The URL can be used to link to this page

1986 03 17 I I I REGULAR CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 17, 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, Lori Sietsema and Bill Monk APPROVAL QI AGENDA: Councilwoman Watson moved to approve the agenda as pre- sented with the addition of discussion on a fertilizer ordinance. Motion was seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Horn moved to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendation: a. Set Date for Board of Equalization and Review Meeting, May 19, 1986. b. RESOLTUION #86-13: Request to Adopt Resolution Supporting Grant Programs, Minnesota Recreation and Park Association. c. RESOLUTION #86-14: Street Name Change, Near Mountain Addition. d. Set Date for Council Worksession, March 24, 1986. e. RESOLUTION #86-15: Approve Construction Plans and Specifications for Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 5th Addition, Opus Corporation. f. Approve Construction Plans and Specifications for Chestnut Ridge 7th and 8th Additions and Trapper's Pass 2nd Addition, Lundgren Brothers. g. Authorize Preparation of Highway 5 Streetscape Plan. Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. COUNTY ASSESSING CONTRACT, MIKE SCHACTERLE: Mr. Schacterle has asked that the Council not act on this tonight as he was not ready to speak at this evenings meeting. There were also some items that the City Manager had to clarify. Council Meeting, March 17, 1986 -2- Councilman Geving moved to table this item to the next regularly scheduled Council meeting. Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS, YEAR K! REALLOCATION AND YEAR XII ALLOCATION: Mayor Hamilton called the Public Hearing to order with the following persons present: Donald J. Chmiel Duane E. Myers Paul Olson 7100 Tecumseh Lane PO Box 41891, Plymouth, MN 9239 Lake Riley Boulevard JoAnn Kvern: I don't know if we are suppose to speak or not. I am with the Southshore Senior Center. We have requested funding from the Council for the last half of the year for 1986. Mayor Hamilton: We do have that in the budget. Were you able to review what we had proposed for our budget? JoAnn Kvern: No, I didn't. Mayor Hamilton: believe that is Year XI, the Senior Center what you had requested. is $2,163 and Year XII is $4,500. I Councilwoman Watson Councilman Geving. Watson and Swenson, carried. moved to close the public hearing. Motion was seconded by The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion Councilwoman Watson: plan revisions should comprehensive plan. Where will we go with the money that we call comprehensive they decide they don't like our using the funds for that Don Ashworth: We would be notified in advance before they would reject our request. If the Council approves this, we will submit this as our request and they will either approve or deny that. If they do end up denying it, we could bring that item back to you. Councilwoman Watson: funds? And we could at that time decide how to reallocate those Don Ashworth: Correct. Councilman GevinQ: I guess I would have liked to have seen all of the potential uses for these CDBG funds. I don't have any problems with the comprehensive plan, the senior center I am happy to see, but the housing rehab is a question I have. If it were at all possible to use this for the Lake Ann Park and for acquiring water for the park, that would be a high priorty for me. I don't know if that will conflict with the lighting. My question is what are some other than these of the options that we have. Barb Dacy: The amount would have to be evaluated as to the needs that you would want to install, etc. We felt in looking at the total amount that, for example, carrying out an acquisition process, $25,000 would not come near the amount of expenses that would be needed to cover that type of project. I I I I I I Council Meeting, March 17, 1986 -3- Councilman GevinQ: All I am talking about is drilling a hole and getting water. Barb Dacy: I understand that and I was referring to general projects. We could certainly go back and evaluate that particular request and see if the costs can be met with the proposed budget. Councilman GevinQ: The reason I bring this up, the Housing Rehabilitation have done this for several years. I would suppose that this would only help about 2 or 3 people. How many people would be helped with a grant of $6,000.00? Barb Dacy: Probably at the most, two. Since the program has started in 1983, approximately 6 to 10 applicatations have been processed in Chanhassen. Don Ashworth: If you would like to table this item, we can, and as Barb says, check on the request. Like the park area, I do know that a number of the com- munities were using community development block grant monies for parks. Com- munity development block grant people were saying that they wanted to see the monies used more for elderly projects, low income housing, redevelopment within a downtown area, etc. They were putting a very low priority on any type of park improvements. They didn't feel that was targeting the money to the areas that they were looking to. But we would be more than happy to go back with this spe- cific proposal and ask them if they would consider it. They very well may. Mayor Hamilton: If we approved this allocation tonight, can we go back and change it or does it have to stay where we have approved it? Don Ashworth: If you thought that there might be a change, it would be better to table it, allow us to ask the question and see if it is an allowable expen- diture and then take action based on that recommendation. Councilman GevinQ: There maybe other Council members who might also have an option that we are not aware of. This was just one that I kind of wanted to get going for a number of years. This year we are going to do the lighting of the ball diamond at the park and I thought this would also be a good year to bring water to the park and get something started out there. I would like to table this issue and have you bring back to us your research and whether or not this would be an applicable fund useage for the community development block grants and bring it back to us. Councilman Geving moved to table the Community Development Block Grant Funds, Year XI Reallocation and Year XII Allocation and have staff research it further and have it brought back to the next regular City Council agenda. Motion was seconded by Councilwoman SWenson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No nega- tive votes. Motion carried. ltl 101 DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, LAKOTA LAKE LQ BLUFF CREEK: Bill Monk: For some time the City Council has been working with the state on a cooperative agreement to try and correct a serious drainage problem on Highway 101 between Lakota Lane and Bluff Creek. We have now got permanent improvements designed, approved by the state in agreement with the railroad, in agreement with the state and I think all the details worked out. We have had bids that came in quite competative. Tonight it is being recommended that the actual contract be awarded to S.M. Hentges & Sons in the amount of $88,917.76 so that that cooperative agreement, with the state, can be carried out. If there are questions about the improvements or about the bids as recieved, I would answer those. Council Meeting, March 17, 1986 -4- RESOLUTION #86-16: Councilman Horn moved the adoption of a resolution approving I the award of $88,917.76 to S.M. Hentges & Sons for the TH 101 drainage project. Resolution was seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No nega- tive votes. Motion carried. MINUTES: Councilman Horn moved to approve the City Council Minutes dated January 27, 1986 as presented. Motion was seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. Amend City Council Minutes dated February 24, 1986, page 3, last paragraph, first sentence: Mayor Hamilton: I don't disagree with that and I am not a pro- ponent of metes and bounds, I think the platting of it is the best way to do it. Amend City Council Minutes dated February 24, 1986, page 6, last paragraph: Councilwoman Swenson: ..............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. Amend City Council Minutes dated February 24, 1986, page 29, paragraph 12, first sentence: Councilman Horn: What do you mean, length of cul-de-sac? Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the City Council Minutes dated February 24, 1986 as amended. Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Swenson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. Councilman Horn: I have a comment, not related to the minutes, but just a general comment regarding the paper that Chanhassen puts out on a periodic basis. I would like to suggest that for next year we do have a mailing that comes out from the City of Chanhassen and goes to everybody. I think the comments here were that the people should take the initiative to get the information. I don't really think that's feasible. I think it is better if we take the initiative to make sure that they get the information and have a quarterly paper that goes out to them. I Amend Planning Commission Minutes dated February 26, 1986, page 5, second paragraph, first sentence: Marian DeWitt stated that she is opposed to it in that if access is granted to the lake for Sunny Slope right between 2 homes,................. . Councilwoman Swenson moved to note the Planning Commission Minutes dated February 26, 1986 with the noted corrections. Motion was seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. Councilwoman Watson moved to note the Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated January 7, 1986. Motion was seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. I SUBDIVISION REQUEST FOR ~ LOTS ADJACENT LQ BLUFF CREEK GOLF COURSE, BERGLUND AND JOHNSON: Mayor Hamilton: This item was tabled from our last Council meeting for clarifi- cation on some items. I I I Council Meeting, March 17, 1986 -5- Barb Dacy: Staff reviewed several of the issues with the applicant that were raised at the Council Meeting on March 3rd. We would like to briefly run through those and expand a little on the comments that were offered in the staff report. The first issue of concern is the lot area buildabilities. This is Creekwood Drive along this alignment. This is a gravel surface from this point to service the four existing homes now to the entrance of the golf course pro- perty. We would like to split the discussion into two areas as far as the lot area buildability. First we will discuss the Creekwood Drive extension and then the lots along Pioneer Trail. The applicant, at the request of the Council and staff, did submit enlargements for each lot showing that a house pad, 4,500 square feet, 2 septic sites and a well site could be located on each of the pro- posed lots. A 4,500 square foot house design is intended to reflect a very large house, three car garage, a driveway turn-around area, etc. The applicant has met the minimum requirements of the subdivision ordinance for rural area standards. However, staff remains concerned about 4 of the lots along the Creekwood Drive extension. They are Lot 3 of Block 1, Lot 2 of Block 2, and Lots Band 9 at the end of the proposed cul-de-sac. The buildable areas for these lots range in size of 14,700 square feet to 22,000 square feet. These lot areas are similar in size in lot areas that you find to concern this area. You will note on the plan that the lots are contained by the existing revenes of the subdivision. We believe that even though the minimum requirements are being met, that the house pad, septic systems, and the well site in the four mentioned lots are very tight and leave little room for flexibility adjacent to the very steep sloped area. We would recommend that in the rural area that at least one- half of an acre to an acre of the lot be reserved and level area to provide for adequate distancing between the house and the septic system to the sloped area. We realize that the proposal is to take advantage of the high amenity area, a very gorgeous area. We also have to maximize the amount of disturbance and distance between individual lot development and the existing grades and slope. We have to control an individual lot basis erosion and stabilization of all of the steep sloped areas. In looking at the lot design for the Creekwood Drive extension, it is recommended, for example, that lots 8 and 9 be combined and the cul-de-sac shortened by approximately 150 feet to minimize the grading in and around this area to allow for design flexibility. We are also recommending that no construction occur below or beyond the 910 contour. The Pioneer Trail lots, 6 lots are proposed. Most of these lots contain slopes in the excess of 25 percent. The soil conservation maps identify these areas as HAF, which is the Hayden Loam soil series and F indicates the slope. F slopes range from 25 to 40 percent. Typically, grades in excess of 18 percent pose additional problems for construction of houses and especially for installation for septic systems. City staff is concerned that through subdivision approvals that allowing development on these steep slopes is not prudent subdivision design, nor encouraging some building practice. Therefore, we are recommending that areas that contain 25 percent slope, that no grading occur in these areas. This would at minimum, eliminate Lot 3 of Block 4 in the northeastern corner of the site. The driveways, we were concerned most at the March 3rd meeting where it was stated that if there is any opportunity for a combination that that should occur. However, because of the topography of these lots, etc., that is not easiliy achieved at all. We reviewed the driveway access issue with Carver County. Minimum spacing of at least 300 feet can be achieved for all of the lots except for Lot 1 of Block 4. The proposed driveway would occur in this area and is closer than 300 feet to the existing driveway at that point. However, the letter ~f tactic from the Carver County Engineer said that such a variance could be obtained by the County. The County was also concerned that each of these lots, as they are approved, contain turn around areas so that backing onto Pioneer Trail is not done. Therefore, if it is approved, we are Council Meeting, March 17, 1986 -6- recommending that each of the lots contain turn around areas. As far as the lot area buildability, we are recommending three conditions for the Council's con- sideration. Prohibition of building on slopes exceeding 25 percent grade and lots along Pioneer Trail contain drive turn around areas. To control the indi- vidual development of each of these lots, we are recommending the following regulations at the time of building permit application: 1) that the house desgin be certified by a. licensed civil engineer or architect 2) that the grading plans be certified, 3) that the perc tests be retaken to specifically be designed in conjunction with the proposed location of the house and that the lot survey show, not only the house location, but the location of two septic field sites and a well site meeting ordinance standards. Our third recommendation for lot area buildability, as I said before, is to combine lots 8 and 9, Block 2, but also allow the cul-de-sac to be shortened by as much as 150 feet. The drainage and erosion control plans have been addressed in written form by the soil con- servation service and Watershed District and those letters are included in this packet. The street improvement issue - Creekwood Drive is proposed as a public street down to the golf course entrance and is proposed as a private street for the remainder of the extension. As proposed as a private street, the sub- division ordinance prohibits private streets, however, the applicant is agreeing to building the street to city construction standards. Staff is concerned though that the deed restrictions do contain maintenance provisions for the street and that the covenants specifically state out how that is going to be acheived so that we are assured that the street will be mai~tained in a safe condition. The Council also wished an opinion as to the ability to condition approval on the existing structures on site. The City Attorney advised us that if the buildings are not in conformance with existing ordinances, then the City would have the ability to condition some type of reorientation or finishing of the buildings. However, that does not appear to be the case here. However, the golf course use, itself, should and can be considered by the Council in terms of reviewing it as a subdivision design and its traffic design. Again, the deed restrictions should contain conditions for maintenance mechanisms for the storm sewer system and the proposed private street. Finally, the secondary street access. This received a lot of discussion at the last meeting. This was an alternative as well as widening the proposed Creekwood Drive extension from 24 feet to 32 feet or instituting an easement parallel to the proposed extension to provide for some type of emergency access. Staff maintains its previous posi- tion on secondary accesses should be looked at and considered in the interests of the overall function of the traffic in this area given the existing golf course use. The applicant has mounted and prepared three schemes for your review. The City Engineer reviewed those alternatives. If the Council does not recommend connection to Pioneer Trail through the secondary access, at minimum staff is recommending that an easement be granted along the southerly 200 feet of the property, that the road pavement be widened from 24 feet to 32 feet and the applicant be responsible for installing a south bound right turn lane at the TH 101/Creekwood Drive intersection. Bill Monk: On the updated staff reports, City staff did look at a number of items that were reviewed in length by the City Council at the last meeting. The City Planner reviewed grading and buildability, which is one of the most impor- tant. Several of the conditions that staff had previously placed on the plat as far as the plans being certified did stay the same. However, several new con- ditions did come up and I think they should be explained a little bit more in detail. Basically, the first one was that grading plans be submitted at time of building permit and several conditions were recommended to monitor the building permit process so that grading of the individual lots, as well as making sure that back up septic system locations could be provided for and would be pro- I I I I I I Council Meeting, March 17, 1986 -7- vided for as a part of the building permit process because at that point in time once the street is there and the City is basically the last one to review indi- vidual grading layout plans for each lot, and staff felt that it was very impor- tant that several conditions be placed in there to make sure that the process is as complete as possible. Two additional conditions were put in after the com- ments on the grading adjacent to the slope and the extreme slopes that existed along CR 14. After reviewing the new data that was generated by the applicant of all slopes in the various lots, staff took a hard look in terms of the existing cross slopes, the proximity of septic systems and structures to the revenes and slopes and how the slopes would be protected even if we did put con- ditions on the building permit process. There were only two ways that we could see for protecting the slopes through the development of individual building lots, whereas one concept the City Council and City has used numerous times before on setting an elevation beyond which the developer or individual builder would not be able to extend or drain. In this case, in looking at the plan, I did come up with the elevation of 910. I used 910 because of the bulk of the project, 910 represents the top of the steep slope area. It does have an affect on the two lots at the very end of the cul-de-sac, Lots 8 and 9 of Block 2 because the 910 contour does go right through those two structures. In looking at it further, I guess I conf~rmed by belief that we should set that limit and that 910 was proper and that pulling the cul-de-sac back approximately 150 feet into what is now the throat of the cul-de-sac and combining those two lots, you could easily stay above the 910 contour to still service that end of the plat and would be an overall benefit to that area. The other condition was to take a look at what type of slope preservation was necessary, again, to make sure that grading would not take place in or exceeding a certain slope. The City Planner has noted on most of the correspondence the City receives, anything over 18 per- cent slopes is usually specifically noted and comes up on reports from SCS and Watershed District and most regulatory agencies. In looking at the plat, however, we thought that 18 percent was being too strict and tried to come with a percent slope that would allow part of the preservation of slopes that staff thought was necessary. We did, in the end, arrive at 25 percent. That could flucuate up or down. We just tried to be as reasonable as possible. After looking at the plat in terms of one effect that has, and I believe that several of the lots, especially the ones that staff is very concerned with could be rearranged slightly in terms of where the building structure would go, etc., to not expand into that 25 percent. The only one that could not be worked around or I could not find a way to do, was Lot 3, Block 4. I believe that lot in the end, if the 25 - 30 percent slope protection condition is put in would have to be deleted because the cross slope on that lot I believe crosses almost the entire property except way down. I did also review the septic systems in detail. Septic system data does meet minimum requirements and we are requesting that a condition be placed the same as before that at the building permit pro- cess, that the house be placed and shown on the site plan as still allowing two alternate septic system sites to be provided for, because if through placement of the house you don't take that into consideration it would be very easy to knock out one of the alternative sites because of the restricted usable area on the properties. We did receive letters from the SCS (Soil Conservation Service) and the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District. Both letters did come back saying that more detailed work with the drainage plan. I think between Lots 9 and 10 down to the bluff at the end of the project would indeed meet their overall design criteria and thought the plan was good as far as drainage went. Some of the things that still need to be done is to come up with a resta- bilization plan, actual inlet design and methods of dissipating energy. Those are items I think that can be handled through the design stage and overall the regulatory agencies as well as myself are basically in agreement that the drainage Council Meeting March 17, 1986 -8- can work and several conditions regarding the watershed district and DNR appro- val as far as maintenance of the systems because they would be private, are included as conditions. As far as the private street, the proposal is to go off from the end of Creekwood which is paved and public up to the west edge of the Halla Nursery to dedicate the existing gravel section up to the entrance of the golf course and provide a turnaround in that area then to extend a private street from that point out. Five conditions were recommended on the installa- tion of that private drive including maintenance, utility easements, no physical restrictions and that they conform to the standard cross-section. Those are the same conditions as were previously placed and have not been changed. The other major item regards the site access. The Council did review in detail potential accesses across the golf course to alleviate the situation of a mile long cul- de-sac that is being created by this proposal. At this point in time the appli- cant has not had a chance to go over those three options with the City. I do have what I would call some crude renderings that I did prepare for this meeting but I guess at this point before I go through those and do a major review, I would like to give the applicant a chance to put up his three proposals and review the costs and then go over that item with the City Council and answer questions that the Council may have. Mr. Berqlund: This gives you an idea of what 25% grade is. tape up on the door there, you get a five foot rise in every so just visually you can see what we are tslking about. See that piece of 20 feet horizontsl I Gene Ernst: You can see that is a very good demonstration on what a slope is. Most of you have been on riding mowers, a three to one slope is a slope that you can sit on the riding mower and mow those slopes. A four to one, 25%, and 20% is a five to one slope which we do not feel is extremely steep if some pre- I cautions are taken, you have got a very stable slope. We feel those are stable in this area. Any of you who have been on the site would have to say there is a lot of vegetation on these slopes and if care is taken when they are built on naturally you won't have erosion problems. We don't feel that type of grading and destruction of the site is necessary on the plan that we presented. Ms. Dacy and Bill Monk did go over most of the items that we have on the plan, the various changes that have taken place since our last meeting. What I was going to show, there has been reference made to larger scale drawings, as soon as I go through these I will put up the three different alternatives on the connection of the road from the private drive to County Road 14. The drawing that you see up on the board here is a 50 scale drawing. This is the end of the public street. On this drawing we are showing the pad for a structure, the dark areas represent a 40 by 70 pad, the same size thst was shown on the 100 scale drawing. We felt that because it was brought up at the last meeting that we should illustrate on our drawings how you could build on the site a house bigger than say 2800 square feet. We have shown on here, we have just taken a home that we are working on, it's got 4500 square feet, it's a three car garage and that's what is represented in the lighter color. Everyone of these lots, we feel, and we have different options on a majority of these lots that you can place a house at different locations, the septic fields are somewhat tighter than others but on this particular one we have shown a drive, turnaround, a well, two septic fields, again, you have got to keep in mind we have shown a 50 by 100 foot sep- tic field and as we discussed in previous meetings, you can reduce that area by certain construction techniques. The red line that we have dashed here is the I 910 contour that has been referred to by Bill and you can see we are well within that with the septic fields and the houses. This location, we have shown, again, the variations of house pads on these lots. We can't show you every possibility. The last presentation that we made there was a lot of time spent discussing I I I Council Meeting March 17, 1986 -9- possible secondary access or creating a loop from our proposed drive. In that presentation we stated we had looked at these in a conceptual and some prelimi- nary form although we had never handled them in a drawing to illustrate. We are looking at road alignments based on the last conversation and also if there was going to be a road installed this may create the least amount of disturbance based on relocating the greens, the tees and fairways. We do not feel it would be wise at this time to even suggest that one of these be a road alignment until you really look at what might be the future development of this total area. Just punching a road through because it's going to solve the problem at this time does not mean that it's going to be the one down the road. We are showing a connection here, the existing clubhouse and the existing structure here, there is 2200 lineal feet of drive to get to this location. You might ask why we put a curve in it, we were trying to avoid cutting through the most severe part of this lot here. We have shown the cuts, we have some sections. Our worst cut is 45 feet of cut. We designed this road graded on an eight percent maximum grade, based on the City's requirements. You can see the dash line, that is where the existing grade is at. We have got a number of 30 foot cuts, 37 foot cuts just to get up through that area. There is a lot of destruction to that part of the golf course. Again, we would have to relocate a tee, number seven tee would have to be moved here, this fairway would then have to be reduced in size. The next problem ahead is when you are playing the golf course you get from that point to that point and you would have to go down this way to be able to play the next hole. So there would be a disruption of the golf course if you would put in a road of that magnitude. There is an awful lot of disturbance. I stated last time that we would probably have to go from the center line 150 feet on a 3 to 1 slope. It actullay comes out that we would have to go on some loca- tions up to 150 feet out just to daylight that slope. Another scheme that is similar but really relates to more of a scheme that was suggested at the last meeing, it takes out the curve. The number of lineal feet of road is still 2200 lineal feet. We just want to demonstrate what happens when you cut through, immediately getting of CR 14 you are going in to cut and the amount of cut is basically the same as the other scheme. Again, having to change tees and greens. This particular scheme reduces the length of this hole down to about a 200 yard play. That is the two schemes for that location. This is probably one of the first schemes that we put together. This shows a road that would pick up at this point, try to weave through the fairways, the greens, you would have to relocate a green at this location. The tees are questionable at this point because of the grading required. A lot of fill required through here. A lot of grading through here. Again, if you have been out on the golf course, this is the most desirable, visually, if you want to experience a great day of playing golf and getting back into a park or wood atmosphere, this would be the way you would want to go. We are cutting through here, and that destroys the number 13 tee. You can see how close the road is. We feel that this is very undesirable. We can put a road through that location, but if in the future you are going to develop it into a resident subdivision, this road would not be in a location where you would want it in the future. Cost - we ran through 2 costs, again, looking at this scheme the loss of a lot and putting the value on that lot, the grading costs. We estimated 140,000 cubic yards would have to be cut out of here in order to get through this area. We estimated that we would keep half of that on the site to try and build an area of mountain or fill something. Half of that fill would cover nearly 400 by 400 by 11 feet deep if we kept half of that on site. The other half we are saying would be hauled off of the site. We figured out culverts, we figured the relocation of tees and greens. A tee is in the range of $10,000 plus to build irregated grade greens, you are up in the range of $25,000 - $30,000 with your total cost. The road base, the surface, seeding, erosion, in this particular scheme were in the range, based on hauling, Council Meeting, March 17, 1986 -10- weigh half of the material one-half million dollars. and not taking out as much about $470,000 to $500,000 within a five-mile radius, we are up to an estimated Looking at this same scheme here, again, backing off fill in this area, we are still at that estimate at to build this particular road. PeterStalland: I am the attorney for the applicants here. We received the staff report today. We are really quite concerned about the conditions that they put on. I would like to go through those conditions. We have come to several meetings and worked with the City staff, in due respect they have con- cerns about the project, a very unique piece of property, but we have at this point, I think by admission in the staff report, are within the ordinance requirements in terms of the strict letters and what they require for sub- division, etc. However, the conditions that they have discussed in the staff report relate to the subdivision ordinance that allows the City to impose addi- tional and more stringent standards upon the applicant if the staff feels that is necessary. I guess I would respond to that without getting into all the legal ramifications of that, but just from a common sense standpoint. What you are telling a developer, a property owner coming before the City is they can work and they can spend time and expense to conform to what the City has stated is the law for development of their property, but yet that is not enough. And what is enough, what are the additional requirements? Well, the applicant doesn't know until he goes through the City process. I submit that that is a very difficult position to put a property owner in when they are trying to develop their property. If now I could respond specifically to those con- ditions. On page six of the staff report, the first recommendation is with regard to no building on areas exceeding 25 percent in slope. What this does effectively along with the number three condition, is to take out six lots of the subdivision. Now remember, we are starting with only 19 lots. When you take out six it is like having someone coming in with a 100 lot subdivision and ask him to take out 30 lots (30 percent). When you are only dealing with 19 lots, every single lot that you take, obviously, has a tremendous impact on the probability of the project. We have already to date suffered one lot that has been cut and now we have come in, and we believe that each lot does conform with the City ordinance and now staff is talking about taking out 5. I submit to you that this will kill the project. It is simply not economically feasible to come in and cut that many lots out. With regard to the 25 percent, I don't exactly understand how the staff comes up with this 25 percent. I don't believe there is any authority in the ordinance for it. Clearly, building has occurred on 25 percent slopes allover the United States. There is engineering and building of procedures and design standards that are applicable to that type of a slope. The people that are spending $200,000 to $250,000 for a house and up want this, they want the unique piece of property, they want trees, they want slope, they can have walk outs, and multi-stories, etc. If we treat the subdivision as a flat piece like many other pieces of property, it really does not relate speci- fically to our project. I guess that is what I am asking the City Council to do, you understand that it is a difficult project for everyone involved, but if you would keep this in mind we would appreciate it. Number three, Gene Ernst talked about the 910 level on the topography with regard to combining 8 and 9, that eliminates one lot there. I guess, simply, that we submit that there is nothing in the ordinance that talks about this 910 topography. There is nothing in the ordinance or City law that would require two lots of this size to combine together. We have made a tremendous effort to make those two lots to conform to City ordinance. Number 13, the secondary access, I think anyone with common sense can realize that if you try to put in a secondary access for one-half million dollars, in addition to all the other costs of the development, that does not even take into consideration the loss ecomonically, what it does to I I I I I I Council Meeting, March 17, 1986 -11- the golf couse. We appreciated the Mayor's suggestion about the easement for emergency all the way along the road. That is certainly possible. We would certainly be happy to work with the staff on that. Next, is the last phrase of condition 014, and that is provide for a south bound right turn lane on TH 101. Again, I don't believe there is anything in the ordinance or in any City law that requires the developer to start improving roads, certainly some distance away from the development that they are proposing. I think we are getting into, if I am not mistaken, TH 101 is a state road, so we are dealing with MNOot on approving that and we have absolutely no idea what the cost is of that. You are talking about right turn, right in, and cutting down that hill that is there. That will well exceed $100,000. Again, that would kill the project. In sum- mary, the other conditions we can work with, but we felt we have made a bonifide effort to try and to conform to what the City's law is. I guess we'd ask that the City treat us like anybody else, like any other property owner. Councilman Horn: I have a question for Bill. What would you estimate the increase in costs to be in making an eight foot wider roadway, from 24 feet to 32 feet on a lineal foot basis? Bill Monk: I haven't sat down and figured out what the cost differencial would be. The street has to be graded wIth 36 feet wide with gravel anyway. What we are basically talking about is replacing three inches of the gravel in the 4 feet wide with black top. I think the cost would be minimal, several dollars a foot, but I don't know what the actual number is. Councilman Horn: That's close enough. I guess the other question I had was to Barb who mentioned that there would be nothing that we could put in the approval if the current construction met with existing ordinance. Do we indeed know that that's true? Barb Oacy: I don't know if the building inspector has made a recent inspection. I do not believe so. As far as setback requirements and so on it is lying there, but as far a building code violations, I don't know. I don't think an inspection would take care of either the old one or the existing club house. Councilman Horn: What would the amount of cubic yards be saved if we were to allow a 10 percent grade rather than an eight percent? We had talked about a 10 percent last time, they chose to use the existing ordinance of 8 percent. Bill Monk: Several things that I did look at, I looked at the numbers generated, they were quite complete and were based on grades being layed out coming dow~ to the street of two percent, which is proper or going to five and then to an eight. You can see just in what has been presented the level of work that has been generated here. If grades were changed to a maximum of 10 percent so we could get up a little bit faster it would decrease the grading, but, there. is still no question in my mind that for anyone of those alternatives you are somewhere probably between 300 and 500 thousand dollars to const~uct this street. You could, through cutting the grades, trying to use more dirt on site and haul less off would reduce the costs from $500,000 given, but it is a realistic estimate. It is an extremely expensive street to build, there is no question about it. Councilman Horn: I didn't catch in your report, Bill, that they would be elimi- nating six lots. Bill Monk: It's not there. I knew that I was pretty sure on the 910 and I didn't catch how the line went through. I h ave a question I guess at this Council Meeting, March 17, 1986 -12- point to the developer also. With the 910 contour there is no question, you can see the red dash line does go right in through this area. It basically changes the end of the cul-de-sac area by taking the cul-de-sac back, it does then allow enough room in here, I believe, to put a residence in and to locate two septic systems. I guess after looking at these lots for as long as I did, looking at the grades, I remain extremely concerned just about how close everything was down here to make it work. The septic systems, the house, the distance of the steep grade, etc. I guess at this point, I am not sure where the other five lots are even with the 25 percent grade. I did believe that Lot 2, Block 2 and Lot 3, Block 2 could be reworked to not disturb any grade within 25 percent. I have got to assume. that the four lots that Gene talked about, several of them must be along CR 14. I had believed that only Lot 3, Block 4 would have to come out, but again, the others could be redesigned, house pads moved, etc. to meet the 25 percent. All I can do is ask the applicant to maybe point out those lots. Mr. BerQlund: On that six lot figure we combined actually the recommendation of the small buildable lots, small buildable areas. We had Lot 3, Block 1, Lots 2, 8 & 9, Block 2 and just working through the 25 percent it would appear that we would lose two of these and one over here. Because you are saying you show no building or grading activity exceeding 25 percent, that pretty much precludes moving the building site anywhere on these two lots. We combined the loss with the 25 percent and also the possible loss due to the small builpable areas. Councilman Horn: You said the grading would preclude that, are you saying that you are looking at that on a lot by lot basis or the total................... Mr. Berlund: What he is saying here on the sheet, page three, under buildabi- lity recommendations, it says no bUilding/grading activity on areas exceeding 25 percent in slope. So if you roughly scale this off, pretty much this whole area is at least 20 - 25 percent slope, and you couldn't get from one side to another without disturbing it. That is why we felt that we would lose them. That is how we felt it could be interpreted. Don Ashworth: That was not the interpretation that you were putting in that report, right Bill? Bill Monk: I did not believe, I guess, that the two lots that he is mentioning couldn't be redesigned to meet that in the cul-de-sac area. I believed after looking at them and trying to mark the 25 percent grades myself on the plan that they could be reworked to protect those slopes and the house pads and septic systems be rearranged to provide that, so I am somewhat surprised by that. Mr. Berlund: It is possible that it could reduce five. We could lose five. Gene Ernst: There is another point that I would like to clarify in refernce to Block 2, Lots 8 and 9. Referring back to the 910 contour line that moves through here, if you figure your grades on here say below the 910 and this going on around, this is less than 20 percent from that point down to the 900 foot contour until you get around to this side, then is starts to get steeper. So there is an area in here that is below the 910, but is less than the 20 per- cent, so that is why we had a little problem with the 910 just being used as an arbitrary line down in this area. We feel that it applies through the rest of the lots. Mayor Hamilton: Can't construction take place on 25 percent slopes and still be able to restore the land without a great deal of difficulty? I I I I I 01 Council Meeting, March 17, 1986 -13- Bill Monk: Yes, you can build on a 30 - 40 percent slope and still stabalize it. It comes back to a position in keeping somewhat perhaps with the wetlands ordinance. How far do you go to protect not only the natural amenities of any site, but also areas once disturbed could come back and begin to erode again if not properly maintained and restored. I think that staff took the position that we should take a more aggressive or positive stance in terms of protection of those slopes because once it has been disturbed, the City basically loses control over its restoration and should it continue to erode, you are already so close to those revenes, some of which are extremely steep that that was the reason that staff, after reviewing it, did take that position. But all the houses could be built as shown and we are just thinking that to protect the slo- pes that some kind of a condition should be put on there or some kind of restriction or guarantee type of provisions that will allow the area to be restored. You can build on over 25 percent. The number is just a number that staff tried to come up with seeing that the 18 percent that was used by a lot of the regulatory agencies was too strict to say anything over an 18 percent. Again the number could go to 30 percent or whatever. After looking at it the condition is there for consideration. Councilwoman Swenson: I notice on page 2 of the Watershed letter, they are con- cerned about the water draining into the Bluff Creek, but I would like to ask if the applicant is willing to do this. It says, "As also indicated in the District's previous corresponsence because of the severity of the slopes on the site and the potential of serious erosion problems occurring not only during the site grading portion of the project, but also during the installation of utilities, the District will likely require a performance bond to be posted for this project. This bond will enable the District to install additional erosion control measures should it become necessary, maintain erosion control measures installed by the developer, should it become necessary, and/or restore critical areas that are disturbed because of construction, should it become necessary." That would indicate to me that the Watershed District is equally concerned about the slopes and erosion, so this isn't something I think that we are picking up just 'arbitrarily. Are you prepared to do that, to post a bond with the Watershed District? Peter Stalland: Yes we are. Councilwoman Swenson: Now I would like to go back to the site access issue. On page four of Bill's memo in the middle paragraph, he mentions something also that I think we put a considerable thought to in the previous conversation here. Was it not one of the reasons that we required this improvement project because of the heavy density use age by the golf course on Creekwood? Bill Monk: That was one of the reasons. Councilwoman Swenson: In addition to the surfacing which is a result of that. Is it not true that this is an extremely dangerous curve on Highway 101? It is not easy to see. Bill Monk: It has severe restrictions to the north, and after reviewing in con- juntion with the Mayor's comment at the last meeting, I did come to the conclu- sion that the condition should be changed. I don't believe that the cost of that turn will be $100,000. But I believe there is the need to provide for more safety on TH 101 and the turn lane would be one way to do it. Councilwoman Swenson: I think in the interest of the people who are already living there, and I think that is pretty important, we would welcome the addi- tion of new citizens, however I am loathed to do it at the danger to those who Council Meeting, March 17, 1986 -14- are already here. I guess that I would be inclined to feel that since you feel that we are only adding 13 lots, but if you figure, as I read here, Bill, that you had the equivalent of 32 single family units, which is fine except that the intensity of use on those is probably on weekends and early evenings as opposed to a consistent flow every day in and out. It would be my feeling at this par- ticular time that we would have to have one or the other. Either the upgrading of TH 101 for the safety of the road or a double access. Councilwoman Watson: I am still concerned about the access. I guess I never thought of that road. that ran sort of through the middle of the golf course, where they showed the alternatives, as really a road. I guess I saw more of a, certainly not a bituminous surface, but something where you could drive across if you needed an emergency access. The other thing that I am concerned about here is with the limited building pads on these lots. Is it possible to build in some restriction variances. I would like to see people who purchase these lots build something that fits instead of looking for a variance process to expand on that buildable area. I think that there should be some restriction in here when you buy this lot that you build a house that fits on the lot. I think that cutting that cul-de-sac by 150 feet solves some other problems too. Councilman Gevinq: I want to compliment the staff for pulling together a lot of extraneous notes and comments that were made at our last meeting into a workable document. We had a heck of a meeting four weeks ago and they did a good job. The comments that I have, have to do with looking at the lot pads more closely again. As I indicated at the last meeting, I am still concerned about the size of the lot pad on Block 3, Lot 1. At the last meeting I asked the architect what the buildable size of that lot was and he indicated about 10 percent of the lot. Ten percent of 2 1/2 acres is roughly 10,000 square feet and our City staff tonight indicated to us that they would like to see about a half acre. I still have concerns about the size of that buildable area on Lot 1, Block 3. I think that whatever we do in this subdivision request that there should be a hold harmless clause to the City of Chanhassen that if for any reason reconstruction of the Bluff Creek that has to be done at some future time, that the City of Chanhassen will have no psrt in paying for those reconstruction efforts. Tonight we let a contract for $90,000 to repair Bluff Creek Drive. So the potential is there for some serious damage to Bluff Creek as a result of runoff from this development. So I would like to see that hold harmless clause be part of the development contract. I believe that the 910 elevation that was suggested by our City Engineer is reasonable and will be a good thing for the development to hold the development off the bluff. I also believe that his recommendation to combine Lots 8 and 9 is also a good recommendation and I am in favor of it. I am in favor of expanding the size of the private drive to 32 feet. I want to say this to the developers, that in your development contract with the people you sell these homes to, I want to make sure that the City has no interest in any future maintenance of this private drive. We don't want this drive. This will be a private drive owned by 13 homeowners, you can maintain it, it is your drive, we don't want it and I want to be stated for the record. As far as the secondary access is concerned, we have all mentioned that tonight. It is a concern because the only purpose for the secondary access is for safety. That is the only reason that we brought this up as a big issue. As far as Mr. Stall and is concerned and the comments that he made regarding meeting all the City requirements for ordinance and subdivision requests, I can only say this, that we have experience on our side, we see things that are not built into ordi- nances, we see developments that do happen and five years later the developer is off on another project and we get the results of all the problems. We don't want those problems with Bluff Creek Drive. We don't want the problems if the sewer system is going to heck, we don't want the problems if the drainage down I I I I I I Council Meeting, March 17, 1986 -15- to the bluff causes a reconstruction effort, we are not going to pay for those. As far as this development is concerned, any effort that has to be made to reconstruct the road we just repaired, we just built a nice road into this deve- lopment in November and assessed a lot of good people, I don't want to see them have to pay for another road that is caused because of this development. So I am saying to you, the developers, if a road has to be done and we have to reconstruct TH 101 to tear out and build a right turn only entrance to this development, you are going to pay for it. I believe that the comment that was made by the Watershed District is appropiate. I think the securing of a bond is exactly what I was trying to get at when I mentioned at our last meeting that I wanted to see this development take place in phases so that we were assured that as one house pad went up they knew what they were doing. And as you built each one of those homes on this development, that we know that you have done everything possible to build it right. I think the bond as far as that issue is a good one. One of the problems that I have is with the park dedication fees. Normally in the City of Chanhassen when someone comes in to get a building per- mit they pay a park dedication fee because they are going to take advantage of our park system and they pay something like $450.00 for a lot of 1/3 of an acre. Here we have got 2 1/2 and 3 acre lots. How are we going to assess this park dedication fee, Bill? Have you any thoughts on this? Don Ashworth: It is still $450.00 regardless of the size. Bill Monk: The use of the park is assumed the same because it is one residen- tial unit, whether they own 2 1/2 acres, 5 acres, or 15,000 square feet. They will be charged the standard fee. Councilman Gevinq: I just wanted to clarify that because I wasn't sure myself whether it was a per unit basis or on the size of the lot. I was happy to see that someone addressed the ground water availability issue, the question I brought up at the last meeting and apparently our staff is indicating that they see no problem in that. I have a couple other questions regarding the septic system and the comment that Mr. Monk made on his page 2 of his memorandum, I agree with that - "the integrity of lots in the rural district that include only 15 percent useable area....." r personally feel that our standards for per- colation tests are far too minimal and I hope some day we can do something about that. for this development it is already too late. As far as the secondary access road is concerned, I think I would be satisfied, in my own mind, if we had a 32 foot roadway, which is really another 8 feet more than recommended. If we were to get an easement on top of that all along there for the safe passage of fire, police and other vehicles to get in during emergency situations, I think I would be satisfied if that solves the secondary access issue at this time. I indicated at the last meeting that I would be satisfied that this development, and only this development as we see it tonight would exist with no secondary access and any future expansion of this development would absolutely require a secondary access. Peter Stalland: We would be happy to provide the bond and provide the hold harmless clause on everything that the City wants. I agree with everything you say and I guess that is our point. We feel confident that we can build this project so that we don't have any problems and we are willing to back that up because it is private and we intend to keep it private and I guess that is our whole perspective on this whole project. I have to stress that we can't give that if the Council decides to cut some of the lots out because I am not exaggerating when I mentioned before that is just going to kill the project. We would do that, everything you said. Council Meeting, March 17, 1986 -16- Councilman GevinQ: Don't forget now what I said was I still believe in com- bining Lots 8 and 9 into one. Peter 5talland: I understand that. I Councilman GevinQ: And I still believe that Mr. Monk is absolutely correct on Block 4, Lot 3, that that should be eliminated and so we are talking about two lots, at least that is what I am talking about. I don't know what the other Council members feel. But, that is where I am coming from. Peter Stalland: I understand. Councilman GevinQ: And then the other big issue, as far as I am concerned, is what we are going to do with TH 101 and this Bluff Creek Drive. This is a very important issue. It is very important because I am the one that would have to go back to our residents and assess them for a road that they are already satisfied with. There is no reason why that road has to be expanded other than for this development. You are causing this to happen and because of that I feel that you should be assessed for the costs of building that access. I don't know if you agree with me as a developer, Leonard, or as your attorney, but that is where I think we are coming from. Mayor Hamilton: I would like to ask Barb about the 25 percent grade. ment was made that in some cases that in the vicinity of the 910 line, des are less than 25 percent. Couldn't we be consistent if we want to at 25 percent, make it a 910 elevation or 20 percent, whichever occurs area? The com- the gra- keep it in that Barb Dacy: The intent of the recommendation of number one, there is a sentence in there that says the applicant should identify those sloped areas in excess of 25 percent and show us in a revised plat what areas could meet a buildable area under 25 percent and show that relationship to the 910 contour, so we were trying to set two parameters to maximize the distance from the slope as much as possible. 50 the answer to your question can only be achieved by looking at a revised plat showing those areas, if the Council does actually approve that 25 percent. I Mayor Hamilton: It just seems to me that that would be more consistent if we were going to go with 910 or 25 percent, whichever occurs on a particular lot. If the 25 percent is what we are concerned about, then we ought to allow 25 per- cent and that is not necessarily the intent. Bill Monk: The reason that I established the 910 was that 1) it is the easiest to enforce. On a site plan the elevations are set, the 910 elevation is there. It seemed to mark the edge of the steep slope area along the entire cul-de-sac. I did note, as Mr. Ernst also noted tonight, that in across Lots 8 and 9 the slope did flatten out there even with the 910. The reason I opted to leave the condition in was because even though the area flattens out, it is extremely narrow. What happens with Lots 8 and 9 at the end of the cul-de-sac, it doesn't happen anywhere else is that because of the cul-de-sac configuration and the lot configuration all your building takes place on the very narrow limited plateau. After looking at it, I believe still that the 910 basically does represent al building line that can be adhered to, but for the cul-de-sac is probably as restrictive or could take the place of the 25 percent. The real reason that the 25 percent came up was because of the slope of the lots on CR 14. There was no elevation that could be set there and we had to come up with some other cri- I I I Council Meeting, March 17, 1986 -17- teria. It is an either/or type of situation, both clauses are somewhat restric- tive, but it is really on Lots 8 and 9 the clause of the restricted width. You can see on the board up there how squeezed everything is on those two particular lots in terms of being close to one another not because the slope is bad, but that it is just so narrow. 8y pulling back the cul-de-sac and combining those two, I thought that that was in order on those two lots. Mayor Hamilton: If you shortened that cul-de-sac 150 feet or whatever, can those lot lines be redrawn so that you don't lose a lot? Bill Monk: You lose too much of your frontage on the existing properties and then they, in essence, would become flag lots and it could be done. You could shorten up the cul-de-sac and allow them to become more flag type lots with a very narrow frontage with a drive going down it depending on how you would decide on the 910 contour. It could be done. The cul-de-sac could slightly be shortened. Gene Ernst: Again, this lot, you can see the septic field that we have shown here, that septic field can be shoved up into this area. Granted, there are a lot of things going on in here. We did this because we were looking at three different house sites on this particular lot. Again, this septic field can be shoved up here. This particular one, because of the width, you couln't push it up there but if you constructed your septic field to where you increase lock depth, you could decrease the surface area by 20 percent. So that starts to open up a lot of the congestion that you see on this particular drawing. On this plan, the houses right now that you see, the closest point is 100 - 110 feet on these. Again, we show the setback lines here, those can be shifted which gives you some other options on this particular end of the cul-de-sac. Councilwoman Swenson: Bill, on Creekwood Drive, since it is the only ingress and egress, how much damage do you think the construction traffic will cause that road? Bill Monk: It is impossible to say. We basically just regraded the existing gravel surface that was there, not doing a tremendous amount of subsurface exploration and put three inches of blacktop, which is a very heavy section down a thousand feet, 20 feet in width. I expect the street to take quite a beating because the subsurface looked quite good, but what construction will do to the street remains to be seen. Councilwoman Swenson: I think I would have to add that to Councilman Geving's responsibilities then of the developer. That is a brand new road and I am sure these people would not be very happy if they wind up with some of the other roads we have around the City. As long as we don't have any alternative access, or if we do not, it seems to me that itis going to take quite a beating. If you have got cement trucks coming in with cement blocks on it and I have seen a few of those go past my house recently and they can really tear up a road in a hurry. So I would have to ask if that would be added to the Councilman's recom- mendations as to the developer's liability. Councilman Horn: What price range do you expect these lots to be in? Peter Stalland: A price range of probably $50,000 minimum for the lots along the Creekwood extension and around $40,000 to $60,000 range on the Pioneer Trail lots. Council Minutes, March 17, 1986 -18- Councilman Horn: you also include agreement? Also you responded to Dale's comments and agreed to them, did the improvement to the intersection of TH 101 in that Peter Stalland: No, Sir. We do not believe that it is our responsibility. We would be happy to be assessed for a proportion of the amount i~ it is done like any other assessment is done, but we ask that the City doesn't treat us dif- ferently. Councilman Horn: Were you aware that he wasn't in agreement to that portion? Councilman GevinQ: No. In fact that is exactly why I asked that question. My statement to you, Mr. Stalland, was that if this development goes through the only purpose for upgrading the road would be to approve of your whole develop- ment. We have got a road there now. We just put it in, and I can't see going back to the homeowners and asking them to build another road and assess them for your development. My feeling is that if the development goes in, the cost for reconstructing the entrance to TH 101 and this Creekwood Drive should be your responsibility. That is what I said. Peter Stalland: I guess our response is that I believe that in the earlier staff reports the safety chief said, with regard to the density, that there should not be that much increase in safety hazard, etc. There has been no traf- fic accidents, to my knowledge, at that corner and I believe that was brought up to date. So what we are doing now is adding 13 homes along that stretch. Councilman GevinQ: But we only have about 20 homes in the whole subdivision there now. Peter Stalland: I guess what I am saying is 13 homes in addition to what has been going to the golf isn't going to add that much. If I could also respond to the comment made about the damage to the roads. It is my understanding that when a road is built, it is built to City specs. I assume that road is built to City specs. I guess I would think that City specs would provide for construc- tion traffic and be able to have it kind of handle those capabilities. Bill Monk: As far, as the weight goes, yes, Creekwood was built to, as far as the depth conception, I believe it will take the construction traffic. I guess the one item that I would mention to the Council is that we will also be taking into account these new residents that might be created along Creekwood at time of assessment. If the development situation changes, that will be taken into account at time of assessment hearing, but it is a public street and the City, if approving this, will be hard pressed to sign off on maintence costs or anything like that. I have never seen any way that we can do it before, but I would just remind the Council of that item. I would like to go over a few more items. One item that got my attention was when Councilwoman Watson mentioned that she would like to see a provision about variances. There is reason that site provisions are not normally included in there because basically anybody has the right to come in for a variance at any point in time. All the Council could do regarding the variance issue now is, I would recommend that they not make that a condition of their approval, accept to state perhaps their preference as Council as a whole regarding the issuance of variances. This Council cannot bind a future council to a future decision. I think that is over stepping what we can realistically enforce. The issue about the private road is a good one. A por- tion of the road is proposed to be private. Again, the Council may state their I I I I I I Council Meeting, March 17, 1986 -19- intent, but with any private road, ten years down the road, anybody who lives along there could come in and petition the City to take it over for maintenance. That could also happen. As the City goes through its normal process, we will go through a development contract that will call for a guarantee on construction costs that will cover the roadway and the drainage. That will not cover house construction. That is the main reason City staff has put many conditions in here about the submittals being included in the building process, to make that just tight as possible because there are no guarantees. The letter of credit, at least as we have it right now, does not cover buildings. As far as the turn lane goes, I think the City Council is within its bounds to make a decision as far as the turn lane goes and can require off side improvements if they think they are required and basically caused by any incoming development. It is up to the City Council to decide whether this makes or breaks the TH 101 situation, whether it should be added or not. Councilman Horn: If we were to go along with Dale's proposal and say that they would require the turn lane on TH 101, I think we all threw out a number of somewhere in the neighborhood of $100,000. Using the numbers, again everybody takes the extreme that they like, if we use Bill's $300,000 figure we are looking at a total cost of the project of $200,000 because I don't feel those turn lanes would be necessary if there was a secondary access. If we spread that over the 17 lots that are in there it comes to around $12,000 per lot. The other thing that they would get with that secondary access is the option of creating some golf course lots to offset that. So I think there is an option there that exists that they probably haven't looked at, at this point, but would help offset that cost. So I think those are the kinds of numbers we should keep in perspective. The lots are $50,000, without any type of offset on the increasing lots would be something like a 25 percent increase per lot. Gene Ernst: A recommendation was made to widen the road from 24 feet to 32 feet. As you know, the present cross section according to City standards, is a 24 foot paved area, plus 4 feet on each side which gives you 32 feet. Are you saying you want the area paved 32 feet, plus 4 feet on each side so you have a 40 foot road going into that area, which takes a pretty big swap. I just wanted to make sure that we are talking about the right thing. The other point was in reference was to Lot 1, Block 3. That has been changed since the last meeting. We have increased that building area that was based on the previous plan, we made revisions, as I stated earlier in the drive so it pulls up further north. Bill Monk: My intent there is only that essence you would have a narrower gravel would not change in terms of full width. the paved section be widened base on either side, but the That is the recommendation. out, so in section Councilman GevinQ: So we would have a 32 foot paved surface. Bill Monk: Right. But you would still have the 36 foot surface from end to end. Councilwoman Swenson: So you would have two feet on either side instead of the six. Bill Monk: Right. Councilman Horn: That again was not taken into account and they said it would offset that with a secondary access because you wouldn't require that, right? Bill Monk: I would not, no. Council Meeting, March 17, 1986 Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the Bluff Creek Greens Subdivision Request #85-21 with the following conditions: 1. There shall be no building/grading activity on areas exceeding 25% in slope. Those areas shall be indentified along Pioneer Trail and the extension of Creekwood Drive and lot lines re- configured to conform to new buildable areas. The applicant shall submit a revised preliminary plat for Council final approval. lots along Pioneer Trail shall contain driveway turnaround areas. 2. At time of building permit application, each application shall contain a certified lot survey showing house location, two septic field locations and a well site meeting ordinance standards including setback and distance requirements. Perc- olation tests shall also be conducted for permit application beyond the tests already performed by Paul Waldron. Building plans shall be certified by a licensed civil engineer and architect for structural integrity. Certified grading plans shall also be submitted. 3. lots 8 and 9 of Block 2, shall be combined and the cul-de-sac shortened by as much as 150 feet. 4. Approval of the final grading and drainage plan by the City, Watershed District, DNR, and Soil Conservation Service, and adoption of any approval conditions of these regulatory agen- cies by reference. 5. Maintenance of the storm sewer system shall be specifically addressed in the covenants and restrictions as the system is proposed as private. 6. Submission of a detailed grading plan as a part of the construction documents denoting how to control erosion during construction. 7. All public and private streets within the plat shall be con- structed to comply with the City standards for rural street section. 8. Maintenance of all private streets be specifically included in the covenants and restrictions. 9. A utility easement be granted across all of Outlot A for future use. 10. No physical restrictions be placed across the entrance to the private street to control access. 11. For access and maintenance purposes, Outlot H be dedicated as right-of-way, Outlot G be incorporated as a part of the adjacent private property and Outlot F be left as a part of the golf course property. 12. Deed restrictions containing provisions for maintenance of storm sewer systems and the private street shall be submitted before final plat approval. -20- I I I I I I Council Meeting, March 17, 1986 13. If a secondary access is not required, the applicant shall widen the bituminous surface from 24 to 32 feet, grant an access easement over the southerly 200 feet of the golf course property and provide for a southbound right turn lane at the TH 101 - Creekwood Drive intersection. Motion died due to the lack of a second. -21- Councilman Geving moved to approve the Bluff Creek Subdivision Request #85-21 with the following conditions: 1. There shall be no bUilding/grading activity on areas exceeding 25% in slope. Those areas shall be indentified along Pioneer Trail and the extension of Creekwood Drive and lot lines re- configured to conform to new buildable areas. The applicant shall submit a revised preliminary plat for Council final approval. Lots along Pioneer Trail shall contain driveway turnaround areas. 2. At time of building permit application, each application shall contain a certified lot survey showing house location, two septic field locations and a well site meeting ordinance standards including setback and distance requirements. Perc- olation tests shall also be conducted for permit application beyond the tests already performed by Paul Waldron. Building plans shall be certified by a licensed civil engineer and architect for structural integrity. Certified grading plans shall also be submitted. 3. Lots 8 and 9 of Block 2, shall be combined and the cul-de-sac shortened by as much as .150 feet; ~~e-e+~M~fte~e-te~-~,-~+ee*-4T 4. Approval of the final grading and drainage plan by the City, Watershed District, DNR, and Soil Conservation Service, and adoption of any approval conditions of these regulatory agen- cies by reference. 5. Maintenance of the storm sewer system shall be specifically addressed in the covenants and restrictions as the system is proposed as private. 6. Submission of a detailed grading plan as a part of the construction documents denoting how to control erosion during construction. 7. All public and private streets within the plat shall be con- structed to comply with the City standards for rural street section. 8. Maintenance of all private streets be specifically included in the covenants and restrictions. 9. A utility easement be granted across all of Outlot A for future use. 10. No physical restrictions be placed across the entrance to the private street to control access. Council Meeting, March 17, 1986 -22- 11. For access and maintenance purposes, Outlot H be dedicated as right-of-way, Outlot G be incorporated as a part of the adjacent private property and Outlot F be left as a part of the golf course property. I 12. Deed restrictions containing provisions for maintenance of storm sewer systems and the private street shall be submitted before final plat approval. 14. Development contract to include "hold harmless clause" for any costs which would be incurred for future problems of erosion control along the creek and the private street. Councilman Horn: Are you including in there any damage to the road in that clause? Councilman GevinQ: I am talking about a hold harmless clause that will elimi- nate any future costs to the City of Chanhassen for potential erosion in the Bluff Creek area and the private drive, which is part of their own problems. You have got to remember Creekwood is a City street. If there is any damange there it is a City street and it will be just like any other construction pro- ject where it will be assessed back to the area. So, I don't understand your question. Councilman Horn: The point we wanted was we didn't want to have the people who were paying for the road now have to pay for any improvement because of this development. Councilman GevinQ: I believe that that should be covered in item 014. What I was talking about was the hold harmless clause as I am only concerned about the future of the Bluff Creek revene. Item 14 should include, as we have said here the external reconstruction of access to TH 101 a~d Creedwood Drive as well as any construction damange to Creekwood Drive itself during the construction phase of these units in the development. I Councilman Horn: That is specifically part of 14? Councilman GevinQ: Yes. Motion was seconded by Councilman Horn for discussion. Councilman Horn: We have had two recommendations that we had trouble getting a second for and apparently there is a third one out in the woods some place. I am curious as to what the other recommendations might be and what the objection will be to the motion. It appears that we would not get a unanimous decision on this. Councilman GevinQ: My motion excludes 013. Councilman Horn: Right. Mayor Hamilton: Why are you eliminating Lot 3, Block 4? Councilman GevinQ: Lot 3, Block 4 was recommended being eliminated by the City Engineer. Apparently that is one that he specifically identified as being very severe in his comments to us. I I I I Council Meeting, March 17, 1986 -23- Bill Monk: I did make a note of two lots where I was very worried about the slopes, but thought that through the use of the 910 contour or the 25 percent slope that Lot 3 could be moved around and made to function and was not recom- mending an out and out deletion of any of the lots. We may well find that Lot 3 cannot be built on because of the 25 percent restriction, I am not sure. Councilman GevinQ: I will remove that particular restriction from my motion on item number 3, the elimination of Lot 3, Block 4 has been removed. Councilman Horn: I have one other question, if we go ahead with this, will the building of Lot 2, Block 4 preclude any future road going through that area? I hate to cut that option off at some point. Bill Monk: Basically, if that house was constructed as shown it may well preclude that exact alignment. I think there still is the possibility that the City would have to find another corridor if that is the place they wanted to come through near there and acquire that piece of property and it would have to be something decided on in the future, but it would be very difficult. We have already got the two outlots to try and peg another location. Councilman Horn: I think it is important, at some point, that we keep in mind that this will be a temporary situation and at some point there is going to be another access in there. Bill Monk: That is the reason for the two outlots in the first place in terms of trying to pick the best locations for a road if there was no golf course. As the developer has stated, the three alignments as shown tonight might well not be the same three at the time that the golf course use is no longer being contemplated. Mayor Hamilton: Outlot 0 is by far the best lot if they were to develop the golf course. It is by far the best place to have a road going into it. Councilman Horn: I guess I never looked at that as an option that the golf course would go away. I looked at the option that there would be an expansion of the development with the golf course being there. Bill Monk: time and it corridor or cost. If that is the case I will have to take the roadway issue at that would be the developer's responsibility at that time to provide the the City would have to acquire it and put it back as a development Councilman Horn: I would certainly not favor anything that will eliminate that golf course at any time. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, and Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negatives votes. Motion carried. BILLS: Councilwoman Watson moved to approve the bills dated March 17, 1986, checks 6023452 through 6023573 in the amount of $583,939.32 and checks 602316 through 8026421 in the amount of $143,368.43 and a check to Dolliff Insurance in the amount of $4,145.00. Motion was seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. Council Meeting, March 17, 1986 -24- SUNNYSLOPE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, STEVE BURKE: ~ Variances ~ Recreational Beachlot Ordinance. ~ Conditional Use Permit Request for ~ Beachlot. I Barb Oacy: The applicant is requesting conditional use permit approval for a beachlot located along Lake Riley Boulevard for the use of the Su~nyslope Homeowner's Association. Their application is similar to what was processed in 1984. However, under the ordinance they would require granting of several variances. If the proposed beachlot would be proposed in accordance with the ordinance standards, as far as no overnight storage, etc. it does meet the mini- mum width requirement for a beachlot without a dock. They do require a variance on the beachlot ordinance because in order to have a dock you have to have 100 feet at the water line and they do not have that in this case. There is approximately 50 feet. Secondly, they are proposing a location of a storage building that also requires a variance that is specifically prohibited in the standards of the beachlot ordinance. They are requesting overnight storage for watercraft. Overnight storage is prohibited now by the existing ordinance. Canoe racks are also being proposed, however, those are allow~d by the existing standards. He is also proposing a sand blanket, which will require ONR review. They are requesting installation of a fence. Staff is recommending that if that is done that it be no higher than 6 feet. The Planning Commission Commission considered the conditional use permit request and recommended that the City Council consider denial of the conditional use permit for a beachlot. Councilman Horn: One concern I have is, in reading through this, I was disturbed to find out what our definition of person is. That certainly was never the intent when we generated that ordinance. The discussions were, when the ordinance was put together, that we didn't want to have a single family lot owner living there who could rent out dock space to anyone else who wasn't the owner or who may not be the primary owner. I was really disturbed to see that because it was never my intent, at least, to let an association buy a single family home for the purpose of generating dock space. I Councilman Gevinq: On the other hand, Clark, what would prevent you, if you had a home on the lake, you had a dock and I as a good friend came down and said, "I would like to know if you would be willing to let me have a slip at your dock and let me pay you for it each year," and you agreed to do that. What is the difference? Councilman Horn: What would preclude that was that there has to be registration put on all these watercraft and if the thing got out of hand................... Councilman Gevinq: Who would know about it? Councilman Horn: An adjacent homeowner would know about it. An adjacent homeowner could call the law enforcement agency, they could check the registra- tions and say these boats are not registered here. The whole purpose of these things are to prevent problems with adjacent neighbors. Any ordinance that I have worked on gives an adjacent property owner the means to have a problem resolved and that is what this ordinance could do. Councilman Gevinq: I can see where you are coming from, but it would seem very difficult to police. I Councilman Horn: They are policed by the citizens, they are not policed by the agency. I I I Council Meeting, March 17, 1986 -25- Steve Burke: Barb Dacy gave me a call today and she said that the staff recom- mendation was that the office was going to strongly recommend that the acts will be tabled on this item, since the City attorney is not present at this meeting. What I would like to know is if that is going to be the action, rather than spend a long time discussing it, to go ahead and table it. Otherwise, I am ready to talk about it and we have a number of people here. Barbara did call me today indicating that this item would be tabled. If that is the Council's intention, we are prepared to go along with that as long as it comes before us before the voting takes place. If you want to have it tabled we are not opposed to have it tabled as long as it is brought forward in the second meeting of April. I would want this item to be resolved before May I, so that we know where we stand before the boating season. Mayor Hamilton moved to table the above items to the City Council agenda of April 21, 1986. Motion was seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. CONDITIONAL USE POWER COMPANY: Mayor Hamilton: we would like to PERMIT REQUEST FOR OVERHEAD TRANSMISSION LINES, NORTHERN STATES There have been public hearings on this item and I think what do is have NSP representatives present their case to us. Barbara Dacy: I would like to reiterate our recommendation in the staff report that they have submitted additional information beyond what was considered by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission was real specific in wanting the Council's direction on the transmission line alignment and we would recommend that you refer the matter back to the Planning Commission for their review. Don Chmiel: First of all, what we did look at was three specific different routes. One adjacent to Highway 5 and the second would be paralleling the pro- posed new Highway 212 and the third route was to stay directly on property lines coming across from the Westgate Substation to Bluff Creek. What we have here, from Westgate Sub we are proposing in bringing a 115 in a single circuit adja- cent to the railroad and as we show on this specific drawing on the property line, paralleling the property line right through Eden prairie and Chanhassen down to Highway 101, down 101 onto County Road 18 and eventually on County Road 17 and up to the Bluff Creek Substation. That segment of line coming out of Eden prairie we are proposing in using a typical structure of a single wood pole. It is an aesthetic kind of structure more so than ones we have had in the past. From Bluff Creek down to Scott County we have an existing 69 kv line that parallels through the City of Chanhassen as well as Chaska and into Shakopee. With that specific line we are proposing to use a double circuit line with the same design as we have with the 115. There is specific need for capacity within the City of Chanhassen, number one. Number two, in conjunction with that there is also some capacity needs upon the City of Chaska. The Planning Commission brought up several points that were discussed and some questions that could not be answered and some of the things that we would like to do and stress and point out as to the absolute need for the capacities within the City and for the City to grow and expand as it's doing now. With this I have Jerry Larson from our Planning Department who would like at this specific time to go through and show and show basically the transmission needs as to how we develop everything within this particular area. This is just not a problem area for Chanhassen. Jerry Larson: What I would like to do is go through the need for this whole project and get everybody understanding it and why we are building it and what it is proposing to do for the area. One thing I want to emphasize is I think there City Council Meeting, March 17, 1986 -26- have been a lot of questions that have come up that we are building for specific cities, Chaska specifically, I want to emphasize that this is an area wide need that we are talking about. It is expecting electric supply to not only Chaska, it's needed for Excelsior, Deephaven, Chanhassen, Eden Prairie, this entire area as far as development and what I would like to do is go through showing you how, first of all, the area presently supplied and the problems that we perceive coming in the future that are really causing the need for this project. First of all, electricity starts from power plants that are located in communities primarily throughout the Minneapolis-St. Paul area. One of the locations is Eden Prairie, a new substation that we are constructing there. Another major input is down south of Chaska, a substation we call Scott County. About 25% of the power comes in Scott County and it's delivered from the south along a 69,000 volt line that comes up through Chaska on up into Excelsior but 75% of the power comes in from Eden Prairie. As planners~ some of the things that we have to worry about since power lines are physical devices out there, they do fail from time to time for a variety of reasons, storms, people running into them with vehicles, a number of different things that we have to be concerned about, now, with that in mind the first concern that we have in this particular area since we do have two sources of power into the area and only two, what happens if we were to lose one section. If we take a look at losing the major source of power from Eden Prairie what we end up with is overloading the transmission line that's providing the alternate source to this area. The first major concern is loss of the line from Eden Prairie into our Westgate Substation. Since I said 75% of the power we deliver from this end, 100% of the power now has to be supplied from the south. What happens is that by 1988 with the electrical demand in this area, we end up overloading the line from the south and when I say this is loaded to 180% what that means is the line is loaded nearly to twice of what its capability would be. What would happen in these circumstances, we would be forced to interrupt service during high demand periods up to 1/2 of the customers in this area to prevent damaging the equipment that's supplying this area. There would probably be some automatic disruption of service just like a breaker in your house when a fuse blows. In this particular instance if we were to lose, someone were to run into a tower, we could be out for a substantial length of time, a day, two days, depending upon how severe the situation was. We have no alternative means of providing the back-up to this area. Second situation is loss of the other end from the south, in this particular situation everything has to be supplied from this end. This .particular overload is not quite as severe. The line is loaded in this case here up to approximately what its maximum capability is, however, this doesn't leave any room for unexpected new industries that were to come in. A variety of things can happen. This is one set of circumstances that I am describing here but there are a variety of things that could cause us to get into more severe overloads in this particular situation. What we are proposing to do is originally when we developed this project, as a transmission planner, what we were looking at was we need to pro- vide a connection between the Westgate Substation and Scott County Substation and this was to prevent overloads on this particular line. In addition, during the same time period we were working with the City of Chaska, they had some par- ticular needs to supply some local supply needs within the City of Chaska. In addition NSP had needs for additional work to supply the local Excelsior area also out of the Westgate Substation, to work together to try to come up with a plan that would be the least cost to everyone, to minimize the overall impact to everyone and what we then did is we said we had to go between Westgate and Scott County, we worked to develop a project where we would develop a new power input, a new substation, at the site called Bluff Creek. What we have attempted to do is we said, let's try and minimize the overall impact there is this existing line so I I I I I I Council Meeting March 17, 1986 -27- what we have proposed to do is take the existing line out from Scott County up to the proposed Bluff Creek Substation, tear the existing one out and put in a double circuit so we would use the same right-of-way that is existing. We have to look a little bit at two other concerns, why couldn't we just build from the south and wait for the Highway 212 corridor to develop. Our problem is if we just build from Scott County to the north up to the proposed Bluff Creek Substa- tion we still would be back in the same situation that we are today since we are trying to minimize the impact on the environment by putting both circuits on one set of structures along here if a car ran into one set of structures we would be right back where we are today so what we proposed to do was to build, continue on over to the Westgate Substation. There is another problem during construc- tion, we are looking at how do you maintain supply while you are building these facilities. What you have to look at is, this section is going to be out for three to four months while it is being rebuilt, what this would do is it would leave a good share of Eden Prairie, Excelsior, Chaska, Chanhassen on this one single line for three to four months. If a storm came through or a car hit a pole, the lights would go out, there would be no alternatives so to minimize the risk what we are proposing to do was to build the section from Westgate over to Bluff Creek first. That would allow us to have a two way supply into the Chanhassen area, then we could proceed to take this out. It would minimize the risk of having electric outages while we are doing the construction. Dave Anderson: Thank you for letting us appear before you tonight. Watching that presentation on Bluff Creek Greens brought back a lot of pleasant memories for me. Golfing with my father on that course, getting a hole in one on the 11th hole but it also pointed out one reason why we are here tonight and that even though these are ten or 12 or 13 Minnesota Valley customers, NSP is also experiencing growth in the area here. I am a Division Engineer for NSP's Min- netonka Division and basically my job is to watch out for NSP's customers in the division and make sure they get the best possible service at the best possible price. Tonight, in the case of Chanhassen, what we are concerned about is our ability to continue to meet the energy needs of businesses and residents moving into your community as well as your ever expanding energy needs of the present constituants in the community. You don't have to look very far to see signs of healthy economic growth in this area. As you go down Highway 5 from 494 all the way to Chanhassen's new industrial park you will see businesses lining the high- way all the way; CPT, McGlynn, The Press, Eaton, United Mailing, Instant Web, and many others to numerous to mention. In a newsletter of 1984 it was reported that there was a Pen Industrial Center complex where they had submitted an environmental assessment worksheet to the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board for a 495,000 square foot group of buildings for offices and warehouse facili- ties, now, this was never built but I took a guy down there today and I still see 40 acres of industrial for sale down in there near Lake Susan. About a month ago our customer service representative stopped in and he said The Press was going to be putting on some additions over on their facilities. In 1987 they were increasing their present facility by 100,000 square feet and in 1988 they were going to be building a 250,000 square foot. building which would approximately double their energy needs by 1988. Also, just this morning our customer service representative stopped in again and he said, you know, of course, that Victory Envelope is building a building right across the street from United Mailing in that industrial park. I forget how many thousand square feet, I think it was about 130,000 or 140,000 square feet but their load is estimated to be about 2,500 kva. If you think about a residence being from I! for a small residence to maybe 2i for a large one, an average house might draw about 2 kva so this 2,500 kva load is looking like about 1,250 houses for us and this was all in one chunk. Also, right next door to that facility is the Opus b~ilding which is 300 kva of load or approximately 150 houses and then there ~s also a company, Lane Envelope, that's looking at some property in the Council Meeting March 17, 1986 -28- area. They are looking at approximately 1,500 to 2,000 kva demand there so we have an area of fairly strong commercial/industrial growth here that we have got to really keep a close eye on. Also, on our residential growth, it seems to be growing just about as fast as they can build new houses. Last year we hooked up over 2,000 services which was a 23% increase over 1984 which was also a busy year where we hooked up 1,740 residences. The houses are coming in and growth, for the most part, is good. Along with this growth comes responsibilities for increased police and fire protection, water and sewer facilities, telephone, gas, and electricity. Today we have before us we have an opportunity to greatly improve and enhance the present distribution system in the Chanhassen area. These improvements would increase capacity to serve the present energy require- ments as well as any future businesses that come into the area. Another thing it would gain is we could reduce the length of our feeders which would then reduce the exposure to outages from cable dig ins or cable failures or trees brushing up against the wires, lightning strokes, that type of thing and also it would allow us to have better control of the voltages on the feeders. It would also give us a better back up supply in case we did lose a main feeder circuit into the area or a substation transformer. It would give us different ways to break down load to keep everybody in service. Along with shorter feeders we also gain some advantages of reduced line losses which help to conserve energy and also when we hook up these large industrial motors, some of these motors can be 200 or 300 horsepower and they cause a voltage fluctuation on the transmission line and the distribution line that could be seen by the neighbors and the shorter you keep your feeders the less voltage dip you will have on the system caused by these motors and as a result the less irritation to customers. Along with these improvements on the distribution we would also gain this transmission link that Jerry was talking about that's really going to help us out as far as reliability and stability for both Westgate Substation and Cott County Substation. This is a map that shows our present distribution system in the area and also marks nine existing substations that serve the load to the area. Starting at the northeast corner we have Parkers Lake Substation which is on 494 and Highway 5 right under the 345,000 volt line. Basically, that serves the load east of 494 and north of County Road 6 up past Highway 55. Then we have our Gleason Lake Substation which serves on the north side of Lake Min- netonka and also it has a couple of feeders down into the Minnetonka area by Cargill. We have our Glen Lake Substation which is basically in the Minnetonka area and then Eden Prairie Substation which Council members are familiar with there. About a mile west of that is Westgate Substation. They we have our Deephaven Substation, Excelsior Substation, Mound Substation, and then as you go across here the next substation out would be the Waconia. This is our proposed location for Bluff Creek Substation. The different colored areas on the map are designating different feeder circuits and where they come from and you will see that some of the feeders are rather areas like Mound61 which covers the St. Bonifacius and Mound areas. It also comes down to Highway 5 and Rolling Acres Road. As opposed to a Westgate62 which serves Eaton and McGlynn's, those com- panies with rather large concentrated loads. As a rule these larger feeders are more rural in characteristics. They have smaller loads that are spread out over larger areas and then the smaller ones tend to be larger loads more concentrated together. As an area changes from one of more rural characteristics to one of business parks and industrial parks it may take two or three feeders to serve an area that was served by one feeder before and our current load forecast indica- tes that Chanhassen will need another feeder around 1987 to continue to provide reliable service to the area. When we started looking at this we looked at five different alternatives to supply that feeder. The first one we looked at was coming to Excelsior Substation and increasing our transformer size there either by changing out the present transformer to a larger one or possibly adding a second transformer and associated equipment so that we could bring another feeder down into the Chanhassen area from Excelsior Substation. Now, that's a fairly simple thing to do as far as distribution is concerned but it put I I I I I I Council Meeting March 17, 1986 -29- too much strain on the transmission system that Jerry is concerned about so we had to look for another alternative. Our second choice was to come up at Deephaven, now Deephaven6l actually comes all the way around the lake down through Excelsior and into Chanhassen so this industrial psrk is presently served by a substation that's about six or seven miles away from the load area. As far as Deephaven was concerned we have bank capacity there. It would mean adding a feeder bay and bringing a long feeder down. We could do that. We would run into the problems we talked about before with long feeders, of increased exposure, of outages, increased line loses, a little harder to control the voltage and these large industrial motors cause more fluctuation on the system and irritation to the neighbors and also taking the feeder would put more of the same strain on the transmission as it would in Excelsior. Our third alternative that we looked at was coming from Westgate. We have been con- sidering for a long time bringing a line along Highway 5 into the Chanhassen area and stopping somewhere around 101 and coming out with three or four feeder circuits that would serve our needs in the Chanhassen area but the problem is that over the next few years we are going to have a major rebuild on Highway 5 in 1986, 1987, and 1988 and we couldn't find out exactly where we could put that line and be assured that we wouldn't have to move it a year or two from the time we would build it. Then what we thought we might do is, okay, we would still keep this line in the back of our mind but we would go out here to the transmission line from Excelsior where it comes down Highway 41 to Highway 5 and possibly drop in a temporary substation north of Highway 5 either on the east side of County Road 117 or the west side or maybe on the south side of Highway 5 east of 117 which would be strictly a temporary installation with maybe a feeder or two and we would serve the increased load with that temporary station until such a time as we could build that line and remove the temporary and that's still a viable option for us to do. But about that time we found out that the City of Chaska was also looking for a second point of service into their com- munity which lead us to our fifth alternative which was to jointly build a substation that would meet both the needs of NSP, Chanhassen, and Eden Prairie areas as well as meeting the needs that the City of Chaska had. Bluff Creek is really the best choice as far as we are concerned because the substation would be centrally located to the growth area and as such we could keep our feeders shorter with the benefits mentioned before. It also would provide us increased transformer capacity in the area where we could have more back up supplies in case we lost a feeder or we lost a substation transformer and it also had a major benefit of getting this transmission line from Westgate down to Scott County which would really help improve the reliability of both Westgate Substa- tion and Scott County Substation. I guess that's pretty much what I wanted to present. Mayor Hamilton: I think I would like to have the Council ask questions. The Council has had the benefit of reading the minutes from the Planning Commission and I think we know what the concerns are of the citizens here. Councilman Horn: I think the first comment is that this whole thing kind of snuck up on me and I really didn't realize what was going on but my general recommendation is I understand this whole thing is a very complex thing and we are not going to understand totally. It appears to me that the best place to put this is along an existing right-of-way that's going to be developed anyway so I would favor the right-of-way along the 212 corridor. I think we don't have to wait until the official mapping process takes place but we can decide where that's going to go in the City of Chanhassen. Councilman GevinQ: This, too, came as a surprise to me. The first time I saw it was in my packet Friday evening. I am not very pleased with what I have heard and what I have my opinion, seen as far as the Planning Commission comments Th . for this transmission line to go across some of .the :::t l:r:~u~~:~:' in Council Meeting March 17, 1986 -30- land that we have in the south part of Chanhassen and we have no idea how that's going to develop over the next five, ten or fifteen years. We are already split by Highway 5. We are going to be split again by 212. I don't know where that's going to be sited and I sure as heck don't want another separation of our com- munity and that would put a transmission line right through a proposed residen- tial unit. We are planning on several thousand home sites in these areas. I guess the problem surfaced with Chaska. Chaska had a problem and you tried to addressed that problem and in trying to solve that problem you thought back in your minds, oh, this might be a good way to solve the future Chanhassen problems. I don't believe Chanhassen has a problem at this time. There should be a better way to site these kinds of things. I am not in favor of bringing a terminal into Chanhassen. I would not vote for it. I am not in favor of bringing transmission lines across the southern part of our community that is developing. It should follow existing railroad right-of-way or the existing Highway 5 right-of-way or the proposed 212 right-of-way but don't bring it across property lines and peoples homes that are there now and destroy produc- tive potential development in the City of Chanhassen. I am just not in favor of this project and I wish you would take it to Chaska. Councilwoman Watson: I don't want it running through the southern part of the City either. We haven't had the opportunity yet to really get a handle on what's going to happen down there and I think we should have an opportunity to plan our City before it's planned by a power transmission line through the middle of it. I guess the only way I can see it is it would run down Highway 5 and have it take the railroad right-of-way over and then cut off to where that proposed Bluff Creek Substation will be if it has to be there. Highway 212 isn't there yet and I don't know when 212 is going to be there and, yes, there is all this business of going to decide where the right-of-way is going to be and we are going to do all these things. I still would like to see 212 before I plan on 212. If it is going to be put anywhere it has to be put along something that exists now. I think we should stick to existing right of ways if we have to do this. Jerry Larson: I was going to comment with regards to Chaska. The original plan that was in the works was that Chaska was going to put together a development of their own. NSP was still going to put a development together to supply the Chanhassen area, the Excelsior area, and by arriving at the joint project that we did, satisfies both parties at a far less cost than would have otherwise. If you go to more expensive projects, it increases the price of energy. I guess I was looking at developments of areas. One thing developers look at is a reason- ably priced energy supply. I just want to clarify that it is not just Chaska, it is an area wide need that is causing the need for this project. Mayor Hamilton: Can you tell me when you would estimate that Chanhassen is going to run out of power or when we are going to be at a maximum. We are maybe looking at not allowing some large company to come in because we won't have the capacity to give to them. Jerry Larson: By 1988 summer we are projecting that we will be in situations where we could be getting into risk situations and that if we lost one of the two ends of the supply that I described into the area, that there would have to be some power supply interruptions that were to occur. As you go out in time, you are going to be getting into the situation more and more of the time. At some point we will be getting into situations where someone would have to make a decision on limiting subrural, if that were the case. It is probably up to the Cities. If the Cities recognize the risks that we have laid out for them, it would be up to them. However, we would attempt to provide service at a reaso- nable cost and that is what we are attempting. I I I I I I Council Meeting, March 17, 1986 -31- Mayor Hamilton: Part of what you are trying to solve was the concerns that you had for the Chaska area, however, what happens if we don't agree and we feel we don't need this right now, how does your Chaska problem proceed. I am sure that is not our concern, but it certainly is a concern of yours. Jerry Larson: Alternatively, if we were refused, we would have to go back and evaluate other alternatives that would be far more expensive. I guess if the com- pany did decide that that's what we would do, it would all be relfected in all of our rates as a higher cost of energy. It is our feeling that we are attempting to provide reliable service at a reasonable cost. This is our feeling of the best way of doing that. Dave Anderson: As far as Chaska is concerned, they have another alternative where they could then build up their own transmission line, construct their own substa-tion and they felt they could do that for somewhere in the neigborhood of 1.3 million dollars. So going into the joint project, that became their contri- bution for our total effort of about 7 or 8 million dollars or whatever it turned out to be. If this doesn't go through, then they would fall back on their second choice of building a transmission line and their own substation and we would have to look at some other way to supply the energy needs in the area. But as Jerry was saying, it also impacts some other jobs on our system that would then have to be constructed to replace this. This alternative meets everybody's requirements for the least amount of dollars. We thought this would be the best approach to take to meet our needs in the Chanhassen area. As far as a division is concerned, we are basically limited by the rest of the transmission capacity that is available to hook up feeder circuits to. We can keep putting in transformers and feeder circuits at existing substations, but would run out of transmission line capacity in about 1988 and we are faced with either reconducting with larger wires or maybe converting the system from 69,000 volts to 115,000 volts where we have to go in and obtain increased right of way and it would be difficult, if not impossible, through some of those areas. Just considering everything, we thought this was a way to meet our needs and Chanhassen, Eden Prairie, and also to help Chaska's needs and we can do by sort of pooling our money in the same pot and as result, keeping our rates as low as possible. That is really what we are trying to do is to keep the rates down so we can remain competitive. But as you accept these businesses in we have got to realize that we have got to somehow get the electricty to them. It comes in big pieces in your industrial park, when you hook up a Victory Envelope or a Lane Envelope, or United Mailing. If it was a residential area it could maybe pick up to 1,200 to 2,000 houses for the same amount of energy. Mayor Hamilton: It seems that we can accomplish the needs of the area at least until 1988 by coming from Deephaven or increasing the capacity from Deephaven with a temporary substation in Chanhassen, which would seem to me by 1988 we would pro- bably have a better idea as to where 212 is going to go and if not we would pro- bably have a better idea of what alignment is going to take place with Highway 5, which maybe a better alternative to bring in a line along Highway 5 also. I think those two things are major factors on all of our minds. If we want to get power out here those are two right-of-ways that exist and that we would prefer used rather than certainly not going across property lines, which was your first pro- posal to the Planning Commission. Don Chmiel: We came to the City, we proposed coming down Highway 5, but because of some of the other problems that existed with the proposed Highway 5 expansion, the City felt that it would not be the best alternative at that particular time. We then chose the 212 border, but because of the consistency and timing for the need of the transmission line and the capacity here as opposed to the service date on Council Meeting, March 17, 1986 -32- the new proposed 212. That was some of the real problems that we faced, as well. We do have a specific need for the capacity here and it is not just the City of Chaska, but I think Chanhassen is number 1 because of the capacity needs here. We just can't supply that with the existing 69 kv line. The 115 is the basic need to do all of this. I Councilwoman Swenson: I have several problems that are really giving me a bad time. First of all I hear all this talk about all the industrial need and the tremendous capacity that is going to be needed for the industrial area vis-a-vis the residential area. I look at your proposed area, they are proposing going through right at the present time about the only allowable, developable land that Chanhassen has for residents. I agree with Councilwoman Watson, I think the alignment across Highway 5 and through the Industrial Park and then over, if you must, to Bluff Creek to better serve the Jonathon area from there is a viable option. I would like to know, Mr. Chmiel, you said that the City said that that was not a good line. I am not aware that the rest of the Council was involved in that direction and I would like to know from whence it came. Don Ashworth: That came from meetings between the Mayor and myself and Mr. Chmiel. At that time the recommendation as you have it in front of the Council was considered. The disruption to Highway 5, the unknowing as to literally where they could locate that line and the desire to see it located adjacent to Highway 212. Councilwoman Swenson: Beside the fact that we don't know where 212 is going to go. We do know where Highway 5 is. Councilman Horn: Today. I Councilwoman Swenson: It's there. Secondly, the proposed plan runs through an area that does not even get served by NSP. You are talking about going through an area that is not even asking for this service and probably won't be allowed to ask for most of it for another 20 years. I personally feel that since this is very desirable, developable land, we don't know where 212 is going to go, I think that to put up an additional blight, and 212 is going to be bad enough, is irresponsible planning for the future. I think it is unconscionable for the present. The area south of the business park should be a long range planned growth area. I think we tend to think only of the MUSA line and I think this is a mistake because I think we have to look below. By allowing these high energy lines to be placed through an area that is actually included in the MUSA line actually dictates what it will be, nothing. We won't have any development down there. I don't know of one single solitary sole who would buy a piece of land to build a house on it or an apartment on it adjacent to a power line that you are talking about. If we approve or change the amendment to our Rl-a zoning to allow this transmission line will be more effective on inhibiting the growth in our area than even what will be a very delighted Metropolitan Counciling Planning staff could possibly achieve in the same length of time. They have got us restricted now to the year 2000, so the growth there is right where it is going to be and you people are proposing to completely deny us that growth, and I am vehemently opposed to it in this community. I would possibly entertain this line going through the area that is already established and where it will be needed most. But I am vehemently opposed to the proposed outline. Al Klinqelhutz: I am not before you tonight as a County Commissioner, I am I before you tonight as one of us, my neighbors, and for good planning for the City of Chanhassen. Back in 1930, my dad and my neighbors went together to see Northern States Power Company to extend the line down TH 101 so that these far- I I I Council Meeting, March 17, 1986 -33- mers down there could benefit from the service. Northern States Power Company at that time said it would be too costly, the farmers were too far apart, they couldn't make a dollar on it. So we waited until 1939 and Minneasota Valley Electric Company decided on, "Hey, we can serve those farmers. It is a coopera- tive, the farmers will help pay for the line." So we got our electricity in 1939. We didn't get the help from Northern States Power at that time, but now an area that is served by another company, by a company owned by its own users is going to be crossed by high voltage electric lines. far be it for me to say that Chanhassen, Chaska, Shakopee, or Excelsior don't need any additional electricity. I have been in government too long to say that. I know that electricity is needed~ But it kind of behooves me to see a line proposed at the public hearing before the Planning Commission across all residential land as in the Chanhassen guideline. Mr. Chmiel said it will follow property lines. It follows section lines, but it didn't follow property lines. This is a great concern of mine and you may have noted in the Planning Commission minutes that I would go to the highest court in the land before it traverses that property and I still feel that way. It actually bisects almost a half a mile of my own pro- perty. It doesn't follow the property lines in the north or the south, it goes right down the middle of it, but it is on a section line. Some of the neighbors got together and wrote up a little petition saying why we are objecting to the power line going in that area. It was distributed to a few of the neighborhoods within a half a mile on either side of this line. Today it came back with 132 signatures on it, all dramatically opposed to the line that is proposed. Let me read you just a portion of it. It says, We the residents of southern Chanhassen strongly object to the proposed route of the new 115 kilowatt line of Northern States Power Company across and through land in the Metro Urban Service area, proposed to be zoned single family residence. This to us is against what we thought was good planning by the City of Chanhassen. The electric line corridor at this location and the already proposed Highway 212 corridor would virtually destroy the value of the land as far as residential property is concerned. Would it not be much better, if the electric line is so needed, to place it on an already established corridor, such as a railroad right-of-way, that would not have the impact of destroying valuable residential land. We have two such corridors available in Chanhassen: 1. One of which travels right through industrial and commercial zoned land and which would not have the impact of depreciating land values. It would affect the properties where the need is the greatest. 3. It would not create another blighted area in the City of Chanhassen. 4. Some people have said it would affect the image of our downtown if it was put there. Does it not affect the image of Chanhassen as much or more where it is proposed? 5. The proposed corridor 212 corridor. If and adjacent to this high because you or us and our homes. 6. Has anyone investigated or considered the possible health hazards of an electric line with the high voltage that is being transmitted? Will Northern States Power Company put up signs saying, "Stay away from this area, it may be hazardous to your health'? Some scientists and environment- alists would certainly say this should be done. 7. With a project of this magnitude that affects the health and safety of so many citizens of Chanhassen, would not an environmental impact study be warranted? 8. Northern States Power Company said they need the extra capacity to serve the area. We question what area they are talking about. Approximately 90% of 2. is located within 500 to 600 feet of the proposed Highway when Highway 212 is ever built, the area between and voltage line would definitely not be residential virtually everyone else would look elsewhere to build Council Meeting, March 17, 1986 -34- the area they are proposing to cross with the line in Chanhassen is not served by Northern States Power Company, but is being served by Minnesota Valley Electric Company. 9. Somehow the feeling in southern Chanhassen is that because we are still fairly rural, as the old saying goes, "we are living on the wrong side of the track." That this is the area where things such as freeways, landfills and electric corridors should go. We, the residents of southern Chanhassen feel our area is as beautiful as the rest of Chanhassen and that in the near future it could develop into something that all of Chanhassen could be proud of. 10. Highway 212 has been talked about for years. Will it ever materialize? Some say the NSP corridor should follow the Highway 212 alignment. But is Highway 212 definite? Should we allow a high voltage line to be put there when we are not even sure Highway 212 will be constructed? We don't think so. Let's use a corridor that is already established, the railroad right- of-way, where it would have the least affect on the health, safety and well-being of all Chanhassen citizens. If Chaska is so interested in it, why didn't they purchase some land in their own City? I Jerry Larson: The project that was developed was a compromise between Chaska and NSP to locate a joint development in an area that would be easily accessible to both communities. As a part of the agreement, Chaska agreed to invest so many dollars in the project. It was agreed that Chaska purchase the land and they would own facilities within the local distribution substation. That would take I care of their share. The remainder then was NSP's share of the whole project which makes an easier division of ownerships. NSP would own and maintain the . entire transmission line and Chaska would own and maintain a good share of the facilities within the substation. Who chose Chanhassen? Jerry Larson: It was jointly chosen as a central location to serve all the surrounding communities. Mayor Hamilton: I think the Council's action tonight is to send this back to the Planning Commission with some specific recommendations so that they can review it and make their specific recommendations back to the Council. It is already scheduled for their agenda on April 9th and from what I am hearing from our recommendations, we would like to see it follow an existing alignment whether it's Highway 5, the railroad tracks, proposed 212, but all those things need to be investigated plus some of the alternatives you showed us this evening espe- cially the one that's going from Deephaven with a temporary substation in Chanhassen until such time as everything else gets connected, but I think they need to look at that, it would seem to me to be an alternative that should have a great deal of consideration. I am certainly not in favor it of going across section lines, property lines or any other type of line other than an alignment, a road, or a railroad track, which I just mentioned, that is .already in place. Councilman Horn: I certainly agree. We don't want to cut two paths through I anything. My feeling on Highway 212 is that if we don't get Highway 212 we aren't going to have to worry much about getting more power out here because we are going to dry up anyway for any more development. I really like the idea of tying it to 212 and if that means we have to delay setting up where it's going for some time until we do that, I don't see a problem with that. I don't see I I I Council Meeting, March 17, 1986 -35- that I really understand the pressure to get this going so quickly. It would seem to me that if this thing has really been planned this long we should have known about it before now and we should have had time to work it into our planning process and I think we should just take the time to work it into our planning process. Councilwoman Swenson: My recommendation would be to deny the Zoning Ordinance amendment to allow this in the City at all unless some agreement can be derived whereby it will follow the existing Highway 5 and cut across the railroad track through the commercial area, industrial area that is apparently going to be in need of it. Those are the two recommendations that I would make. Councilman GevinQ: I am in favor of denying the Zoning Ordinance amendment and a conditional use permit for a transmission line in the City of Chanhassen. I believe that we should stay within the current and existing right-of-way men- tioned by the homeowners. My first choice would be the railroad alignment and right-of-way and my second choice would be Highway 5 and my third choice would be Highway 212. I don't think we should be pressured or intimidated as a Coun- cil into acting quickly on this measure because until Friday I had never heard about this and now all of a sudden we are talking about some planning or scheme to develop something by March or early next summer in 1987 and we are still trying to work our way through a five-year comprehensive plan for the City. There is no long range plan in here. Some of the thoughts that I have, I don't want it at all in Chanhassen unless it can be done along existing corridors. I think I have been following NSP for over a year charting their growth and I buy stocks and they do quite well and it seems to me that if there is a need, NSP is there to supply that need and I am not too concerned whether or not there is going to be a community here with buildings that are not going to get service. They are going to get service because they are willing to pay the price and NSP is going to deliver. I know that. That's their way of operating so I am not concerned about any threat or intimidation that we are not going to be able to build in Chanhassen for lack of service so let's get that out of the way right away. Councilwoman Watson: I just want it to follow an existing corridor, Highway 5 or the railroad tracks or as Clark says, let's stand back and let's plan our City and then see if it fits and maybe it never will. Chaska purchased the land in Chanhassen to help supply their needs and I think that if Chaska has an imme- diate problem they should solve their own problems. Jerry Larson: The reason that we are here is to work with communities as far as routing. NSP will do whatever it can to service the area. We will work with the community to provide that service and route that transmission line. We do have one request, it was mentioned of a temporary development to try to maintain the area and our plan was to develop the site for the substation to provide that temporary service, we have a serious concern, a risk of private area, we have a concern for this and what we would like to do possibly is to have some guidance on separating the substation from the transmission routing process because we will work with the community to get it where people would like it to be placed and we feel it is going to take some time and, I guess, we still have this other concern. We, as operators of the electric system, feel that there is some risk to the electric supply to this area so we would like to have that option, if possible, to sepa~ate the substation itself so we can do some temporary things while the routing process goes along. Mayor Hamilton: How can we tell you about a temporary service when we don't know anything about your service. That's the only one that was presented to us that has a temporary basis. Council Meeting, March 17, 1986 -36- Jerry Larson: There is an existing 69,000 volt line that goes from Westgate up to Excelsior and back down. As a temporary measure to take care of the local distribution needs, what we would like as an option is to be able to continue to supply from that 69,000 volt line while we go through the routing process with a 115,000 volt line. Because the 115,000 volt line is not going to be in operation we feel there is a risk involved in that that the City should know about. However, we can minimize part of the local area risk by doing some temporary things at the Bluff Creek Substation site using the existing transmission line. Councilwoman Swenson: I don't know that anybody has decided that that's the proper place for it yet. This immediately requires an amendment to our Zoning Ordinance which I am not prepared to grant because once we make the amendment then we are stuck with it and I am not going to make that commitment tonight or even when it comes back unless I know what they are going to do. Dave Anderson: We have to ask the Council as far as how we should proceed. We can give you our professional opinion as to the risk involved in the electric service and I guess Councilman Geving mentioned threats and we are not threatening anyone. All we are is professional operators of an electrical system and we will show you what the risks are involved in delays. Mayor Hamilton: I would like to see you present that to the Planning Commission and show them the alternatives and they can make a recommendation back to us. Councilman Horn: I think you also need to present some of the potential dangers of this type of thing. If there is a health hazard involved we need to know about it because if there is you probably won't get it through here anywhere. Dave Anderson: I think there is a misconception about this as it's just a Chaska project. When we first started looking at it from NSP it was a Chanhassen project to get capacity to your industrial park. Those five alter- natives that I mentioned were five alternatives to get a feeder circuit into your industrial park area and as far as whether it's located in Chaska or Chanhassen or whatever, that was more or less dictated so that we could get that thing up to where we could use it to supply the load. When an industrial customer comes in it allows you to have them hook up a large motor if they have to, if they are looking for a special type of supply those kind of things, but it's basically for Chanhassen and we are looking for a feeder in 1987. That's why Jerry was talking about this temporary station. This requires getting pro- perty, getting it rezoned, so we start allover and we are probably going to miss that 1987 deadline. The only other visble option that I see is to go back to Excelsior and do some work there to bring a feeder down into the Chanhassen area and park a mobile type substation down near Chaska to handle that for a couple of months or summers till we figure out where this is going but it's strictly short term and when we get to 1988 or 1989 we are going to be looking for support on the transmission line, not just distribution substations. That's really our weak link in the chain is how much power we can take off that transmission line so that's why we wanted to come and explain what the options were available in the City of Chanhassen. As far as Chaska is concerned, they are just riding along with us on this project. We found out they wanted a second point of service and they were going to build it for so many dollars so we said if you throw in with us we will serve both. Mayor Hamilton: I think all of this should go to the Planning Commission. I think there has been information brought here tonight that they didn't have a chance to review and I think it would certainly help them make a recommendation. I I I I I I Council Meeting, March 17, 1986 -37- 1986/1987 LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATIONS: Councilman Horn moved that the following licenses be renewed for 1986/1987: Bloomberq Companies On-Sale Intoxicating Sunday Sales Kallestad Enterprises On-Sale Intoxicating Sunday Sales Pauly's, Inc. On-Sale Intoxicating Off-Sale Intoxicating Sunday Sales Riviera Club, Inc. On-Sale Intoxicating Sunday Sales Chanhassen Bowl, Inc. On-Sale Intoxicating Sunday Sales Chanhassen Leqion Post 580 Club License Sunday Sales Kenny's Super Market Off-Sale Non-Intoxicating Super america Off-Sale Non-Intoxicating Bluff Creek Golf Association On-Sale Non-Intoxicating Holiday Stationstores Off-Sale Non-Intoxicating JGM LIQUOR WAREHOUSE Off-Sale Intoxicating Chanhassen Fire Department On-Sale Non-Intoxicating St. Hubert's Church On Sale-Non-Intoxicating Motion seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No nega- tive votes. Motion carried. 1986 LAKE ANN PARK FEES: fees as listed below. Daily Entrance Fee Bus Mayor Hamilton moved to establish the Lake Ann Park $ 3.00 10.00 Seasonal: Resident $ 5.00 Non-Resident 10.00 Boat Access Only 5.00 Senior Citizens .00 Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No nega- tive votes. Motion carried. CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE, CDBG PROGRAM, APPOINTMENTS: Mayor Hamilton moved to table action on this item until interested persons are found. 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. PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS: Councilwoman Swenson moved to appoint Jim Mady and Susan Boydt to the Park and Recreation Commission. 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. Council Meeting, March 17, 1986 -38- 1986 POSITION CLASSIFICATION PLAN: Councilman Gevinq: I think there comes a time when the top city employees, whoever they might be, should be residents of the City. The reason I say that is there comes urgent times when the Public Safety Director, for example, is notified of an accident or a major fire in the community or I think there is a greater sense of knowing what's happening in the community when you are a part of it and some time in the future I certainly would like to make that a solid recommendation that the top three positions, whatever they are, especially the City Engineer, the Public Safety Director, you do have moments when you have to be present and so I want to lay that on you as some time in the future we ought to address that. I Don Ashworth: ago they passed employees where You are going to need a specific bill that they have to live. to talk with your legislator. Two years says cities cannot in any fashion tell Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the 1986 Position Classification Pay Compen- sation Plan. 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. FERTILIZER: Councilwoman Swenson: I appreciate the necessity of checking with people about this. I guess I had a certain amount of chuckle though about, this is sort of asking the dog if we should hire a dog catcher, to call the major lawn companies to find out if we ought to have a fertilizer ordinance, I can't imagine anybody in that business saying, no, I was delighted to see however that there was one. I thoroughly agree that we need to have the educational aspect. I see no fault I in having both the ordinance and the educational program and I would so recom- mend. I would like to see this on the next agenda. DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK PROCESS: Barbara Dacy: With this memo we wanted to update you as to our involvment with these other communities. I appears consistent that not only in the southwest area but in other suburban communities people are very concerned about the type of policies that Met Council is perpetuating in their framework drafts. Sup- posedly there is a new one going to be coming out at the end of March but I think the one that is very prominent among the suburbs is the population house- hold and employment forecasts that somehow are translated into sewer allocations a continuation of a self fulfilling prophesy in saying that you will not grow. If you read Chris Enger's memo he really was very eloquent in summarizing his frustration with the Met Council. In any case, the communities feel that, and we discussed at length and a lot of communities were concerned as to, is this worth it, are we going to win on our effort so we contacted Don Brauer and Dick Nowlin, basically because of the success of the Lake Ann Interceptor, the com- munities felt a need to consult with these two folks based on their experience and their knowledge of the Met Council to see if a lobbying effort would be worth it and they said, yes, they had a lot of comments about the framework draft and they felt that suburban communities were really bringing out a lot of good issues. That the proposed draft is a poor growth management document and not really addressing the needs of the metropolitan area so what this means is that the participating communities would have to share in their fees, obviOUSly, depending upon the number of communities and they have proposed $15,000 with I Chanhassen's contribution could be between $1,200 and $2,000. Even if we don't . "win" on some of the issues that we are recommending I think all of the com- munities agree that the Met Council is ten years old now and it's time for them to re-evaluate their role in regional governance. I I I Council Meeting, March 17, 1986 -39- Councilwoman Swenson: Will they lobby the legislature? Barbara Dacy: No. They will lobby the Met Council members directly. Although they did say that they would like to discuss some of the issues with represen- tatives like Mr. Dimler and so on. Councilwoman Swenson: The legislature is the only one because you are just going to go to the body that has perpetrated the crime and they are going to do everything they can to protect themselves. Councilman Horn: It is really a sad state of affairs when a governmental group has to hire a lobbyist. Barbara Dacy: The matter will be brought back formally in April for actual recommendation as to the budget amount and what would have to be done. CABLE ~ COORDINATION QL ACTIVITIES: Councilman GevinQ: Don mentioned that there were some 180 potential items that we could be dealing with and I guess that's what prompted my curiousity, of how you are going to sift out of those 180 items. Don Ashworth: Every basketball game, boys/girls, every football game, volleyball, swimming, commencement exercises, there is 180 of them. Councilman GevinQ: This would be on channel 20? Any specified time? Don Ashworth: All the events would continuously run during the day. Councilman Geving moved to approve Consent Agenda item H pursuant to the City Manager's recommendation. 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. Councilman Geving moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Meeting adjourned. Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Kathy Sundquist Jean Meuwissen