Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson,
Councilmen Horn and Geving. Councilwoman Swenson opposed. Motion carried.
~ Final Plat Review:
C. Ordinance 47-88 Rezoning the property from R-IA ~ P-I and ~ Second Readinq:
Councilwoman Watson: I would like to take this opportunity to discuss what I per-
ceive to be developers responsibilities. I think this development gives us a mar-
velous opportunity to bring in some of these things. When we have housing
developments like this, especially ones with small lots, there tends to be the fact
that people do not know what setbacks are and they do not know what the restrictions
are when they buy that house. Those small lots in the city are bringing in requests
for decks that don't fit, glass sliding doors that go out where someone has six feet
between there and the setback in order to build a deck, which doesn't build much of a
deck and they don't even know it. I think the developers have to start accepting
some responsibility so people know what is within their grasp when they build on a
7,500 square foot lot. They lose some flexibility on a lot like that. I don't think
they know it until they come here and they want a variance from everything from four
feet so the deck can be a minimum of 10 feet wide. I think they ought to be more up
front with people with the setbacks. One of the things that we talked about with
JoAnn tonight is that when people come in for a building permit, there will be a slip
Council Meeting, July 15, 1985
-30-
of paper attached to that building permit that will say that you must have a 10 foot
side yard, you must have a 30 foot rear yard, 30 foot front yard, etc., so they don't
come to us and say, "Gee, the developer put in the sliding glass door and I spent I
$1,000 on it and now I can only have a six foot deck." The developer is gone and we
are stuck with picking up the slack in trying to grant variances so that people have
a reasonable use of a glass sliding door. So, I am just hoping, there are some small
lots in this development, that the developer can accept some of the responsibility
for the limitations on these lots so that these people know up front what some of
those limitations are.
Councilman Geving: Barb, could we be assured that all of the comments and recommen-
dations made at the preliminary plat on May 20th are included as amended on the final
plat? Those 14 items.
Barb Oacy:
taken care
basements,
Yes, a lot of the plat items as far as easements, etc., that will be
of through the final plat, other things such as the deed restrictions,
two car garages, that will be taken care of as we go here.
Councilman Horn: I think Councilwoman Watson has a good idea, but I am not sure that
going through the building permit is going to help because most people do not even
see the building permit.
Councilwoman Watson: But the developer can't say that he doesn't know. That is the
best that we can do at this point.
Councilman Geving: We are getting an awful lot of variance requests from Near
Mountain, for example, and they are all for decks. If there is a developer who
doesn't understand that those are the various setback requirements, and we see that I
this one developer is giving us a lot of problem with our variances, we can go to
that developer because we know who he is. He has got two or three more phases of his
development yet, so we have chance to get another crack at him.
Councilwoman Watson: If they would accept some of the responsibility, these people
wouldn't end up on our doorstep all the time.
Councilwoman Swenson: Is it possible to use this in conjunction with the building
permit?
Councilwoman Watson: I think it has to be.
Mayor Hamilton: Does anybody have any problems with the rezoning? The rezoning
would be done as we discussed in the preliminary stages.
Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the final plat subject to execution of the develop-
ment contract and submission of the necessary financial securities, and Ordinance No.
47-BB Rezoning the propety from R-1A to P-l and C-2. Motion was seconded by
Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson,
Councilmen Horn and Geving. Councilwoman Swenson opposed. Motion carried.
LAKE SUSAN PARK SHELTER:
--
Councilman Geving: I really feel that we are missing an opportunity to use that park
shelter. Is there just some way that we can open up the gate south of the railroad
track, go in and make a couple of turn areas so that if we did open it up we can have
traffic two ways there. We wouldn't have to build a major road or we wouldn't have
to haul in a lot of gravel, but I was thinking that if we could just get in there and
I
I
t
I
..,.- r- -, .--__\
L. I." I..
Council Meeting, July 15, 1985
-31-
build a couple of places where a person could come up to the side and let another car
pass we could start using that facility yet this summer. It is just too nice to let
it set there.
Bill Monk: We have made preliminary contact with the Opus Corporation. That road is
on private property and we have to work through them. We are still looking at both
options in trying to pressure them into doing the road and if that fails, widening
the existing road that is there. I am still hopeful that I can get it done but to
get it done this summer yet would be ridiculous because we are already in the middle
of it, but there is still a possibility that we can get something done and get use of
it yet this year. We are working towards that, but you have to recognize that it is
private property.
Councilman Gevinq: I understand that, but we have got some chips that they want,
too.
BOWLING CENTER DISCUSSION:
Mayor Hamilton: There was a problem over there last week when the contractor that
Jack Henning had hired to do some grading came in and knocked a hole in our water
main and drained the entire tower and apparently without checking with the City to
find out if there were any pipes in the ground there. He also hit a gas main down
there. The gentleman who is here this evening is one of the people who had some
damage because of that. There were a couple of other people have called that have
the Same problem. I talked with John Dorek today and I told him of these problems.
The staff feels, and I am 100 percent behind the staff, that Mr. Henning is not doing
the job that he ought to be doing. I layed it on the line to Mr. Dorek and told him
that he either get this guy shaped up or we are going to shut you down and you are
not going to open when you want to. He has got to start complying with what the
City wants to do and get some people in there that know what they are doing to get
the job done or you are not going to go ahead with it. We will certainly take care
of your claim. It is the contractors problem and, of course, he has insurance to pay
for that, but we will certainly work it out with you that you are reimbursed for your
damages.
Don Ashworth: Mr. Dorek is real concerned with the work that they are doing. He
assured me that answers would be given on each of those claims from Al Ramsey and
Stephen Ray. I don't think it is fair that the two individuals should walk away from
here feeling that every portion of the claim that has been submitted will be exactly
paid. There is a normal adjusting process that is followed. You may not receive
some of the labor portion that you have looked to.
Al Ramsey: Why is that?
Don Ashworth: You are looking for two days reimbursement for salaries. Through that
adjustment process, there will be questions made as to the amount of work that was
carried out by yourself. It will be adjusted and we will attempt to do it fairly.
Mayor Hamilton: The frustrating part of insurance protection, I think, is when you
have a claim and you make a ligitimate claim and then they adjust it for whatever
purpose, downwards. They are really saying that you are going to have to put in a
claim for "X" number of dollars above so you do actually get what you lost. It is
just a matter of playing games.
Bill Monk: The normal process for this is that I will be notifying
carrier, but our insurance carrier will then work directly with the
claims come to the City because it is our facility that did damage.
our insurance
contractors. The
The insurance
V f'/C.';,
JL (; U
Council Meeting, July 15, 1985
-32-
companies will have to work together and the City will have to work with them to make
sure the claims are handled on a reasonable basis. That is frustrating, but it is
the normal procedure and that is how it will have to be handled.
Mayor Hamilton: I also told Mr. Dorek that I expected Jack Henning to pay for the
repair of the main and for our peoples time and overtime to do that, for the 130,000
gallons of water that was lost, for any citizens problems and loses that they have
incurred. It was pure carelessness on his part that it happened and I think he ought
to pay for it.
SUE ALBEE RESIGNATION:
--
Sue Albee has submitted her resignation from the Planning Commission. Mayor
Hamilton moved to accept Sue Albee's resignation and directed staff to prepare a cer-
tificate of appreciation which all the Council members will sign. Motion was
seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton,
Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes.
Motion carried.
LAKE VIRGINIA/LAKE ANN INTERCEPTOR:
Don Ashworth: The information that we received back from the Met Council is that
they are very delighted with this issue. There is no specific position. The Waste
Control Commission very much favors the Lake Ann Interceptor position. One of the
alternatives that I see that we have in countering this most current position is to
take on that report. We, basically, took bits and pieces out of several reports by
Bonestroo. Bonestroo is not happy at all with how they have massacred the years of
work that they have gone through. If we were to hire an engineer to counter the
positions that Metro Council staff has picked out and couldn't afford because the
reems of reports that have been completed over the years, it would take any engineer
a year just to read through all of those. The only opportunity that we reasonably
have is to look back to Metro Council's staff, meaning those people within the staff
who are not happy with that alternative and knowing what has been done, the same way
with Metro Waste Control staff. We sincerely believe that in this point in time that
in each of those organizations there are staff members who have been working with
this issue with the last several years and are very unhappy with the report that has
been prepared by Carl Orhn. We would like to take and hire OSM. The monies that we
have available and the time that is available, there is no way that they can go
through a whole new review, but hopefully they can be employed by us and spend a day
or two days down at the Waste Control Commission and meet with those individuals who
can give them the best advice as for the holes there in that current report. I think
it is a worth while position. You realize that right now all the betting money is on
Metro Council.
Councilman Gevinq: What would it cost us?
Bill Monk:
--
at it, that
to go.
Between $1,000 and $2,000. I think if we are going to make a serious run
it would be a one-shot deal and that would be the way that we would have
Councilman Horn: Would Eden Prairie go?
I
t
Bill Monk: One of the things is that most of the numbers being generated right now
are pointed at Chanhassen. We can talk with Eden Prairie at the Wednesday meeting.
We are going to go over if we are going to proceed, what items we will attach and how I
they would be spread. I have a feeling that this spread will be primarily towards
us. I want the Council to know that if we are going to proceed, that would be the -
case. So if the bill came $1,000, Chanhassen will be looking at $800 or more of that
bill because of what we would be checking.
I
I
I
Council Meeting, July 15, 1985
-33-
Councilwoman Swenson: I agree, I think we should spend whatever it takes to try and
make it, but does the engineering firm that you proposed which does so much work over
there, are they in danger of jeopardizing their position from the Metropolitan
Council if they are in conflict with Mr. Harrington.
Bill Monk: When I approached OSM when we did this study originally, they turned us
down and they really didn't think that we had a chance because Metro Waste staff and
everybody else was against it. Now I have approached them again and now they are
saying that they will take it on because cities have been able to convince people
over there that the interceptor is a good option. Now they have people that they can
at least talk to, whereas two years ago they didn't. They are satisfied with the
people that they have talked to.
Mayor Hamilton moved to approve an expenditure of up to $2,000 for additional engi-
neering services for the Lake Ann/Lake Virginia Forcemain issue. Motion was seconded
by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen
Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried.
Mayor Hamilton moved to adjourn the meeting. Motion was seconded by Councilman
Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and
Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried.
Don Ashworth
City Manager
kjs