1986 02 24
I
I
I
REGULAR CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MEETING
February 24, 1986
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
addition
Watson.
Swenson,
OF AGENDA: Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the agenda as presented with the
of discussion on the newspaper delivery. Motion seconded by Councilwoman
The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and
Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA:
Councilwoman Watson moved to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to
the City Manager's recommendation:
1. a. Approval of Final Plat, Chestnut Ridge at Near Mountain 7th
and 8th Additions, Lundgren Brothers.
b. Certificate of Plat Correction, Rolling Hills.
Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton,
Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes.
Motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING
METES AND BOUNDS SUBDIVISION REQUEST lQ SPLIT A PLATTED LOT FOR A TWIN HOME, LOT ~
BLOCK 1L CHANHASSEN ESTATES SECOND ADDITION:
Mayor Hamilton called the hearing to order. William Wisely, owner, was present.
Mayor Hamilton - Is there anyone from the public wishing to comment on this item?
If not, I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing.
Councilman Geving moved to close the public hearing. Motion seconded by Councilwoman
Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and
Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried.
METES AND BOUNDS SUBDIVISION REQUEST lQ SPLIT A PLATTED LOT FOR A TWIN HOME, LOT ~
BLOCK 1L CHANHASSEN ESTATES SECOND ADDITION:
Councilman Horn - I guess I am getting confused on what our policy is on metes and
bounds and what isn't. It seems like a few weeks ago we wouldn't let anything go
through on metes and bounds and now we are in an established plat and we are letting
a metes and bounds subdivision go through now.
Council Meeting February 24, 1986
-2-
Barb Oacy - The one section of the subdivision ordinance that allowed metes and
bounds division of a platted lot was to avoid the situation where a property owner
did have the ability to subdivide their lot and requiring a plat for that individual
lot would cause probably more cost for them than is necessary if the legal descrip-
tion could be accomplished in the metes and bounds manner that is simple and easy to
read. This particular application, because of the orientation of the unit on the lot
that creates an angle of the lotline which does does create a little more involved
metes and bounds description beyond the east half of Lot 5 and the west half of Lot
5, however it is an existing situation and the only alternative would be that the lot
itself be replatted. The intent of the ordinance was to allow individual platted lot
to be subdivided by a simple description so there is the east half of Lot 5 and the
west half of Lot 5 but this particular situation is unique because of the existing
structure on the lot.
Councilman Horn - What we are saying is if it's a simple description we will go ahead
and do it. This one isn't a simple description but the house already exists. Why
don't we do this with all the twin homes in Chanhassen Estates? We had a request for
this one but what says we won't get this request on all of them.
Barb Oacy - We may get those requests. What would happen is that we would have to
coordinate a combined plat of all the lots and work with all of the property owners
and property owners share the cost of the replatting of the entire four.or five lots
that are now duplexes.
I
Councilman Horn - Looking at it from my standpoint I think it makes more sense if we
allow metes and bounds on a temporary situation where someone is going to come along
in the future with a known plat and make it final. That this is a temporary
situation, I don't see that in this case and it seems like we are going to have a I
metes and bounds description right in the middle of a totally platted area. I find a
little problem with that.
Bill Monk - One of the things that comes up on these all the time is that when you
have a plat, this one Chanhassen Estates, what you see happening and what you want to
get away from a lot of times is a lot by lot subdivision such as this one where all
of a sudden we are requiring this individual to plat and all of a sudden you ~ave
Chanhassen Estates Third Addition and the guy next door wants to plat and you have
got a Chanhassen Estates Fourth Addition, Fifth Addition and on down the line for
each one of these that wants to split so I guess the interpretation that staff has
taken is that if we can get an easy to understand description on a platted lot and in
essense it is not a metes and bounds description because it is a longer description
of a platted parcel, I guess I am of the opinion that is easier to work with than
with requiring him to replat on a lot by lot split basis which could occur on all of
these duplexes. One of the reasons that I am of the opinion that a split of this
kind is easier to understand because the lots then continue to follow in natural
sequence.
Councilman Horn - Can't there be Lot 5A and Lot 5B.
Bill Monk - It would have to have a new name. It can't be the same plat. It would
have to be Chanhassen Estates Fourth Addition. If it's platted it would have to have
a separate legal by law. That's the problem you run into when you replat. If we can
get the description to something understandable, staff wishes to proceed in this
manner and that's why that provision in the ordinance was put in there.
Councilman Horn - We would have the same situation had we required a plat on the
Eide property. He would have come in with Eide Addition One and then as soon as
I
I
I
I
Council Meeting February 24, 1986
-3-
another guy came in with a plat, it would have been Eide Addition Two. That was the
first lot in what we know is going to be a series. This is an already platted area
which this should be the termination of this kind of thing with that logic.
Bill Monk - Perhaps the logic may be a little twisted. The big difference between
the circumstances as I see it is that one is a fully developed neighborhood whereas
the other is not and I guess in these cases it is a lot simpler to proceed in this
fashion.
Councilman Horn - You are using the logic of requiring a new legal description that
you would propagate this thing and I am saying you have less likelihood of propa-
gating a subdivision that's already completed that you would have in the first lot
breakup in a subdivision that hasn't even started yet.
Councilwoman Swenson - How does this compare with the apartment complex that wants to
break off?
Don Ashworth - There is a significant difference if you look at the description asso-
ciated with the apartment complex. There is no way you can begin to find the apart-
ments. The one before, at least you have a base, lot 5 in Chanhassen Estates.
Councilwoman Swenson - What do you propose the metes and bounds description would be
on this?
Barb Dacy - It is on the survey that is attached your report.
Councilman Gevinq - What would happen if we had a whole bunch of multiples, not just
the duplex one now, but three or four of these joining together and the builder or
the owner wanted to do the same thing, split them off into each individual lot and
sell them off. The other situation that I think we need to address this because I
think it is going to happen from now on. It's going to happen every time we turn
around. In this row of duplexes over there, there must be five or six, that could
happen tomorrow. I would hope we could address this in lieu of some kind of ordi-
nance being proposed to take care of this so we don't have to see this so we know
exactly how these can be legally split so that if somebody comes in and asks, can we
do this, we have an answer. I wanted to know if we could get easements from these
people for lake Drive East because it is on the curve of the proposed road.
Bill Monk - There will not be any permanent easements across this lot. There is a
possibility, we don't know at this time whether temporary easements would be required
but there is really no way for the City acquire those temporary easements at this
time.
Councilwoman Watson - We have been pretty firm about this. What needs to be platted
must be platted and what doesn't need to be platted doesn't need to be platted. In
the strictest sense of the way we have been approaching these, this would need to be
platted. It is not a simple down the middle, this is the left side, this is the
right side, it is not and so according to the way we have strictly approach this
issue this lot split would have to be platted.
Mayor Hamilton - I don't disagree with that and I am not a proponent of metes and
bounds, I think the platting of it is the best way to do it. However, if the staff
says and feels that for this type of a property split it's easier and less cumbersome
for them to find it, doing it this way once the building is already there I don't see
any problem with that. AMENDED 3-17-86
Council Meeting February 24, 1986
-4-
Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the metes and bounds subdivision of a platted lot to
split a duplex into a twin home on Lot 5, Block 2, Chanhassen Estates Second Addition
by William Wisely with the condition that the two resulting lots can only be used as I'
a site for a twin home with a zero lot line. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving.
The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton and Councilman Geving. Councilman
Horn, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson voted no. Motion denied.
Bill Wisely - I am not sure what happened here.
Mayor Hamilton - A motion was made to subdivide your property as requested and the
motion was defeated by a three, two vote.
Bill Wisely - That means I can't divide it in half.
Mayor Hamilton - That's right. As you had requested. You have heard the comments of
the other councilmembers saying they would rather have it platted which as Mr. Monk
stated becomes a more cumbersome process probably not only for you but for the City
as far as locating the property and keeping track of it.
Bill Wisely - Does that mean when it's platted I can split it. I will plat it.
Don Ashworth - A motion could be considered this evening if the Councilmembers wanted
to, to approve this item subject to placing it in plat format.
Councilwoman Watson moved to approve the replating of Lot 5, Block 2, Chanhassen
Estates Second Addit~on into two platted lots conditioned upon an opinion by the City
Attorney and further conditioned that the two resulting lots can only be used as a
site for a twin home with a zero lot line. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Swenson. 'I
The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson,
Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried.
Barb Dacy - It may have to be brought back before the Planning Commission because the
state law requires that all subdivisions be considered by the local planning agency.
PUBLIC HEARING
VACATION REQUEST !Q VACATE PLATTED STREETS AND ALLEYS IN HAPP'S FIRST ADDITION, FRANK
JEDLICKI AND MICHAEL SORENSON:
Mayor Hamilton called the hearing to order. Mike Sorenson was present.
Councilman Geving moved to close the public hearing. Motion seconded by Councilwoman
Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and
Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried.
VACATION REQUEST !Q VACATE PLATTED STREETS AND ALLEYS ~ HAPP'S FIRST ADDITION:
Councilman Geving moved to vacate the existing streets and alleys in Happ's First
Addition. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor:
Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No
negative votes. Motion carried.
MINUTES: Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the February 10, 1986, Council minutes.
Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton,
Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilman Horn. Councilman Geving abstained. I
Motion carried.
I
I
I
Council Meeting February 24, 1986
-5-
Councilwoman Watson moved to note the January 22, 1986, Planning Commission minutes.
Motion seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton,
Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes.
Motion carried.
Mayor Hamilton moved to note the February 12, 1986, Planning Commission minutes.
Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton,
Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes.
Motion carried.
BILLS: Councilwoman Watson moved to approve the bills dated February 24, 1986,
checks #023348 through #023427 in the amount of $1,830,991.53 and checks #026185
through #026301 in the amount of $174,149.27 and checks #026302 through #026313 in
the amount of $15,997.84. Also, approve bills from Lana Equipment in the amount of
$1,737.00, Employee Group Fund in the amount of $276.00, and CPT in the amount of
$9,400.00. Motion seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor
Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative
votes. Motion carried.
SHORELAND SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST, 9235 LAKE BllfY BLVD., CRAIG HALVERSON:
The Board of Adjustments and Appeals approved a 50 foot variance.
SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST, LOT ~ BLOCK ~ PIONEER HILLS, TIM BLOUDEK:
The Board of Adjustments and Appeals approved a 76 foot side yard setback variance.
SUBDIVISION REQUEST lQ REPLAT HAPP'S FIRST ADDITION AND ADJACENT METES AND BOUNDS
PROPERTY INTO ONE SIX ACRE PARCEL, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST lQ ALLOW COLD
STORAGE UNITS AND OUTDOOR STORAGE ~ PROPERTY ZONED C-3, FRANK JEDLICKI AND MICHAEL
SORENSON:
Barb Dacy - The first request is for replatting of an old subdivision that was filed
several years and replat that property along and the adjacent metes and bounds pro-
perty into one six acre parcel. Staff is recommending approval of the replat subject
to the final plat not being recorded prior to the completion of the Torrens pro-
ceedings and that the vacation of the streets and alleys will not be certified prior
to the recording of the final plat and completion of the Torrens procedure. The
reason why we are waiting for the Torrens proceeding to clear is for our insurance
purposes to make sure that there is no challenge to the Torrens proceedings. The
second request is for a conditional use permit for cold storage units and an outdoor
storage area. The cold storage and outdoor storage uses were approved approximately
a year and a half ago with an amendment to the C-3 District. The applicants are pro-
posing a 40 foot by 240 foot storage building with a 100 by 290 foot gravel parking
lot. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the conditional use permit sub-
ject to the conditions stated in the staff report, however, they recommended a change
in number 7 so that the City Engineer would monitor the driveway and parking area and
should any problems arise bituminous surface shall be installed and be edged with
concrete bumper blocks. Staff's original position was that it's a normal requirement
to recommend that all the parking areas be paved and lined with concrete curb,
however, the Planning Commission felt because of the particular location of the pro-
perty and the statements made by the applicant that this situation could be better
handled by the City Engineer monitoring the situation. The Planning Commission also
added two additional items for approval. One being that all lighting from the
building be shielded from adjacent properties. Secondly, that they were concerned
that if the existing vegetation in front of the parking area was ever removed that
the City would have the ability to require additional screening at that time. As far
as the outdoor storage is concerned, the applicant has indicated that this would only
be incidental to the moving of merchandise in and out of the proposed cold storage
building, however, the Manager's comment and staff agrees that if approved the con-
Council Meeting February 24, 1986
-6-
ditional use permit can set specific design perimeters. Mr. Sorenson is here and he
may have some photos of the site to view the vegetation along Highway 212 is very
thick and will serve to screen the proposed parking area.
Mike Sorenson - We have scaled the project down considerably from what it originally
was because of soil conditions we encountered. I guess I am in agreement with
everything. We are occupying about 5% of the property with this proposal. We
figured out a way to deal with the bad soil on the property but it is going to be
expensive and so what we have decided to do is phase the project more or less, start
out with one building and build it where we have the good soil and then deal with the
soil conditions after the project has generated some revenue to cover the costs.
That's why the project went from the original thought of three buildings down to one
building. We think this answers the question of contractor's yards and things of
this nature and for just anybody who needs cold storage. An inexpensive place to
store something. You take a contractor who is trying to start out in business and he
can't go to the industrial park and rent a building for anywhere from $1,000 to
$1,500 for a 3,000 foot bay when all he needs is 1,000 feet, just enough to get him
going.
Mayor Hamilton - There won't be any outside storage.
I
Mike Sorenson - Only to the people that, for instance, somebody who has a trailer or
something that is incidental that he can't get inside that he would put outside and
want to have the latitude, in other words we don't want anybody coming down and
saying well, you can't park a trailer or a truck or something like that outside your
bay.
Mayor Hamilton - I can see a problem if a guy rents one and he decides he wants to I
put his old car down there that he is working on.
Mike Sorenson - That's why we are limiting the amount of space that he has got to
deal with.
Mayor Hamilton - He has got the space out front.
Mike Sorenson - My partner Frank Jedlicki has the exact same building, the exact same
operation in Brooklyn Park right now and it has worked out real well.
Councilwoman Watson - Do we have any control over what can be stored outside? I
understand what he is saying and I can also understand what Tom is saying that sud-
denly it is not an accessory use to what he is storing inside but just something he
wants to get off his property.
Barb Dacy - I think a condition could be added to the use permit that states
something to the affect that the primary use of the land shall not be the outdoor
storage of vehicles, etc. but shall only be for the moving of materials in and out-
side of the cold storage bays and staff could try and design some other perimeters
that's recommended in the report to try and control that.
Councilwoman Watson - Not so restrictive that they can't use it for what Mr. Sorenson
is stating but restrictive enough so that we don't suddenly have it as just an area
where everything that they don't want to have at home can go down there.
Councilwoman Swenson - I can certainly see a need for this type of thing and I would
be less concerned about what's parked outside if we had an eight foot fence around
the entire area with the understanding that no junk items ,be outside because I am
genuinely concerned about that also. AMENDED 3-17-86.
I
I
I
I
Council Meeting February 24, 1986
-7-
Mike Sorenson - The elevation of this property is approximately 12 to 15 feet above
the highway. You could drive right by this thing and if there wasn't any trees at
all chances are you would not see the building or the parking lot or anything just
due to the elevation of the property.
Councilwoman Swenson - I see what you are saying Mike. Either that or some kind of a
restriction on the outside storage.
Don Ashworth - The paragraph you saw under the Manager's comment was put in there
recognizing the concern the Council has had in this area before. The language that
is developed under the conditional use permit will be very specific regarding types
of outside storage and I am sure that Mike does not want to create a problem for him-
self either.
Councilwoman Swenson - I am not arguing that we need this. My problem is that we
have worked so hard to eliminate junky looking contractor's yards and I certainly
wouldn't want to set up a row in that general area for this.
Barb Dacy - The only other suggestion that staff would have as far as control by the
City would be to add a condition regarding an annual review process by staff or
Council.
Councilman Gevinq - I prefer that there would be no outside storage on this facility
but that we would have a set aside area, this is a very big six acre block of land,
heavily treed, it would be very easy to put those outside storage vehicles, whatever
they happen to be, in a designated area and even fence it if it became necessary. I
would think that should be a condition of the staff's recommendation that there be no
outside storage outside the designated area. I haven't seen anything on signage. I
am assuming there is no signage.
Mike Sorenson - We are not planning on any permanent sign.
Councilman Gevinq - I asked if there was any signage.
or not?
Is there going to be signage
Mike Sorenson - I have got a sign.
rented I want to take the sign down.
sign so people know what this is.
I want to put it up there. When everything is
I would like to put up a two foot by eight foot
Councilman Gevinq - And would be removed when you are 80% occupied.
Mike Sorenson - Yes. I don't want to leave it up there. It's like an apartment
building, they put up a sign when they have got a vacancy.
Councilman Gevinq - That has to be addressed though so that you know you can either
have a sign or you can't. The Planning Commission made a change to item number 7
that I feel is very wishy-washy, that the City Engineer monitor the driveway and
parking area and should any problem arise, a bituminous surface shall be installed
and be edged with concrete bumper blocks. Either it becomes a conditional use up
front, you know that you have to put in a paved parking lot with concrete bumpers or
we leave it out. So the addition that's being requested here as suggested by the
Planning Commission, to me, means nothing. Bill Monk drives down there a year from
now and says, oh, we are going to have to put that in now, Mike, I can see a lot of
fur flying. I want to make sure that that's up front with you Mike and that you
understand.
Council Meeting February 24, 1986
-8-
Mike Sorenson - A bituminous parking lot was proposed. On my original plan it
doesn't show any bituminous at all. We did this because we really have got a soil
condition. Bill is somewhat aware of it. We have got about seven or eight feet of I
peat and organic material that we are dealing with there and we are going to try to
deal with this situation. That's the reason the project was almost scraped. We are
going to try to deal with this situation but I guess the comment I made before the
Planning Commission was that I wouldn't want to put down $10,000 worth of blacktop
and have it go out of sight. We don't know what kind of tenants we are going to
have. A guy could have a small D-3 Cat, he could have a bobcat, he could have
anything and I don't want that kind of stuff on blacktop. I really don't want a
blacktop parking lot at all.
Councilman Gevinq - Could I have Bill Monk address that question on the going back in
later on as a condition and saying, okay, now this hasn't worked out we are going to
make you put in blacktop.
Bill Monk - The applicant has raised some good points with his use that don't nor-
mally come into play having and storing equipment that might be used with
commercial/industrial operations that could cause a problem with the blacktop. With
the conditions in there, condition number 7 and also condition number 10 that was
added, if those conditions are to be put in there in anticipation that there might be
potential problems in the future then one of two things needs to occur as Barb has
said, either we need to set up a specific annual review at which time these con-
ditions are looked at and decisions are made or we have to enter into the development
contract a possible letter of credit which we normally don't do for a single user.
We only get into it with developers so that I would agree with the City Planner that
is this was going to go as proposed that we definitely have it at least on an annual
review so that these things can be handled. We have also had problems with con- I
ditional use permits in the past, an example is Drive Four out on County Road 117
where things certain things don't happen. The annual review would also help in those
cases. In this particular case I think that that kind of condition can be added.
Councilman Gevinq -
permit conditions.
designated area.
I would like to make the following changes to the conditional
I would like to add one that says, no outside storage outside the
Councilman Horn - Are you talking about the gravel parking lot?
Councilman Gevinq - Not yet.
Councilman Horn - Isn't that the designated storage area?
Councilman Gevinq - Yes. The next addition is that we would leave in the amended
number 7 and that during the time of the annual review the City Council would nego-
tiate with Mike and his partner to determine whether or not that bituminous driveway
and parking area should be surfaced and concrete bumper blocks be installed.
Finally, that there will be an annual review of this conditional use permit.
Councilman Horn - Condition number 7, are you suggesting then that instead of the
City Engineer monitoring it that it would be the City Council.
Councilman Gevinq - No. That would have to be the City Engineer. He would go out I
and look at the site and determine whether or not the surface could take and hold a
bituminous surface and I believe he is the one that would do that. Do you agree with
this philosophy, Mike, that I proposed here that we would have a separate fenced area
I
I
I
Council Meeting February 24, 1986
-9-
and no outside storage beside each of these units. I kind of agree with Pat that if
you had a unit down there your tendency would be to park a trailer or something next
to it because your other materials are stored inside. We are talking about an area
here of six acres that is highly wooded. It would be no difficulty I don't believe
that we could place that into a screened in fenced in area for just permitted outside
storage.
Mike Sorenson - The site and the whole concept of the plan is unique to this site
because of the area, because of the fact that it is an unsewered area. I guess
that's how the whole thing came about. This isn't like the industrial park.
Councilman Gevinq - I have looked at that State Wide Auto Parts facility down there
for about 15 years and it's directly across the road so I know what you are talking
about and I wouldn't want to take on another facility like that.
Mike Sorenson - I agree with you on that. We don't have any intention of having any
wrecked cars or vehicles that are not being used. It's just that, all of sudden you
could have tenants and they could come along and say, hay, the City just gave me a
letter saying I can't park my trailer out there and then they would say they have to
find a different place to go.
Mayor Hamilton - It seemed like the concept that Mike was trying to present here was
not a bad idea where you have 1,200 square feet inside and you have some space you
can use outside and seems as how we are on an annual review of the property anyway to
make sure that we don't start getting junk cars or any other type of materials down
there that shouldn't be there, I, personally don't have any problem having storage
outside of your particular area so I don't agree with your wanting to eliminate that.
It seems like to force Mike now to, if you have got bad soils there, to perhaps try
to find or fill another piece of that property right now before you even get started
and to fence it when he doesn't even know he is going to have it in the first place,
he may not have anything outside. I would like to take that one back off, Dale, and
let him do it for a year and see what happens.
Councilman Gevinq
As long as we have the annual review.
Mike Sorenson - We have one tenant so far and all he is going to do is use the inside.
Councilman Gevinq - Could we reiterate the points now. The signage will be worked
out with City Staff according to City standards. The storage issue we mentioned is
always in proximity to the area for that particular lease and appropriate for that
area. The conditional use permit is subject to an annual review and then the amended
number 7 in which the City Engineer would review that with you as far as the pavement
is concerned.
Councilwoman Swenson - We can require, if the fencing goes down now, we can require
that so that we have no question about that, number 10. I want to make very sure we
have this covered so that if in fact we do have outside storage, even if it isn't
tacky the adjacent area does not have to be aware of it.
Mike Sorenson - The reason we didn't consider fencing, the two things, we have the
trees and the topography and because of those that's what makes the area so unique.
You can't see nothing. If this didn't have one tree on it we would have fences drawn
allover the place for this thing.
Councilwoman Swenson - For number 10, we say, to place additional landscaping and/or
fencing on the site. That just covers it. If it's not needed, it's not needed.
Council Meeting February 24, 1986
-10-
Councilman Horn moved to approve the subdivision request to replat Happ's First
Addition and adjacent metes and bounds property into one six acre parcel. Motion
seconded by Councilwoman Swenson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton,
Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes.
Motion carried.
I
Mayor Hamilton moved to approve a conditional use permit to allow for eight cold
storage units and outdoor storage subject to the following conditions:
1. The conditional use permit will not be recorded and a building permit not
issued until the Torrens proceeding is completed.
2. Approval by MnDOT and compliance with their condition regarding access and
drainage within state right-of-way, including regrading and landscaping
existing driveway entrances.
3. The fence on the eastern boundary be made of natural material and be
100% opaque.
4. Any expansion of the site will require another conditional use permit.
5. The site will not contain any sanitary facilities and will not be used
for habitation.
6. The existing debris on the site will be removed before occupancy
of the bUilding.
7. That the City Engineer monitor the driveway and parking area and should
any problem arise, a bituminous surface shall be installed and be
edge with concrete bumper blocks.
8. Existing vegetation from the front lot line to the 750 contour shall
not be disturbed other than the driveway.
9. All lighting shall be shielded from adjacent neighbors.
10. Should the existing trees and vegetation not screen the use, the
City can require the applicant to place additional landscaping
and/or fencing on the site.
11. That the conditional use permit be reviewed on an annual basis.
12. Signage will conform to City standards.
Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton,
Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes.
Motion carried.
I
PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT REQUEST lQ. SUBDIVIDE 1.4 ACRES FROM 8.5 ACRES .QI. THE
CHANHASSEN MEADOWS APARTMENT COMPLEX, MARATHON MANAGEMENT CORPORATION:
Barb Dacy - The applicant is requesting to divide the existing Chanhassen Meadows
complex into four lots. There was a question at the Planning Commission meeting
regarding the number of parking spaces per lot and we feel there is adequate parking
for each of the buildings and staff has determined that there is. Also, tonight is
final plat approval for the southerly most lot that the applicant has asked to be
final platted at this time. The proposal here before you tonight is to approve the
final platting of the southerly most piece at this time and the remainder of the
piece will be final platted by January 1, 1987. To accomplish this the City Attorney
will prepare a development contract and the applicant has agreed to sign to require
platting of the remainder of the property by January 1, 1987. We recommend approval
subject to completion of that development contract.
Councilman Geving moved to approve the preliminary and final plat request 86-2 as
shown on the plat dated January 21, 1986, subject to the execution of a development
contract requiring platting of the remaining three parcels by January 1, 1987. The I
development contract shall be signed before filing of the final plat of Lot 4.
Motion seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor
Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative
votes. Motion carried.
I
I
I
Council Meeting February 24, 1986
-11-
PRELIMINARY PLAT REQUEST" BLUFF CREEK GREENS:
Barb ~ - The Planning Commission recommended denial of the proposed subdivision
request based on four findings; one, that the septic fields are not adequate and the
availability of a second site for septic systems is questionable on some of the lots.
Second, problems with restabilization of the slopes during and after construction.
Third, the long cul-de-sac poses safety problems, and, four, much of the lots contain
steep slopes and do not meet the intent of the 2; acre minimum lot size. Subsequent
to the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant has submitted a revised plat which,
number one, removes one lot along the extension of Creekwood Drive. Instead of 15
lots there now is proposed 13. Secondly, the applicant has submitted additional
drainage and erosion control plans. I would like to briefly review just the major
issues of the proposed plat and the City Engineer may want to comment more about the
revised drainage and erosion plans. First of all as you all know the site is zoned
R-IA as is the land adjacent to it on all sides. The R-IA District requires a mini-
mum lot size of 2; acres. All the lots in the proposed subdivision meet or exceed
the minimum lot size requirement. Thirteen lots are proposed along Outlot A or the
extension of Creekwood Drive with lots along the south side of Pioneer Trail on
either side of the existing home. As you can tell by the topography on the display,
there are significant slopes adjacent to Bluff Creek as well as along Pioneer Trail.
Approximate slopes and grades are anywhere from 25% to 40% in these areas. First of
all, the lot layout, our subdivision ordinance requires that each lot contain two
septic sites in case the one septic system fails there is a second back up site on
each of the lots. Although the applicant has submitted information which shows two
sites for every lot, staff does remain concerned regarding some of the lots in rela-
tion to the proposed buildable areas to the severe slopes. One of those lots is Lot
3, Block 1, Lot 2, Block 2, at the end of the cul-de-sac Lots 8 and 9 and then along
the south side of Pioneer Trail Lots 2 and 3 of Block 4. In these cases while there
have been a number of sites shown for septic systems, in some cases septic system
sites are a significant distance away from the proposed house pad. The street issue,
start with Pioneer Trail, it is now designated as a local street in the county and
city plan, however, it does function as a collector. All of the lots can maintain
the recommended 300 foot driveway separation as recommended by the county, however,
they have stated that because it functions as a collector if at all possible the dri-
veway locations should maintain at least 1,000 feet distance. The access driveway to
Lot 1, Block 4, will have to contain an easement across Outlot D and from the adja-
cent property line. Creekwood Drive, Creekwood Drive is a public street from Highwy
101 to the edge of the boundary of the site in the lower southeast corner. As it
exists now there is a private gravel road that serves the four existing homes. What
is being proposed is that private gravel driveway be upgraded into an improved public
street ending in a cul-de-sac which will serve as the access the golf course pro-
perty. From that point on the applicants are proposing a private street from the
termination of the proposed public street down to the edge. The length of the public
street portion from Highway 101 to the private gravel drive is approximately 1,100
feet. The extension of the public street to the cul-de-sac to serve the golf course
is 1,600 feet which totals into existing cul-de-sac of approximately 2,700 feet. In
addition, the private street will add another 2,500 feet so that you have now
approximately a mile long cul-de-sac. There are two issues with the particular
street configuration. Number one, you have the public versus a private street issue
and secondly is the length of the cul-de-sac. Whether a street should be public or
private is a traditional requirement of ihe subdivision ordinance in that most sub-
division ordinances prohibit private streets. One reason is for design consistency
and two is to provide legal access for a safe and convenient access for maintenance
and safety. As proposed, even though it is a private street it is being recommended
that it be constructed to city standards for a rural section. Secondly, if the pri-
vate street is approved the restrictions and covenants should state the methods of
Council Meeting February 24, 1986
-12-
funding and so on for on-going maintenance and repair of that proposed street. The
second issue is the length of the cul-de-sac. Typically, subdivision ordinances
require a maximum of 500 to 1,000 feet. Our present subdivision ordinance which was I
adopted last February states that the length of cul-de-sacs shall depend upon the
development density. Chanhassen now allows rural subdivisions. The 500 foot maximum
length was not incorporated in the subdivision ordinance because with a minimum lot
width requirement of 180 or 200 feet, the cul-de-sac could only conceivably serve two
or three lots and at that time we knew that rural subdivisions of 2; acres were
occuring so the language in the subdivision ordinance was structured so that the
length could be determined by the development intensity. Normally, cul-de-sacs are
only intended to serve a small number of lots to prevent a shortened distance so that
utilities are not deadended and that there is a minimal opportunity for blockage. We
have in this case that there are no utilities at this time or in the distant future,
however, there is as good subdivision dictates, there appears to be no alternate
access out. The proposed Outlots D and E have been proposed as probable connection
points based on the best part of the topography lying on the south side of Pioneer
Trail, however, we have an existing land use here with the golf course and the appli-
cants have stated to construct a second access through the course would be economi-
cally unfeasible. Quickly reviewing the outlots, Outlot A is for the private street,
Outlot B is intended for private open space, C will remain as open space it could be
developed in the future as the property to the west is developed. Outlots D and E as
the potential points of access. Outlot F is to be deeded to the golf course and will
serve as a landscape buffer. Outlot G is proposed to be added on to the adjacent
property owner and Outlot H will become part of the right-of-way. If the Council
approves the proposed plat as submitted, staff recommends that conditions #3 through
9 in the staff report be implemented as conditions of approval as well as another
condition that requires approval of the final grading and drainage plan by the City,
Watershed District, DNR (if required), and adopt the approval conditions of these I
regulatory agencies.
Peter Stalland - My name is Peter Stalland, attorney for Tom Berglund and Art
Johnson. We would just like to introduce Gene Ernst the Planner that designed as to
show the changes that we have made since the Planning Commission meeting. They had
several concerns, one of which was the septic systems, we have some gentlemen here to
speak to that issue. Secondly, the change in the layout was adjusted, one lot, we
have gone from 14 to 13 as Barbara has talked about. The only thing that I would
like to speak to which was mentioned in my letter to the City Council is the length
of the cul-de-sac. We believe that it is within the ordinance and we realize it is a
very long road. We have tried our best to look at different alternatives and we
simply can't. Mr. Ernst has spent quite a bit of time studying the feasibility of
bringing a second access to the golf course and it is just not economically feasible.
Gene Ernst - I was going to show about 16 slides of the site but I am not sure it is
going to work out with your arrangement here. I was going to show some of the
existing conditions adjoining the property, some of the issues that were brought up
in the Planning Commission meeting, we were going to address those in slide form. I
don't know how many of you have been on the site and are familiar with it. I have an
aerial photo here that shows the site outlined in yellow and I will try to address
the concerns that I had on the slides. The aerial photo shows the property adjacent,
the Hesse Farm. Right in this area is Bluff Creek which runs through the property
and some of the concerns that were brought up at the Planning Commission meeting
dealt with the location of some of our houses that we are proposing and the sites and I
we also criticized, there were a couple of statements made that they felt there was
poor planning that was done on this project. When we initially looked at this piece
of property there was some situations on the adjacent property that we were concerned
with and we didn't want to repeat those type of conditions. There are two instances
I
I
I
Council Meeting February 24, 1986
-13-
where there are houses existing today that are very, very close, approximately 50 to
60 feet from some very steep eroded conditions. If you walk the site you will see
those. In the planning of our subdivision we wanted to keep any house at least
120-125 feet from that condition. We have one condition that is similar to the con-
dition over on the Hesse Farm property and that occurs at this point here. You go
off the site you are going to see some very steep eroded conditions at this location.
There are some existing residences that are sitting right at the top of that very
severe condition. On our subdivision our most severe condition is at this location.
We are recommending that a house not be built any closer than 125 to 150 feet from
that condition. There was some other points made that they felt we were building,
because of the layout of the 2! acre lot, we were building houses closer than what
was in the Hesse Farm. We find in looking at Hesse Farm there are situations where
they have houses 130, 140 feet apart. We have houses that come that close. We are
also spacing ours up to 400, 500, 200, 250 feet, we have some that are closer, about
80 or 90 feet. It depends upon where we place those houses on the lot. We feel
several of the concerns that were voiced last time, we are planning ours not any more
severe as far as location between houses. I would like to point out I really feel
that the lots that we are proposing, the subdivision that has been laid out here, is
probably is some of the nicer lots that are going to be available in Chanhassen. The
reason that I say that is because of the amenities that are existing and what we are
trying to plan and work with, topography, views, vegetation, the development backs up
to a golf course which also makes it desirable. You can see where we have outlined
the existing tree masses. Where we are showing house sites, there was some concern
that we would be removing a lot of existing vegetation and trees, here you can see
the house pads, there are two septic fields on every lot, are occurring primarily in
all the open areas of the subdivision. We feel we are not disturbing a lot of the
existing vegetation. Naturally, there is underbrush in these areas which would be
disturbed on some of these sites. There was a point made by one of the Planning
Commission members that we should have had neighborhood input. We did have neigh-
borhood meetings. There was a number of concerns voiced at that time. We did
address one of the major concerns about how to handle the street. Initially we had
the public at this point, which is all private. We chose to change this to a public
street at this point, picking up the private street up to this location.
Ken Adolf - We have prepared a grading, drainage and erosion control plan that
briefly covers both plans. As you can see, the grading really is limited really
almost entirely to the road and the ditch areas. This will be a rural section with
ditches and 24 feet of bituminous and 6 foot gravel shoulder on each side of the
road. The storm water runoff from this area as well as from the golf course drains
towards Bluff Creek. It drains through a number of ravines on the site. This is an
area of concern. We met with the Soil Conservation Service people, with the
Watershed District engineer, the City Engineer to determine what the concerns are and
what the recommendations are and we feel this plan addresses those concerns.
Basically, the concerns were erosion in the existing ravines resulting from storm
runoff and also erosion and the restoration of turf in the areas where grading and
construction will occur. I have another plan here. This plan demonstrates some of
the watershed areas. Basically, the water below this line all drains towards the
creek through these ravines and there are some varying degrees of erosion problems in
these ravines. What our plan proposes is to remove some of the storm water runoff
from these ravines. This is being done by a system of ditches and storm sewers which
is going to intercept the water from the golf course and convey it along these
ditches and then pick it up in a storm sewer and then convey the runoff down to the
creek. The storm sewer is a requirement of the watershed district engineer so a
majority of the water is being conveyed by ditches to storm sewer, then down the
steep slopes to the creek. In almost all cases this will reduce the storm runoff in
the existing ravines. There is a small amount of existing storm sewer near the golf
Council Meeting February 24, 1986
-14-
course parking lot, the proposal there is to maintain the existing storm sewer and
perhaps extend it somewhat down the slope, fill the slope and stabilize it but more
importantly this 16 acre here is going to be intercepted by the ditches and taken to
the storm sewer so it will not enter that ravine. Gene said the road construction is
almost entirely within the non-wooded areas above the bluff. In summary, we feel
that this plan addresses the erosion concerns and, in our opinion based on the
watershed district engineer's recommendations, this will be approvable by the
watershed. It has been submitted to the watershed district for their review.
I
Councilwoman Swenson - Do I understand that the engineer's from the Riley Purgatory
Creek no longer require the sedimentation basins?
Ken Adolf - The runoff, for the most part, is being collected in the ditches and that
some detention is being provided in these ditches. The ditches are at a fairly flat
slope so that there is some retention storage in the ditches. The velocity in the
ditches is slow enough the sediments and so forth with actually be trapped in the
ditches. As far as retention storage, a development of this type with the large
lots.
Councilwoman Swenson - I personally would not argue with you since I am not an
engineer but I am concerned. It says the district will require that these basins be
designed to handle runoff from the critical lOO-year frequency event. The prelimi-
nary plans indicate that two stormwater detention/sedimentation basins are to be
constructed at the headwaters of two natural drainageways that ultimately discharge
into Bluff Creek. I guess that my untrained mind didn't hear anything that sounded
anything like that.
Ken Adolf - I did not mention the first time that the ditches are being utilized for I
some of the retention. We met with Mr. Obermeyer, the watershed district engineer,
as an alternate due to the storm sewer extending all the way down to the creek, we
suggested putting in larger detention ponds and actually detaining the water and
discharging it at a very slow rate. This would have been much cheaper than
constructing storm sewer down these slopes. That storm sewer construction is going
to be very costly. Mr. Obermeyer indicated he preferred to have the storm sewer go
down the slopes and was not as concerned about detention in this case.
Councilwoman Swenson - That is totally contrary to what his letter says.
Barb Dacy - That letter is based on the first set of plans. The plans that they are
referring to tonight have been submitted to the watershed district and we have not
received a written letter from them.
Councilwoman Swenson - You do understand that should this project be approved that we
will strictly require conformance to all of their requirements.
Ken Adolf - Yes, we understand that and if that should be a requirement there is suf-
ficient area to construct some sedimentation ponds.
Councilwoman Swenson - This Council, along with a lot of other people, are zealously
concerned with drainage into our creeks and water bodies.
Ken Adolf - One other point I think that is important in the planning of the sub- I
division that I failed to mention in reference to Outlot D that we have shown. We
could have chosen to subdivide this outlot right to the property lines and severed
the creek area and put this into private ownership. We chose, for planning reasons,
to deed that outlot open and accessible to all residents who live in the area. We
I
I
I
Council Meeting February 24, 1986
-15-
felt it very important to do this. As you know
Bluff Creek that flows in to private property.
property line. We feel that Outlot D is a very
in the Hesse Farm there is some of
It is subdivided right back to the
important part of the subdivision.
Mayor Hamilton - I notice there is a lot of homeowners here from that area. I would
like to give you an opportunity to ask questions or make any comments that you would
like to make. We have received your written comments and if you have additional
items that you would like to add to it or to reinforce or questions you would like to
ask at this time feel free to do so.
Bob Steffes - I live on the Hesse Farm. I see on the new plan tonight that there is
a storm sewer proposed down the steep side of the hill, how is that going to be
constructed? What type of equipment will be used? What damage to the surrounding
area, the trees, what additional erosion problems might we expect during construction
of that type of a system?
Ken Adolf - The construction of the storm sewer down the slope is going to be dif-
ficult construction. One thing to keep in mind though is that it is going to be a
small pipe, it will be a 12 inch diameter or 15 inch diameter at most, very shallow,
perhaps only 3 feet deep. Because of the steepness of the slope we feel that it is
not necessary to construct the storm sewer conventionally where it is a perfectly
straight line and straight grade. It is such a steep grade that there isn't going to
be a problem with sediment getting trapped in there so that it could kind of meander
down the slope going around significant trees and so forth. One of the most impor-
tant items is going to be to re-establish some growth on that slope after construc-
tion and we are recommending to do that use the excelsior type mat, wood fiber
blanket, to protect it from erosion until it is established.
Bob Steffes - What type of equipment would be used to dig the trench?
Ken Adolf - It would have to be a small backhoe. I realize it is quite steep and in
some cases it may require instead of taking a direct line down the slope that you
maybe zig-zag down the slope.
Diane Beuch - I just wanted to mention the petition that was submitted, I don't think
that all the questions have been answered on that, that we would like to have
answered. An additional point that I would like to make is I don't understand the
developers contention that the City is denying them reasonable use of their property
if they don't approve this plat because the golf course is the primary reasonable use
of their land and it's not as though the developers bought the fringe area around it
to develop it. I don't think the City has an inherent responsibility to make sure
that they get a second profitable use out of their land.
Mayor Hamilton - I think the law provides that irregardless of what you are using a
portion of the land for if you choose to develop another portion of it they have the
right to do that, to request a development agreement with the City and we are
required to listen to them and if they meet the requirements they certainly have
every right to do this.
~ Anderson - I would like to ask Mr. Berglund if he has any idea, the additional
13 lots, how many average daily trips that would take and also seeing how that we
have taken care of the problem of dust, if there would be that the 13 additional
homes would chip in on the paving of that road.
Mr. Berqlund - We consulted a traffic engineer and he felt that the 13 additional
lots, assuming each person goes to work and from work each day, there would be at
least 26 more trips.
Council Meeting February 24, 1986
-16-
Gary Anderson - A $250,000 house would have at least two cars per household.
Mayor Hamilton - There is a basic number that you use to determine trips per house-
hold and what does that generally go?
Bill Monk - A normal residence runs between seven and ten so with 13 houses you would
be looking at a minimum of 91 trips to 130 trips per day from the proposed sub-
division. I was concerned about the Highway 101 access and I don't think that the 13
or 14 lots as proposed would make the 101 intersection completely breakdown. It
would load that intersection with more cars, there is no question about that. As far
as the impact on the assessments would go, Creekwood was paved but the assessment
hearing has not been held yet. If and when that assessment hearing is held any new
lots subdivided on any of the property involved that was notified would be taken into
account. How they would be taken into account is hard to say at this point in time
but they would be.
Dale Gunderson - On the assessment of the lots that you were talking about if it was
approved, I recall that we were assessed for that first section of $300 or $600 if
you were on the street, what happens with the rest? Is it the responsibility of the
golf course, the paving from the end of the public street all the way out?
I
Bill Monk - The new section of the street, a part of it is to be public and a part is
proposed to be private. At this point in time there has been no talk about a public
improvement project to construct any portion of this project. If that is the case
the developer would be required to construct all sections of the street. To upgrade
the existing gravel section and construct a new paved section. Through that the City
would have no mechanism nor would the developer, that I know of, to put any of those
costs back on any of the existing residence in the area. If a portion of the project I
did go to public in that the proposed dedicated section would be built by the City,
we would have to take a look at how that would benefit the property owners but at
this point that is not the case.
Jim 5ulerud - On the drainage pattern, the drainage at the bottom of the slope, is
there some special mechanism expected at the bottom to decrease the velocity of
water?
Ken Adolf - There will be some form of energy dissipation.
the storm sewer it flattens out considerably so some of the
will be dissipated. In addition there will have to be some
outlet. These plans would have to be reviewed and approved
and we will comply with whatever their recommendations were
keeping in mind that these storm sewers are recommendations
engineer.
At the bottom reaches of
energy, the velocity,
energy dissipation at the
by the watershed district
in that respect. Again,
of the watershed district
Mayor Hamilton - 50 you would have more of a sheet flow at the entrance to the creek.
Ken Adolf - You would have some concentrated flow. Basically, the flow will increase
because you are concentrating it into two areas.
Myaor Hamilton - It would seem like if you had a sheet flow at the bottom there, I
think that's the point I was trying to make is that if you had a sheet flow rather
than a gusher you are going to dissipate a lot of that energy more and you are going
to not erode the creek bed that is there now.
Ken Adolf - Using the impact structure and rip-rap it would essentially break up the
flow.
I
I
I
I
Council Meeting February 24, 1986
-17-
Jim Sulerud - What is the acreage area on the top of Lakota Lane and 101 that drains
now into a pattern down to Bluff Creek? Is that 16 acres?
Bill Mon~ - No, it's less. It is more concentrated in that more of it is street and
that drainage area into Lakota where we are trying to solve the drainage problems
right now is less. There is no question that the drainage scheme being proposed
right now with the pipe coming down, Councilwoman Swenson mentioned the point of
watershed district letter that says they will do the ponding, that was in regards to
the original plan that had shown sedimentation ponds. The watershed district
requires either that ponding be done or that pipe be put in or a combination of both.
Basically, what the revised drainage plan is proposing at this point is a heavier
reliance on piping but also using existing ditches to hold water and do some sedimen-
tation as the water goes to those pipes. There also is no question that as final
design is done here that either there will be dropped sections in the line as it goes
down to dissipate energy. The section at the end of the pipes would be flattened out
to dissipate energy and there will be surge basins at the end as a final measure to
dissipate energy before it crosses the rip-rap section and fans out towards the
creek. Those are all items that would be incorporated into the final design of any
piping.
Jim Sulerud - It seems that the plan represents two extremes to access, one where you
have got a long cul-de-sac arrangement where you have got many, many homes coming off
of one single route into a large parcel and the contrast to that is individual access
onto a county state aid highway. It seems like you are playing both extremes here
maybe neither or which are quite appropriate. There is discussion about 2! acres
versus 5 acres, the development in Hesse Farm seems to be generally a proven develop-
ment with 5 acre lot size and this seems to be an opportunity for developers to slip
some other, 2! acre lot sizes. The City found it inappropriate to let the Hesse Farm
development have that small a lot size, I think it would be appropriate for the City
Council to maintain that same standard throughout this area.
Councilman Gevinq - The opposition by a number of people along Creekwood and by Hesse
Farm people are to be noted particularly since we just upgraded the Creekwood Drive
road after many, many years and it kind of bothers me a little bit that tQe develo-
pers of this property obviously knew six months ago or so that they were going to
propose something like this and it bothers me if we have to go back in and widen that
road, make a better entrance off of 101 and then make an improvement at the end to
create a cul-de-sac. It would especially bother me if we spent city funds doing
that. One of the comments made by the petitioners from Creekwood indicated that they
are concerned about the wells, the addition of 20 new wells on the property may take
a lot of ground water away from existing development. Has anybody researched this?
Do you have any facts and figures on this?
Ken Adolf - We weren't aware of that question so we haven't researched it.
Councilman Gevinq - How do you expect to get water to these 13 new homes? That water
is going to have to come from somewhere.
Ken Adolf - We haven't researched it with respect to drastically affecting the
availability of water. As far as individual wells, I guess in a number of com-
munities have developed with individual wells with smaller lots than this, I don't
know if you can compare that area with this area, I am not familiar with the water
conditions in this area.
Councilman Gevinq - You are going to create a lot of the runoff with your proposals
and sketches so I have to assume that you are very familiar with this aspect. Let's
Council Meeting February 24, 1986
-18-
talk about surface water. How do you propose to take those two pipes, what kind of
pipes, how big are they, and how do you intend to dissipate that water once it gets to
the valley?
Mayor Hamilton - We have been through that.
Councilman Gevinq - I have to ask that question because I don't think I know how big
that pipe is yet and what it is made of.
Ken Adolf - The pipe will be 12 inch or 15 inch. The type of pipe hasn't been firmly
established. We are leaning toward corrugated metal pipe for two reasons.
Corrugated metal with the corrugations is more effective in dissipating the veloci-
ties and energy and we feel it would be easier to lay down the slopes because the
corrugated metal has bands which connect the individual sections of pipe.
Councilman Gevinq - Who is going to maintain that pipe after the developer leaves?
Ken Adolf - It is my understanding that the roadway is private and that storm sewer
would be private too.
Councilman Gevinq - The size of the road, you have indicated that a 60 foot right-of-
way would be appropriate for this development, may I ask you if this were extended
another four feet to 28 foot roadway, would that help to dissipate more of this water
runoff?
Ken Adolf - I wouldn't think so. For one thing you are increasing the amount of hard
surface so it wouldn't be a big increase in the amount of runoff.
Councilman Gevinq - We don't have another access to this particular piece of property
and because we don't have a secondary access I am trying to create an access that's
wide enough so that if there is a fire or for any reason we have to get to those 13
homes back there we have got plenty of room to do that.
Ken Adolf - Our present
shoulder on each side.
gravel surface would be
section is 24 feet of bituminous with a six foot gravel
I guess the bituminous could be increased but I think the
effective for emergencies.
Councilman Gevinq - Do you feel that the pad area for the home on all 13 of these
lots together with the two septic sites is sufficient for the 13 lots that you have
designed. You have lots of approximately 2! acres and two years ago we created a 2!
acre minimum and if we had been a little bit smarter we would have put a percentage
factor in there that said at least 30% of that 2! acres had to be buildable but we
didn't do that so developers have come in and they have caught us at this. We hope
to clean this up in the future and so we are building some very large homes on small
pads. Would you start with Lot 3, Block 1.
Gene Ernst - To answer your question, yes, we feel that that's sufficient. Again,
you were absolutely correct that the area of actual buildable is quite a small per-
centage of that lot. Right now I would say it's probably close to 10%. Based on the
kind of houses that we anticipate going in here, specially designed homes, again, we
are showing these located, in fact these can be pushed out a lot further than what we
have shown on this drawing. Keep in mind that the pads that we have shown here are
for illustrative purposes. They can be adjusted and shifted around that particular
lot. Also, the septic fields can be adjusted. That is one of our tighter lots. We
think it is one of our better lots with the topography and the vegetation.
I
I
I
I
I
I
Council Meeting February 24, 1986
-19-
Councilman Gevinq - What if we propose to eliminate that lot?
Gene Ernst - I guess it's a matter of opinion what a person can do with that lot. We
think that is one of our more creative lots.
Councilman Gevinq - Would you move to the west and look at Lot 2, Block 2 and give me
your estimation of what percentage of that lot is a buildable site.
Gene Ernst - I would say this is probably closer to 15% to 20%. Looking at the
topography and the way these houses would be built we feel it is another desirable
lot.
Councilman Gevinq - Since a developer comes in and makes a proposal with a lot of
sketches and it's real flashy and everybody wants to build $250,000 to $300,000
homes, he sells those lots and walks away and some guy comes along and he buys it, he
tries to put a home on it and it doesn't fit or five years from now we have a lot of
problems down in that valley because the slope is gone, it's eroded away, now where
are you going to be. You are going to be off developing someplace else and my
suggestion is that we take a hard look at phasing the development of this Bluff Creek
Golf Course so that we don't give approval to the entire project, other than concept
approval. Let him build a couple of those lots and see if they can build to a stan-
dard where we don't have the slope erosion and other problems. That might be one way
of handling the problems.
Gene Ernst - I guess that's a decision that you would have to make. I think this
could be approved based on the design and it has some very, very desirable building
sites. As we develop these particular schemes we normally go through conceptual
cross-sections. We just don't drop a pad on a particular lot. If it's in question we
start looking at cross-sections to see how a house would sit on that site.
Councilman Gevinq - Why haven't you met with the homeowners in the area and talked to
them about this proposal before you came to us?
Gene Ernst - We did have a meeting. We had a meeting right in this room here. We
had a list of the people that attended. We asked them to sign. We, also, have com-
ments that they made at that particular meeting. They did voice a number of concerns
and a number of the people in the audience were here at that meeting. That question
was was brought up at the Planning Commission meeting and we also addressed that. We
did listen to their concerns and it was done for that primary reason.
Councilman Gevinq - Do you have any comments regarding the Planning Commission or
staff's recommendations for conditions on this property?
Gene Ernst - I think we have addressed a number of those concerns and I feel that the
points that have been stated still have to be addressed, normal type of requirements
that we have to go through on the type of property in line with what we are doing. I
think we addressed that septic concern by dropping out a lot.
Councilman Gevinq - That was just a pittance, Mr. Ernst. One lot out of 14 is
nothing. I would shoot for two or three if I had the opportunity.
Councilwoman Watson - Dale voiced a lot of my concerns. Drainage being a very grave
concern, obviously. The other thing is a second access or some other means of
getting into this property. I can understand what they say about the golf course and
I would hate to see anything happen to it but it seems incredible that there wouldn't
be some other way of getting to these houses. The building pad issue, Dale and I
Council Meeting February 24, 1986
-20-
addressed tonight, a 2! acre lot, we had a variance already because the building pad
area in that instance is too small. A man wanted to build a house that was 80 x 85
feet which when you put a three car garage on a very average size house, it didn't
fit. The building pads do have to be looked at.
I
Councilman Horn - Dale started touching on something that was a concern of mine and
that is guaranteeing that, I assume you are just going to sell the lots, you are not
going to develop the parcel, right?
Mr. BerQlund - We are both in the building business and we certainly are capable of
building. We haven't settled on that yet. We may well build them.
Councilman Horn - If you did build them you would take the risk of having a building
site and having an adequate well and that type of thing. My concern is, if they
don't develop it then you have a buyer beware situation. He would come in here and
he couldn't sink a well that he could get water at and he wouldn't have an adequate
building site and that's my concern and I would like to see some type of a guarantee
put into this thing that the developer would guarantee that there would be a
buildable site and there would a possibility of a septic system that would be
feasible on that site and that, also, there would be a possibility for a well on that
site. Also, I would like to ask Bill's opinion of the feasibility of a second
access. From the report that I have read it said you would have to tear up the whole
course, to restructure everything to put that in. Just looking at this thing roughly
it looks to me like there would be a point right through the center that you could
put a road that's a fairly short cut through the existing block building, you might
have to shorten up a green or so, or go around the west end of the property. We have
one persons opinion that this would not be feasible saying it would be too much I
expense to do that. Do you think that's totally unfeasible, Bill, or do you think
there might be a way to do it?
Bill Monk - If you look at it from an engineering standpoint, it's possible and
feasible that it can be done. There are several places that you could put a road.
Cross some of the slopes and get down to County Road 14. It does have a severe
impact on the existing golf course and then you get into the question of whether it's
economically feasible. I don't know what's economically feasible. It depends on the
number of lots being developed. It depends upon the cost of the work itself, the
cost of the lots, etc. That's more of a judgment call than anything else, whether
it's economically feasible.
Councilman Horn - There is no rule of thumb that says 10% of the total value of the
development or 20% or whatever?
~ill Monk - It's dictated by the developer. The developer will place a road in a
certain location with development around it. If he has to make changes on that road
or the road construction becomes too expensive for the lots being generated for sale,
the plan is either scrapped or modified accordingly. In this case the developer is
stating that it is not economically feasible given the restricted number of lots
being developed. I don't question that but a road could go in. It's a matter of
where you would put it, how you would have to redo the golf course and whether doing
all of those things is economically feasible. The developer is stating at this point
that it is not.
Councilman Horn - Plus one developer might think a 10% increase would not be economi-
cally feasible another one might think say a 50% increase isn't, do we have any feel
for what that is? We are told in here that it should exhibit a hardship. There is
no term given to that. I haven't seen any numbers put on that. All I hear is an
opinion.
I
I
I
I
Council Meeting February 24, 1986
-21-
Bill Monk - I have put no costs on the construction of a road crossing the golf
course. One of the things I would not be able to put costs on would be to relayout
the golf course or change the layout to something that is usable and workable.
Councilman Horn - I have trouble seeing that that would be really necessary looking
at some of these options. I don't think you would have to relayout the whole thing,
maybe several holes would have to change.
Bill Monk - Perhaps the developer or his consultant could address that because I know
they have laid out several alignments and it does have an impact on the golf course.
Again, it can be done from an engineering perspective but whether it's economical or
not, I have not looked at numbers to say whether it would represent a 30% increase in
costs on all the ~roperties to build that road.
Councilman Horn - It seems to me that if we justify deviation based on a hardship we
should have some indication what that hardship is. We shouldn't just take the deve-
lopers word for it. Maybe I don't understand the process but I have trouble with
that one.
Don Ashworth - You have the authority to ask that question and if you do they should
be able to respond to you that the cost is $30,000 per lot or $50,000 more, whatever
the number happens to be.
Gene Ernst - I will address that. They are not based on cost. What we did is we
looked at different schemes. The first thing when we looked at this project is to
look at a loop system that would some way connect back through this area. We have
actually got drawings showing the layout, alignment profiles, we have three different
alternates going through here. Looking at all of those, again, we are adding
approximately 2,500 lineal feet of road that serves no lots, our biggest problem and
concern was because of the topography as you go through this area if you look at the
grading to get a road in to meet the City requirements 7% or 8%, the amount of
grading that was necessary just to get through this area, it met relocating and
adjusting these various greens and tees. Again, if you have been on the golf course,
this is probably the nicest part of the whole golf course and start to cut a road
through this area and the adjustments that had to be made and also trying to play
across a road with certain holes, it didn't make a lot of sense to us. We also
looked at these connections here as a possible access point rather than going over to
101, again, we don't show pricing, if you look at the lineal feet you get exactly the
same lineal feet of road and by coming through any of these areas you would have to
deal with playing over the road with certain holes which is not desirable if you are
a golfer and also just by relocating and trying to move one of these fairways it
meant, as you know tees and greens and fairways all really are laid out together. We
looked at those different options and just looking at what had to be adjusted, did
not make a lot of sense.
Councilman Horn - Did you look at the area through where the driving range is?
Gene Ernst - Yes. This was looked at. Again, we want to keep the driving range. As
you put a road through this area, again, we didn't shorten the length, we couldn't
loop the road. What we were trying to do was loop the road and we felt that connec-
tion should be made at this end rather than back at this point because we don't
really solve one of our problems. The other thing is coming through this location,
it comes right through the parking area, the clubhouse area, we weren't just
adjusting tees and greens and fairways, we were dealing with now bringing traffic
through there so there were a lot of things that were looked at and when you start to
adjust greens there is a cost involved there.
Council Meeting February 24, 19B6
-22-
Councilman Horn - That gets into my next area and that is the existing block building
and the existing clubhouse, we have let this continue the way it was because we know I
there have been some problems getting the thing going financially. My concern is
that we have got a block building there that is not finished. We have got a partial
trailer house with a porch on it that's called a clubhouse and now we are going to
increase and start another project when we haven't completed the basic golf course.
I don't see going through those, what you call existing buildings, as being a real
problem because I don't think they are complete. ?
Peter Stalland - I think that issue of buildings is not before the Council tonight.
The application tonight is for a subdivision.
Councilman Horn - It's a greater intensification of this total property as I see it.
That's the way I am looking at it.
Peter Stalland - I guess I disagree with you. Legally speaking we are asking for
subdivision approval. We are not relating it to what the status of the buildings is
on the golf course but to respond to your question of putting another access through
that area is going to simply destroy a great portion of the golf course.
Councilman Horn - All of the entrances out on to County Road 14, I find that to be
more disturbing than some of the other access issues really. Is there any way that
those could be combined?
Barbara Dacy - Some of those lots are proposed to be combined.
3, the driveways are to be combined. Lot 1 was proposed to be
existing residence, however, that depends upon the acquisition
rest would have individual driveways.
Lots 1 and 2, Block
combined with the
of easements. The
I
Councilman Horn - How about Lots 3 and 2, could they be combined?
Barbara Dacy - No.
Councilman Horn - I would like to see those combined as much as possible to reduce
the number of accesses that we put out onto County Road 14. Without benefit of legal
counsel tonight I can't really find out if we can put any restrictions or conditions
upon the existing buildings that are there but I would certainly like to make that a
condition if it's possible for us. I think it is inconceivable that you would have
$250,000 homes across the street from what exists there today.
Councilwoman Swenson - Mr. Stalland made the statement that we have no control over
the length of a cul-de-sac or street, I believe you addressed that earlier in your
presentation.
Barbara Dacy - The subdivision ordinance states that the length of a road can be
determined by the development density. Mr. Stalland, also, referred to, he believes
that City's inability to require a second access. Staff's viewpoint that improving
or reviewing the subdivision the City does have to look at the overall traffic cir-
culation in a particular neighborhood and certainly is enabled through the sub-
division ordinance to approve or deny plats that may inhibit that or prevent smooth
flow through traffic from happening. I believe we can address that issue through the
plat process. The development density issue as I talked about before, in the rural
area is subject to more scrutiny than the urban area.
I
Councilwoman Swenson - It appears to me that when we talk about a street and whether
we talk about it coming off of a public street or not, it would appear to me to be
I
I
I
Council Meeting February 24, 1986
-23-
immaterial. We are still discussing over 5,000 lineal feet of roadway over which
emergency vehicles would have to traverse in order to get to the farther most point
of this subdivision and while I might be totally personally sympathetic with the eco-
nomic problems of a development my greatest concern and I am sure of my fellow coun-
cil has to be the health, welfare, and safety of the citizens and I guess that I have
a great reservation about that type of a street be it private or public. I feel we
would be totally remiss to not feel that every possible feasibility action has been
taken to prove the continuation is exhausted. I am not familiar with the terrain to
this extent. I do recognize that it would require crossing the creek. Has there
been any consideration about going directly west, continuation from the entrance of
the last cul-de-sac and going west along that lot line and then all the way to the
lot line and out which would affect nothing of the golf course whatsoever. It
appears that there is plenty of room for maneuverability through there.
Gene Ernst - We have a drop in elevation from this point to this point of approxima-
tely 130 to 140 feet in elevation. There is not sufficient room being able to do
switch backs throughout this whole area. It is very very severe. It is very well
treed. The grade change is very extreme. You would have to build a bridge.
Councilwoman Swenson - Let's follow the contour of the outside perimeter of the last
lot.
Gene Ernst - This is probably the most severe eroded area of the site. That's the
reason there is no vegetation in this area. This would be a very difficult area. It
is very very steep. We have looked at those various locations and it gets very
severe on this back side.
Councilwoman Swenson - Suppose you would go through the existing block building and
then weaving between the 15th and 17th tees and coming through there, it is not
requiring any change in greens and I understand that's the most expensive part of the
course, it would seem to me that the tees should perhaps be a little bit adjustable
there.
Gene Ernst - Again, to come through here and make a road connection you are not just
going this area, you are probably dealing with grading an area that wide in order to
day light your slopes. To get your cross-section of road in, get your ditches in and
then get your slope takes a large swath through those areas.
Councilwoman Swenson - It would take a large swath through the area that you are
planning to develop but not necessarily through the tees.
Gene Ernst - It would mean the greens would be relocated, the tees would be relo-
cated. It looks easy. It looks very easy on the plans. Start to lay in a road and
the cross-sections, the distance you will have to go in order to take an 80 foot ele-
vation change in grade gets pretty extensive to meet a 7% grade. We felt we had done
a lot of homework on this thing. That was one of the primary concerns of the City
when we initially got involved was looking at a secondary access.
Councilwoman Swenson - This is my major concern plus the fact that I would certainly
require a condition that we would receive an engineer's certificate regarding the
stability of the soil and the placement of the house on the property. I am really
worried about the secondary access.
Gene Ernst - I feel that has been a concern of all parties who have reviewed the
drawing. Again, a comment in reference to pads, we say 40 x 70, we felt that is a
very large pad. If you go back you can put pads on these which are 100 feet in
Council Meeting February 24, 1986
-24-
length, not all of them but a majority of them you could easily put a 100 foot house
on them.
Councilwoman Swenson - Then it shouldn't be any problem to have an engineer's cer-
tificate.
I
Gene Ernst - There are some that as I said would be questionable to get that
length of house. It's really the design of the house that goes on it but I would say
95% of the lots you could stretch the houses.
Councilwoman Swenson - This would be a basic requirement as far as I am concerned.
Gene Ernst - Did I answer your question?
Councilwoman Swenson - I imagine you answered it as well as you could. I understand
what you are saying. I still feel that I am not sure that the economics of the
situation are a trade off for the health and safety.
Mayor Hamilton - Because of the concerns I am hearing about the second access and I
think the concerns are primarily because of safety reasons, for fire equipment, ambu-
lance, whatever and in the case of a storm, I guess our primary concern if a tree
would fall across the road or something so in light of the inability to get this road
continued on around in a circular fashion wouldn't it be possible to designate but
not layout or pave, a secondary street which would almost parallel the existing one
so that if something were to happen an emergency vehicle could turn off and actually
go through the existing clubhouse parking lot, continue west along the golf course
and get access to the end of the development. I am not saying a road exactly, I am
just saying make it available so that you could get through there so that you don't
have a fence in the way or you don't have trees in the way or boulders.
I
Gene Ernst - We have all along considered that as a possibility if an emergency
really occurred. It's not like you have it subdivided with private lots and you
would have to cross a lot of private property to get back to this back lot. You
actually could drive on the fairway. I am sure they are not going to be happy with
that but if there is an emergency you could get to that location. That could occur
either in this area which is the rough or there are fairways which are maintained
very very clean and even in the winter months in some areas you could walk out there
now. We have considered that. The way the grading is being done with the roads,
there are not a lot of severe grades, naturally there is a ditch but it is a very
gentle type of ditch so you could get from these areas.
Mayor Hamilton - On the flow that runs perpendicular to the lOth fairway, there is a
rather severe swale and you have a road crossing that swale, how do you plan on
crossing that swale?
Ken Adolf - You are correct, the road does cross part of the ravine at that point.
Here again, the orange line represents the extent of the grading and you can see that
in this case there are some fill slopes that extend considerably off the edge of the
road. The fill slope extends probably 70 or 80 feet off the edge of the road.
Mayor Hamilton - How many yards of fill are you going to put in there?
I
Ken Adolf - I don't know how many yards are in that particular location. That's pro-
bably the area that permits the most extensive grading. The remainder of the street
for the most part just follows the existing terrain there.
I
I
I
Council Meeting February 24, 1986
-25-
Mayor Hamilton - Once that is filled, that ditch currently accommodates runoff,
that wasn't one of the locations where you were going to have a storm sewer. Even if
you fill on both sides you are still going to end up with a swale on the south side
and you are still going to have runoff down there that is going to continue to erode
back to the road I would think.
Ken Adolf - There is still going to be runoff on the south side of the road. The
trade off is that we are eliminating all of the runoff from the north side of the
road so that the net effect should be a net reduction of the runoff that that ravine
carries. This six acre site here which presently drains into that ravine which now
is going to be intercepted by this ditch and picked up by the storm sewer.
Mayor Hamilton - Then move to the east, there is another ravine that's currently near
the entrance to the existing clubhouse parking lot where the cul-de-sac is proposed
to be. At the current time that ravine is eroding right to the edge of the road and
there seems to be a lot of, I am not sure who is maintaining that, the neighborhood
people have put logs and things in there to keep the road from washing out, you are
going to have to do something there is you are going to widen that road. That is
really steep in there. That goes straight down.
Ken Adolf - There isn't much flowing there. There is more or less dressing up the
slope and trying to cover up some of the debris. The proposal here is to, with some
storm sewer in place here, just to leave that in place and then to fill this partially
with the golf course and take it into this ditch and convey the
water along the road and then it will be picked up by this storm sewer. It is the
same principle again it's just to remove as much of the watershed area as possible.
I think what we are really trying to accomplish is to take the parking lot area and
drain that into this ditch.
Mayor Hamilton - I still have a problem with that particular slope because depending
upon the width of the road that maybe put in there, which I disagree wit~ Councilman
Geving I think it should be probably a 32 foot road since the road is a deadend and
consequently to serve better and make it more safer you probably want to make it
wider but you are going to have to put some piling in there and do something to stop
any further erosion or your road is going to be gone.
Ken Adolf - The road shown here is actually north of the edge of the tip of the top
of the fill. With respect to the width of the road, what we have simply shown is the
City standard for a rural section which is 24 feet bituminous.
Mayor Hamilton - What I am saying is due to the length of the cul-de-sac I wouldn't
be happy with 24 foot and I think it should be wider, probably 32 foot to accommodate
any unforseen problems that may occur at the end of the cul-de-sac. The septic
systems on the particular Lot 3, Block 4, do you have a board that shows where the
septic systems might be located? Where are you proposing the septic system for that
particular lot?
Gene Ernst - We have shown them here in these locations, again, as conceptual loca-
tions. They could be located wherever they fit into the site. Again, all of these
as we have shown are only suggested locations. When the person comes in or the
builder or whatever has to come in and get approvals and the perc test for the site
is going to determine.
Mayor Hamilton - On the particular lot that you are on, that's east of where you have
your building pad proposed and there is a swale between the home and the proposed
septic system. How do you cross the swale?
Council Meeting February 24, 1986
-26-
Gene Ernst _ The house could actually be located at this point. There are so many
variables that we can't show you all of the locations. We would probably put the
septic field at this location if we were going to build at this location. We can I
only show you so many locations on these, as suggestions, but when we move into
giving your permits and things they are going to have to be located some place.
Mayor Hamilton - Lots 1 and 2, Block 4, also, I think there are some rather severe
slopes in there.
Gene Ernst - There are severe slopes along this edge. These are very desirable. It
is relatively flat on top.
Mayor Hamilton - What I am concerned with, the plat that I had and was looking at did
not have all the septic fields shown. Some of them seemed to be above the homes
which you are going to have to be pumping up hill which doesn't make any sense.
Paul Waldron - That's a very common practice when installing septic systems. The
pumps that are used today are pumps that are very reliable. In fact the major
failure in pumps in lift stations have been in the switching mechanisms in years past
has been mechanical electrical contacts. Today the type of contacts they use are a
murphy float which is totally encased in hard plastic.
Mayor Hamilton - Are the soils there adequate and are the systems that would be pro-
posed to be put in, are they adequate and are they fail proof? Tell me a little bit
about septic systems and what's better about them today than a few years ago when
they were failing.
Paul Waldron - The two main things with septic systems are the, you have the tank
which is a holding area for the solids and you have the drain field which is to ser-
vice the liquids. Three things to consider as far as dealing with septic systems are
the design, installation, and maintenance of a system. The percolation test, for
example, helps design the square footage area required to absorb the water that's
generated in a home based on the number of bedrooms and type of water use appliances
within a home. With that percolation test data, you take that and that data is used
to design the system. The system design is based on the City ordinance requirements.
The ordinance requirements that you have here are your standard ordinance require-
ments that are throughout the state. With that design depends upon a number of
variables that Gene pointed out, the size of the home, the location of the drain-
field, the type of drainfield, and again, they would what what they call seepage
beds, you have drop box trench systems, you have mound systems but in most cases
people view systems as being a standard trench type drain system. In the past a lot
of people have had bad feelings towards septic systems because in the latter 60's and
early 70's there really wasn't any requirement for installing septic systems and as
you recall, I believe in this community as well, you had some 201 projects to repair
and bring some of those bad areas up to date. Most of those areas, the systems that
were installed in the late 60's and early 70's when there were no engineering
requirements, no ordinance requirements and what was allowed was whatever you wanted
to put in. Since that time the University of Minnesota and the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency has taken some studies as to what's needed and the proper design and
engineering the systems and again, those three areas that come out is the design,
installation, and maintenance of a system. If those three items are taken care of
your septic system should last a lifetime. However, as with anything somethimes you
have improper design, sometimes improper installation, sometimes improper maintenance
and that can cause failure. Since the adoption of your existing septic system ordi-
nance I don't believe you have had any failures although your existing ordinance is
three years old so really there hasn't been enough time to test the ordinance whether
I
I
I
I
I
Council Meeting February 24, 1986
-27-
it is working or not. What's interesting here is, the key thing here, is that they
have the alternate locations in the event there is a failure of the existing system
due to lack of maintenance or improper installation or improper design. You still
have that alternate location for a septic system. Again, as Mr. Ernst pointed out,
there are different types of engineering designs for septic systems. For an example,
the pads that are being used here are pads based on the percolation test data that
was presented which is roughly 15 minutes per perc rate which are fairly high perc
rates. A perc rate of 16 minutes or more is considered to be a failing perc rate for
standard type system. Anything over that would require an alternate system.
However, these are pass in perc tests. With those type of high perc rates it
requires a larger area for absorption for the drain field area because of the high
perc rates so most of those pad areas he has got for the septics are 50 by 100 which
would give you about 1,000 to 1,200 square foot area for a septic trench design which
can accommodate a three to four bedroom home with a high water usage area. That is
if you put in a standard type trench with only six inches of rock. You can reduce
that square footage area by 20% for every six inches of rock you add underneath the
pipe. For example, you have got 900 or 1,000 square feet with six inches of rock
below your drainfield pipe, you can reduce that area by 20% by adding another six
inches, you can reduce it by 40% by adding 12 inches. Your ordinance allows a maxi-
mum of 24 inches of rock. Those areas that are indicated on that drawing could be
reduced essentially by 60%. Again, assuming these homes are to be $250,000 homes I
would imagine most of them would be maximum water usage homes which would require a
large drainfield such as a 1,000 square feet. I can't guarantee that the system will
work but I will say that the soils are such that are acceptable conducive to septic
systems provided that they are installed properly and designed properly and also
maintained properly. I believe that the ordinance that you have, the design portion
of it and the installation portion of it, will insure that those things are done pro-
perly. However, the maintenance, I don't believe you have it in the ordinance means
of assuring that they will be maintained properly. With the cost of systems today,
my experiences are that homeowners are becoming more and more aware as to maintaining
their systems. Standard systems cost anywhere from $2,500 to $6,000 and when you
have that much of an outlay in costs they are becoming aware of how to maintain that
system.
Mayor Hamilton - When your system is in use and your drainfield is being used, how
fast does that water seep into the soils and how long is it going to take for any of
the water that's going through those drain fields to get to the creek?
Paul Waldron - That's pretty hard to say. In most cases, the treatment of the
affluent, the gray water, is in the drainfield. It's treated within the first three
feet of the bottom of the trenches. What happens is as the affluent moves down
through the rock it forms what they call a biomass and on that biomass is where the
bacteria congregates to break down the affluent that's in the trenches. That takes
place within the biomass. In most cases about three feet down it is fairly well
treated. The reason why I say that is, a design requirement is that you have to have
a minimum of three feet of separation of the bottom of the trench so that no ground-
water can get in so that if there is a groundwater table in the area you have to
design that system so that there is at least three feet of soil between the bottom of
the trench and the top of the groundwater table. The reason for that is so you don't
pollute the groundwater table. That should give you an idea that about three feet
down from that it is treated. As far as pollution of a well, your ordinance requires
a 75 foot minimum setback from the well to the septic system. It's also your neigh-
bors wells and your neighbors septic systems. If this was an area where you have a
lot of sandy soils such as a development in other bluff areas where they have a large
sand content, it would be more of a problem than it is here because of the clay
soils. In sandy soil you should be 125 feet from the well with your septic system
Council Meeting February 24, 1986
-28-
because what happens is the water goes through the sand so fast that it takes longer
for the biomass to build up and the bacteria act on the affluent. This particular
area here is more advantageous because of the clay. However, because of the clay you
have the higher perc rates which means you have to go to a bigger system.
I
Mayor Hamilton - Was any consideration given in this particular project to combining
the drainfields with two homes. In some cases the drain fields are very close to each
other and if you combined them it would seem it might be more practical.
faul Waldron - I didn't review this subdivision for septic system design.
involvement in this proposal is mainly the soil tests, collection of data
soil test. It would be a very viable option for a community type system.
My
for the
Mayor Hamilton - Perhaps one of you could tell me how the utilities, electric,
telephone and gas, how you propose to get those into this area.
Gene Ernst - After approval will go to the utility companies and ask them.
Generally, they will come in and put the lines in.
Mayor Hamilton - Do you have any idea what the depth of the wells are out there.
Ken Adolf - Four hundred feet.
excellent pressure out there.
I think the golf course runs 400 and they have got
They are running a four inch pipe out there.
Mayor Hamilton - Is the nursery on the same aquifer?
Ken Adolf - I don't know. There are two water tables out there.
H,. Be'nlund - The golf eOU'se, ou' main well is down .3D feet in Jo,dan sandstone. III
Councilman Horn - I was looking at this alternate course again and I guess I don't
understand why you think you would have to move the 6th green and the 14th green. It
looks to me like you could put a road just to the east of that. You are running at
approximately 940 feet all the way from the existing driving range through that whole
flat top area. I would leave those untouched. I would move the tee areas for 7 and
15 to the other side of a road that I would propose going through the center here.
If you look at the elevations back near the existing clubhouse and what would be
right in the middle of the existing 7th fairway, in between the tee and the other
portion of it, you are still looking at 940 feet so that would be relatively level
all the way back to the road. Now you would have to drop down about 47 feet from
there to get to the elevation of County Road 14. If you look at a 10% grade which is
what we have allowed in the past, you are looking at approximately 500 feet to get to
that. You would start going down between Lots 2 and 3, Block 4, right at the back of
each of those you would start going down there and traverse to the northeast until
you got down to the highway level.
Gene Ernst
--
would have
tees.
We were looking at 7% to 8% but again we are dealing with the cut that
to be taken through there. It can be done but you do have to adjust your
Councilman Horn - When you mentioned it before you
would have move the 6th green and the 14th green.
move that, it's not feasible but what I would like
this that would leave those intact. All you would
your 15th tee and laying out those two fairways so
said it wasn't feasible. You
I agree when you are starting to
to do is look at something like
be moving are your 7th tee and
you have only affected two holes.
I
I
I
I
Council Meeting February 24, 1986
-29-
Gene ~ - We have looked at that.
Councilman Horn - But you didn't present that to us. When we asked what you had
looked at that wasn't one of the options you presented. You said you were going to
move the 6th green and the 14th green. You said you would have to move greens with
that option.
Gene Ernst - I was looking at the area through here, the swath it would take to go
through there. Again, we have looked at going through there. The disruption to the
golf course. That was one of our first schemes that we looked at. It did not solve,
we have a long distance to get back in here. It didn't provide a looped system for
us which we were initially trying to get. This is why we felt if we were looking at
a looped system that should take off from this point. If you take the amount of road
go get back to this point you are just about putting in the same amount of road.
Councilman Horn - You have missed the whole point. The point is, where you could
have something cut off to lose an access from one side or the other. You have only
got from the existing building back that isn't redundant road with this concept.
Gene Ernst - It comes right back to getting down the costs and re-adjusting the
existing clubhouse area and the tees and the greens.
Councilman Horn - There are no greens in this.
Gene Ernst - It does require adjusting fairways, tees.
Councilman Horn - Two tees and two fairways.
Gene Ernst - I can't put a dollar figure on that. We were really trying to develop a
looped system from the end of this whole plan.
Councilman Horn - My concern is that we automatically write this off as being
unfeasible and nowhere when you were talking about options did I hear you tell me
about this one.
Gene Ernst - I am sorry I thought I had mentioned it. This was one of our first
schemes that we had looked at. We looked at this one and then we went to this one
where we looked at two or three different routes going through here. A third alter-
nate that we looked at because it was recommended by the neighborhood to come in this
direction, we looked at it, again, the amount of adjustment and the length of the
CUl-de-sac, didn't seem to make a lot of sense.
Councilman Horn - What do-:you mean, length of cul-de-sac. I thought we went through
that. FIRST SENTENCE AMENDED 3-17-86.
Gene Ernst - This would be the access going all the way back to this point if we came
in at this location.
Councilman Horn - That it wouldn't tie together to the other road. So the cul-de-sac
is from the point that you are at right now.
~ ~ - If you take this length of road, this is a lot longer piece than this
piece, to loop in.
Councilman Horn - The cul-de-sac is beyond that loop.
Gene Ernst - At that point they were suggesting that this may be cut off and not
allow access to come in here.
Council Meeting February 24, 1986
-30-
Councilman Gevinq - I think what we are seeing tonight is just the beginning of a
much larger plat at some future time and the Council here is very perceptive and what
they are trying to eliminate as a future problem when you decide to cut off these 14
or 15 lots and you decide that you can make $35,000 to $50,000 per lot you might say,
it's not worth to stay in the golf business, let's develop the whole thing and that's
what I am talking about.
I
Gene Ernst - You are concerned about these access points, that's why we have shown
Outlot D, Outlot E, for that to occur and then your total loop system takes place at
that time. That's really the ultimate time.
Councilman Gevinq - The logical time is now to plan for it.
Gene Ernst - We feel we are planning for this access points at this time for that to
occur. How this is subdivided, you can look at a preliminary layout, but that is
really the time when these will have to occur.
Councilman Gevinq - I can tell you one thing right now at least from my standpoint,
this plat will never get approved unless there is a condition in there that says no
further development on this land until a secondary access is obtained. That will
be a condition.
Gene Ernst - I think that is a reasonable request because we are planning for that at
this time.
Mayor Hamilton - If the land is ever developed I think Outlot D is the natural place
to have your access. It is the lowest spot and it enters that whole area nicely.
Councilwoman Watson - Actually it would have to start somewhere around this cul-de- I
sac at Drive B. If you were able to manage that it would effectively cut that cul-
de-sac down and improve access to a major portion of that.
Peter Stalland - Just to respond to Mr. Geving's suggestion, we would be happy to put
that into a development agreement so that if there is further development then we
will covenant to put in the secondary access.
Councilwoman Swenson - In lieu of another road which I would like to propose the
developer seriously consider, that in the development contract there would be a sta-
tement referring to the emergency access that the Mayor discussed giving the City
easement across that property so as to eliminate any possible adverse legal action or
damages incurred for the use of that property in the event of a necessity to use it.
I certainly wouldn't want to have a fire truck pull along side of that road and then
have the golf course damaged and the City wind up with a legal noose around its neck
so that would have to be very clearly spelled out, a paper easement if you would, for
purposes of emergency egress.
Peter Stalland - Yes, we would be happy to do that.
Mayor Hamilton - Bill, how long do you think or do you think we should consider the
possibility of upgrading the intersection at Highway 101 and Creekwood with this
development?
Bill Monk - There is a possibility that it could be done. The biggest problem with I
101 is the vertical curve to the north. You have limited sight distance.
Mayor Hamilton - If you had a right in, right out.
I
I
I
Council Meeting Feburary 24, 1986
-31-
Councilman Horn - Where would they go with a right out?
Mayor Hamilton - Down south. I am not saying you can't make a left turn. I am just
saying make it a right out turn and right in to make the whole intersection workable.
Councilman Horn - Turn lanes.
Mayor Hamilton - I am just trying to make the intersection more usable.
Bill Monk - It is a good idea. There is a situation there, I don't believe the
topography will allow for a full lane to be put in and the ditch regraded on the west
side of 101. To move that ditch over with a full lane in there, I am almost positive
could not be done within the 66 foot of right-of-way.
Mayor Hamilton - Maybe Mr. Berglund is a good friend of Mr. Halla's and he would like
to talk to him about the possibility of doing that. I think that intersection is cer-
tainly a key spot and it's not a good intersection and a right in and right out would
improve it.
Mr. Berqlund - We can certainly look into it.
Mayor Hamilton - Any other comments? We need a motion.
Councilman Gevinq - I don't think we can put it together at this time. There is no
way we can pull all this together tonight and make a motion and be confident that we
have covered all the issues. I would be very hesitant about doing anything but
tabling this issue and turning it back over to staff and bring us back the recommen-
dations that we each talked about tonight. We have covered the lot sizes, the
drainage, the storm water, the road size, the alternate route to the platted areas,
the septic systems, who is going to pay for the cul-de-sac and the improved public
street, who is going to pay for the Creekwood update, I just feel that Barb has got
so many notes that she is going to have to sit down and try to filter them all out
and give us back some recommendations.
Mayor Hamilton - Would it be possible Barb, to have a proposed motion ready for next
week?
Don Ashworth - The minutes should go along with this so that the Council can verify
what was said and given that it would have to be done by Thursday.
Barb Dacy - The next meeting is March 17th.
Councilman Horn's recommendation.
Is part of your direction to look at
Councilman Horn - Also, I would like to get an opinion from the Attorney on the
feasibility of requiring that the existing clubhouse be finished before we, as a con-
dition to this project.
Councilman Gevinq - Finished or torn down?
Councilman Horn - The road goes, where I have it here, the existing block building
would go down anyway.
Mayor Hamilton - That could be one of the conditions. We will have this on the
agenda for the 17th.
Council Meeting February 24, 1986
-32-
Councilwoman Swenson - The cesspool area, I would assume would be accessible to the
trucks for pumping out? I am assuming that somebody has checked to verify that you
can get the trucks back in there to clean them out.
I
Paul Waldron - The actual location of the tanks would be determined when the design
is drawn up to meet the actual home that it is built for. At that point in time,
when City Staff is reviewing that design should make sure that it is possible.
Councilman Geving moved to table the Bluff Creek Greens subdivision request until
Monday, March 17, 1986. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in
favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn.
No negative votes. Motion carried.
Mayor Hamilton - I would suspect, Mr. Berglund, that you may want to be in touch with
Barb in the next two weeks to make sure that you know what's going to be there and
you have got everything.
LAKE ANN INTERCEPTOR DISCUSSION:
Councilwoman Watson - When discussion is going on regarding the ten acre issue and
regarding the issue of the interceptor and that particular issue, I felt the Planning
Commission really did not know great deal about our agreement with the Metropolitan
Council. They didn't seem to be up to speed on what had happened and I think that
they were more ambiguous than was necessary about the ten acre issue. I really felt
Bill Ryan left it hanging there and in actuality if you had read our agreement it
isn't hanging there.
Mayor Hamilton - He was aware of it and it is just how he runs a meeting.
Councilwoman Watson - I guess I felt like I was kind of being set up is really what
it was. It was left sort of like well, maybe it was still up for debate but it's
really not up for debating.
I
Barb Dacy - The week before the compo plan amendment item was at the Planning
Commission at the regular scheduled meeting and normally we have to amend the compo
plan before we sign the agreement and in the packet was a history of the negotiations
that went on between you and Met Council and staff. There was a complete history so
they were aware of it. They have been dealing with the issue for so long now that
they are real strong for what the proposed ordinance says.
Councilwoman Watson - I think their being ambiguous was misleading and they are going
to be allover us because they still seem to feel there is an option there.
Mayor Hamilton - I think a lot of the people who were there understood the situation.
Councilwoman Swenson - Isn't it also true that they could have been looking at it
from a different aspect. The agreement, as I understand it is, it's one and ten
acres with a minimum of 2; acre building site and I think perhaps that they were
maybe discussing the size of the building site more than they were discussing the one
to ten acres.
Councilman Horn - I have always had a concept of saying, okay, one .in ten, where do
you draw the borders on what's 80 acres and what's 160 acres and how do you tie those I
together. Al Klingelhutz says the county has a good way of doing that in their one
in 40 and I would like to know a lot more about how they do that.
Councilwoman Watson - I guess my whole point was that I think everyone has to
understand there are things that are beyond our control whether they like it or not.
I
I
I
Council Meeting February 24, 1986
-33-
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM:
Barb Dacy - I had nothing more to add than what's in the packet.
NEWSPAPER:
Don Ashworth - I will make sure that the Council members get home delivery.
Councilwoman Swenson - I would also like to know if the newspaper is being distri-
buted to any place in Chaska.
The only place I do cover is Chanhassen.
and last week I covered the Planning Commission.
I go to City Council
Councilwoman Swenson - This came up at the Planning Commission. It was quite criti-
cal because people were very upset down in the Chaska area. They didn't know
where they can get it. They hadn't even heard of the paper. I can be sympathetic.
Here you are you are coming to a meeting like this and half of them said they didn't
even know about the meeting.
Mayor Hamilton - I think at some point the onus is on the residents of this community
to keep themselves informed. If they really want to know what's going on they will
find out where the newspaper is and they will get it. I am sick and tired of staff
being blamed all the time because we didn't write them all a letter and pat them on
the head and say, now you have got to be here. If you are concerned about your com-
munity and you want to be informed you will find out where you can get the paper.
When is the newsletter coming out?
Councilman Horn - What happened to our City newsletter?
Councilwoman Swenson - I thought it was supposed to be incorporated in the South
Shore News.
Don Ashworth - It is.
Councilman Horn - Isn't that supposed to go to every resident?
Don Ashworth - No, we only did two home deliveries the last two weeks in December.
Basically, the proposal that was presented was that he felt that the pick up of the
Shouth Shore News was just as effective as making it into the homes. There is monies
budgeted to allow for a mailing to homes but I had thought the Council had wanted to
experiment to see if we sent them the first editions and told people where they could
pick it up and then to try to monitor and see if people were actually picking them
up. The next time we are going to do a full blown issue, parks and rec. the whole
shot, I will again have it sent out if the Council would like, to all residents and
again publish the list of locations.
Councilman Horn
newsletter.
I missed the point that this was going to replace our city
Councilwoman Swenson - It was supposed to be the centerfold of the paper.
Councilman Horn - The city newsletter we mailed out to every resident and I liked
that part of it because that was our attempt to communicate with all of the people
and I asked people at this hearing, didn't we talk about the Zoning Ordinance at some
time in that city newsletter. It's hard to believe that we didn't. Everybody gets
that and it is really nice to be able to tell people, look, this newsletter comes out
and it goes to every household in Chanhassen, if you want to know what's -going on all
you have to do is read that.
Council Meeting February 24, 1986
-34-
Don Ashworth - Last year you had a quarterly newsletter that went out three times.
Now you have six major issues per year. Six of your editions are full blown, park
and rec. and the whole works. Twelve editions per year are where you have at least I
one full page. In between times you have just the upcoming agendas and whatever type
of news items are in there. Every other week you don't have a Chanhassen logo but
every other week you do.
Councilman Horn - If you want to go out you can get it.
Councilwoman Watson - I had to go out after the Carver County Herald.
Councilwoman Watson moved to adjourn. Motion 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
Prepared by Jean Meuwissen
I
I