1986 04 07
I
I
I
REGULAR CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MEETING
April 7, 1986
Acting Mayor Geving, called the meeting to order. The meeting was opened with
the Pledge to the flag.
Members Present
Councilman Horn, Councilwoman Watson
and Councilwoman Swenson
Members Absent
Mayor Hamilton
Staff Present
Don Ashworth, Jo Ann Olsen
and Bill Monk
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilwoman Swenson moved to approve the agenda as pre-
sented with the addition of discussion on Council/Commission relations. Motion
was seconded by Acting Mayor Geving. The following voted in favor: Acting
Mayor Geving, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson and Councilman Horn. No negative
votes. Motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA: Acting Mayor Geving moved to approve the following consent
agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendation:
a. Final Plat Approval, Ches-Mar Farms.
b. Preliminary and Final Plat Approval for Wisely Addition.
c. RESOLUTION #86-17:
Approval of Housing Program Resolution.
d. 1986 Revenue Sharing Allocation, Set Public Hearing Date,
May 5, 1986.
Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Swenson.
Acting Mayor Geving, Councilwomen Swenson and
negative votes. Motion carried.
The following voted in favor:
Watson and Councilman Horn. No
VISITORS PRESENTATION:
Marqie Karjalahti, 7413 Frontier Trail: I would like to introduce Mr. Stephen
Poindexter of the lawfirm of Poindexter, Jacobson, Strom and Harwood. Mr. Poin-
dexter has been engaged to voice the concerns of lake owners on Lotus Lake and
other local lakes in Chanhassen and we hope that he will be able to express our
concerns about the impending lawsuit and perhaps be of some assistance to the
City.
Mr. Poindexter: I have been engaged by Lotus Lake Homeowners Association to
speak with them and speak with the City about some of their concerns and the
concerns of other citizens in the community concerning the lawsuit that was com-
menced in December of 1985 by Lotus Lake Estates attacking Ordinance 47-AB which
Council Meeting, April 7, 1986
-2-
deals with limiting non-riparian use and dockage of lakes within the City
limits. In my conversations with Roger Knutson, who is the City Attorney, he
indicated that the insurance company for the City had agreed to undertake the I
defense of this case. As of last Thursday my conversations with Roger, no
insurance company attorney has yet undertaken defense of this case and no
defense has yet been really formulated for the trial date of June 9, we feel
that that's an extremely short time in which to prepare for a trial of this
magnitude dealing with the issues facing the City and the concerns of the citi-
zens with 47-AB in its enforcement. As I mentioned, the timing of this trial is
of critical concern. Whether or not a defense can be prepared within 60 days is
something that concerns all the citizens. In particular we would not like to
see the City backed into a position of not having an adequate defense and having
to settle this case because of the timing of the trial. We feel that a con-
tinuance should be requested from the court in order for the City not only to
prepare its defense but in order for the City to obtain the most recent data
available this summer on the usage of Lotus Lake in particular, and perhaps the
other lakes located within the City limits in general. Thirdly, we feel that
the validity of Ordinance 47-AB is unquestioned. We feel in our opinion that
it is constitutional and it is constitutional as applied in this particular
situation, but we feel the City should take this matter to trial and should
vigorously oppose the points raised by the petitioners in that lawsuit. Fourth,
the City needs to define its goals in connection with this case. Since my
involvement about six weeks ago, I have been unable to really ascertain what
direction the City is taking here. I think I speak on behalf of not only the
group but also I think other riparian land owners on other lakes that this issue
is important and the City needs to publicly articulate its goals. Lastly, we
feel that the strategy upon us probably is to try to force settlement of this
lawsuit. We would be opposed to a settlement of this lawsuit. We feel that a I
court should decide the validity of Ordinance 47-AB and the action taken by the
City which we wholly support. The groups, however, do have some options which
we feel we should make of record here. We have the right to intervene in that
lawsuit, we believe, as a party, and present our views to the court along with
the City. We would like to intervene on behalf of the City if that is necessary
in support of the City, in support of its opposition to the claims made by the
Plaintiffs in that lawsuit. The other option, of course, is for the other group
and the City to decide to settle this case on any other terms other than totally
opposing the complaint that they would have their option to file separate action
of their own. In any event we want to emphasize that we support the City 100%
in its opposition to the claims of Lotus Lake Estates and we would like to con-
tinue to be involved in that support. Thank you very much.
Actinq Mayor Gevinq: We do have a letter from Jack Melby pretty much stating
the same thing and indicating that the introduction of yourself, Mr. Poindexter,
for this case. So, we are fairly well familiar with some of the background.
There will be no further discussion this evening on this subject at this time.
Are there any other visitors that would like to make a presentation.
Roqer Karjalahti: I'm Roger Karjalahti from 7413 Frontier Trail. Last year we
passed the new access and I would like to see on the Agenda open discussion of
the way the access is going to be handled for not only the hours but the
gateskeeper, the way the boats will be regulated, the sheriff's patrol that will
be going there, for some time in the near future because it won't be long and I
we'll have the access open and it is going to affect everybody that lives on the
lake.
I
I
I
Council Meeting, April 7, 1986
-3-
Acting Mayor Gevinq:
You're talking about South Lotus Lake?
Roqer Karialahti:
Right, by Melby's house. Right.
Actinq Mayor Gevinq: I don't know where that is at this time, maybe Bill could
give us an indication, but we are quite far away from that point yet, Roger.
Roqer Karialahti:
Do you have any idea Bill when it is going to be open?
Actinq Mayor Gevinq: I can only tell you that I doubt if there is going to be
very much construction going on in the summer but Bill could bring us more up to
date on specifically what's been happening.
Bill Monk: The contract has been let for South Lotus Lake.
thought that the road access would be open before Labor Day.
little sooner, but I'm not expecting it before August.
I guess I had not
It could be open a
Roqer Karjalahti:
again.
So, sometime mid-summer would be the time to bring it up
Actinq Mayor Gevinq: I think the City Council, Park and Rec., and whoever else
is involved in this issue, we are going to have to have several meetings before
we decide on gate hours and security. There are a number of things that haven't
even been talked about yet, Roger. I express sympathy for your concerns because
I know we are going to have to tackle that issue.
Roqer Karjalahti: Have you got things like Riley's Rules and what they do for
some samples. I've got those. I've got a whole bunch of things from the DNR.
Actinq Mayor Gevinq: Yes, I'm sure we've got those. However, if you've got
something that might be beneficial that we are not aware of, I would suggest
that you leave them with Don or Bill or . .
Roqer Karjalahti:
need.
I'll send up what I have got and you can toss what you don't
Actinq Mayor Gevinq:
Thanks Roger.
MINUTES:
Councilwoman Watson moved to approve the City Council Minutes dated March 3,
1986. Motion was seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor:
Acting Mayor Geving, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, and Councilman Horn. No
negative votes. Motion carried.
Councilwoman Watson moved to note the Planning Commission Minutes dated March
12, 1986. Motion was seconded by Acting Mayor Geving. The following voted in
favor: Acting Mayor Geving, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson and Councilman
Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried.
Councilman Horn moved to note the Park and Recreation Commission minutes dated
March 4, 1986. Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Swenson. The following
voted in favor: Acting Mayor Geving, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson and Coun-
cilman Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS:
- Year !l Reallocation
- Year XII Allocation
Appointment of CDBG Representative
Council Meeting, April 7, 1986
-4-
JoAnn Olsen:
Barb was contacting people to become
Don Ashworth: The Council did have some questions on this. Hopefully the I
report does speak to the issues such as the ability to put in water out at Lake
Ann. Basically the program as submitted before has been submitted to the
Council again this evening. Some of the items under the Year XII Allocation may
be accepted such as the comprehensive plan revision recommendation if they end
up not approving that, the item would be submitted back to City Council.
Actinq Mayor Gevinq: I understand and I appreciate getting the response that we
did from the office of Planning Development. It was a question that I had spe-
cifically to see if we couldn't use those funds for a well, but apparently they
are not fundable.
Councilman Horn moved the adoption of a resolution approving the CDBG Funds as
follows:
RESOLUTION #86-18
Year XI Reallocation - South Shore Senior Center
Comprehensive Plan Revision
$2,163
$2,400
RESOLUTION #86-19
Year XII Allocation
- Comprehensive Plan Revision
South Shore Senior Center
Housing Rehabilitation
$15,000
$2,500
$7,788
Resolution was seconded by Councilwoman Watson.
I
Councilwoman Swenson: I'm surprised that we can use those funds for comprehen-
sive plan revisions because it doesn't seem to fall into that catagory any more
than the well at Lake Ann did of supplying needs or assisting low income people.
The reason our comprehensive plan is very important, I don't see it as any big
benefit to us.
Don Ashworth: Planning for whatever reason has been a priority for community
development block grant dollars. Similarly, improvements within a downtown
district, even though they might not generally be back to elderly or economi-
cally disadvantaged minorities. That's another area.
Councilwoman Watson: It's the word "planning" that makes the use of the money
for that. So we still aren't absolutely sure that they will accept that.
Don Ashworth:
It is a borderline item, yes.
Actinq Mayor Gevinq: I did notice that we did shift some funds from the
South Shore Senior Center to the Housing Rehab. Was there a reason for that,
Don? Originally we had $4,500 for the Senior Center on the memo of March 12,
1986 and now I see it reduced to $2,500 and we have increased the Housing Rehab.
Don Ashworth: I know that for the Year XI the amount of money necessary for the
South Shore was funding one-half of that and that would occur around July of
this next year. We currently have that program funded through all of 1987. I
am sure that in making this recommendation she recognized that we would have
Year XIII allocation to pick up that other half year.
J
I
I
I
Council Meeting, April 7, 1986
-5-
The following voted in favor:
Watson, and Councilman Horn.
Acting Mayor Geving, Councilwomen Swenson and
No negative votes. Motion carried.
Jo Ann Olsen: Barb did want me to relay that she was contacting more people to
go onto that committee and we still haven't recommended, so it looks as though
we might not have a representative.
Actinq Mayor Gevinq: At this time we don't have a representative, is that
correct?
I2. Ann Olsen:
Right.
PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT REVIEW lQ SUBDIVIDE LOT INTO TWO PARCELS, 3841 RED
CEDAR POINT ROAD, WESLEY SEARLES:
JoAnn Olsen: It's located at 3841 Red Cedar Point Road. The applicant is pro-
posing to split this property into two lots. He currently has 44,281 square
feet and the lot split will create a 22,184 square foot lot and a 22,103 square
foot lot. It meets all the requirements as far as a 90 foot lot width. The lot
area requirements, there is an adequate area for the setbacks to be met. The
only problem is that there is a tin shed on the proposed lot line and this must
be removed. This is a really simple lot split. Staff recommends approval. The
Planning Commission approved of the split with the condition the tin shed be
removed from the lot line and staff is again recommending approval.
Actinq Mayor Gevinq:
the shed?
Is it the intention to just move the shed and not remove
JoAnn Olson:
The condition is to remove it from that area.
Actinq Mayor Gevinq: What condition is that shed in? Have you looked at it?
JoAnn Olson:
It's a shed.
Actinq Mayor Gevinq: Is it something that a better recommendation might be to
remove it? What is it used for?
~ Olson:
I did not look inside. The realtor is here.
Actinq Mayor Gevinq: Would you respond to at least that question. Maybe the
Council might have others.
Beverly Huntinqton: I'm Beverly Huntington
Searles. That shed is planned to be moved.
mowers and garden implements and it will be
problem with removing it.
and I'm representing Wes and June
It's just a storage shed for lawn
moved rather quickly. There is no
Actinq Mayor Gevinq: The concern that I had in reading the notes was that
apparently there was a dispute regarding the survey of the lot lines and I'd
like to, if the gentlemen is here, comment on that. At the Public Hearing Mr.
Zakariasen brought this up. Is he here tonight? He's not in attendance. I'm
going to ask staff if this matter with Mr. Zakariasen has been cleared up?
JoAnn Olsen: What happened was, I don't know exactly how many years ago, but it
was Torens and Mr. Zakariasen deeded over that 20 feet or whatever. So it is
Council Meeting, April 7, 1986
-6-
the Searles property and it is up to the attorney if he wants fight it, but he
did deed it over and as far as the City's concerned, it's settled.
Actinq Mayor Gevinq: So, as far as you are concerned it is not a staff problem.
It does not belong in the City Council. It's a personal problem.
Jo Ann Olsen: Right.
Councilman Horn moved to approve the Preliminary Plat stamped "Received February
27, 1986" and the Final Plat stamped "Received April 3, 1986" to subdivide a
44,287 square foot metes and bounds lot into two platted lots of 22,184 and
22,103 square feet with the following condition:
1. That the shed will be moved to within the rear or side yard
of Lot 2, Block 1.
Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor:
Acting Mayor Geving, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson and Councilman Horn. No
negative votes. Motion carried.
PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW TO SUBDIVIDE ONE LOT INTO TWO PARCELS, 3840 LONE CEDAR
DRIVE, ROBERTA BUCHHEIT:
JoAnn Olsen: It's located at 3840 Lone Cedar Drive. It is a lakeshore site.
It's on Lake Minnewashta. She currently has 32,000 square feet of property.
She is proposing to split it into two lots. One lot would be 14,078 square feet
and the other one would be 17,992 square feet. Lake Minnewashta is a
recreational developmental lake. Under the Shoreline Ordinance it requires all
lakeshore sites to have at least 15,000 square feet. This proposal would be
creating two non-conforming lots. The Shoreline Ordinance also requires a width
of 75 feet at the ordinary high water mark and the one lot would also be
creating only a 60 foot wide lot. The applicant must show a hardship for these
variances for the two non-conforming lots and for the lot width. Again, the
applicant must show the hardship. The staff was recommending denial because
they do have reasonable use. It will be creating two non-conforming lots and
the hardship has not been proven. The Planning Commission also recommended
denial.
Actinq Mayor Gevinq: I'd like to ask if Ms. Buchheit would like to make a pre-
sentation at this time.
I
I
Roberta Buchheit: I just have one set of pictures so you can see where it is.
It sets up high. It sets up high so you are not going to be building anywhere
near the lakeshore. It's like about 57 steps from the lake. If you just kind
of take a look at the supporting document that I have here. It is a map of
Trolls Glen which is only three lots to the west. It was originally part of the
Cedar Crest Development. It came under the same guidelines as we did. When that
was done, if you will notice, everyone of the lakeshore lots is under 20,000
feet. Also three of the six lots are under 75 feet lakeshore. This is the land
to the west of me--just three lots west of us -- to the north. In addition
this particular development was approved with nothing but a 10 foot setback off
of the road and ours will be 40. This is a buildable lot. The house will be put I
in the back. It would have a 40 foot setback from the road, which is more than
the City Council asks for, 30, and yes, I do believe there is a hardship because
the hardship is created by the fact that this is not a buildable lake front lot
and it is at 14,700 feet it is a perfectly good lakeshore lot and precedent
I
I
I
Council Meeting, April 7, 1986
-7-
has been set in Trolls-Glen when all of it was approved.
water access. It goes right through there. It definitely
a shoddy house, not in that area, not up on that hill.
There is sewer and
is not going to make
Councilwoman Watson:
property?
Is there more than one sewer and water assessment of that
Roberta Buchheit: I believe there was one only done when they were done, but I
am not positive whether or not the other one was put in, whether or not there
were two put in.
Councilwoman Watson:
I think they were charged.
Bill Monk: I had one unit assessed. Whether there were two stubs or not, I
would doubt that there is a possibility that there are two stubs.
Robert Buchheit: I think there is a possibility that there might be another
one. The assessment was $5,100 or something like that. Because that is such a
large space between the two lots, eventually sometime, somebody, will get it
approved because that is too much lakeshore not to be used. There has been pre-
cedent set and I believe that we should be able to do the same thing the City
Council allowed Trolls-Glen to do.
Actinq Mayor Gevinq:
At this time I would entertain comments from the Council.
Roberta Buchheit: Excuse me. I have one other thing. At the time we origi-
nally purchased that lot, when they surveyed it this time, they told me that the
water and the lakeshore has receded considerably since when we purchased the
lot. It was up considerably at that time and it might have been that one of
the lots would have been up to 20,000 feet so we wouldn't have even had to ask
for variance on the other one.
Actinq Mayor Gevinq: Except that the shoreline sort of ebbs and flows and one
day you've got a whole lot of new lakeshore and next year it's right back up
there where it was and I'm sure that the high water mark is established and at
some point it averages out.
Councilwoman Watson: I guess I'm not really comfortable with taking a lot that
meets all the requirements and then creating substandard lots out of it. I
don't know a whole lot about Trolls-Glen Addition, that was before me and I'm
not familiar with what variances or what occurred. If someone could tell me
something about Trolls-Glen and what was the circumstances with those lots.
Don Ashworth: It preceded the Water Surface Usage Ordinance in terms of lot
area requirements. It met all requirements at the time of the plat.
Councilwoman Watson:
Ordinance now.
It just wouldn't because of the
At the time of that.
Don Ashworth: The only question was one of the steep slopes in that area.
That's the reason the 10 foot variance was given to allow the homes to build
closer to the road and literally not right on the edge of the block. In fact
most of the homes are still on the block, but that approval was given by City
Council.
Actinq Mayor Gevinq: Virtually all of the homes have a variance that was pro-
vided for the 30 foot setback.
Council Meeting, April 7, 1986 -8-
Councilwoman Watson: But the 15,000 square foot requirement in the Shoreline
Management Ordinance did not exist at that time.
Councilwoman Swenson: I would dearly love to accommodate the applicant, but in
view of the fact that the Department of Natural Resources has recommended
denial, the Planning Commission has recommended denial, and it is at the minimum
and it isn't even meeting fifty percent of the useage here, I feel that we would
be establishing precedence that I really don't want to live with. I know cases
that are similar to this that we had denied and I think that we would be asking
for them to come back.
Councilman Horn: What are the lot sizes adjacent to this lot?
~ Ann Olsen:
I am not sure of the lot sizes adjacent to it.
Actinq Mayor Gevinq: Arnie Hed, for example.
Are you aware of that size?
~ Ann Olsen: I am not sure, but I believe that they all have at least 20,000
square feet. I would have to look and see when they were formed, and if they
were formed before the shoreland ordinance.
Councilman Gevinq: I think that you will find that the Kant's lot, the Buchheit
lot, the Arne Hed lot, and the Dan Herbst lot are pretty much the same size.
Maybe Kant's lot is a little large, in fact. I am not sure.
Robert Buchheit: Dan Herbst has the lot that is the 58 foot on lake front in
Trolls-Glen.
Councilman Horn: I guess the reason I asked that is that I think it is impor-
tant adjacent lot areas consistent with each other. I have always been adverse
to putting small lots on lakes. I don't consider these to be terribly small
compared to some of the lots that we have allowed, but I do feel that it is
really out a character with other lots adjacent to it. Therefore, I have
trouble with that.
Councilman Gevinq: The only comment that I would like to make is that one of
the things that we have attempted to do throughout our lake areas is to maintain
some kind of standard by which we have tried to build upon and many of our
lakes, such as Red Cedar Point, where we have attempted to consolidate lots to
build bigger lots, we have done a fairly good job on them for the most part. I
think if you will follow how we voted on most of the lake issues, we've
attempted to create and keep, maintain fairly large size lots where they already
exist. This particular item would create two substandard lots. It requires
several variances. It would create a 60 foot lot on the lake which is fairly
unusual, particularly in this area of Lone Cedar Drive where all of the lots
are, I think, two-thirds of an acre or greater. Like Clark said, I think the
conformity with the existing neighborhood is very important to us. The Planning
Commission did recommend denial and I think the big issue here is really one
where the present applicant has reasonable use of the property. We many times
get into a problem on this issue, and where the reasonable use of the property
has been met, we stay out of trouble. We win those cases. I don't believe that
this application does relate, to me, any hardship in not splitting the property,
so I guess I'm in favor of denial recommended to us by the Planning Commission.
Councilman Geving moved to deny the Preliminary Plat request at 3B40 Lone Cedar
Drive. Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in
favor: Acting Mayor Geving, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson and Councilman
Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried.
I
I
I
I
I
I
Council Meeting, April 7, 1986
-9-
SKETCH PLAN REVIEW FOR CHANHASSEN HIllS PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, 181
SINGLE FAMILY AND 2Q MULTIPLE FAMILY HOMES, MERITOR CORPORATION:
~ Ann Olsen: On the site is 190.5 acres which is just south of lake Susan. It
is zoned P-l and the land use is designated as medium density residential and
low density residential. On the southern part there is parks and open space,
along the center, along the western edge and right along lake Susan. At the
time of the Planning Commission review the applicant had a few changes. The
first one is that they removed the multi-family housing at this site and instead
put a five acre park site and five single family lots. They also removed the 32
single family lots down in this corner and kept it as an Outlot until 212 was
all decided and what use would be best here. So, essentially the proposal is
just on the north part of 212. They also proposed three lots right along the
high point overlooking lake Susan. As far as the site characteristics, it abuts
lake Susan, it has a wetlands all along the western border, TH 101 goes through
the center of this site and 212 splits it also in the center on the south part.
There are also wetlands over in this area. The proposal now is 181 single
family units, 50 multi-units and a five acre park site. The density is now 1.0
for gross and 2.7 for net density. The multiple family will be proposing eight
units per acre so the density is eight. As far as the land use plan, again it
is medium density up here" and low density down in this area so the plan needs to
be amended to accommodate the multiple family. The streets again are -- they
are showing the proposed 212 right-of-way. They have been working closely with
MnDOT and this is the most recent alignment. They are proposing to plat these
lots to kind of help set where 212 is going to go. They also, prior to showing
existing TH 101 and they are going to plat up to TH 101 and they are also
showing the proposed TH 101 and when that goes through they will finish platting
this and connect up to it. TH 101 is creating some double frontage lots along
here and the Subdivision Ordinance requires 10 extra feet along the rear to
allow for some landscaping. The lots are long enough to accommodate for this 10
feet. Staff has recommended that a landscaping plan be submitted that shows the
berming and landscaping that they will be using. As far as utilities, sewer is
available from lake Susan to the site and water will have to be extended along
Powers Boulevard from lake Susan Park. There is no on-site drainage. Drainage
for the site will be directed towards the wetlands to the west. This will
require a wetlands alteration permit, and it is where the natural drainage is
occurring at this time. The Park and Recreaction Commission reviewed this site
before it went to the Planning Commission. They did recommend that they provide
an active park area. This area is really in need of an active park area. lake
Susan Park is a passive park so the Commission recommended that they provide a
park area. The Park and Recreation Commission looked at this site again on
April 1st and did approve this area. The trailway system is going to be put
along the streets to connect up TH 101 and lyman Boulevard. They also do want a
trailway system going down to the lake. They are also accepting the area along
lake Susan for the passive parkway. It's going to be connected to lake Susan
Park and maintain this as all open space. This is over 100 units so it does
require an EAW. Applicant is aware of that and will be providing one along with
the Preliminary Plat process. As far as the wetlands, all lots within 200 feet
of a Class A wetland must be 15,000 square feet and development within the 200
feet also requires a Wetland Alteration Permit. They will be going through the
Alteration Permit along with the Preliminary Plat. We need to have the wetland
that is located over in this area to be defined so we can tell which lots are
affected. There is also wetlands right in here. The shoreland, because it is
within 1,000 feet of lake Susan, DNR must approve of this. They have certain
policies for approving PUD's. They have to be 20,000 square feet, but they can
allow other higher density along it, so they will be reviewing this and they
must receive DNR's approval. As far as the changes they have proposed the park
Council Meeting, April 7, 1986
-10-
site of this is good and that was needed. The three lots that they are now pro-
posing up here does cause some concern to staff. First of all it will have to
be accessed by a private drive, so these two lots will have to receive varian-
ces. This is a real steep, a lot of topography changes, wetlands again, a real
sensitive area. We will need more details closer to the contours to see exactly
how much grading will be required. Staff would prefer that this remain as open
space to preserve the sensitive area. We feel that it is kind of split off from
the whole development itself and is not really part of the PUD. Again, one of
the PUD concepts is that it maintains sensitive areas, open space, and they are
doing that by providing a park area, but should probably be maintained as open
space. Staff has also recommended that before any approval is given of these
three lots that the Planning Commission be allowed to review it. These lots
were not proposed when the Planning Commission saw it. So we have some recom-
mendations when they go through the Preliminary plat. The first is that the
Comprehensive Plan must be amended to redesignate the medium density and park
areas. Second, a landscape plan for the double frontage lots should be sub-
mitted for staff review. Third, the ordinary high water mark of the wetland
areas be identified. They have identified lake Susan's. Fourth, a Wetland
Alteration Permit is required for the development within the Class B and Class A
wetlands. That the applicant shall work with staff and the Park and Recreation
Commission in pursuing the negotiations for the active park area and the trail
easements. That the applicant must prepare an Environmental Assessment
Worksheet in compliance with the Environmental Quality Board. That the appli-
cant must receive an access permit from Carver County and also must receive an
access permit from MnDOT and that the city should consider further investigating
the appropriate land uses in remaining areas south of T.H. 212 and 101 intersec-
tions.
Actinq Mayor Gevinq:
Curry.
At this time I would like to call on the developer, Mr.
I
I
Mr. Curry: Just a little bit of background. I'll speak to that park question
later, but just so we know where we have come from. It's going to be old
history for just about all of you because you were all on the Council back in
1980. At that time, it sounds wild as everything right now, but it was approved
after much trauma, 475 units including a piece of commercial. There were a lot
of things that weren't about to happen, I'm afraid. Then the sort of things,
just so we know where we all came from, the interest rates went bananas, so the
market disappeared; the dumpsite came out and we finally licked that; then Eden
Prairie competition really reared itself very heavily because it was for real;
then the lake Ann sewer question came up earlier. last October we came in here
with a plan, but the location of the multiple wasn't very popular at the time
and there were changes that you wanted also in some of the lot sizes. So,
before we got any further doing that refinement, why of course, the 212 question
came back up. I have to laugh because they always say that land doesn't go
away. This land has done everything but go away. So the first cousin to that,
of course, is the 101 thing and Bill here tells me, that we aren't going to do
101 until 212 is done and I have a little piece of paper here that says on 212
that we are going to have a final plan by the end of the year--an official map--
which means if all the money is given at every point and time, if, that road
won't be done until 1992. Bingo. That means 101 isn't done until 1992, and
that is if everything is on schedule. I hope I live long enough to see the road I
and I feel pretty good right tonight actually. There will be an EIS that will
be done. I really believe that is the location and as Bill said in his report,
"this will help to make sure it is". The question, of course, to what kind of
interchange on 101 is being done. Maybe it will be half a diamond. There's
been some study made, I understand, from the City's standpoint of having, maybe
I
I
I
Council Meeting, April 7, 1986
-11-
that 101 ought to be the interchange for Chan. I know that is not too popular
with everybody and something tells me way down deep in the pit of my sole that
that isn't going to happen. Anyway I really think that what will end up there
is a right-in and right-out, but that is many meetings down the road. I'm happy
that we have something we can work with here in the meantime, of course. So
Meritor is back. Now, who are they? You should know a little bit about them.
They are old friends of mine, of course. To begin with, it is the old Hamm's
Beer fortune. They ended up forming Northland Mortgage and Northland Mortgage
was sold by Ted Hamm to an outfit in Philadelphia. It's got lots of initials to
it and all I know is they have lots of money. They're a $13 billion savings and
loan, four times as big as Twin City Federal, which is impressive to me. So,
they've built the old Northland and now Meritor have built thousands of lots in
the area in the last ten years, I suppose. For me, they are doing 132 acres
right now in Eagan and I love to work with these guys. They're really pros.
This is a big subdividision. I'm very aware of that. I would want somebody in
there doing it right and the experience in Eagan I know from a city standpoint,
has been excellent and I think that you and Barb Dacy would say that Larry has
been a joy to work with so far and I am sure he will be. They are professional
and they don't ask for much stuff they shouldn't get. One of the things they do
that I like is that they bring in six or seven or eight builders and that really
affects the style and what kind of housing you're going to get. Last year they
even started to sell a house for the builder. They finance it down to the
ashtrays and although people don't have to apply there for the mortgage, as your
report says, they have the total package. It's just beautiful. I think if I
were a builder that is what I would like to do. But, anyway, before we get into
the logic on the park question, I would like you to meet Larry Frank and have
him go into a little more detail on the plan. It is his plan and I really like
it.
Larry Frank: I'm a landscape architect and have worked in the building develop-
ment business since 1970. Just to give you a quick history--Jim gave you one
history, I'll give you another. If you recall, I think it was last winter, when
we came here with the original plan, and I talked to the Council about housing
revenue bonds or something of that nature. That kind of got the ball rolling
for Jim and us because they were interested in getting some multiple land and
we're working with Jim, as I said, in Eagan, so I proceeded to start working on
a plan on Jim's property. Well, we went through all the plans and came in with
a plan that night and I never even got it unrolled. All wasn't for naught
though because I started learning a lot about the property. I got to study it a
little bit more and more. I went back and we felt that Burns and Rezack were
not interested. We did have some other people that were interested in
multiples, so that I would look at the plan, build it differently with some
multiples in some different areas and then I proceeded to redesign the layout
and I think Barb Dacy gave me a call and said, "Larry, you better come in and
visit with me before you get too far". Well, I had already done a free-
handed sketch and so I came in and met with Barb and Bill and the 212 freeway
started cutting right through the middle of the property. I then proceeded to
go back to the drawing board a third time. However, we did get a chance to
review some of the site plans with the staff and with the Lake Homeowners Asso-
ciation of Lake Susan, the County got a chance to look at the plan. Jim Murphy,
who is with the Lake Homeowners is an engineer, I went and visited with him and
several questions came up with the new alignment of 212 actually handled or
answered several of those questions. One of the first major issues was the
multiple being so close to the lake or close to the existing houses and the new
layout that we worked out eliminated that. Another situation we had was the
access through the project, the vehicular access, where Jim, for example, felt
that if there is a traffic jam out on 101, it would be nice to be able to drive
Council Meeting, April 7, 1986
-12-
through the subdivision and yet not a straight shot so that, you don't want
people racing through, but good access. We managed to eliminate three or four
cul-de-sacs and yet have a nice circular movement for vehicular traffic. The
County felt that the original layout had too many accesses on Lyman Boulevard.
We subsequently are down to one. So through the metamorphisis of the design we
wound up, I think, coming up with a plan that seemed to answer a lot of the
questions that were raised. At the Planning Commission several people brought
up the fact that we have a long stretch of Highway 212, should it be more
multiple as a buffer? My first reaction when I started looking at the plan when
I saw 212 was we need a buffer from some future freeway. But as you notice, the
freeway really does cut through at quite an angle and it gets quite a longitudi-
nal line going through there and I just couldn't visualize a long strip of
multiples. The site, itself, has got too many amenities in terms of gently
rolling, you've got the wetlands to the west and the lake to the north, but I
had a hard time to come by a nice square area to develop in the first place and
if I started running a long narrow strip of multiples I just felt that there
wasn't a sense of community within the subdivision which you try to achieve.
So, what I did try to do was the lots that do abut up on the freeway are about
250 feet deep and are a very good depth in terms of doing some berming, some
landscaping, so by the time, whatever year it is that the freeway comes in,
there will be a good buffer or berm to handle that problem. We originally came
in, as Jo Ann had mentioned, with multiple on the lower side, then some single
family multiple on the right. With the question on the Park Department what I
did is remove the multiple on the southwest side, added five lots to it and came
up with a five acre parcel, which is what the Park Committee is looking for in
terms of a size large enough for an active area, like for a ball field. In
terms of some questions on the report and storm water drainage, ponds would be
created in the wetlands area, and we are familiar that the permits for the DNR
and that have to be achieved and we are aware of the EAW which has to come in
and this will all come together with the Preliminary Plat. As far as the three
lots, the smaller plan shows the location of the three lots. They are 40,000
square foot, the two that are on the west and the one to the east is approxima-
tely 60,000 square foot and I think the Ordinance says that you can have three
lots served by a private street. I think the lots that back up to that area
basically, I don't think will even be able to see the lake except in the winter
time when the leaves are gone on the trees because it is basically all vegeta-
tion on that ridge so that those three lots aren't going to be "sitting out in
the middle of the open where everybody can look at it." Our developable land is
108.66 acres. That does not include A, B, and C, just the ones that we're
building on. Just the colored area on the map, 108.66 acres and our totals are
181 single family lots and 50 units of multiple and that's 6 acres at 8 units
per acre.
Councilwoman Swenson: Just off hand do you have an idea of the average width
and depth of these lots?
Larry Frank: Minimum width is 85 foot.
Councilwoman Swenson:
And the average depth?
Larry Frank: Minimum depth is 135.
Councilwoman Swenson: I was concerned because sometimes we get some 60 foot
lots thrown in on these.
I
I
I
I
I
I
Council Meeting, April 7, 1986
-13-
Larry Frank: Nothing is sneaky on these. The only thing 60 feet is the right-
of-way.
Mr. Curry: A couple of things I would like to put to rest, too, that Mike
Thompson on the Planning Commission mentioned. They were kind of wondering why
I didn't get more density along here. I think these lots are deep enough and I
know w~ can talk multiple, but we don't really like it that much and that's
fine. I think this is great. I think these deep lots will work just great.
The other thing he mentioned that I thought I would like to put to rest, too, he
thought I still had all this density still in force. Forget it, that is a dead
issue also because, if it isn't killed, it should be and that's. This plan
makes me feel real good. I think it is something that the City will find com-
fortable and will like. Now let me go through the park thing so you know how I
got to where I am. As you know life has a lot of trade-offs. With 181 singles
and 50 multiples, 231 lots, times the $450 park fee which you typically charge,
you come up with $95,865.00 That would seem like par to be fair. Before, if
you remember, we were going to have multiple here but they came up with a neat
idea of an active park area and I think that would be just super. That five
acres is worth either $10,000 or $12,000 an acre. So, let's say it is worth
$10,000 and that is $50,000 worth of value there. Then, if the fees on this 231
units were $200 a unit, that would raise $46,200. You would then be at $96,200
which is slightly more than the park, plus, of course, you are going to be
getting these wetlands, but I'm told you don't get any credit for wetlands, but
I suppose we could argue about that, but I don't like to argue, and that's fine,
you're not going to give me any credit. It's worth something, but that's all
right, particularly if I end up with these lots up here, then I think that is
all right. The ponding area behind these lots, the park people seem to be
pleased with that. But what makes it work, giving away this piece and not
getting credit for this and still having these, cause I also know no matter what
you get in land you like money with a park, so that's kind of almost a city tradi-
tion here, I think. That's fine, $200 will get you $46,000. What makes it work
is getting these three lots. They would also be georgeous lots with 40,000 feet
each with free land, you might say, in front and the ponding area in back and
three is the maximum, I understand, for a private driveway here, so that works.
I just think they would be some of the nicest lots you could imagine.
Councilwoman Watson:
Those lots do not have the riparian lake rights, do they?
Mr. Curry: They will if there is an easement only. Here's what she said last
week. Lori said if there is an easement across here, see this is a funny place
for a trail because there is no trail here and this is a street, so you would
have a trail from nowhere to nowhere so to speak. But if you want an easement,
because who knows 500 years from now, maybe they'll build a bridge over the
river or something. Then I'm told my riparian rights are still all right. So
if there is an easement
Lori Sietsema:
though.
That is how I understood that it could happen.
I am not sure
Councilwoman Watson:
land the trail is on
it they have riparian
But if we do have trail down there, we either own the
or we don't own the land the trail is on. If we don't
rights and if we do, they don't. Right?
own
Actinq Mayor Gevinq:
I think that's an issue we're going to discuss.
Council Meeting, April 7, 1986
-14-
Councilwoman Watson:
fact that the wetlands
dock in anyway?
I didn't even think of that, but I was thinking of the
are there, would they even be able to get down and put a
Mr. Curry: Yes, you could put a dock here, for sure. Just so you understand
where I come from on this trade-off. With you getting this, fine; you're
getting this, great; cutting the fee in half seems right and if I get this then
I think the whole thing makes sense and the way it ends up is with three lots
that I think would be really outstanding so I think that is what the park people
approved of last week at the meeting.
Lori Sietsema:
with that.
They stated, for the record, that they didn't have any problem
Actinq Mayor Gevinq: As long as we have you in front of us, here, let us ask
Council if they have any specific questions before we discuss this.
Councilwoman Swenson: I have one. You're using the figure of 205 lots and
actually it is only 181, Jim, so your dollar figure isn't going to come out
right.
Jim CurryY One hundred eighty-one plus the 50 multiples. It's 231. Two
hundred thirty one total.
Councilwoman Swenson: Jim, in your street program here, you're proposing a
walkway, are you not?
Jim Curry:
They requested an easement.
Actinq Mayor Gevinq: Like a sidewalk. I think what I read in the report was
something like a walkway. Something like a strip.
Lori Sietsema: The Park and Recreation Commission asked for, at the very least,
a widened road easement for pedestrian purposes.
Councilwoman Swenson: I just wanted to make sure, Jim, that we can get these
multiples over to the park.
Jim Curry:
across here.
I believe they come this way.
That takes care of it.
This lot here, we have an easement
Councilwoman Swenson: I meant to the orange section, the active park. They
can get over to the passive park but, I guess I don't like to see kids walking
down a regular street without some kind of a walkway along the side. If it's
only two or three feet, I think it would be safer. I don't know how many
youngsters we are going to have in multiples or anything else, but you may well
have, and we've got to be able to figure that there is some way to get them over
to this park without having them get run over by an automobile.
Actinq Mayor Gevinq: Pat, I think you are absolutely right that as we develop
this particular plan that there should be some four foot strip or some measure
of land on one side of the road throughout the roadway system for walking. We
had originally thought about coming from, let's say Lyman and walking all the
way through and eventually getting over to the existing 101. Now Pat's men-
tioning, well, we still have to get to the park with the kids, maybe we ought to
do it almost throughout the development. What I think we are seeing today is
I
I
I
I
I
I
Council Meeting, April 7, 1986
-15-
more and more people that are out walking, just leisurely walking. Now if we
have children, a lot of them in this development, it makes sense to me that what
Pat is saying, it should be part of the plan, even if it is just a stripped
area, three or four feet on one side of the road throughout the development.
Larry Frank: You know, that really works a lot better because the problem with
sidewalks or asphalt paths, they usually wind up going right in at the
beginning. Then the builders come and drop off their dozers and dig a basement,
and a cement truck and they get massacred.
Actinq Mayor Gevinq: Let's stay with that idea.
Councilwoman Swensen: I am acutely aware of this because my daughter and her
husband just bought a home in one of the southern suburbs and one of the biggest
problems is that she said, "my word, there's no place for my kids to ride their
bike. They've got to go in the street."
Actinq Mayor Gevinq: Let"s try to make this plan a little different, Jim, and
build that part of this into the plan. Larry can do that.
Jim Curry: Fine, Larry can work with the staff. Real good idea.
Actinq Mayor Gevinq: Let's take a look at the whole plan and get some input
from Council on what we see in here that we like, those items that we'd like to
pass on to the Planning Commission as our recommendations for change and give
.them back some firm guidance on how we see this particular plan. Quite frankly,
from my own position, I'm seeing a much improved plan over what I thought I'd
see based on densities and so forth. I think they've handled the adjoining area
to the proposed 212 very well. I specifically like the single family and I
encourage us to stay with that. I particularly like a walkway from the one cul-
de-sac that was mentioned and the Park and Rec recommended that, to the western
wetlands area or whatever we're going to call that. There are going to be a lot
of people walking in this development and this would be a way to get to 17. I
do have some questions, however, and I would like to ask what kind of population
density might we expect in this development throughout the entire 231 units.
What kind of people are we addressing with this development? Are we talking
about first time home buyers with a child or two. Are we talking an average of
3.5 persons per household or unit?
Larry Frank:
I don't think there are any 3.5 households any more in America.
Actinq Mayor Gevinq:
Okay, what are we talking about, with 231 units?
Larry Frank: I think 2.7 or 3, somewhere in that category. Because of the
depth of the lots, the size of the lots, and a good third of them have fantastic
views, their own little setting, I think we're going to get larger houses than
we originally anticipated. We're finding right now that our buyers are either
young professional couples that are both working and it may be their first
house but they are still spending about $105,000 or people are moving out of
their smaller house and moving into their second house and they may be spending
$130,000 or so.
Actinq Mayor Gevinq: I asked that particular question because I am trying to
get an idea in my mind of how many people are going to be in this one plan as
opposed to our downtown Chanhassen area in places where Clark and myself and
Council Meeting, April 7, 1986
-16-
others live and it's a very big development. We're talking about a lot of
people in a relatively small area. I'd like to address this question to Lori.
Lori, what can we place on a five acre parcel of land from a park standpoint.
Lori Sietsema:
I'd say a couple tennis courts, parking, and a small development.
I
Actinq Mayor Gevinq: A small softball diamond, two tennis courts, some parking.
How about a tot lot?
Lori Sietsema: And a tot lot, a play area.
Actinq Mayor Gevinq: The reason I asked that question is that originally we had
planned on 19 acres for park dedication for this particular plan and I think
that the Park Commission was very conservative. I think that they were thinking
in terms of approximately 10 percent of the plan would be set aside for the
park. I've looked at several plans recently and that's not a bad figure to
begin with. I know many communities have an up-front figure of 10 percent on
all developments. I know of five communities that I looked at, in fact, just
today. We've got to be realistic and we've got to look at the plan. My per-
sonal desire, looking at this particular plan is, that I would like to remove
the five lots shown adjacent to Lyman Boulevard which comes to approximately
88,000 square feet (2 acres) and add another two to the plan of giving us a park
area of seven acres and the reason that I'm arriving at that is that after I
looked at the number of people, we are talking about 700 people in this develop-
ment that would be in a park deficient area, I believe that we are going to have
need for some parking because these ball diamonds are going to be used by others
than just the community that live there, we do share a lot of our diamonds. You
can't put a very good size softball diamond on the five acres, and still have I
room for others. So my immediate reaction is to remove those five lots and make
that also part of the total park plan.
Jim Curry: I believe with these three lots up here it wouldn't make any dif-
ference to Larry because he pays me by the lot.
Larry Frank: It would make a difference to me, Jim. You're looking at an area
now that if the City would want to pick up their frontage of that street that
runs to the park, then we wouldn't have any problem.
Actinq Mayor Gevinq: I understand that, there is going to be another street
through there and it would impact on how the City would pick up those costs.
Jim Curry: That's right. I don't get into that. Maybe we could make them
smaller, they're awfully large.
Don Ashworth: In response to your question, the City has a policy and we do pay
for frontage that we have so whether it be property for the fire station or
in the recent park, the South Lotus Lake parcel or anyone of our park areas we
have paid our share of street frontage.
Councilwoman Watson: I can understand that concern there, too. That's a big
piece of street to put in if there are not lots to help with the costs.
Actinq Mayor Gevinq: Well, this is only my thoughts on this.
other people here to deal with.
I still have four
I
Jim Curry:
If the City does that, if that's the...........
I
I
I
Council Meeting, April 7, 1986
-17-
Jim Curry: I'm saying, assuming you could work that angle out that I guess I
could live with that. I've owned this land since 1969, I'd like to see it done.
Actinq Mayor Gevinq: Again, we're in the very early stages of negotiating
over this whole sketch. Other things that I have read, however, on the proposed
wetlands to the west, many cities say stay away from those kinds of things, let
the developer keep it and call it an Outlot. Let them keep their ownership of a
place like that. I don't know, again, that would be a Council decision. If you
are willing to give it to us as part of the overall plan.
Jim Curry: That's really what I am doing anyway because I'm getting no credit
for it. So in effect, it is a given.
Actinq Mayor Gevinq: I have other questions, but I know that the Council has a
number of them and we'll address those issues on the lake lots and others.
Councilwoman Swenson:
you know.
How much land is involved in this western strip, Jim, do
Larry Frank:
It's about 20 acres, approximately.
Councilwoman Swenson: Okay, from a passive. . . I'm trying to think how much
of the year that could be usable for walks through the woods, etc.
Councilwoman Watson:
It depends on the year.
Councilwoman Swenson: I was driving past there and it is just a beautiful
place. I'm sure youngsters will eventually derive their own paths through
there.
~l Klinqelhutz: You could walk right along the edge of that wetland right now.
Councilwoman Swenson: I guess I'm responding to what you said. I agree. This
does help to alleviate, because as you all know, if I had my druthers there
wouldn't be anything in here or anyplace else under 15,000 square feet. I have
to admit that this is probably the best plan that I've seen for a long, long
time and I see this open area and then I try to visualize it on the south side.
The highway will really be a break, in essence. The highway will go below so
actually you will have the vision of open space there. You don't know where or
what's going to happen to 101 yet, so I think we should just forget about that
property all together until we get to that stage. I don't even think that
should be included in the discussion or the conditional use. So all in all, I
have no objection to your suggestion on those lots, but I would say that I have
an open mind on that.
Actinq Mayor Gevinq: Okay. The reason I brought this up, what happens if you
have a ball diamond or kids playing next to these five homes here? Balls get
thrown in there, there's noise, maybe there's an afternoon game or an evening
game or something, picnics, or whatever. Then, I know that this happens because
I lived in an area that was just developing in Chanhassen, I took my mowing,
clippings and things like that and dumped it into the vacant lot next door. I
admit that, I guess, but others did too, until eventually all of these other
lots became developed and everybody did it and I can see that happening here
with these five lots. I think we're eliminating a lot of problems if we pick up
those two acres.
Council Meeting, April 7, 1986
-18-
Mr. Curry: One thing that just kind of occurs to me that would really make it
sweet is if you take those away, you know, I don't know why the City would want
to own up to the lake. Maybe make those lots all around. That way you would
have somebody maintaining it, too, of course. You'd have a lot prettier lake
shore.
I
~ Frank: I think one other thing, this road could come straight down to
shorten up this cuI de sac. I don't have any problem with lots backing up on
the park. We got a situation in Eagan where somebody wants to live right next
door to where they have five ball fields with big neon lights. I can't believe
it .
Actinq Mayor Gevinq: So you would shorten that up then, Larry.
Larry Frank: I don't know how that affects my numbers, but this can come
straight down here, this curves in and maybe we still have some lots here.
Actinq Mayor Gevinq:
I want those two acres, I can tell you that right now.
Councilwoman Swenson: By so doing that, Larry, if I understand you, I don't
want you to make those lots on the west side any smaller.
Larry Frank:
thing that I
of cost.
No, it wouldn't really cut into the square footage. I guess the
am getting at is that road issue is going to be a problem in terms
Actinq Mayor Gevinq: We can handle that.
Larry Frank: I've never seen a councilor park commission that wants a piece of I
land and wants assessments with it.
Actinq Mayor Gevinq: Well, we pay our share.
Councilwoman Swenson: How long of a stretch are we talking about from the end
of the lots on the east, and then through to the west and then down to Lyman?
Larry Frank:
About 500 feet.
All the way around the corner?
Councilwoman Swenson:
~ Frank:
500 and then another 350 or 400 more.
Councilwoman Swenson: What kind of a street assessment are we talking about,
approximately?
Bill Monk: $30.00 a foot.
Actinq Mayor Gevinq: I would like to move ahead with this tonight because we're
going back to Planning Commission and I'd like to give them a pretty good idea
of what we're trying to do here.
Bill Monk: One item that Lori and I were kicking around was, there is a I
possibility of instead of taking these five lots and moving the park down this
way, we would move the line back this way. These lots are larger and could be
rearranged so basically what we are talking about is only two lots in this area.
I
I
I
Council Meeting, April 7, 1986
-19-
With a slight rework in here, there is a possibility, that without losing what
would amount to any appreciable size, that you could pick those two lots back
up. This would be about an acre and a half, perhaps two acres. I'm very sen-
sitive to the frontage issue, also. This is a large piece of frontage. One of
the reasons we came down to five acres was a real fear of just the amount of
money that was involved with these improvements. By moving it this way I think
we would reduce that frontage and still retain the good layout in this area.
May be able to do it, may, without the loss of any lots, but I really think that
through working on that, if the Council has a desire to see this enlarged, I
think that could be accommmodated. I think we can come up with a plan that will
do that without maximizing the frontage because another thing is, do you want a
park with this much frontage, where the kids are that close to the street. So,
I think there are some things that we can do.
Actinq Mayor Gevinq: I think it is very desirable because I'm looking at it
this way Bill, we're talking about 700 individuals, people, children, that are
new residents to our City using a five acre park and I think it is going to be
too small for expansion of what may happen over here in some of these Outlots.
This is the only park we've got in this particular area and that may be the only
one we'll have for some time. I think we should do it right now and not try to
skip too much by letting two acres go at a crucial time.
Councilman Horn: I have a question of Lori. Is this the only park plan for
this area or are there other areas that this would serve or that would be served
by parks in this development. It is hard for me to look at one development and
second guess what the Park and Rec has as an overall park plan and I don't know
what that is and if there is something else that is going to serve us, I know
we've said at one point that we are going to use regional parks and each deve-
lopment not have a large park area. I guess I'd like to know what the philo-
sophy is for parks serving this area, if this is it or what the plan is?
Lori Sietsema: The only other park area that would serve this area would be the
Lake Susan community park on the north side of the lake and that is for passive
purposes.
Don Ashworth: I believe our guide plan speaks to try to create a neighborhood
park within four to six blocks walking distance, that should be able to accom-
modate that neighborhood and in looking at it we are going to have some other
problems with this area because there will be developments south of 212 and to
be able to have pedestrians use that park, crossing 212, once it's developed, so
you probably will look to recommendations for a smaller park site when that
other area comes in. The map does show that whole area as park deficient, so
you would probably look to another neighborhood park on the east side of TH 101
when the other developments would be completed, you would look to an additional
park area in there.
Actinq Mayor Gevinq: I think the problem that we are all faced with is that we
don't have a real good comprehensive park plan at this time. We don't have a
view, at least I don't feel we have a view of where potential parks might be
located and I'm going to address that issue later on when we get to this
Council/Commission type thing. I do believe we need to do that.
Councilman Horn:
proposed to be?
How large is the park on South Lotus Lake
One other question.
Just the park portion.
Lori Sietsema:
Two and one half acres.
Council Meeting, April 7, 1986
-20-
Councilman Horn: Now that is serving, I feel, a much larger population than
this area is. We've got four apartment buildings right across the street, we've
got a new housing development going in next to it, we've got the whole downtown I
of Chanhassen that doesn't have another park in the area. My concern is that I
feel in this City we've bought a lot of park land and spent a lot of money on
land and haven't spent money on improving the park land that we have. In com-
paring it with other areas, I'm not sure that we're not park deficient in a lot
of areas and why should we go twice as big or three times as big on one par-
ticular area.
Don Ashworth: This would still be smaller than something like the Chapparal
park area. On the South lotus lake parcel, true, the ball park is smaller than
it should be. Topography was one of the real problems we were faced with in
that particular issue. The Planning Commission had even recommended that we not
look at a ball field in that particular area because it was so small. We can
still put a ball field in but it will have to be for really a very younger
group. You couldn't have the older group in there. You do have a separate
piece that would serve the tennis court area and, I believe that between the
City owned piece and that other one is an additional two acres which you would
have to add to this if you want to look at the total neighborhood.
Councilman Horn: Or was that private for the townhouses?
Don Ashworth: No. The City retained that one piece. We showed it as tennis
courts. So the acreage that Bill gave you there only reflected the area asso-
ciated with the ball field. I think we have some consistency in terms of the
acreage we're looking to and I don't think that five acres is too large, if
anything, if we could go to seven, I think we'd be better off.
Actinq Mayor Gevinq: I think, Bill, you had a very good suggestion. Maybe you
could enhance that and work with larry on this and see if you can't develop
something with that plan. I kind of like the idea of moving maybe to the east
side then and seeing what you guys can work out.
I
Councilwoman Swenson: A recommendation in that respect if you look at that
corner lot on the east side, larry, it is a 33,000 or 35,000 square foot lot.
That one and the one next to it, I think is 27,000. Okay, can you just shift
those over so that the one, the 33,000 goes from its northern most point there
right down to the corner and just shift the eastern lot line over a little bit
and divide that in two. Then it seems like we'll pick up those two and that
sliver of the other one which looks like it should work and you'll still have
two nice lots in there and I think that is an intelligent approach.
Councilwoman Watson: There would only be two lots lost and we would be picking up
another 350 feet.
Actinq Mayor Gevinq: let's shift our attention now to the proposed lakes lots,
lots 1, 2 and 3.
Councilwoman Swenson: I think for all of us that have been involved with this
for any length of time are well aware of the concerns of the owners along the I
lake and problems they had with the originally proposed townhouses and multiples
by the water. I am concerned with that. I find difficulty making that into
even passive area for a park, I'm not sure that's appropriate. I am in total
agreement with these three lots. I don't know where, although I'm in firm
approval of having a walkway, if you will, around the lake where there hasn't
been. But being familiar with this lake, with the west side of lake Susan and
I
I
I
Council Meeting, April 7, 1986
-21-
the south side there, you're going from private property, so you know can't go
any further east for the walkway and my knowledge of the terrain from there, I
just don't think you can reverse all the way over to the city park. I don't
think you can get through there because at least in one section directly across
on the west side of the lake, unless you have water wings, you'd never get
across it. I guess that I have a question of leaving that area there. I
perhaps would agree with the idea that if in fact it doesn't disturb the
riparian rights of the property, if we could have a walkway easement across it,
my personal opinion is that the lots should go down to the lake because this
protects the current residences around the lake. I would feel differently if
there was some way to make a logical continuation of the property around. I
can't see it. I'm in favor of leaving this. I like the drainage plan. I guess
my only question there is, are you considering, Larry, that the land is going to
drain in to the west, I mean the drainage of the whole project is going to drain
to the west. Then you have the one ponding area between the two developments on
the north.
Larry Frank:
Right. We haven't gotten really into the baslcs.
Councilwoman Swenson: Do you feel that is sufficient there and that the terrain
is such that we are not going to wind up with a pond that is going to create a
problem on a 100-year flood.
Larry Frank:
No, no problem.
Councilwoman Swenson: As I recall I would tend to agree with you.
wanted to ascertain that. Well, that would be my proposal.
I jus t
Actinq Mayor Gevinq: I'm really quite surprised that we don't have homeowners
from Lake Susan here this evening unless Al is representing them. Are you
representing the homeowners group, AI?
~l Klinqelhutz: Well, I talked to a few of them over the weekend and we did
discuss this to a considerable extent and they would appreciate it if those
three lots would go on down to the lake because of the fact that it's going
to be a dead end into their property and mine. People will be walking in there
as far as they can go and I don't know if a "No Trespassing" sign will stop
them and they will more than likely want to continue on around the lake. I do
agree that the rest of the lake all had lakeshore of 100, 150 feet or 100 feet,
it would be very nice. But when you come to a dead end like that, I just can't
believe that it is going to help anyone very much to have that pathway along
there for 600 or 700 feet and all of a sudden stop. For the little use that it
would get I think the riparian rights, as I find out the extra tax dollars as
lakeshore rates, could well afford the City of Chanhassen to put that money into
some other good use.
Actinq Mayor Gevinq: Well, I would agree with what Pat is proposing.
Councilman Horn: I think that the only other trade-off that could have been
would be to put a park in that area and that is an expensive park then.
Actinq Mayor Gevinq: Let's just say that there is general agreement among the
Council that those would be riparian lots with the lots extending to the lake
and as long as we can have a walkway easement of some sort across there. We'll
probably never use it but just for historical purposes to tie it down and record
Council Meeting, April 7, 1986
-22-
it properly, we may at some time want to do something. I'm going to have to
ask you this AI, is there any way that a person could walk to the west there,
just west of lot 1 or around the west and connect up with our existing park?
I
~ Klinqelhutz: There is a creek through here and the only way it would be
possible, and I don't think it would be a bad idea, that if you bridge that
creek, the ground is high enough on each side of it that you could have a nice
walkway. I've never seen water up in this area all along here. The walkway
could start any place here and go right on down to the lake. There is a tem-
porary dam right at this area right now and a holding pond. There is water in
the pond right now and it could come up another four feet before it comes over
the top. This area is high and dry. This is not what I would consider a
wetland. My wife and I walked there a week ago Sunday and we didn't get wet
feet and we walked right close to the lake, right along here, went over the dam,
walked up through where the old driveway was back of the house.
Actinq Mayor Gevinq: We could at some future time. You could bridge that
creek and go to the west of the lake, is that right?
~ Klinqelhutz:
the park.
Go to the west of the lake and a trailway existing right up to
That still gives us three lots with riparian rights.
Councilwoman Swenson:
~ Klinqelhutz:
Right.
Councilwoman Watson: I have one comment. Every time we get near a road we
always say nobody will live on that. I was absolutely thrilled to see someone I
realize that people will live along a highway. We got to Highway 7 and Highway
41 and everyone said it has got to be commercial, nobody will live there. That
really isn't true, so I was thrilled to see someone else believe that people
will live here. You go to Highway 18 and Crosstown and there is houses there.
People will live in those areas and to think that everything, because the high-
way comes together has to suddenly be commercial is ridiculous. I was real
pleased to see that someone else believes that you can sell a lot along the
highway. Those will be nice houses and will sell. People will live there.
Councilwoman Swenson: Number nine. I'd like to follow up on that. Why does
staff feel that an investigation of appropriate land uses when we have no idea
of what's going to happen down there.
lQ Ann Olsen: Well, that was really one of the recommendations with the first
plan when they had that 32 single family lots in the southeast corner there.
Councilwoman Swenson:
south of 212.
I think it is a little premature to discuss the sections
Actinq Mayor Gevinq:
Should we drop number nine?
It's mute at this point.
Councilwoman Swenson:
Actinq Mayor Gevinq: Let's just drop number nine. I think number five we I
discussed in detail as far as staff working with the Park and Rec and Larry
regarding the extension of the park. I don't know if we have included this
recommendation of Pat's to include the riparian rights. But that should be one
I
I
I
Council Meeting, April 7, 1986
-23-
of the items that we would add back to the staff report. As far as I am con-
cerned, I am very satisfied with what I see here tonight as far as the sketch
plan.
Councilwoman Swenson: Do you want to include the alteration on the east side of
the park area, those two lots?
Actinq Mayor Gevinq: Yes. That is the indication I made on number 5 that staff
would work with the developer in reworking the proposed park plan.
Larry Frank: I think it was in Bill's report that the County said a permit was
not required because it would be a City street.
Bill Monk: That is correct. If we have a City street that comes out, in
essence, a separate access permit wouldn't be required.
Councilwoman Swenson: What kind of a shoreline is that?
Ai Klinqelhutz: A very sandy shoreline.
Councilwoman Swenson: We are talking about any concern about docks going in
there.
Ai Klinqelhutz: If you get this trailway system and put a little bridge here
and go out around the lake and put a little bridge over Lake Susan Creek and get
into the park, you are going to have one of the most unique trailway systems in
the City of Chanhassen.
Councilman Horn moved to approve the Sketch Plan Review for Chanhassen Hills
Planned Residential Development for IBl single family and 50 multiple family
homes, Meritor Corporation with the following conditions:
1. The Comprehensive Plan must be amended to redesignate the
medium density and park areas.
2. A landscape plan for the double frontage lots should be sub-
mitted for staff review.
3. The OHWM of the wetland areas and Lake Susan shall be iden-
tified on plat submittals.
4. A Wetland Alteration Permit is required if sedimentation
basins are located in the Class B wetland and if development
takes place within 200 feet of the Class A wetlands.
5. The applicant should work with staff and the Park and
Recreation Commission to pursue negotiations for an active
park area within the PUD and trail easements.
6. The applicant must prepare an Environmental Assessment
Worksheet in compliance with the Environmental Quality Board.
7. The applicant must receive an access permit from Carver
County.
B. The applicant must receive an access permit from MnDot.
Council Meeting, April 7, 1986
-24-
9. That the three shoreline lots (Lots 1, 2 and 3) become
riparian lots.
Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Swenson.
Acting Mayor Geving, Councilwomen Swenson and
negative votes. Motion carried.
The following voted in favor:
Watson and Councilman Horn.
I
10. That staff work with the developer on expanding the park.
No
PRESENTATION Qf 1985 PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION ANNUAL REPORT, RICHARD WING:
Actinq Mayor Gevinq: I think it is one of the best reports that I have seen in
the several years that you have been putting these together. We are hitting
some new areas now and I am really happy to see the Commmission supporting our
current contract with Carver County. You mention that two or three times in
here and I think it is indicative of a very good relationship that the com-
mission now has with Carver County and among ourselves between the Fire Depart-
ment and the Police Department that we didn't have maybe a year ago.
Richard Winq: I think that Mr. Ashworth and the commission dealt with this void
of communication in the administrative void and I think that we were very con-
cerned with the City growing and that Mr. Ashworth couldn't be the police chief.
I think the key of this was simply the hiring of Mr. Castleberry. Originally,
in our presentation suggesting a Public Safety Director, we had looked. at Greg Davies
Davies and that style of a person and when Don pulled out Mr. Castleberry it
somewhat caught us off guard and we really got into such a specialized person
with such an educational background. Being on the commission, I don't think
that we should address these issues. I think we are so confident in Mr. Castle- I
berry that anything you ask him, you are going to get a very straight forward
and forthright answer. I think we support the contract system at this point,
very strongly. I think we are very pleased with the personalized contact we
have gotten and the efficiency through Mr. Castleberry. I think he kind of woke
the County up. Being on the Fire Department, I am very pleased with that. I am
very impressed with the public safety we have in Chanhassen. I can't find
anything to complain about.
Actinq Mayor Gevinq: I would like to compliment the Fire Department, the Com-
mission, and Jim personally in the matter in which they have taken a big fear
and a concern of mine away and that was the replacement of our Fire Department
seniors that are going to be retiring in the very near future. A few years ago
this Council sat here and wondered how we were going to replace 6 or 7 or 8
people who would be retiring in a couple of years. We just didn't see any hope
on the horizon. Now I see that you have been out beating the bushes and we have
some new applicants, we have a lot of new trainees coming in and I see the Fire
Department moving ahead and in a real vigorous manner with some aggressive young
people that are going to carryon our tradition of our Fire Department.
Richard Winq: I think that is a good appraisal of the problem. I think,
though, we have also recognized the resources on mutual aid so that where ever
we lack at any point during the hour of the day, we feel very comfortable with
mutual aid now and we are all in the same boat so we are all cooperating very
closely on the mutual aid stance.
I
Councilwoman Watson moved to accept the 1985 Public Safety Commission Annual
Report dated February 10, 1986. Motion was seconded by Councilman Horn. The
following voted in favor: Acting Mayor Geving, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson,
and Councilman Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried.
I
I
I
Council Meeting, April 7, 1986
-25-
APPROVAL OF 1987 LCMR/LAWCON APPLICATIONS:
-- r
Lori Sietsema: Because last year we received a grant for the ball field
lighting at Lake Ann Park, we do not qualify for state LCMR Grant funds, but
that notation does not carryover into the LAWCON or federal funds. So we are
eligible for LAWCON money. If we received a grant from LAWCON it would cover 50
percent of the project. The Park and Recreation Commission discussed the pro-
jects that were sent to them the last couple years. Besides the ball field
lighting project, we had the park shelter and also the Lake Ann Park expansion
development. Because of the scope of the Lake Ann expansion development, we
probably are going to need LAWCON and LCMR money to do that. That was one of
the points why I didn't recommend going for that grant. The other reason is
LAWCON, to be quite honest, I don't think they even look at field development
projects, and if it has anything to do with water they don't consider it.
Actinq Mayor Gevinq:
look good for us this
application?
In your discussions with the LCMR people, does it really
year for the park shelter if we were to resubmit that
Lori Sietsema: I think that we will at least rank high. I don't know if we
will get any money. Last year we ranked sixth in the Metro area and they were
only able to fund the top three.
Actinq Mayor Gevinq: I don't believe I have ever seen a sketch plan of this
park shelter that we are speaking of. This is one that would be right on the
shoreline?
Lori Sietsema:
turning area.
Right, it would be down right off the lowest parking lot, by the
Don Ashworth: The Council has talked about the shelter building that we have at
Lake Susan, that style and how nice that would be if we had something similar to
that at Lake Ann. Basically, that is what that application from a year ago was.
Actinq Mayor Gevinq: That would be right near the lake there?
Don Ashworth: Yes, it could serve the boat access, the restrooms, it could
serve as a changing area (the lower area). The upper area could serve as really
an oversized screened-in porch where you could be overlooking the park and use
it for family type of gatherings, etc. The reason you may not recall it is
because it has been well over a year, year and a half old and secondly, we
looked at a number of projects at that time. These were all put together by
Mark Koegler, and he did an excellent job with the package that he had put
together at that point in time.
Actinq Mayor Gevinq: Apparently on the LAWCON funding, I don't know what you
are proposing for the LAWCON, I would except the LCMR would be the shelter.
Don Ashworth: We are not going to be able to get the state monies and it is
really a question on the federal.
Councilwoman Swenson: Is there any way that this money can be utilized towards
the cleaning up of the lakes project. I was interested to read in the admi-
nistrative packet that these lakes are deteriorating. Would LAWCON funds be
available for this project.
Lori Sietsema:
I don't know, but I can find out for you.
Council Meeting, April 7, 1986
-26-
Bill Monk: The only problem with that is you are talking about a $700,000 pro-
ject. We could go for LAWCON funding which would go to 50 percent. The problem
is that you are talking about working with the EPA, the Watershed District, the
DNR and you are going to throw in LAWCON also. If anyone of those should not
work out, basically you would be applying for a grant that wouldn't come about.
The way that that grant is structured right now is that it basically hinges on
we being able to receive a grant. I don't think it is realistic to think that
we are going to get a $350,000 LAWCON grant for that. It doesn't seem to fit
into the sequence, but we could check it.
Councilwoman Swenson: I guess what I am thinking, since this is a multiple
agency project that really affects not only our five lakes, but also continues
to drain down. As I recall, there was suppose to be some money available for
that.
Bill Monk: We are waiting for word back from the PCA and the EPA to see whether
they have the funds available to grant the 50 percent. It really hinges on
that. If they do, DNR is ready to jump in and fund a major portion of it and I
do think that the way we have got it set up, the Cities may have to put in very
little, if any money. I don't think, though, that we can expect LAWCON to step
in and pick up the EPA's portion.
Councilwoman Swenson: The thought was there. Since water is a major portion of
their concern and we are going to have to do something because if we don't Riley
is going to deteriorate.
Actinq Mayor Gevinq: The second issue here is the Chanhassen Estates park trail
or whatever you are proposing down there for that little park.
Lori Sietsema: That was the other park that the Park and Recreation Commission
identified. In the Comprehensive Plan it suggests that the Chanhassen Estates
Park be developed into a nature center area and becoming more of a community
park. The 30 acres that are not developed into the ball field and the tot lot,
not that area, but the rest of the 30 acres with board walks going through and
interpretative signing and getting people out into nature without actually
distirbing it much.
Actinq Mayor Gevinq: Do you have much work to do in preparation for either one
of these. Obviously, the first one on the shelter is all ready to go.
Lori Sietsema: The park shelter grant application would not be much work at
all. The second one, I talked to Mike Koegler about working with him on that
and he felt that we could probably get something together on it in time.
Actinq Mayor Gevinq: When do we have to have these projects in?
Lori Sietsema: May 5th.
Councilwoman Watson: I was trying to figure out how we could build it even if
they don't come through.
Actinq Mayor Gevinq: I haven't seen this plan before that I remember, but I
have always thought that we should build a park shelter.
Don Ashworth: We went through so many projects last year and this was one of
four that we made application for. We did receive the approval for the boat
access, which is on the left side, the other one which we applied for was the
shelter building.
I
I
I
I
I
I
Council Meeting, April 7, 1986
-27-
Councilwoman Swenson: Are you going to have an attendent down there?
Don Ashworth: No, but you do have some vandalism. The Fireman's Park in Chaska
is probably a good example. If you go in there you will see some vandalism
occur. But if you watch the construction, in other words a block structure very
similar to state or federal design. It usually is minimal.
Councilwoman Swenson: I would like to take you over to one of our s~uthern com-
munities and shown you a block building that is not more than 300 feet from my
son's house and the water fountains have been ripped off, the lavatories have
been ripped out of the wall.
Don Ashworth: The only thing that I would like you to think of is that we lock
the park every night. In the fall and the spring you do have some potential
problems. We do have to watch it more. Quite honestly, I think we are very
fortunate in this community in not having as much vandalism. We have had some
vandalism at the Lake Susan shelter building, but there is a facility that
really sits in the middle of nowhere. We have almost no way to protect that
facility because it is almost impossible for police to get back in there a good
portion of the year. Although we have had some vandalism where they have come
in and painted things and other vandalism to the building, it has not been
extensive.
Councilwoman Swenson: As I recall, we built it so that it was virtually break-
in proof.
Don Ashworth: They have broken in. They went into an exhaust area and took
that off. But to the best of my knowledge they created no damage once they got
inside.
Actinq Mayor Gevinq: Do you feel comfortable with these two projects that you
are proposing, Lori?
hori Sietsema:
Yes.
Acting Mayor Geving moved to authorize staff to prepare the two LCMR/LAWCON pre-
liminary applications for the Lake Ann Park Picnic Shelter and Chanhassen Esta-
tes Nature Trailway. Motion was seconded by Counilman Horn. The following
voted in favor: Acting Mayor Geving, Councilwoman Watson, and Councilman Horn.
Councilwoman Swenson abstained. Motion carried.
AUTHORIZATION FOR FUNDING AND PARTICIPATION ~ SOUTHWEST AREA COMMITTEE ON
METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT INVESTMENT FRAMEWORK:
RESOLUTION #86-19A: Councilman Horn moved the adoption of a resolution
authorizing a budget amendment to allocate up to $2,000 for participation in the
Southwest Area Committee on the proposed Metropolitan Development and Investment
Framework including authorization for city staff to work in conjunction with the
proposed consultants in representing the concerns of the City of Chanhassen.
Resolution was seconded by Acting Mayor Geving. The following voted in favor:
Acting Mayor Geving, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, and Councilman Horn. No
negative votes. Motion carried.
MINNESOTA SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM RESOLUTION:
RESOLUTION #86-20: Councilwoman Watson moved the adoption of a resolution sup-
port in the Minnesota Selective Service in declaring April as Registration Aware-
Council Meeting, April 7, 1986
-28-
ness Month. Resolution was seconded by Acting Mayor Geving. The following
voted in favor: Acting Mayor Geving, Councilwomen Swenson and Watson, and Coun-
cilman Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried.
FERTILIZER ORDINANCE:
lQ Ann Olsen: The memo is just kind of covering the background and how I came
up with the suggestion of just going with the public education rather than the
fertilizer ordinance itself. I had spoken with other professionals and was told
that the fertilizer ordinance doesn't really do anything unless you really know
that you have a phosphorus problem that is really hard to enforce and that the
public education is what is most important. As far as implementing that, that's
fine. You still really have to back it up with public education, which I am
doing.
Actinq Mayor Gevinq: You are in the process of doing something now, is that
correct?
lQ Ann Olsen: Yes, I have gotten some facts from some professional offices
like things that you should follow and what type of fertilizer to use and when
to use it.
Actinq Mayor Gevinq: Could you push it out so that we can get it out before
people start applying fertilizer. As Acting Mayor, I would like to direct you
to get that our within the next 10 days. I would like to get it in the local
paper.
Councilwoman Swenson: How long is it going to take to get a public hearing on
this, or do we have to have one?
Don Ashworth: If you go through the ordinance you should look to some type of a
public hearing. But what we are basically suggesting is just to continue public
awareness rather than a hearing process.
Councilwoman Swenson: I definitely want an ordinance. I want it to include
licensing. I think that your items 1 and 2 are well taken. I think that that
is a good way to assist in enforcing it. But I am not satisfied merely with an
educational process. I do not think that this is sufficiently affective. I
think the sooner we get it out, the better it is going to be. I don't think it
is necessary to go and get a recommendation from anybody. I think the idea is
that if we are going to have an ordinance, we are going to have these people
licensed. You get the information that we require as to the type of fertilizer
that is going to be destructive to our waters and let's get it on the books and
get it going before we dilly dally around and the lakes get worse and worse and
worse.
I
I
Actinq Mayor Gevinq: This is one Councilpersons opinion of an ordinance that
should be implemented, but I am not so sure. I have reservations about this. I
feel that unless you can put teeth into an ordinance and enforce it, it is just
a piece of paper and it is going to be a lot of money to put that together from
an attorney's standpoint. I think that before we attack the issue, I say let's
start here with the education program and see how that goes, but I am reluctant I
at this time to direct staff to move charging ahead on something that maybe is
not fully supported by the other Council members. I would like to poll the
Council members at this time.
Councilwoman Watson: I don't think that we can enforce it. I think you can
enforce the companies, but there are a lot of us who just fertilize our own
I
I
I
Council Meeting, April 7, 1986
-29-
lawns and there is no way you are ever going to know what I am going to put on
my lawn. I think it is a good idea. I just don't think that we can enforce it.
Actinq Mayor Gevinq: I do too. I support the idea. The concept is tremendous,
but how do you go about doing it?
Councilwoman Watson: I don't know how we will get a handle on the private
homeowner using fertilizers, except to educate them and hope that they will buy
a fertilizer that is suitable, but I don't know how you find out whether they
have or haven't.
Councilman ~ I appreciate it that we had some backup material to go through
to make our decision on. What the backup material told me is that in all cases,
every lake, the phosphorus portion is improving and not getting worse. I really
don't like to set up ordinances for problems that appear to be getting better.
I think when we really needed this ordinance was when we first started develop-
ment around the lakes and nobody knew anything about fertilizers. You can see
the trend in all these reports in all the lakes. As soon as they developed, the
phosphorus content went up because all the people started fertilizing their lawn
and then as soon as some public awareness was made about what phosphorus does to
the lake, you can see in the last few years that has turned around from the '78
to the '84 studies that were taken. So it appears to me that something that we
are doing is working. I think some of the other things that help too is that we
have turned some farm areas into housing areas and we are not getting as much
farm runoff from the natural farm fertilizers, which were quite heavy in
phosphorus. I think the lawn fertilizers tend to be higher in nitrogen in most
cases.
Actinq Mayor Gevinq: I think that we should not proceed with any further deve-
lopment on this ordinance at this time and I am directing staff not to proceed.
However, I would like to have you continue working on the educational program
and as I indicated before I would like to get that out within the ten days.
Councilwoman Swenson: At the very least it seems to me that we should take
under serious consideration the subject of having these people licensed, the
commercial. I recognize that probably from the homeowners standpoint you are
going to have a difficulty in ordinance projection. My grave concern is not so
much with the people who are doing it themselves as it is with the commercial
people who come in. I think we should definitely have an ordinance, or whatever
it requires to license commercial applicators that come into our City. We don't
know what is being put on and there is also an indication in here that I have
seen that these cities who have passed it are in fact satisfied that they have.
I guess I have to disagree with the balance of the staff. But I think that if
we do not have at least a licensing process, and I don't think that is going to
be too difficult to enforce.
Actinq Mayor Gevinq: No, I think we are going to move ahead and not do any more
work on this fertilizer ordinance at this time. I heard three people this
evening say that without an effective enforcement on an ordinance we shouldn't
have it, and that is the way I heard it from three Councilmembers.
Councilman Horn: I didn't really say it that way, Dale, but what I did say is
that I think that we are not having a problem with phosphorus. What I would
like to know though, is there something that leads us to believe that these
commercial people are putting things on that are more dangerous to the lakes?
Council Meeting, April 7, 1986
-30-
dQ Ann Olsen: From what I have heard they are already using lower phosphorus in
fertilizer.
Councilwoman Watson: let me understand the licensing process. Would that be to
attempt to license any fertilizer company that attempted to sell to a resident
in the City?
I
dQ Ann Olsen: Yes.
Councilwoman Watson: How would we enforce that, because the contract is
literally between the private homeowner and the company.
Councilwoman Swenson: They would have to have a license to do business in the
City.
dQ Ann Olsen: And we would set a maximum phosphorus that they could use. The
enforcement problem is making sure that they are upholding that.
Councilwoman Watson: Then we would be kind of depending on those companies then
if they got a call from a Chanhassen resident and they weren't licenses here
that they would say, I am sorry I can't sell to you, I am not licensed in the
City of Chanhassen.
dQ Ann Olsen:
It is possible
make sure they
That is if we
to catch some
are using the
saw them and
that are not
right amount
made sure that they were
licensed and also double
of phophorus.
on the list.
check and
Councilwoman Watson: If we went into the licensing issue how do we establish
what those levels should or shouldn't be? What is that based on?
I
dQ Ann Olsen:
I pretty much took it from the Shore view Ordinance.
Councilwoman Watson: Because without the ordinance, if we just went into
licensing, because I don't the believe the ordinance will work.
~ Ann Olsen: That would have to be a part of the license to have that
phosphorus level set.
Councilwoman Watson: So you would have to have the ordinance if you were going
to do the licensing.
Jo Ann Olsen: That part of the ordinance, yes. The rest of the ordinance
really would not be that detrimental to have a whole ordinance maybe other than
the property owners themselves. Again, the public education should do the
trick.
Actinq Mayor Gevinq: I, personally, feel at this time that we ought to continue
with this educational program and stay with that and back off from the further
development of this ordinance. That is my position and I am going to continue
thinking that way.
COUNCIL/COMMISSION RELATIONS: I
Actinq Mayor Gevinq: I happened to have the opportunity to attend the Park and
Recreation Commission meeting. I was quite surprised when I came into the room.
There were only two commissioners that I personally recognized. It leads me to
something that I think we ought to do and that is when new commissioners are
I
I
I
Council Meeting, April 7, 1986
-31-
appointed they should be asked to appear before the City Council so we get to
know who they are and who we have just appointed to this commission. I also saw
Tuesday night that there was a certain degree of disorganization. These people
just showed up for the meeting, they were there for the very first time and it
didn't seem to be very well organized or a first rate operation. What I would
like to propose is two things: 1) that new commission members have an oppor-
tunity to be introduced to the City Council before their first night as a com-
missioner, whatever commission they are appointed to. 2) we should have an
annual commission/city council meeting with each of our commissions. The pur-
pose for this annual meeting is to give them guidance on what we expect from the
commission members, our philosophies, some of our concepts of our community so
that we can work together. I think the commission and the commissioners them-
selves would appreciate this opportunity because I think sometimes they're given
the charge to do great and wonderful things as commission members but not
getting very much guidance on how we are going to react to some of their propo-
sals. I remember reading Park and Rec Commission, Planning Commission and other
Commission notes that their recommendations to us weren't being accepted by us
or that we changed our minds. In some cases they were a little bit irritated
because we are not following their recommendations. That's not basically true.
We do attempt to do that. But I think if they understood better how we operate
and that we don't always score 100 percent with Planning Commission recommen-
dations, that there are times that we have to negotiate and we have our thoughts,
that they would feel better when they see a recommendation coming back to them
that we have made and we made it. I would like to see those two things. The
reason I am saying this is because I came to that meeting Tuesday night and I
got the feeling that we could be a lot better organized in how we work with our
commissions.
Councilman Horn: I know that the Planning Commission always sends a represen-
tative to the meeting and I think it would be very helpful on meeting nights
like this where we have a lot of park issues that a member of the Park Board
would sit in. We had questions tonight about a plan and it would be nice to
have one of their members here when we are dealing with this kind of issue so
that we can ask them those kind of questions.
ActinQ Mayor GevinQ: This brings me to another point. I am zeroing in on the
Park and Rec tonight because at that particular meeting there were two new com-
mission members and I don't believe they were given any kind of planning or
pamphlet on what their job as commission members really is. I asked Lori if she
had a Park and Recreaction plan for the community, a comprehensive plan of all
of our parks, for example. Some of our policies, some of our plans for future
parks, dedication fees and how they are arrived at, etc. I believe she told me
that she is considering a plan, but nothing really exists. I would like to give
a charge to the Park and Rec Commission to develop that plan and have it in our
hands within six months. I don't think it is that difficult to build and she
has to work closely with Barb Dacy, Jo Ann and Bill Monk because parts of that
particular plan that I am speaking of is already in other areas of our compre-
hensive plan and the land use plan and other places. I would like to have that
extracted and placed in one place, given to each of these Park and Rec Com-
mission members and when developers like Jim Curry come in, there is no great
negotiation that is going to take place. Much of the plan is going to be laid
out for him. He knows where our parks are going to be, where our future parks
are planned, trails systems, etc. Like I heard the other night at the park
meeting, they started at 19 acres and they were willing, before the evening ended,
to accept 5 acres and the commission chairman says, I am willing to accept that
because we don't want to destroy our credibility with the Council. I kind of
took exception to that because I feel that they are the first people that the
Council Meeting, April 7, 1986
-32-
developers run into and they should be hard and fast.
fairly laid out for a developer so he knows what he is
there is a 10 percent dedication of his land, he knows
feeling to that commission is that I would like to see
so the developer knows what those standards are.
Their rule should be
up against, and that if
that up front. My
them set some standards
I
Councilwoman Swenson: Maybe this should be addressed in our new zoning ordi-
nance so that we have specifics. I would add to that to some extent, and I
don't know about the rest of the Council, but I wouldn't mind giving up an
evening every fifth meeting of the Planning Commission and attend it on a
rotating basis, which as they do. I don't think that would hurt a darn bit.
The one thing we have talked about is the delay in our minutes, not because it
is anybody's fault but they have to go to you before they come to us. Of
course, now this is going to be improved, I am sure. It will help a great deal
that we will now be getting the verbatim reports because we will be able to
understand a little bit more of exactly who said what and what were your opi-
nions. Maybe that will do the job. If it doesn't, then I think we should maybe
start considering this idea of rotating attendance at the Planning Commission at
least.
ActinQ Mayor GevinQ: At the start of each year at the first January meeting,
this is our organization meeting. I think that is the appropriate time to have
the kind of sit down, get together with the other commission members to start
the new year off on the right foot. I would like to ask you, Bill, what do you
think of something like what we are talking about now? From a Commission stand-
point, the Planning Commission, do you feel you need that kind of guidance and
concepts of what the City is going to do and where we are going.
Bill Ryan: I think it is a good idea, Dale, at some point through the cycle at I
least be able to get some feedback. When we bring a new member on, and it is
getting very very difficult to find new members, it is hard to take the time
with each new member and go through the comprehensive plans. Every time an
issue comes up, there is some history behind it, and we start talking about what
happened five years ago on the commission. Most of the commission members have
no idea how we got to where we are. If we could have, periodically, meetings or
just a general work session not as a part of a regular meeting, but a Saturday
work session that we can sit down and talk about where are we, where have we
come and where we are going to go. I think that is a good idea.
ActinQ Mayor GevinQ: I think the only point that I was trying to make is that
we have to be working closer with our commissions, and turn it over to staff and
Don and see how we can do it.
Don Ashworth: I think the points that you raised are very good, we have
recognized them staff wise and they are not necessarily new issues. The Park
ordinance issue, you have no less than 10 ordinances that deal in one way or
another with park related items. That whole codification issue comes right back
into being. You're talking about park dedication ordinance, open space, storm
water management. Each of those issues tie together in recognizing the
necessity for coordination and codification ordinances. You have got a good
start on that and by the end of the year you will see a document that basically
will provide one additional tool back to Planning Commission or new Park Com-
mission members coming in. The second area that you have is the necessity to
update your comprehensive plan. We recognize that the park element is one that
does need to be extensively worked on. I think when Mark Koegler worked for the
City and recognizing a lot of areas were wide open at that point in time, that
I
I
I
I
Council Meeting, April 7, 1986
-33-
he did a very good job in giving us a first draft. But I think at this point in
time and the work that we are going to be doing this fall will provide a docu-
ment that gets into the level that you are talking about.
Actinq Mayor Gevinq: I didn't mean to give Lori an assignment tonight of coming
up with a park plan in six months. What I did try to give to her is some ideas
on where we can go. You have some very energetic people on your Park Commission
right now. I think many of these items can be farmed out to those people and
let them do some of the work with you, Lori. Don't be hesitant about getting
them involved, and they can write some of the sections of the plan that we are.
talking about.
Bill Ryan: One of the best things that we had when we did the wetlands ordi-
nance was creating the sub-committee.
FOURTH OF JULY CELEBRATION:
Lori Sietsema: I am trying to drum up some plans for the Fourth of July
celebration. I am planning to do something very similar to what we have done in
the past - with the two softball tournaments, the family games, the Fourth of
July fireworks, the fun run, etc. This year the Fourth of July falls on a Fri-
day. I was concerned that if we make all these plans and don't have something
really special to keep people in town, that everybody is going to leave and we
aren't going to have much going on out there. I have discussed with the Park
and Rec Commission of having a street dance in Chanhassen. I think a 50-60's
band at a street dance would be a real popular type of a band to have. The Park
and Rec Commission liked that idea. They recommended that I go ahead and look
into bands before I bring this whole idea to you. I did find a band that is
very reasonable for $1,100.00 that is available that day and would be willing to
play outside. I have seen them and they are a really fun band. We talked about
where we could hold the dance and some of the ideas we came up with was closing
off Coulter Drive and having it on this street, having it on the school pro-
perty, or having it along West 78th Street in the parking area in conjunction
with the bowling center setting up the beer stand and handling that part of it.
The Commission decided that the site along West 78th Street in the parking area
would probably be the best spot. So they have sent their recommendation for you
to authorize staff to continue to try and put a street dance together.
Councilwoman Swenson:
Chanhassen Bowl, which
greater connotation of
street type of thing.
You are going to be taking away the parking area from the
they need desparately, besides which I think you have a
a neighborhood type of thing if you put it over in a
Councilwoman Watson: But more of a City thing rather than the Filley's are
having a street dance outside.
Don Ashworth: The problem we looked at was really one of parking and during the
summer months your bowling is minimal and on a Saturday evening we are not
anticipating a lot of traffic.
Counilwoman Swenson:
is all right.
I am not adamant about it. If you think it is better it
Councilman Horn moved to authorize staff to carry out plans and preparations for
a City street dance to be held on the Fourth of July in conjunction with the
annual Lake Ann Park Celebration. Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Watson.
The following voted in favor: Acting Mayor Geving, Councilwomen Swenson and
Watson, and Councilman Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried.
Council Meeting, April 7, 1986
-34-
Councilman Horn moved to adjourn the meeting. Motion was seconded by Coun-
cilwoman Swenson. The following voted in favor: Acting Mayor Geving, Coun- I
cilwomen Swenson and Watson, and Councilman Horn. No Negative votes. Motion
carried.
Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Kathy Sundquist
I
I