1986 04 21
REGULAR CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MEETING
April 21, 1986
I
Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag.
Members Present
Councilman Horn, Councilwoman Watson
Councilman Geving, and Councilwoman Swenson
Members Absent
None
Staff Present
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Geving: I'd like to talk about Business Park future acquisition and
discussion. Councilwoman Watson moved to approve the agenda as presented with the addition of
Councilman Geving's business. Motion was seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor:
Mayor Hamilton, Councilmen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes.
Motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA: Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to
the City Manager's recommendations:
l. a. RESOLUTION #86-21: Acceptance of Near Mountain Utility and Street Improvements.
I b. Approval of Fireworks Display Permit for July 4, Minnewashta Fireworks Committee.
Advisory Committee.
c. Appointment to Community Development Block Grant
Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: The following voted
in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative
votes. Motion carried.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
Mayor Hamilton: Anyone who would like to make a presentation to the Coucil which will not be acted
this evening but may be placed on future agenda items to present at this time. Is there anyone who
has such item? If not, we have one person who would like to speak at the Visitor's Presentation to
review the Carver County Solid Waste Plan. Mike Lien is here to do that.
Mike Lien: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I will try to make it short and sweet. Talking about a dull
subject again - garbage. I hope you have received copies and I think Jo Ann had sent them out to
you of the draft Solid Waste Master Plan.
,
What this plan is like all master plans, it is saying how Carver County is trying to manage its
garbage to the year 2000. It wasn1t something we did just on a whim. It was mandated by the Legis-
lature and also because we probably would have had to have it done because of all of the changes
happening in the solid waste field is being involved in some of this stuff the last few years. We
basically put the plan together at the County staff. It is a draft plan now. We are out trying to
get comments from the cities on it. I am not here to tell you that it is an exciting book. Once
you get into it, if you read it, you will find that it is short on numbers, short on detail. It's
kind of a fishing expedition. We put a lot of things in here, a lot of ideas we'd like to work
with. We've got it out there now. We are doing two things. We are looking for comments from
Council Meeting, April 21, 1986
-2-
the cities such as you about how you think some of these. things would work. How it would affect your
city. Also, we hope in the next couple of months to start implementing a couple of the programs to I
see how they work before we put them down in a hard and fast plan that we have to redraft sometime in
the future. I think if you have plan copies with you, if you would just look through, we have a plan
summary in here real quick. I hope your copies are put together in the right order. Mine are not. I've
got two page ones and the second page one is the one I am looking at - plan summary. I think when you're
looking at this and I don't know how much detail you want to get into tonight, I'm just going to skim it
real quick. We've got a list of things starting at the bottom of page one, under the heading THE FOLLOWING
IS A SUMMARY PLAN OF THE COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES. That carries over on to the second page. We basically
tried to put in there - how this plan could or will affect cities, individuals, whatever. I think the
if we spend some time on this thinking about the things we are saying in here, and hopefully you will
have some comments on the entire plan and get you interested and look into it a little bit. I think
the two main things you want to look at - how is it going to affect Chanhassen. Right up front you
see number 1 - each citizen of the county is going to be asked to reduce its yard waste by mulching;
backyard composting, or participating in a composting program like Chanhassen has had before. 2. All
citizens will be asked to separate newspaper, glass, food and beverage cans for recycling. Here we
get into the affects of the individual effects that's also going to affect the city because the cities
are going to need to have the programs to handle these materials. I would like to stress that these
are supposed to be city programs. The Legislature lays it out very clearly there's a lot of goals put
on to the cities some of which you get out of because you are not a first, second or third class city.
You're second class, so it's first class you get out of it. You will see number three - each city should
establish a recycling drop off center for separated materials. That means you. That means Chanhassen.
It says that Chaska, Chanhassen and Waconia should also consider curbside pickup recyclable goods.
It's in the Council plan. It's one of the things they want cities of your size to do that curbside
pickup of recyclable goods and we've got it right in here. It's something we're going to need in the
future. And, we've thought about it before, but it is no longer something that is going to be nice
to have. It's going to be something that you're going to have. One way or the other. If the city I
doesn't do it, the county is going to have to come in and do it for you and we prefer not to do that.
We prefer to work with you, provide you some money, subsidies, technical help, but let you guys run
the show. History has shown that these things work a lot better if the city takes some pride and some
ownership in the whole program. 4. Each city should provide a drop off center for leaves, grass, clippings
and brush, consider spring and fall curbside pickup. After that we get into more of what the county
is going to be doing, what the businesses are going to be doing. I think for now unless you would like
me to go on, I'll just leave it there with #4 which lays it out to you and leave it up to you as to
how you want to handle it. If you just want me to work with staff, or if you would like me to come
back May 5 or whenever and go over it in more detail with you if it's something you think you want to
pursue.
Mayor Hamilton: I think May 5 if you came back then we would probably have more comments we could make.
More detail.
Mike Lien: In the meantime, I hope you can take time to go through it. It's not exciting, rather dull
and it does lack some substance, but I think it's real important for the cities, especially the size
of Chaska, Chanhassen, Waconia. What the affects are going to be and I will spend some time with it.
Thank you.
Councilwoman Watson: Just one question.
sources for the cities money to fund this
available from the Metropolitan Council.
need to get a better handle on what those
When you come on May 5, would you come prepared with some
program? Where the money is available? I know some money is
There are some fund sources available that we would really
funding sources are.
Mike Lien: There are a number of funding sources that are confusing.
Mayor Hamilton: The next item on the agenda is the Award Construction Contract for Improvements within
Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 5th Addition.
,/
~/'~
\
Council Meeting, April 21, 1986
-3-
I
Sometime ago the City received a petition from Opus Corporation concerning a replot of a portion of
the business plot into the 5th Addition. I believe council members are quite familiar with the redesign
of a cuI de sac to make the lots more usable. The City has now worked through the public improvement
process to the point where we have solicited bids and four bids were received as shown on the bid tab.
The lower bid is from Volk Trucking and Excavating in the amount of $199,818.05 and based on the contents
of your packets, that is recommending that the award be made to the low bidder in that amount. If there
are questions, I'll try to answer them. I don't want to draw this out.
Councilman Geving: One of the comments that was made here by the lCN, tentative award. Do we have
any reason for making that statement? Usually they let out recommendations. OK. No comment.
Councilwoman Watson moved to approve the following:
To accept the bid from Volk Trucking and Excavating in the amount of $199,818.05 for the
Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 5th Addition.
Motion was seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen
Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried.
Mayor Hamilton: The next item is the Sunny slope Homeowners Association. Steven Burke is requesting
a Conditional Use Permit for a Recreational Beachlot and Variance to a Recreational Beachlot Requirements.
I would like to call on Steve. If you have anything additional you would want to add that we haven't
heard previously, please present it now. think we've gone over this so many times, we are all familiar
with it.
I
Steven Burke: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The couple questions and points I want to bring up. I know we've
been going after this for two years. What we wanted to do at this point was resolve this situation
before this summer comes about and it's our hope that the Council will tonite approve the Recreational
Beachlot with the variances necessary for the improvements that we are talking about. I do want to
point out in the packet that was sent out, there was reference to a boathouse. At no time had we applied
for a boathouse. I think that was in Adjustment of Appeals. It was misinterpreted. The structure
that was indicated was a storage shed for life preservers, canoe paddles, etc. It was indicated that
that type of structure we would not be able to store gas. We realize that. We are looking for what
I call a storage building, one of these things that you can buy from Sears. We are not looking for
a boathouse to store boats in that and so I know that you won't be thinking that's what we are looking
for. A couple of questions I am looking at are that we have been given a number of conflicting reports.
We have been told by the City that the City has jurisdiction over that lake and that's why we had to pull
the dock last summer, yet about three months ago I asked the City to enforce their right to have docks
pulled out of that lake for the people who left in those seasonal docks and I received a letter from
the City informing us that the City has no jurisdiction over that lake and therefore cannot require
anyone to pull seasonal docks. And the only jurisdiction on that lake was the ONR ordinance, which
was what we said when we reinstalled it. And, Barbara is aware of this because she responded to me
after having to check that. The other thing that I know you all know is what Roger gave you his legal
opinion on regarding how he felt the Recreational Beachlot Ordinance was not going to be dependable
in court and we don't want to go to the court system, but I Roger shaking his head. Barbara knows I've
seen it, but that's something is a communication. Barbara can address that if you want.
Councilman Geving:
don't know how you would have seen that.
Steven Burke: It was accidently left in one of the files upstairs. I asked for a copy of it. She
came back after making calls saying I can't have that.
I
Roger Knutson: I think what he is referring to is I did not say it
Steven Burke: Anyway, what we were hoping that you will take a look at what we are asking for and as I
stated before we feel that as an Rl lot, if we put a structure up, we could have that dock and we could
Council Meeting, April 21, 1986
-4-
have the boats stored overnight. We think the neighborhood would prefer not to have us build a house
down there or have any house on that lot, but have a lot that is a Recreational Beachlot being used by
neighbors, not people way out. It's not like a lotus lake with lots and lots of people. We have twelve
and we are a little bit short. We know we are. We are asking for the variances to allow that and we
think we know we are willing to fall under the Recr~ational Beachlot Ordinance and all of the restrivtive
guidelines that go with that if you will let us become a Recreational Beachlot with that one dock and
with only four boats, we will determine how we which four boats go out there. We looked at a lot that
has a right to have a dock and five boats and with a house, and we are willing to give up the house, the
ability to launch across the property, park on the property, etc. If you will leave us the right to have
that dock and four boats and we will then fall under the Recreational Beachlot Ordinance. Thank you.
Tom Hamilton: Councilmen have any questions?
Councilman Geving: Has your homeowners association ever been assessed for a sewer?
Steven Burke: Yes, we have.
Councilman Geving: You are paying for that now?
Steven Burke: Yes, we are.
Councilman Horn:
would move denial of the Sunny slope Conditional Use Permit and Variance request.
Councilwoman Watson seconded. Roger Knutson:
motion would be to direct the City Attorney's
and the Board of Adjustment Appeals as in the
Based upon your discussion on the packet materials. The
office with their findings based on discussions before you
Planner's report.
Councilman Horn:
amend my motion to include specific findings for denial
Councilwomen Watson seconded. The following voted in favor to deny: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson
and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried.
Steven Burke: May I ask you said the recommendation was for denial based upon findings before this group
and the Board of Adjustment Appeals. I guess that my question that then if you take a look at it if you
don't find basis for denial, at this point, has the decision been made or is the decision made on your
findings?
Roger Knutson:
my findings at
agreement, ok.
The decision is not made by me. The decision is made by the Council and they will review
the next meeting and if they agree with my findings, we will stop them, if they are not in
Tom Hamilton:
Does that clarify it for you?
Steven Burke:
Yes.
Tom Hamilton:
The next item on the agenda is the bill dated April 21, 1986.
Clark Horn: Page 11, check no. 26444. Rotary Club membership for Jim Castleberry.
Don Ashworth: Yes.
Clark Horn: Is this a mandatory requirement of his position?
Tom Hamilton: No, it's not. It was a suggestion by me that Jim JOIn and has attended several meetings of
the Chaska Rotary. They have several city officials who are members of that club and I felt it would be
very advantageous for Jim or someone else on our staff to be a member of the Rotary, to have input from
I
I
\
I
Council Meeting, April 21, 1986
-5-
Chanhassen and to be aware of what is happening in the Chaska area and let them know what is happening in
our area. I think it's good both business wise and city wise.
I
Clark Horn: Isn't a Chaska group?
Tom Hamilton: Yes, it is primarily Chaska, but there are several Chanhassen business people in there and
I think we should get more Chanhassen people in there. That's why I wanted to get some City staff to be
a member there. There is not a group in Chanhassen.
Clark Horn: Is it a yearly membership or one time?
Tom Hamilton: It's annual. I don't know what there membership is to be honest with you, if that included
something else.
Dale Geving: Well, he's got mileage in there also.
Don Ashworth: I believe that's just the membership.
Clark Horn: $250?
Don Ashworth: Would you look up, do you have the check? 26444. Where the City asks employees to partic-
ipate in a particular program or to attend particular activities, yes, the City has paid those. Those are
the only two I am aware of, the Rotary. Once again, the Mayor felt that someone from City should attend
that. The other one is the Chamber of Commerce.
Clark Horn: That's a City membership with the Chamber?
Don Ashworth: Yes, that's a City membership.
I
Clark Horn: This is an individual membership?
Don Ashworth: I believe this one is referred to as an individual. It is a one year subscription. The
amount doesn't show personal. The check is for $215.00, so there is another $140.00 for mileage.
Clark Horn: So the annual membership is $65.00.
Tom Hamilton: There is a one time $25 one-time fee.
Councilwoman Swenson: On page 6. The skating rink attendants. Does that pretty well covered by
fees?
Don Ashworth: I will get a report to the City Council. I do not believe that the operation went as well
as we had hoped that they would as far as breaking even, but I will put a report in to the next Council.
Councilwoman Swenson: Are, did we have open usage there so that citizens are going to be able to go
by themselves or was it in basic groups?
Don Ashworth: No, and for the City to participate in it, we required that we would reserve X amount of
time for general usage. I will again report the number of people using the rink during that general time
as well as the amount of it.
I
Councilwoman Swenson: I don't have any objections as long as the general public is having the opportunity
to use it. On the Northern States Power bill, Minnegasco, etc., are these monthly? It's also on page 6.
There are 4. 23608, 20 and 23.
Don Ashworth: For just Minnegasco?
Council Meeting, April 21, 1986
-6-
Councilwoman Swenson: No. For MN Valley, and Northern States Power and Minnegasco. We've got $13,000
here.
Don Ashworth: Yes.
I
The bills are on a monthly basis. Again, you have to remember the number of billings that
the City has on that. So we have public works building, both fire stations, all lift stations and all the
wells. Those are all added together.
Councilwoman Swenson: These just seem a lot higher than they normally are.
I can check, but they are monthly bills. Sometimes bills spillover five or ten
days, making one month seem higher than the next, they are all on a monthly basis.
Councilwoman Swenson: Who is Diane Stodola? Maybe it has to do with the liquor license.
Oh, that's probably someone
Councilwoman Swenson: And, then I think this one is Bill's. It's 026518, page 14. Is it possible, Bill,
or is it too much trouble, could we have a break down of the total outside engineering costs and how much
of that is reimbursed for by developers?
Bill Monk: I could put notes on the bottom of the bill.
Councilwoman Swenson: I'd just like to know how much we've been paying to outside engineers.
Councilman Geving: I have a comment on the same item Councilman Horn had on page 11. I do take exception
to paying for memberships to a Rotary Club or any other communities by a member of our staff and I will,
leave it with that. I do have a question, Mr. Mayor, on page 12. I assume that you are going to be making' I
a report to the Council on the item there on the bottom of the page. Is this for some trip or something?
Mayor Hamilton: No, it's for lots of checks.
of that stuff out.
got a little exuberent in cleaning house and I threw all
Councilman Geving: I thought maybe you took a trip or something.
Mayor Hamilton: I went back several months and cleaned up some stuff and threw all that stuff away.
Councilwoman Watson: I just have one. On page 15, James Silloway, fees and service, labor & supplies for
work done on the audio system in the Council Chambers. Having listened to the Planning Commission meeting
on Saturday, which you couldn't listen to because you couldn't hear anybody talking, there were a few people
sitting in front of a black maple leaf, mumbling and there was absolutely nothing. It was on and there was
nothing.
Don Ashworth: Do you know which meeting that was?
Councilwoman Watson: I didn't notice what date it was.
Don Ashworth: Can you remember, Cathy, would that have been before he was in to work on the system?
He worked most of this past weekend.
Councilman Geving: Are these turned on? They're on. We'll try to speak up.
Councilwoman Watson: Anyway, having noted that meeting, there was no way that you could have heard or
understood anything that was being said.
I
Don Ashworth: I will hold that check until things get working better.
Council Meeting April 21, 1986
-7-
Councilwoman Watson: It could have been prior to this gentleman's work, too. But, just in case.
I
Councilman Geving made the motion to approve the accounts payable March 31, 1986. Councilwoman Watson
seconded. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn
and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried.
Mayor Hamilton: The next item is the Side Yard Setback Variance Request to construct a garage at 202 West
77th Street, Curt Robinson.
Did the Board of Adjustments Appeals have this on the agenda?
Councilman Geving: We made the motion to deny the variance, however, we have it scheduled for tonight at
this time and Mr. Curt Robinson asked us specifically to hold this item until he would be making it to the
meeting. He had to go to another meeting and if we could table this at this time for approximately a half
hour and when I see Mr. Robinson, we could reschedule it. So, at this time I would like to table this to
a later point in the meeting.
Mayor Hamilton seconded. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson,
Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried.
Mayor Hamilton: The next item is the Lot Area Variance Request to Construct a Single Family Residence,
Lots 1927-1931, Carver Beach, Lewis Woitalla is requesting that. And, how did the Board of Adjustments
handle this?
We voted unanimously to deny it. Mr. Woitalla asked said that he wouldn't be prepared
to present it tonight, so he was going to contact Staff to be on a future Council agenda to discuss the
denial.
I
Councilman Horn moved to table this item. Councilwoman Watson seconded. The following voted in favor:
Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion
carried.
Mayor Hamilton: The next item is B.C. Burdick Property, 17 Acres South of West 78th Street, North of
Highway 5 and East of Powers Boulevard. He has a request to rezone from R-IA, Agricultural Residence
District to C-3, Commercial Service District and Preliminary Plat to Subdivide Property into 3 lots. Barb,
are you going to give us a brief overview on this one?
I
Barb Dacy: The property is located at the intersection of Highway 5, a minor arterial Powers Boulevard
and West 78th Street. The site was agricultural residence and the applicant is proposing rezoning of
the R-IA to C-3. This transparency is copy of the official adopted 2000 plan and one that in
1982 the City designated this parcel as commercial. So, the rezoning request is enact the actual use of
the property as C-3. The C-3 district is the most of the three commercial districts that is
now allowed by the present ordinance. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed zoning based on
the fact that the parcel location is consistent with the intent taking of the C-3 district. Secondly, we
feel that this area can act as a fringe area for the commercial development and can co-exist with the
plans that are now underway for the downtown redevelopment plan that is now being pursued by CHADDA and
the Housing and Redevelopment approval. The Planning Commission at their meetings also recommended that
approval of the rezoning request as presented. If you would like, I could review the plat. The plat
application is for three lots. Staff has two major concerns regarding the proposal that I think
and traffic concerns. The total site totals 17 acres and the three lots are not
consistent. The 3 acre site, 2.7 acres and 11.2 acres. You read in the City Engineer's report the
two methods of serving the site by sanitary sewer. At this point, Staff is recommending that a
Conditional Approval, if it is approved, be that the extension of sanitary sewer service that it should
be resolved before time of final plat. That was the recommendation of the Planning Commission as well.
As far as the street layouts, and proposed traffic implications, the red line that is shown on the site
plan is the area that MN DOT will likely need for expansion for Highway 5. As site plans
are processed on this particular piece of property, this additional area should be preserved by the site
Council Meeting, April 21, 1985
-8-
plan. As most of you do recall, in the original downtown redevelopment plan, West 78th Street was
considered to realign to the north. Because of this particular application and development interest
on the Brose property, Staff has contacted Fred Hoisington for this review and analysis of that proposed
realignment based on the trans reductions that they have come up with through their computer broad
study area process. We are meeting with the consultants tomorrow afternoon on the results of that inter-
section analysis. The report from the consultants were more lengthy and have a tremendous impact obviously
on the Brose property across the street, however, for this particular plat if West 78th Street is realigned
to the north and development has occurred before that realignment is achieved, if it is, then accessing
would have to be obtained at that time. So, Staff is aware of this situation and we are pursuing to
look at it in much more detail. In the meantime we are keeping the applicant abreast of the situation
as well. As far as individual site access, originally Staff had recommended that the plat have two
conditions as far as limiting the number of access points on to West 78th Street to two. However, at
the Planning Commission meetings, the Commission felt that that type of requirement can best be imple-
mented at the time of the site plan approval and we would agree with that Staff recommendation at this
point is that we recommend approval of the preliminary plat subject to resolution of the sewer issue
and we want the developer and interested parties aware of Staff's position at this time at site plan
review we would be looking at lots one and two sharing an access to West 78th Street and one access to
lot three. The City Engineer may have some additional comments on that.
I
Bill Monk: The only condition Staff is recommending on this proposal on a preliminary plat is resolution
of the sewer issue and Staff concurs with the Planning Commission motion to delete restriction of the
access until'site time which we believe is a more appropriate time. So that we place what we do Staff
wanted to put everything out before the developer so the site plans are prepared and have some idea on
Staff's position on the access issue. But, at this time there is only one condition.
Mayor Hamilton: Does anybody have any questions? Clark, do you have any? Pat? Dale? Carol?
Councilwoman Watson moved to approve the proposal to rezone 17 acres from R-IA Agricultural Residence I
District to C-3 Commercial Service District for Mr. Burdick south of West 78th Street, north of Highway
5 and east of Powers Boulevard and approve the preliminary plat.to subdivision into 3 lots subject to
the sewer issue. Councilman Geving seconded. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen
Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried.
Mayor Hamilton: I didn't give you a chance to talk, Jim. Was there anything you wanted to add?
Jim Burdick: Thank you.
Councilman Geving: Have you any potential buyers?
Jim Burdick: Yes, I have an agreement signed on lot 1.
Councilman Geving: For what kind of a business?
Jim Burdick: A number of businesses. Self-service gasoline, liquor store, grocery store, and one or two
others.
Mayor Hamilton: The next item is Preliminary and Final Plat Approval to Subidvide 2 acres into 2 lots,
790 Pleasant View Road, Gordon Schwartz.
Barb Dacy: The parcel is located at 790 Pleasant View Road. It is now zoned R-l. The proposed subdivisiol
is to divide the lot into 2 lots. The lot area and the lot width meets the minimum requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance. Staff recommends approval of the proposed subdivision and the Planning Commission did
as well. There was an issue involved as far as the garage on the newly created lot, lot 2. The Planning I
Commission recommends that the recommended condition in the Staff reports be removed. At this point, as
far as options for the Council to consider, regarding the garage, you can approve the plat as presented
with the elimination of the recommendation to remove the garage or you can implement that condition or
third option would be to time the builoing permit for application for approval of lot 2 that the garage
Council Meeting, April 21, 1986 -9-
be removed at that time or set another time. Staff is requesting preliminary and final plat approval at
this time.
I
Councilman Horn: I don't have any problem with that. I guess the only thing I would think of would
be is if sometime the property sold within a certain period of time, which something should be done with
the garage, but until the property is sold. Somebody might want to use that as a garage.
Barb Dacy: Our only point is that abide by ordinances a lot will usually will have the principle use before
an accessory is used and that is the basis for our recommendation. However, waiting until the building
permit is issued may be the best way to deal with this issue.
Councilman Horn: The only problem I can conceive of there, would be if somebody built a house and just
leave it to be a storage facility. That's the only concern I can see for it.
Councilwoman Swenson:
I agree with Clark.
I am sure the present owners of the property don't want that to happen either.
don't see that the garage is an issue at this time.
Councilman Geving: I thoroughly believe that there should be something time dependent on. I think the
time should be at the time when the building permit is issued. I think I'll handle that situation. I'd
like to speak for a minute on the driveway, where the proposed driveway would be and this is a curve that
we're talking about here. I know Bill indicated that there was a lot site distance and you would be able
to see quite well, but I have to assume that this individual would want their own driveway. Is that part
of the plan? Is that what is being asked for?
Bill Monk: It's assumed, I guess, that anytime an individual lot is created that we are implying access
to B street and a driveway to be put in.
Councilman Geving: Do you have a problem with this on the particular location?
I
Bill Monk: Not on that side of the street, no, because you do have good site distance on the inside of
the curve it's a little different, but on this side, I believe it can be handled.
Councilwoman Watson: I don't think the garage is going to be a problem. I think that anyone who buys that
lot is going to be a significant piece of property and there is not going to be a problem if they want the
garage moved at that time. Just as an aside, I was apalled at the hike the taxes on this property had
taken in the five years the people have owned the property. It truly was amazing increasing in taxes.
They were also told that when the survey was done to plat this lot, they found they had 2 acres instead
of 2~ acres and when the assessor was called, he said, "Well, we just worry about how much frontage you
have on the lake." It seems to me a half-acre of property concerning what it sells for has increased
the taxes significantly on that property over the years. I was a little surprised at what the assessor's
attitude toward a half-acre of property not being worth concerning yourself with taxes.
Councilwoman Swenson moved to approve the following:
Preliminary and Final Plat Approval to Subdivide 2 acres into 2 lots, 790 Pleasant View Road,
Gordon Schwarts.
Motion was seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen
Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried.
Mayor Hamilton: The next item is the Sketch Plan Review for 126 Single Family Units, East of Kerber
Boulevard, i mile north of West 78th Street, Enterprise Properties.
I
Barb Dacy: The apartment is located east of and adjacent of Kerber Boulevard south of the recently approved
Chapparel Four Division and west of the Frontier Trail neighborhood. Some of you may recall several years
ago that preliminary plat was considered at what was known as the Western Hills Circle along the northerly
Council Meeting, April 21, 1986
-10-
portion of the property. Preliminary approval was given at that time for 57 single family lots and 20
zero lot line homes. However, The sketch plan you have before you tonight
represents the third plan that the applicant has been working on. Originally, I'd just like to refute
some of the items Staff and the homeowners have been going through Originally, 153 lots was
proposed in an original plan Kerber Boulevard and quite small
After revision, the developler submitted another plan proposing 124 lots minimizing
the size on Kerber Boulvard from three down to two, realigning the internal street system,
however during the time that the second plan was being prepared, the low area in the northeastern part
of the plat was field inspected and found to be Type 3 Wetland which by our Wetland Ordinance is Class
A Wetland. We advised the applicant of that and he is therefore resubmitted a third plan which you see
before you. Additional background information: As you know, the pond in the subject site is a Class
A Wetland. This is our again and you see the in and around the pond area along the eastern
corridor and connecting into Kerber and south and west of a proposed trail sits system as proposed in the
Comprehensive Plan. This way I can run through the major items of the development and update you as to the
Park and Rec Commission action, as well as the Planning Commission action. Basic information first, the
average range of lot size in the development stretches from 11,700 as the smallest to 59,500 as the largest.
As a median lot size of 13,850 sq. ft. and the average lot size is 16,368 sq. ft. 68 of the lots are below
15,000 and 5B are above 15,000 sq. ft. The site is broken into two areas: the north area contains 91
single family lots and the southern area contains 35 single family lots. The steep slopes around the
wetland and around the creek around the northern part of the property are prevalent. Also, coming on
the north and south side are the existence of double frontage lots. The applicant at the Planning
Commission meeting indicated that the required landscaping and berming would be provided as recommended
by staff. One of the problems that we identified also is the number triangular shaped lots in -the northern
portion of the plat as well as areas in the southern portion and we have specifically listed those in your
report. Again, at the meeting the developer indicated that some of the lots would be combined or reoriented.
The developer is requesting the 25 foot front setback as opposed to the standard 30 foot front setback to
preserve as much slope and vegetation in the steep areas as possible. Density of the project - gross
density is 1.84 units per acre. The net density is 3.0 units per acre. Street systems. As you know,
the proposed major concern of the connections are Frontier Trail to Kerber Boulevard from
the existing study and the connection of Saratog Circle on Kerber Boulevard. In your packets also is
a traffic analysis that was conducted by the applicant. You may know, the extensions of these streets
have been long planned by the City and are recommended to be connected to Kerber Drive for public safety
reasons. Also, the plat does propose a possible connection to Carver Beach Road in the northeast portion
of the plat.
I
I
Two areas of concern that Staff still has regarding the grading issue: Lots 5 and 6 of Block 10 are
recommending that Sierra Lane be pulled back to maximize the amount of level areas as possible. Although
the developer has indicated that they have all and plans to prove that the proposed plat can
ellivate those concerns we will be looking at those plans in more detail.
The second area of concern as far as grading is concerned is lots 12 and 13, Block 4. Very steep slope
conditions over this area and in order to maximize the level and fillable area of these lots, we are
recommending that Saratoga Circle be reoriented to the south. Specific drainage concerns are obviously
are left to the City and here the majority of the parcel does drain into the existing level of the property,
the western portion of the property in that the fact that Kerber Drive is under separate ownership at this
point. When this property is developed, Staff will be looking to recommend to further acquisition and
rounding out to this area for additional drainage purposes. If I can direct your attention to Attachment
11, it's in the middle of the report, it's an update from Staff regarding the Park and Recreation Commission
action. It is my understanding that the Met by April 1, 1986, the regular meeting and to the site
visit on April 5, 1986. Basically, what you see in green is the essence of the Park and Recreation
Commission's recommendation. You see the proposed trail systems along the proposed internal streets and
the utilization of the outlots as proposed by the developer connecting for example on the southern end
Chanhassen Elementary and in the middle down to the pond area connecting them into the proposed Teton I
Trail through Frontier Trail and down to the creek area. The area of most concern appeared to be the
preservation of the land and the wildlife in the area in and around the existing wetland. We have the
minutes of both Park and Rec Commission meetings minutes. There are two ways that Staff can identify
to implement their proposed plan as far as preservation of the pond area. One would be for the City
Council Meeting, April 21, 1986
-11-
I
to acquire this property. That would mean that the City would have actual ownership of the area up into
the limits. This would mean as far as this particular plat is concerned that these lots would have to be
reoriented to the north and there may have to be a reduction in the number of lots. In order for that
position process to occur, you all know, an appraisal process must be conducted where the value of the
land is determined.
The second option available to the Council for consideration is for the preservation of this area along
slope would be for as a conservation easement. While the easement would be part of the individual property
owners discriptions, there could be a condition that there be no alteration, no cut, no mow, so that that
slope would be preserved, however the lot area would be intact.
another concern that's part of the open space requirement is concerned, is that lot 1 at the bottom at
Teton Trail, the slope area does restrict buildability of this lot in here. Staff is recommending that
the cuI de sac be shortened to increase as much as possible the buildable area. The wetlands issue as
I recall before from the eastern part of the plat, lots 10 and 11 cannot make the required 75 ft setback
from the edge of the wetland. The developer indicated at the meeting that those lots would be in line.
Over 100 lots have to be processed to let the environmental assessment because of all the changes occurring
with this development, the developer will have to submit a revised EAW because I believe the previous one
did not include some of the changes that we have gone through this evening.
At the Planning Commission meeting, there were two neighborhood groups present at the meeting. Comments
were attached to your packet in the minutes, basically some of the commissioners felt that Frontier Trail
should be connected and the Commission was very concerned about the drainage plans proposed and beyond
that, that's Staff's analysis of the proposal.
I
Bill Monk: Most of the people in the audience were at the Planning Commission meeting and heard my presen-
tation at that point. As far as the parking is concerned, there are a couple of things I shall just
mention before we go into grading the streets. The first is that the second option that was referred
to by the City Planner to just go over that in a little bit more detail does include the City acquiring
land in through this area shaded in green to the taller slopes to a certain contour elevation which
basically would be somewhere between 950 and 954, tentatively set at 952 previously. If that land would
all be plotted and then the slope itself would be to the top, would then be covered by a conser-
vation easement, so the City would still be acquiring property needed for the walkway around the lake
in free title the recommendation.
Secondly, I believe the Park and Rec Commission recommended that these trailways that go into the streets,
possibly would be handled through looking at a widening of the street section. Staff will be looking at
that in more detail as we go to Preliminary Plot, but just so the Council is aware of that, one that may
well come back as a recommendation is that Frontier Trail be constructed to a 32 foot width instead of
28 to allow for safer use for walkways, bikeways, but they did not recommend separate walkways behind
the' curb so the Council and everyone is aware of the recommendation that is actually made.
I
Moving into the drainage portion site, numerous things were mentioned at the Planning Commission meeting,
some I will try to get to. Again, the reason for this map with the dash red lines is to show the various
drainage areas that exist on this plot. Ouickly, the north area is broken basically into three drainage
areas, the one completely north of this red dash line goes toward the creek is a separate entity and the
City Council may well remember that as the plot to the north was approved, there was a condition that a
ponding be created in the low lands at the northeast corner of that plot. Staff has been recommen~ing
to this developer that they work with that developer to the north to come up with a scheme that will
allow the creek to be improved and use that low ponding area as a sedimentation area and a quality control
as well as quantity control structure as that water heads to Lotus Lake in keeping basically with Council
and what your district concerns noted with that previous development. South of the red line but still
north of the protected waters, you know the wetlands, you've got an area down in the southeast of this
plot that will be directed toward the existing wetlands and then would be controlled with an overflow
structure down into the protected waters. It's a smaller watershed area. I believe it can be developed
in such a way to rectify an existing outlet problem that exists between lots noted here, lots I and 2 in
Council Meeting, April 21, 1986
-12-
Sunrise Addition it goes down to Kiowa. That area could be filled and the discharge problem down there
now, this would be basically a separate watershed district before it would grow into the existing larger
wetlands. The area of the southwest portion of the northern part of the development does not have any I
area for ponding or releasing. It is being proposed at this point as a direct discharge, but if we can
come up with use of toe wetlands on the smaller section, control of the northern piece into the creek
with its own quality control structure, the direct drainage to the site from this area would probably
be about the same as the direct drainage that is coming in right now because the area involved is being
reduced even though the of runoff is being increased. And, at this point there is no recommen-
dation nor have come up with nothing, but a direct discharge from that concentrated area.
As far as the area to the south, it all drains down into the existing wetlands of protected waters.
There is a break on the site at about this location. This breaks and heads down and directly in to the
wetlands or lowlands and the south side of this break line is directed back up toward Kerber and would
be picked up and brought through an existing low area on the west portion of the plat before it would
come in to that wetlands. It is being proposed at this point that the City look at development at a
drain basin that all of this runoff would be directed to in the existing low area that is just to the
south of the existing pond. It should be noted that it is the recommendation of the Council that it
will involve how the City involvement in getting an easement across all site property, but I believe
in the end it would be very beneficial to develop that with this first plot instead of waiting until
the development of the parcel to the west because we also have several problems with errosion and drainage
from under Kerber Drive and those could also be controlled and better maintained, I believe with and part
of this new ponding area. Several other concerns that were raised by neighbors that will be looked at
carefully if we go into preliminary plot is an existing drainage problem from the existing farm across
the side lot lines of some of the lots in the Saratoga Addition namely just the south of block 3 on the
plot proposal, I believe, that through creation of a ditch along the east line of the lots in block 3
and a combination of perhaps sending a line down as part of the plot that we can rectify that. The problem
is the care of the situation as it exists. In other places we've got to take a close look at is the low
area right here on the very southeast corner as drainage comes from the school. It's a large drainage area I
and sweeps around and heads to the south. That needs to be looked at because the grades are very flat in
that area.
I guess in a nutshell that's the overall drain scheme of things that are of major concern and have been
looked at by Staff. The City Planner went over quickly the grading concerns and I will not repeat those.
There are three and I think they were noted in detail. As far as the street going through, there is a
proposal to extend the existing cuI de sac on Frontier Trail through to Kerber Drive as well as Santa Vera.
In" reality, extend Santa Vera over Kerber Drive also. Staff is supporting both extensions. One very
important reason is from the public safety standpoint. Another is an overall desire to connect neigh-
borhoods to allow vehicle miles traveled to be minimized for existing neighborhood, but in this case I
think also for the proposed but also for the existing neighborhood, so that people don't have to backtrack
through town and down Laredo and Frontier to get around to the same point that they could loop through
in about 1/6 of the distance. I am very much aware of the existing alignment problems on Frontier, but
I do believe that through use of some stop signs, that just the curves in the road itself, that Frontier
Trail will not see an overwhelming in traffic from this development. Again, we are recommending that
both connections be made. I guess with that I will put these down and try to answer questions.
Greg Brink: I am" with McCombs Knutson & Associates and also Enterprise Properties. McCombs Knutson are
the engineers and the land planners for the project. Mr. Sol Siegel of Enterprise Properties is here as
well as Mr. Ron Peterson, who is Environmental Consultant representing Mr. Siegel tonight. It was mentioned
by Staff early on that that this project involved a piece of property that was opened in 1979 by Hansen &
Klingelhutz. At that time, it was Western Hills 3rd Addition and I have a copy of that plat here, the
Preliminary Plat that at one time a Final Plat was actually proposed and approved by the City Council, but
was never recorded. I want to present that only to show the evolution that happened durin9 the concept
development of this project. That p"articular project shows Frontier Trail continuing out here with both I
single family zero lot line lots on the north side of the property and then the road along here
as well as Dunlap Circle being a cuI de sac. Our first concept plan for the site is shown right here and
it basically adopted the original concept plan for Frontier Trail and this road continuing on through
I
\
I
I
Council Meeting, April 21, 1986
-13-
otherwise the alignment for this road, this area from this double to this point, as well as the alignment
here was proposed and approved by the Council for Western Hills 3rd Addition. Recognizing again that that
after several meetings with homeowners, in fact the developer has had three opportunities to meet with
homeowners and I think this plan was modified subsequently and I think it is an improvement not only
for the homeowners not only for the homeowners who live in the neighborhood but also for the City and
the developer itself. And, we saw the evolution' of what we have today which is basically this plan.
I might mention in comparison to this plan with again, some of the density figures of the surrounding
area, it was indicated by Staff at one point 1.8 units per acre, 126 units total on the 70 acre site
for a net density of 2.0 units per acre. The lot sizes range again from 11,700 to 59,500 sq. ft. with
an average of roughly 16,400 sq. ft. and a median of 13,850. Recently the Council acted on the project
to the north and that historically is referred to as Chapparel Fort. That one had a density of somewhat
higher and lot sizes somewhat higher. The gross density there ranged at one point at 8 units per acre,
a density of 3.36 vs. our density of 3.0 and the lot sizes range again the same as our minimum, which
is 11,700, but the range only went up to 20,000 where our goes up to 59,500. The average net project
was just under 13,000 vs. our 16,400 and the median was 12,000'vs. our median of 13,850. So, I guess
I think it is interesting to note that this project then would be the adjoining properties
that have been developed, is substantially less dense and at the point to remember there is that we are
starting at density of substantially less than what was approved and that certainly started out with a
density much higher than that. As we go through the project and met with the homeowners, one of the
,main concerns of the homeowners has been the traffic through Frontier Trail. The applicant himself is
willing to go whatever this Council should decide. If Frontier Trail should be your desire to go through,
certainly we would be willing to work with the City to accomplish that. However, if and
have a cuI de sac, which in meeting with the homeowners is their preference, we would also be willing to
accommodate it. There are several grading problems on the site and we took the design for the blocks
a little further and did some cross section to the site and I will touch where those locations are and just
touch on how we feel that the grades in the proposal as presented here tonight will not substantially
be impacted by the slopes that are right now existing on the site. First, I mentioned lots 11 and 12
and then also lots 5 and 6. In this diagram then, just the cross sections through 13 and 14 are shown
here and 11 and 12 are shown here. The ground from basically this point up to where the yellow starts
in all cases in all cases is existing topography. The yellow would represent then the fill that would
be required in order to accommodate proposed houses. In all cases, those lots would be walkout lots
and in all cases because this diagram fits the amount of grade in the rear lots to accommodate those
lots would be quite minimal. You're basically talking from where the back of the house would be, a distance
of roughly 20 feet and you would have some grades again. The intent of the overall plan, obviously, recog-
nizing the amenities of the site which are three-fold. First, the topography itself as indicated along this
area and along here as well as over here and also the vegetation on this site, plus there are trees in this
area right here as well as trees along here. The intent would be to preseve those amenities as well as the
final amenities which are the wetlands here and also this wetland in here. The intent would be to minimize
and pasture those to preserve the slopes and to preserve the vegetation as much as possible. You can
see along here about the only exception are the trees that would be anticipated other than the fact that
these two cuI de sacs would be to nestle a house in those woods and in most cases nestling of a house in
those woods would be done so that at the time the house is actually being built those trees that are a
real amenity to this site could be used to design houses built and work into the site setting. Most of
the lots because of the topography, most of the lots do lend themselves to be walkouts which we feel is
an, asset to this site, but also is an indication that the preservation in the existing topography can be
accommodated. Another point, as you go through the particular site and adjoining properties, you see
lots particularly much larger in size. Again, the amenities of the site particularly also along the
primeter of the project. As one moves into the interior of the site, the amenities decrease substantially
and that's where we tried to cluster the lower density 11,700 sq. ft. lot in those areas where the amenities
are substantially less. Staff indicated again some points regarding a pie shaped lot and I think through
the final design as we get to the final design based One of the big concerns that I think
certainly the City Engineer touched on a lot of those points tonight that were reviewed at the concept
set forth before the Planning Commission relating to the site drainage. I'd like to take a few minutes
just to discuss existing drainage characteristics as well as proposed characteristics in those areas that
have particularly existing homeowners. First, there is an area over here and this red line defines an
area that basically right now drains straight through the lots on Saratoga Drive and continue eastward.
Council Meeting, April 21, 1986
-14-
This small drainage shed that drains along here eventually under Saratoga Drive, comes down here in the
catch basins at that intersection. The proposal with respect to that and Mr. Monk touched on that already,
would be to create a berm along so that the drains would be maintained along the west side of this berm
through a swale and carries out through this area here. Technically eliminating the runoff right now I
that does occur and continues on through Saratoga Drive through the backyards.
The second area that is considered in regard to drainage really into this area right here, again, with
the existing drainage running through the back yards of existing houses. And, that drainage area right
now as defined by the topography is very substantial and is shown right here again with the red. With
the development, a lot of that storm sewer runoff will be intercepted by the streets, go down through
the gutters and would be put in catch basins and definetly carried out through the storm sewer system.
The drainage that would go directly to that pond after development is reflected just by basically backyard
area right here. The intent would be to provide some type of overflow storm sewer system to catch that
water before it goes through here, carry it out here and out to this pond again. So, again, there would
be a substantial reduction in total surface area that drains into that area that would storm sewer improve-
ments as well grading improvements are being proposed there would be an elimination of another draining
problem that does exist in the neighborhood. Namely to the east of the project.
Staff also touched on Park Dedication and the Park and Rec's recommendation regarding the project, I
might mention that the applicant would prefer to set an alternative and would be willing to put restrictions
over those outlots. We'd like to be on dedicated land as proposed on our concept plan which would basically
be between the 950 and 954 by Staff. And, then work the rest of the park dedication of
the park grounds preservation area through covenants and restrictions on and along the rear lot line.
I think as you get to the area, again to the south, the green area that would be eliminated by the Park
and Rec Commission and extended pretty close to this street here. It is again because of the configur-
ation of these lots. We'd suggest that that might be moved back here a little bit more so that we do have
some area that is buildable. This road can be pulled over a little bit to help again the drainage problem
that was, - the slope problem - that was depicted by Staff over here, but otherwise I think we can pretty
much preserve existing slopes with use of a walkout type of unit and that proposed lots 11 through 14.
Block 1 at this point, I'd like to point out, the distance from basically the end of the cuI de sac to
the parkland as shown on the concept plan is 135 ft. with 50 ft wide house which would be a very deep
house in front and back and a 25 ft. front yard back. That would be roughly 60 ft backyard, so we feel
right now that is adequate to accommodate a house with an adequate backyard at this point. That lot
does not slope. That is significantly through the lot line. As you get to the park where the slope
becomes much greater, as shown again, the topography as well as the concept plan. With that, I would
be happy to respond to any questions you might have. Otherwise, if you want, if you have any questions
of the other members of the development team, we would be happy to respond to them.
I
Councilwoman Swenson: What is the average width of these lots?
Greg Brink: The average width at the building setback line is 75 ft. Minimun width of any lot at the
setback line is 70 ft. The average is probably close to 75 ft. Some of the lots, particularly along
here and over here are closer to 90 ft., I believe.
Councilwoman Swenson: Which is basically what we are supposed to have. The deviations for the PUD, I
think are just by lot size are supposed to be interspersed as opposed to being consistently through.
75 ft., we're going to have a lot of houses on top of houses and this disturbs me. But, I would like
to know... I'd like to ask Bill, do you have any idea of what we're talking about all that parkland,
what kind of natural acquisition we're talking about?
Bill Monk: You're talking about if we were to see under Option 1 and why are they to the top of the
slope? No, I don't. T guess if the City Council wished to proceed that way, our recommendation is that
we would have to back up and actually do an appraisal because there are a couple of questions in here I
on how the appraisal would be done, what right City has to require XXX amount of land, and what value
it would be.
Council Meeting, April 21, 1986
-15-
Councilwoman Swenson: That XXX amount, what amount would that be? Do have any idea what percentage
of this project we are talking about is the recommended acquisition for parks? Do you have any idea
what the proportion is?
I
Greg Brink: My guess would be there is a period, yes, it would be roughly 20% of the site, which I would
suspect 14 acres, if it's 20%, 14 acres. That again, is purely a guess.
Councilwoman Swenson: For the time being, my only comment is that in driving by there, the green looks
so pretty going down into the valley, I'm not sure we would be improving things by turning into a wildlife
park and I doubt that the City would have any inclination to maintain it and mow it. So, I guess I would
have to have some questions about that. I'm mostly concerned with the drainage into the lake. That's
my big problem. The soil and conservation requirements would have to be ridgedly adhered to and I would
certainly follow the City Engineer's recommendations as far as not dumping any into that pond.
and certainly no errosion down into the creek down to the lake. For the time being, those would be my
only comments.
Councilwoman Watson: My first question was in regard to Frontier Trail. I don't know how important
it is that that road go through. I think the residents would prefer that it not go through and I guess
I'd just as soon hear from them on that subject. Some of these lots are so big and some of them are so
small that the variation, however, this is something we were discussing at the Board of Adjustments,
too, the buildable area of the lot at some point in time has to be addressed. You can have a 59,000
sq. ft lot, but you may not have more than a buildable area large enough for a very small house based
on the topography and what that lot is backing up to, so I think in some of these smaller lots and then
some. of these very large lots, I would be very interested in what the actual buildable area, for instance,
on a 59,000 sq. ft. lot there, you know, it doesn't seem actually to me how much property you are going
to have to build on.
I
Greg Brink: What we typically tried to do on a lot, is to have ideally, you would have the front setback
25 ft. and try to provide for a 50 ft. from the setback line to the back of the 50 ft. building path.
And, then have at least have a 20 ft. bench for a backyard recreational use or the homeowners themselves.
And, at that point, you need to go slop down or slope up. That's a typical design for a lot.
Councilwoman Watson:
Ideally, you're up 30 ft. from the streets.
Greg Brink: Ideally, you'd have 30 ft. The reason and I think there was an evolution if I could touch
on that. When we first sat down, we requested that the setback variance along these wooded areas where
we'd have trees in order to preserve those trees in order to preserve those trees. This is an existing
tree line here and here and we've had to nestle the road between it as well as along the slopes along
here and let's go for a 25 ft. setback because of the trees. Staff felt administratively in the PUD
is a lot easier to handle a 25 ft. project rather than a bluff lot situation and so they suggested that
we do 25 ft throughout. Well, then, perhaps the concern Staff had regarding the slopes on lots 11 through
14 started with the fact that review and 30 ft. section with a 25 ft. setback that
would obviously would improve the situation along these slopes and along here because of those lines.
And, so, yes, there is a benefit to along a 25 ft. setback at this time.
Councilwoman Watson: Actually, my comment basically is that these lots may appear to large, but I do
not believe its a buildable area of those lots is very large at all. I'm somewhat concerned with how
long Cascade Trail and Cascade Court is. How long is that cuI de sac coming out to Saratoga?
Greg Brink: Cascade Trail is approximately 600 ft.
I
Councilwoman Watson: Also then, is the cuI de sac on to itself, it has another court going off of it,
so you'd have a cuI de sac off of a very large turnaround cuI de sac. If you would tell me about the
75 ft. width for a lot just calculating quickly with your sideyard setbacks at 10 ft. each, you have
to subtract 20 ft., which gives you 55. You take your 24 ft. garage out of your 55 ft. and you have a
31 ft. long house which is not a very wide house.
Council Meeting, April 21, 1986
-16- .
Greg Brink: Most of the houses that he built and if you look at the development that has occurred just
a little bit away from this, in Chapparel, most of them the garages in front and the living quarters
behind the building. That's why you have a 50 ft. pad because you typically have a 24 ft deep house I
if you have a garage on the side mount. If you put the garage in back, the 24 ft. for the garage, plus
probably 12 ft. behind for family room or living quarters behind the garage, and then you have the garage
pulled out in front and living on the side as well as behind the garage.
Councilwoman Watson: I would hope that we would have a little bit more variation in the homes than to
see because a 30 ft. house is not being considered a long enough house by any means.
Greg Brink: And frequently, you will see the garage again on the side, but there will be more of at-shape
house with the house instead of being long way as well as colonials. Colonials frequently are much narrower
and go two stories. You have the garage on the side and a much smaller space on the front with most of the
living quarters again being upstairs. The upstairs quarter being bedrooms. So, I think this size lot does
accommodate different types of housing.
Councilwoman Watson: I must say though that I think it is too narrow. I think these people are going to
want decks, they are going to want a third car garage, they're going to want all the things people want
after they have lived in the home for awhile and they're not - it's going to be difficult to accommodate
some of these things on a 75 ft. lot. I don't want to belabor the point right now. I do think that's too
narrow.
Greg Brink: I think one of the benefits of this size does lend itself, again, is the topography allows
a lot of walkouts and a lot of lots are walkouts, so effectively that buyer has a useable basement with
the way it is exposed, living quarters out of it and I think that's going to be a very strong amenity for
those living area, and then a deck would obviously be above those for the first floor decks.
Again, I think that would work very well on this site. Because of topography.
Councilwoman Watson: I agree with you there. I guess I still don't 100% figure a 90 ft. lot with a I
building pad. I think that these are self-limiting us to style and as to what a person can do once they
build their home on the lot. One other nit-pickey comment. Big Horn Lane. Big Horn Sheep don't have
anything with lanes, it should be Pass or Trail. Big Horn Lane, I can't live with that. I am interested
in hearing about Frontier Trail.
Councilman Geving: I have several comments. Most of my comments will relate to my personal interest and
that is trails, parks, and open spaces. I want to make sure that if we put through a significant road such
as the extension of Frontier Trail that we do add the other four feet for walking, hiking, biking, or trail
path. And, so what we recommend 30 ft. with that road or any other road that connects through this plat
to Kerber Drive. I think that the drainage issue on this particular plan would be the most significant
thing that we will have to worry about and concern ourselves and in the future. I know that when this was
originally passed by the Council for Hansen & Klingelhutz, it was actually delayed because they could not
solve the drainage problem down into Lotus Lake to the north. That was the big hangup. The Water Shed
District absolutely stopped them. We were forcing them to look at piping the water and other means,
so I can see that as a significant problem and I think we ought to address lots that have already been
delineated here and lot 5 and lot 10, lot 6. I would like to add to that lot 7 and and I believe that's
all. Because those are very steep contours going north to Lotus Lake and the Carver Beach area.
A couple of other comments I have. The same concern for lot I, block 5 as was mentioned by Bill Monk.
That water if it is not contained and moved towards the south to the ponding area will come right into
the Sunrise Addition and it is very evident that if you look at the contours that something is going to
have to happen there. Do you see where I mean there? I'm talking about lot I, block 5, down at the end
Teton Trail. Very significant water problem. OK? Do you see the contours that are shaping there? Very
significant. Now, this brings me to the next point. I think that the City. must control the water control I
structure. We must maintain and be able to maintain that for all time. If we don't, we'll lose control
of the whole ponding area. Now, looking to the west, once you leave the ponding area and you get into
this area that's between the plat and the Kerber farm, next to and east of Kerber Boulevard, you will
I
I
I
__to",'
Council Meeting, April 21, 1986
-17-
see that big area down there that you described as a basin area. I believe that basin should be appro-
priate there. I've always thought of that as kind of an ampitheater. If we could ever use that for
sledding or some other purposes for winter time, but I think we need to hold that, as a holding pond.
Greg Brink: That would be this area here? And, we would be able to work with the City and the
Councilman Geving: Another factor is that there is a cattle pass under the road at the point and at
some future date I'm sure that we will someday be using that for a trail under the road to get to the
west and eventually to Lake Ann Park, so we want to keep that in mind. A couple of other thoughts I
have - I think that there should be no building the 960 elevation. The reason that I say that is the
high water mark for this little ponding area is 948. If we add even 2 ft., we are up to 950 for a trail
and we're only four or five feet off the water table at that point. I would like to move the line to
the top of the hill as being the park dedication area and I'll set the elevation at 960 as the desired
elevation for park dedication purposes. This is not taking a lot from this plan, but I think that it
makes a reasonable amount of sense that if we start monkeying with the contours and buildings on the
slopes, we're going to find an awful lot of sedimentation coming into the ponding area.
Greg Brink: I might mention the 960 contour comes along here and then it goes into...
Councilman Geving: Yes, I know where it is. I think we have to watch it. I'm only really speaking
to the north side of the ponding area at this time. I know the contour on the south side is much higher
it goes up to as far as 990 on the Saratoga Drive. When you look down into the ponding area it is about
990 as shown on the map. See that there? Now, go to the north of the ponding area. Let's strike this
line at 960.
Greg Brink: The 960 contour comes along here and then it goes inside.
Councilman Geving: That's right. I think at that point it becomes ridiculous.
the north and west portion. Go to the north and the west portion. Right there.
about the 960 elevation that we should maintain for park purposes. Yes.
I'm only talking about
That's where I'm talking
Councilwoman Swenson: Does that cut through lots 1, 2, 3 and 4?
Councilman Geving: 1 through 10. If you look at the lay of the land, the elevation that is exactly
where the highest point of that dividing line is of that slope.
Councilwoman Swenson: Are you proposing that those lots be eliminated then?
Councilman Geving: No, I would say we're going to have to move the entire plan to the north.
Councilwoman Swenson: Looking at the size of those lots, isn't that going to present a problem?
Councilman Geving: I don't think so. There may be other ways around this. Maybe call it a no build
line, but I do believe we have to preserve the height of that bluff.
Greg Brink: May we suggest that the 960 contour along here at least as we get to that point be a no
build line or put a restrictive easement over that?
Councilman Geving: That's really what I'm looking at. On lots 1 through 10 on block 5.
'Greg Brink: I would request though, that we that those owners be allowed to sod that area because I
think the point was well made by the Council, that that area be maintained by homeowners.
Councilman Geving: We mentioned that it would be a no build line. You could still sod it. You could
still do something with it. And, you'd probably have some very nice two stories with a walkout or some
sort of thing. But what I think we need to do is preserve the bluff in that area. Moving on, I noticed
~~2
Council Meeting, April 21, 1986
-18-
here that we started complicating the plan a little bit, but I understand that there's two owners in
this one development and it may complicate your issue for this development.
I
Greg Brink: There are two parcels that are being purchased, but it is under one ownership.
Councilman Geving: One owner?
Greg Brink: One owner.
Councilman Geving: And you're speaking for that owner?
Greg Brink: For that owner of Enterprise Properties.
Councilman Geving: OK. I thought we were going to have a complication here in terms of what agreements
we should make with one of the two people. We are dealing with one end.
Greg Brink:
Just one end. Just one development contractor.
Councilman Geving: You mentioned earlier that possibly 20% of the site would be utilized for this park
dedication or for the conservation. I don't consider that to be a major problem because what we are
really talking about as Carol said, a big area here, where virtually 2/3 of most of those lots in let's
say block 4, south of the ponding area. It really is a big slop anyway. They are large, large lots.
Most of the lots would be down in the basin.
Greg Brink: I agree. It is the intent of the Council to preserve those slopes and yes, I think we can
accommodate that. We have to have that in land dedication to the ownership with the City, then it repre-
sents a substantial portion and it is not allowable for the loss themselves. It is a substantial loss I
to the developer.
Councilman Geving: Another comment in our Staff report. Maybe you could explain this to me, Bill.
Lot 1 block 8 will be affected by the amount of land proposed open space around the pond. This is on
page 6. guess it's really the same one I picked out before. How would we handle that drainage?
Bill Monk: When I noted lot 1, block 8, my major concern was with that lot... The biggest problem with
that lot was not necessarily drainage because the land flattens out in this area. Basically, it was
a concern that if we did ask for actual dedication to the 952 contour, that comes up inside the lot
20-30 ft. and it basically then that lot would be about 100 ft. deep. Being that close to the - with
a 25 ft. setback, and then putting your house in and having a trail right behind it, as well as the
drainage structure, the recommendation was to reorientate or perhaps even shorten up the cuI de sac just
so you could get more depth on that lot. It wasn't a major concern with the drainage, as much as it ~as
with that trailway and the proposed dedication. I would also comment on as far as elevations goes for
the houses built here, this pond is a protected waters, and as such houses in here basements for these
houses would have to be at least, I believe, two feet above the high water elevation for the lake. So,
that the lowest level of any basement or a useable portion of any house would be approximately 950/950~
under ....
Councilman Geving: 950?
Greg Brink: It would be controlled by the 950. As you get to lot 1, you're actually downstream
of what the alcohol structure is and the ground the elevation is roughly a 940 elevation and the existing
topography then is roughly 950 and as you get toward the front of the lot you have about 956 or 958 ele-
vation so you're substantially higher as you get toward the front it's basically from that lot 1 going to
the west where you have a 950 contour.
I
Councilman Geving: I guess that the only comment I'd make is that you'd better stay away from 950 because
you're only two feet off water table. There was a comment in here that indicated that eventually there
I
I
I
-J L"'tJ.........
Council Meeting, April 21, 1986 -19-
could be a road for a right-of-way to connect to Carver Beach. Where would you show that?
Greg Brink: That's located right along here. Now, my understandings the right-of-way located here.
Councilman Geving: But, off of Rocky Road?
Greg Brink: Off of Rocky Road. The right-of-way that's being proposed is not the full right-of-way.
Probably to the south you can see has a little notch and an additional right-of-way would come from that.
That right-of-way shown here is the same as the right-of-way that was shown on Western Hills when it was
approved by the Council.
Councilman Geving: I personally don'i think that will ever happen. Let me have just one other comment.
I believe that's the end of my comments, Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Hamilton: Clark, you had some comments.
Councilman Horn: I have a question. You had indicated that this concept has a lower density than the
previous proposal that was approved?
.Greg Brink: The proposal the way I understand the proposal...
Councilman Horn: I understood you to say that this proposal has lower density than the previously approved
proposal. Is that correct?
Greg Brink: No. I mentioned the numbers. The Hansen-Klingelhutz property that was before the Council
in 1979 was basically defined by this line here and then coming up here. That area in here was 30 acres.
That area included 57 single family lots and 19, not 20 as was mentioned by Staff, zero-lot line lots
were approved for that for a total of about 57 of 76 units .approved for that 30 acre parcel.
Councilman Horn: You had a drawing of that, didn't you?
Greg Brink: Yes, we did.
Councilman Horn: Would you put that back up again? We couldn't see that very well.
Greg Brink: This is the same orientation that you have before you. Again, here is Frontier Trail.
It does not at that time. The Final Plat as submitted to the Council at that time showed
this area which included a zero lot line single family lots and developed lot, so there are not included
on that drawing. I do have a copy of a rough fold out copy....
Councilman Horn: It was my understanding that this area that was shown here is the area where you are
going to put 91 houses.
Greg Brink: No, 91 lots includes this land from basically this end of the bend, from this from
here over to here .is additional land above and beyond what was include~ in Western Hills 3rd Addition.
Councilman Horn: Above and beyond what is on that plat that you have shown us?
Greg Brink: Yes.
Councilman Horn: Put that up again.
Greg Brink: It's difficult. Let me do it this way. Let me refer to the direct diagram that I had on
originally.
~~A
Council Meeting, April 21, 1986
-20-
Barb Dacy: Mr. Horn. It's Western Hills that originally
applicant is saying is that this area is now being added.
outlined
and what the
Councilman Horn: Oh, I thought he said everything north of this Frontier Trail.
Greg Brink: This diagram, perhaps is a little bit better. This yellow line and everything to the north
of that yellow line as well as the area to the east of that yellow line represents what was originally
called Western Hills 3rd Addition. That represents again, the 30 acres and was approved for some 76
lots in 1979.
Councilman Horn: I guess the general comment is that it looks like you're going to have to build a lot
of two-story houses with walkouts because there is a lot of grouping of lots in there. Isn't
there some way to break those up a little bit?
Greg Brink: Two story houses? What area?
Councilman Horn: Group 7.
Greg Brink: Block 7.
Councilman Horn: Block 7.
Greg Brink: The areas along here are
walk out lots. As you get up in this
As you go down here there's more than
again falls this way also so that .
7 could very well be split walkouts and lots
I think will quite definitely be two story or else at least full
area here, there is a good chance those would be split walkouts.
likely these will be primarily split lot walkouts. Topography
split walkouts from lots 11 through basically 18. 8 and
2 through 6 probably be walkouts.
Councilman Horn: Question for Staff. What is the average lot size in the area of Sunrise Hills and
Kiowa and Frontier Trail?
Barb Dacy: The lots are larger and in some cases at least 20,000 to 30,000 sq. ft. What the average
lot size of the neighborhood is, I don't know.
Councilman Horn: Would you guess it's l5,000?
Barb Dacy: There at minimum at least 15,000 and a lot of larger than that.
Mayor Hamilton: How about Saratoga?
Barb Dacy:
Greg Brink: I might comment on Saratog. I think those are roughly 12,000 sq. ft. If you compare the
lot sizes we have which those are not quite as wide but they're deeper and our average is 12,000 and
they're close to that.
Councilman Horn: Are you planning on building these houses or do you have approved the builders who
are coming in?
Greg Brink: I might touch on the phasing as well. The intent ....Developer Enterprise Properties has
built lots for builders in the past. I think the intent at this point would be to develop those lots
with one builder in mind. The phasing would basically be this area here for the 1st phase, and this
area here starting from the west going toward the in roughly three phases. If the economy
and the housing market stays as it is, it could very well be a two-year project. If the economy should
slow down it could be a three to four year project. Right now, we're anticipating roughly a three year
project in four phases.
I
I
I
I
I
I
~n~
Council Meeting, April 21, IS86
-21-
Councilman Geving: How many housing styles would you have?
Greg Brink: I think each one would be a custom built house. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think
he repeats floor patterns. He basically has a list....he is building another project for Enterprise
of roughly 81 lots and I think some of the homeowners had an opportunity to visit that in Ply~outh and
I suspect he's got 81 lots, probably 50 or 60 different elevations and floor plans. They range all the
way from ramblers to split foyers to colonials to you name it. There is a variety of differences, of
elevation, architectural, materials, I might even ask some of the homeowners here who had visited that
project to comment on that project. I think they were generally satisfied with that project.
Councilman Horn: Do you have garage restrictions or comments? Requiring garages?
Greg Brink: All the units would have garages. They all have double garages.
Mayor Hamilton: I'd like to say I have a couple additional comments. I think anytime you get into a
development this size and you talk about average lot sizes, I it's a little hard to relate to it because
you have some 59,400 sq. ft. lots and 29,000 34,000 sq. ft. lots that you have to have simply because of
topography. Consequently, that throws the figure way off and I think there are in my opinion, there's
too many 11,700 sq. ft. In your block 7, I would like to see two lots deleted out of there and block 4
I'd say lot 7, just to increase the size of those lots, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 would be would give you a little
better average size of those.
Greg Brink: Could you repeat that? I'm trying to....where you talking about block 7, 6, 7, 8, 9 and
10 through here. OK.
Mayor Hamilton: And, then block 4l I marked lot 7. Delete that and add that square footage to the
remaining four lots and you'd have some nice size lots. On block 5, lots 1 through 7. It just seemed
to me that when you have 15,000 sq. ft. lots there, it seems to me that those are probably some of the
nicest lots in the whole development, overlooking the poind. It would seem to me that if you put some
larger lots in there rather than "having several 15,000 sq. ft. lots and if you just had three or four
lots in there. They would build a bigger home and I wouldn't think they'd have any problem selling those
on a larger lot, but those were certainly some of the nicest lots with some of the nicest views to the
south.
And, then I was concerned as Clark was, on block 9, lots 1 and 2 that those it's kind of hard to compare
those with the lots on Frontier Trail, but I would like to be sure that they are approximately the same
size. Lot 13 is quite large. Lot 8. And, then Saratoga was concerned as we were with the same in the
same area of square footage as the neighborhood. I guess that's all I had.
Lori, did you want to add anything about the park?
Lori Sietsema: Well, I think it's pretty much been covered, but I think that all the points that the
Park and Recreation Commission ......
Mayor Hamilton: I know there are several of you here who might want to make comments. I would just
mention that we have had the benefit of having the Planning Commission minutes. We've reviewed those.
If there is someone who would like to speak for a group of people, I would prefer that you do it that
way. If you have comments that haven't been made previously, we would certainly like to hear those.
State your name and address.
Bill First, I would like to say that the developer has met with us three times
and has worked with us on trying to get to the point we are now. As we've explained to the developer, we
and as I think you are aware, are going to be living with the result of this for quite a long time and
I appreciate the questions you have asked. I think that they have been right on the three points that
we have. One of those points is protecting our property values. Another point is the Frontier Trail
-ct E':..~
Council Meeting, April 21, 1986
-22-
and the extension of that street safety. And, we have somebody who would like to speak to that specific
issue. And, another one is the park system and I think we have someone who would like to speak to that I
specific issue. Then on the south end of the development, they have some separate issues that overlap
us in places that are unique to them in places and I think they'd like to speak to that.
I'd like to say something about property value. Carol, you mentioned lot width. My house is 82 ft.
long and they are talking about 75 ft. lot width. So, if they can and we proposed sort of challenged
the developer as well and if they can come up with some means of protecting our property values, we've
and this is a little different development than what would take place than if you were developing in
the middle of a corn field. They are adjoining a fairly well established neighborhood and we feel that
it is incumbent to them to join that with comparable value homes. So, again, I'd like to thank you for
looking into this. We are really counting on you to carry the ball for us and I think if Rick Freeland
would say a word or two about Frontier Trail.
We've all of us in the neighborhood have gotten together and talked about
the issues that bother us and one of them is public safety. The safety we're talking about is not the
need to get to our house in the case of an emergency. But, rather the day to day safety of limiting
and reducing the traffic that burns up and down the street. We've got a problem already with the people
who live there and the one thing we do not want to do is add to that. In fact, it's been a concern of
me and many others who have been around. In the past they're thinking it didn't move fast enough. Now,
I don't think it moves slow enough. Part of that has to do with the fact that I've got more kids now.
I've seen what they do. They run out in the street and at least my neighbors know that those kids are
there. We're going to do some things anyway. No matter what decisions are made here. We're going to
put up some children playing signs. We're going to continue to see what we can do to reduce speeds on
Frontier Trail. The developer has indicated a willingness to do as we you decide. And, what we'd like
to do is suggest that we continue to have Frontier Trail a dead end. We moved to Frontier Trail to get
away from the traffic. For ourselves, for our kids. We'd like that to remain the same. We were thinking
perhaps back to back cuI de sacs or a green strip between the existing cuI de sac and the corner going on
the Rocky Road would be left so that in the case of an emergency a vehicle could cross that kind of a
barrier, but wouldn't be a traffic kind of situation.
I
We have enough trouble with people who know that street. All of us who live on Frontier Trail can witness
to tire tracks on the lawns. People have trouble enough staying on the road. We don't want people who
don't know that road coming in there as well. They're going to just add more trouble. As witness, a case
of a young boy who about a year ago, was coming around our corner and slammed into a light pole. I don't
know if he's out of his coma yet. There about fatalities on that street and it's just no place to
have anymore traffic. We don't want people touring. We don't definitely don't want other people hurrying
to get places. We prefer the safety to limiting to people we know and of limiting it to strangers. The
City Engineer said there wouldn't be an overwhelming Increas. We feel that any increase. Thank you.
Sue Boyt: I have one more thing to add to what Rick said. Bill mentioned that people on the end of
Frontier on Kiowa would like having an exit onto Kerber. Well, we built there knowing there wasn't an
exit and we don't want an exit. The majority of the people living there don't want a short cut out.
We'd rather have a grass section there and have to go all the way around. We don't want it there. I'm
on the Park and Rec Commission and spent two hours out on this site looking at the park. We spent a lot
of time looking at this land and we made a recommendation as to the least amount of land that we thought
would be appropriate for this park space. It's a passive park space. If you give the conservation
easement, who takes care of errosion problems? Is it the homeowner?
Bill Monk: The conservation easement basically would go back to the homeowners. The City would have
some control but it would depend how the easement was written.
I
Sue Boyt: OK. I have questions. I don't have a map here. If we ask for the top of the line around
here, is John is he going to put bushes all the way around?
Mayor Hamilton: Excuse me. Could stand aside so we could see what you're point to?
I
I
I
~~ry
Council Meeting, April 21, 1986
-23-
Sue Boyt: Are these people going to do whatever kind of plans they want to on this slope? And around
here? Are they going to put lilac bushes all along the lot line to help with errosion? I don't think
that will make it very appealing with the pond there. I don't think it will leave much of a trail for
us either. I have been led to believe that when someone comes in to develop some property in Chanhassen
that they are required either to give land for park if it is needed, or pay a fee and we are asking for
park land where it's needed. This was in the comp plan that this area be acquired. I don't we're think
we're asking too much at all.
-
Ron Peterson: My name is Ron Peterson. 11m a wildlife biologist and I was hired by the developer to
go out and take a look at the pond area and the surrounding area and investigate the site and the
wildlife habitat on the site and also the general site conditions. And, also as the question as to whether
or not a dedication or a dedication plus conservation easements would be done. I also did someone else's
to compare those two options in terms of wildlife on the site and how the site might be treated and if
doing this I also went and took a look at the south end of the pond which. is already been dedicated as
park part now and you can use that as my asumption as far as what the dedication would look like if it
was just dedicated to the City with no conservation easement. Right now, the quality of the land around
that pond is very poor and I've heard several people mention wildlife values in the area, but that whole
area was a pasture and has bee~ grazed for a very long time and the soil is very compacted which is part
of the r~ason you are getting a lot of siltation going to the pond at this point. To in terms of wildlife
values and in terms of errosion, the difference between a dedication and a conservation easement, techni-
cally, there is virtually none. You have the same result on the ground unless some measures are taken to
change some of those things. The developer has indicated a willingness to do some cover plantings around
the pond, possibly some shrub plantings where there are some errosion problems to help correct those
problems up front. In looking at the area that has been dedicated up to now, I haven't seen any type
of activity of that type and I understand it's been several years since that dedication took place. It's
really not addressing the kinds of the problems that the Park and Rec Commission and you have their
correspondence.' In the Park and Recreation Commission's recommendation on the dedication, they have
a whole list of intended purposes that they had for an expanded dedication. Those were to provide the
ease of access due to elevation changes, a form to previously existing setback on the southeast side
of the pond, prevent future change in contours from the existing ridge line to provide a buffer to protect
wildlife, control silting problems, and provide a buffer to control fertilizer and lawn chemical use for
the pond. My observations out there, I would say that probably the first three goals would be met by
simply dedicating the land and essentially letting it itself by its own devices. However,
judging from what's there now, there really isn't much of a buffer for wildlife of any kind. The pond
itself provides some waterfowl habitat, however, there is no nesting cover anywhere around. The
wildlife is going to have a hard time finding anything to hide behind. Part of the reason you are getting
siltage problems now is because the soil is so compacted and there is so little vegetation. So, there are
some things that could be done as part of the conservation easement. So, my conclusions at looking at
this report documents that you actually enhance the conditions of the pond having a conservation easement
as opposed to just dedicating the whole area and letting it go. If you have any questions, I'd be happy
to answer them.
Mayor Hamilton: Any questions? Thank you.
Does anyone else have comments?
Jay Johnson: I'm Jay Johnson of 7496 Saratoga. represent the Saratoga Drive contingent which is probably
put your hands up. We've got some concerns and we have a petition that we have filed in the past that was
written up prior to this plan and when they had a preliminary plot. I'd also like to before I start here
on drainage, the developer had a plan showing the existing drainage going up hill. And they say that we
have water coming in at this point and going down Saratoga Street. Well, we do not because Bernie's
driveway is the highpoint here. It goes around and into this vacant lot. So, we are currently not having
water running down Santa Vera Drive where it is marked on your map as Saratoga. It is not currently
running down except for a little bit off Bernie's driveway. Bernie's driveway is a little higher here
so the water runs around it. That's one of our points on drainage is that their plan on the other side,
I believe, they want to drain these backyard~ which is approximately one acre of land down on to Saratoga
Drive or Santa Vera Drive which then comes down to Saratoga Drive and down to Laredo where the storm
Now, there we have.a problem with water running down Saratoga Drive and ice formations
at this intersection. We really don't need any more water; We'd like the developer to look into putting
- ~.......
Council Meeting, April 21, 19B6
-24-
some storm sewers to direct the water away from that area so we don't get more water into our streets.
We question slightly the feasibility of putting the drainage ditch or swale through here and through
this 11,700 sq. ft. lot. It would have to be considerably larger drainage. During our last meeting,
they said that 2 cubic feed per second of water was run, 900 gallons per minute of water and you bring
it up to something that most people are used to in the design, so you have to have it this year taking
gOO gallons per minute of water down under Saratoga Street and down to Lared? which we're repairing again
this year. That's annual anyway.
I
Most neighbors here big ditch with 900 gallons of water per minute flowing through behind
our yard with small children or gardens that would be floating. There is a natural low area here that
could take a collection basin, bring that up to the storm or into the drainage area. As far as traffic,
the environmental assessment worksheet, the developer gave in the first place, talks about traffic on
Kerber Boulevard, not on Santa Vera, Saratoga or Frontier Trail. According to their environmental worksheet
there is no increase in traffic. I know I'm going to start taking this route to church on Sunday because
it cuts a mile off my trip and I'm always late anyway. And, I go into Excelsior. There's going to be
all the people in this section of town when they learn of this Santa Vera shortcut, they won't have to
drive past the school. It would be great for the school kids. They won't have near as much traffic to
dodge. But, it won't be too great for Saratoga Drive for the people who miss it and come running down.
We'll be talking to the City more about putting dead end, children running signs up there. We have some
concerns over neighborhood distractions which I believe the Planning Commission has taken care of very
well and the developer will be blocking off the streets so we don't have construction traffic in the
Saratoga Drive area.
On lot size, we too believe there's too many 11,700 sq. ft. lots and these large lots being averaged
in whether they are buildable. How much we have when everything is left.
Chanhassen Pond is the major reason a lot of people have moved here. A beautiful little pond. The Park I
and Rec Board has not started to develop this pond as they have planned to start the development of this
pond. So far, they only own the quarter of it. Why develop a quarter of the park until you have the
whole park? So, this area along Saratoga is not a good comparison of what this park can be because the
City has chosen not to start development on the pond park until we have the entire park. So, if that's
the basis of Ron's analysis, is that this is overgrowing weeds and not very nice area, that's true.
But, we have to start developing again. We'd like to see this pond develop like the Park and Rec people
want this pond develop. We want to see a walking path far enough up away from the pond to allow for
planting of vegetation to allow for wildlife habitat. We really like what the City Engineer has proposed
as far as siltation. His plans are really appreciated there. I hope the developer listens to them.
I'm sure he will. We support the Park and Rec's position and we want adequate land there so we can have
more wildlife there for future generations to enjoy here. We're now becoming fairly well organized and
we're going to be working with the Park and Rec Board to get the money to develop this park land now.
In the future we'll be given more land here. I don't believe the conservation easement is going to allow
that to put a walkway far enough away from the pond so that we're not disturbing a wildlife
which we can create. If you put a walkway right around the edge of the pond, for whatever development,
wildlife area here, you need the walkway far enough away and vegetation screening, the plantings need
to go between the walkway and the pond. The developer is giving us 20 ft. down here. You're not going
to get much wildlife in a 20 ft. area.
We just heard about the meeting this morning, so, oh, this evening as we got home from work at 6 p.m.,
thank you very much.
Mayor Hamilton: Anyone else have any comments? What I'd like to do, if the Council agrees, is to not
vote on this this evening, but to have Staff go back and take our comments, put them in a form we can
read so we can review them prior to making a motion and review all the conditions that we have discussed I
so that we will know exactly what we are talking about. It's a large project, and I'd like to make sure
that a motion there is going to be done correctly and that all conditions are included. Does the Council
agree with that?
I
I
I
1, c. ';.1)'
: <' 1--: ~-;,
~ ~, t.. _ ,.
Council Meeting, April 21, 1986
-25-
Councilwoman Swenson: I think more emphasis should made here on the letter from the Soil Conservation
Service also to set conditions that they have. I think it should be specifically addressed as far as
being conditions that is to the developer.
Mayor Hamilton: That being the case, I would then, if everyone is in agreement, I would then table this
item until such time that the Staff can review the conditions presented by the Council and bring it back
to Council for our review.
Councilman Geving: What I'd like to do is a variety of things we discussed. Maybe we could have just
a draft before we see anything real concrete and then come back for a final at a future Council meeting,
.but justa draft of what we discussed tonight would be sufficient to make modifications for a final draft
at a future Council meeting. I think in the past what we've done, we've taken these sketch plans, come
back, and the next meeting we're ready to go. I don't think we'd be ready even at the next meeting 'at
this point.
Mayor Hamilton: The developer is going to want to know where we stand and I would think I don't know
how long it takes Staff to put this together.
Barb Dacy: I could certainly have a report back to you by the next meeting. A list of your comments.
Mayor Hamilton: I would think if we have it by May 5 we can review it and add or delete anything from
there or change anything at that time, so that the developer can by May 5.
Greg Brink: We were hoping to be able to come before the Council with a final plat on the south portion
if possible, in May, the latter part of May and maybe a preliminary proposal there so that there would
still be room to work that out, but we have commitments to the land owners to develop and the builders
to develop some lots this year and we'd like to get to it.
Mayor Hamilton: I think if we had it by May 5, that's adequate time.
Councilwoman swenson moved to table the Sketch Plan Review, 126 Single Family Units, East of Kerber
Boulevard, ! mile north of West 78th Street, Enterprise Properties. Councilwoman seconded. The following
voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative
votes. Motion carried.
Councilman Geving moved to
West 77th Street, Curt Robinson.
'Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and
Side Yard Setback Variance Request to Construct a Garage, 202
Councilwoman Swenson seconded. The following voted in favor: Mayor
Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried.
Mayor Hamilton: The next item is to recede a 2 ft. variance to the required 10 ft. side yard setback
to construct a garage. . Mr. Robinson was requesting this.
Councilman Geving: To bring you up to date, Mr. Mayor, we did have this in front of us tonight at the
Boar9 of Adjustments Appeal. The motion was 1 in favor of the motion to grant the variance, and 2 members
deniJd it, so therefore, the motion failed. He has come before us tonight for a presentation of his
variAnce appeal. I believe Joann was here earlier and she is gone.
Mayo) Hamilton: Mr. Robinson, if you would want to tell us what
Curt IRobinson: She has an overhead that I could really talk.
Mayo~ Hamilton:
I
Curt :Robinson: If I can just This is the amount
I di~ say that I have a privacy wall/fence about 6 ft. high here.
s., 1'" .... .. D..., S.h.i.g. I.'. ... ..lid ..11. I d. h... .
I
Cathy, could look out. in the hall and see if 8arb, she may have the
of garage. This is
That would be moved
concrete patio that
the variance here.
back along here.
comes out here
~~A
Council Meeting, April 21, 1986
-26-
12 ft. out. I am going to put a deck on here and go out 14 ft. out in there someplace. That was one
of the reasons. If I move 2 ft. up this way, I keep getting awful close to the deck. The moving it
2 ft. this way would also not keep it in line with the house. The house is or the garage here has 2
ft. variance.
I
Mayor Hamilton: Perhaps you could let us know why there was a negative vote on this.
Councilman Geving: First of all, I didn't vote negatively, but the reason for the garage alignment for
the way it is now, it is not coordinated in terms of the variance, but that was added prior to the time
that we had a Board of Adjustments Appeals early in the, actually late 1960s. So, he built within 8 ft.
of his lot line. If he were to move the garage, proposed garage to the back, another 2 ft. away from
the house to eliviate the proposed deck, then he would be into a variance situation with the setback
from the backyard. Two of the members voted against it, one voted for it. Basically, it's a case of
Mr. Schmieg being the neighbor to the east as approximately 15 ft. away from that lot line that you see
on the bottom of the screen. So, there's ample distance between the lot line and the proposed variance,
approximately 23 ft.
Mayor Hamilton: Does the Council have any questions?
Councilwoman Watson: I'll just basically give what my oposition was very simple. There is not reason
that the garage cannot be in compliance with the ordinance. There is nothing to stop it from being 10
ft. back from that lot line. Yet, the deck he proposes does not exist at this point. It could certainly
be designed at the time it is put up around what exists at that time. It simply doesn't meet the criteria
of a hardship. There is no, nothing has to be moved. The lot is relatively flat, there are not trees
that would impede his entrance into that. He is going to be storing cars in it that may be he stated
that he may be taking them out once a year. So, it's not that somebody won't be going in and out. There
won't even be a driveway to this garage, but it can meet the ordinance. There is nothing to stop it being I
in compliance and it just seemed to me that the proposed deck and these things are just that, proposes
that the garage could be in compliance with the ordinance and he could plan his other things around that.
Clark Horn:
it would seem
I guess I don't see the deck as an issue.
like you would want to line the building
It seems like you wouldn't want a
The thing that stands out in my mind is that
up with the existing building since that's already
2 ft. jog in there.
Curt Robinson: It was just an initial comment. Donny Schmieg is my neighbor here. He would rather see
it like this than to see the garage offset. He's looking at a solid wall then like an L-shaped rambler.
Mr. Schmieg: Ya, I was just going to mention what Curt had mentioned. I was revert in being in line
simply because it would make the whole lot look more aesthetic and beautiful to me because I'm going to
be looking at it and I'm the only one who is going to be bothered by it. There's an evergreen there
that's going to hide a good portion of it, so I won't see like a few feet of the garage. The fact that
it would be lined up would make it a lot more pleasing to the eye than to look like kind of
Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the side yard setback variance request to construct a garage, 202 West
77th Street.
Motion was seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman
Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. Councilwoman Watson opposed. Motion carried.
Mayor Hamilton: The next item on the agenda is to accept the Feasibility Study for Improvements Within
Park One.
I
Bill Monk: There is still another major item with the number of people here, I'm going to try and go
a little bit quicker through this feasibility study for Park One and perhaps even cut off the presentation
by our two representatives, by RCM our two representatives Mr. Robinson and Mr. Potz to answer questions.
I
I
I
~~~
Council Meeting. Apr~l 21. 1986
-27-
We. of course. will answer any questions about the report that the Council may have. but we will stop
short of making a formal presentation. It is noted in the Staff report based on a petition from the
owner the Council authorize for preparation for a Feasibility Study detailing utility and street improve-
ments consistent with the Tax Increment District plan - number two plan to finish the frontage road
system north .of Highway Press within the Park One subdivision. The study has been completed. I believe
it is quite readable. quite comprehensive. It's a lot of work. a lot of work in working
with Eden Prairie and working with MN Dot to come up with a specific recommendations they did. Again.
the work includes grading. water main. sanitary sewer. storm sewer and street work. The project was
broken into two phases based on a development time table given to us by the owner of the property. The
total cost of Phase I was $414.600. Phase II was $477.600. An assessment package or assessment method
is recommended where the property within Park One would be assessed on an acreage consistent on adjacent
assessment rate. the balance of the cost would be picked up by the Tax Increment District. As noted in
a separate financial report completed by the City Manager's Office. it does show that the financing
arrangement and cost of improvements can be handled within the Tax Increment District as outlined in
your report. That is based on a conservative financial position. especially as it regards fiscal dispar-
ities. As you can see in your packet. the developer has requested based on the report. and the financial
anaylsis that at this point in time. both phases (I and II). which is a surprise to this office. but
can be handled without any problem. A~ this point in time. the City Council is in a position to accept
the report and authorize preparation of plans and specs as the owner in his letter has waived the right
to the public hearing. That is everything in a nut shell. Again. the consultants are here and I will
also attempt to answer any questions and a representative of the developer is present also. There is
a lot of issues in regard to this report: the Highway 5 access. working with Eden Prairie. the financing.
and so on. In the interest of time. I guess I'd ask the councilmembers to identify their questions
and we will attempt to answer them and give a complete analysis of the issue.
Councilwoman Swenson: Yes. Bill. On page 15. The method for financing.
at the bottom of that page and then there is another tax increment on the
nation of those two that woud be paid by the tax increment?
You have a tax increment
other page. Is it the comb i-
8ill Monk: Yes. That is shown in the study that can basically be from.
Councilwoman Swenson: I was
off the bonds and we
the improvements. I know we
of the opinion that the
seem to be doing these
keep doing it. I'm not
tax increment was
of the bonds by
It just concerns
to pay
adding
me.
monies captured to the
things and
necessarily objecting.
Don Ashworth: There's two issues. One the economic development district is set up for specific period.
1988. basically. It is completed at that point in time. You have sold two bond issues previously as
part of this project as Bill noted assessments associated with the project. a combination of assessments
plus tax increment generating will payoff not only the previous bonds. but the bonds proposed for this
particular construction.
Councilman Geving: I don't have any comments except that we have an awful lot of presentation material
out there tonight that we're not going to hear tonite and he's just raring to go. I would like to it
show one thing though. if you would and that's the overall plan of the road. On your chart there. just
show that for the....I.know. but on this it's a bit more illustrous. You've done such a good job with
it. we just want to see what the....
Mayor Hamilton: I thought the report was extremely well done and very readable and easy to understand.
I didn't always like what MN Dot was saying. but .... Is there any other comments?
Councilman Geving: How about our relationship with Eden Prairie assisting with the funding of l84th?
How is that moving along? Is there anything happening?
Bill Monk: Basically. Eden Prairie is taking the position that until development occurs on their side
of the street that they are in a kind of limbo that they are not ready to proceed. All of our work
to date has been. can we build a section now that will work with their alternate section and their design.
The design for that street ultimately. Whether or how long it will take for the two cities
ul~
Council Meeting, April 21, 1986
-28-
to get together and have the ultimate street, Dell Road, l84th Street, you know, extended down in there,
it's going to be a number of years. At this point it's just a timing and funding problem and I think we
found the best way around that.
I
Councilman Geving: One other question. If this thing goes through, how soon could this be built?
Would it be built this year?
Bill Monk: I'm assumming if the Council acted tonight to approve the plans and specs as recommended,
I'm sure all the utility work would get done this year and we would put the streets in next year.
Mayor Hamilton: Anything else?
Councilman Geving moved to approve the following:
RESOLUTION #86-23: Accept Feasibility Study for Improvements Within Park One.
as prepared tonight for us by RCM dated April 1, 1986 and based on this also moved
to authorize the preparation of the construction plan as fixed for Phase I and II.
Motion was seconded by Mayor Hamilton.
Mayor Hamilton: Jules, did you have any comments you wanted to make on this before we vote?
Jules Smith: No, I'm all for it. Is there any kind of formal waiver you would need, I would be happy
to get it signed and get it back.
The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and
Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried.
I
Mayor Hamilton: The next item on the agenda is to Accept Feasibility Study for Improvements to Lake
Lucy Road.
Bill Monk: I have told the people along this road not to come until 9, so I was at least correct in
th~t. Although this report isn't any less complete, I do know it will be a little bit more controver-
sial. I'd just like to make a couple of opening comments before we get into the report. Consistent
with the City Council action last December, the Feasibility Study for improving the existing Lake Lucy
Road and realigning the segment of Lake Lucy Road between Lake Galpin was authorized. The
report's now been done, copies of it have been run, sent to all the affected property owners last Monday.
I will remind everybody that this section is to accept and review the Feasibility Study. This is not a
public hearing and one of the recommendations is that a public hearing be called. An application should
be made in the Feasibility Study and made for that public hearing. I think that that is an important
note. Lake Lucy has long been a part of the city's state aid and I keep making that as a very general
statement and I began to probably realize that a lot of people don't understand what the state aid system
is. In simplified version, the state aid system is a series of local streets that the City Council
will designate throughout the City to attempt to create a grape type system between county roads, state
roads, and other major roadways within the city for residential use and/or as collectors and cross move-
ment streets. As you can see by the road in here, while presently on the state aid system, the solid
lines of course note the existing roads and dash lines show roads that are dedicated but still don't
exist in any way, shape or form. Lake Lucy Road is toward the middle and has been designated as an
east west collector road that eventually will go from 41 over to Galpin. It really is the only corridor
that the city has got between Highway 7 and Highway 5. I guess I just want to make you aware that the
whole concept of alternately improving Lake Lucy Road is started. As a municipal state aid street, the
City can and is proposing participation, financial participation in this project and it is the first
time I remember being associated with the state aid project where we are recommending that every dollar
that the City ultimately gets through its state aid allotment on this project would be programmed back
in to directly reduce the amount of the assessments proposed to the owners on that road. The report does
'propose to assess the road on a per foot basis. It's a conditional way to assess streets and I think
I
I
I
I
-;1 -tl G)1
Council Meeting, April 21, 1986
-29-
it does function with this method. Mr. Roos of McCombs Knutson will go over in the report how we tried
to take out wetland areas and again unusable areas in attempt to come up with a true number of
each of the lots. Since participation in this project is proposed at 71% for about $468,000, I'll let
McCombs go through particulars of the report. There is no question that existing property
owners that as they feel results surrounding development from any improvement project that there will
be a lot of controversy regarding that project and I think that that will be the case here. But, I
really believe that Lake Lucy Road, the condition of it over the past couple of years has shown me that
we cannot continue to put off our problems and try to patch them or anything or take care of them as
purely maintenance operations. We did have to go ~n because of safety issues that came up last year
and actually remove the build up of oil that had taken place and bituminous patching and actually rebuild
r{'t.Oc-r BOJ("J.
the base and we were back out there just last week taking out the-c~oss~-~ that had come up because
the base was just so bad that we started with. I really believe that it is time to make this improvement.
I think the timing is good given the development around it, but also that the City has the state aid
allotments to pledge toward this project and can maximize its financial participation in this project.
It's been a long time since I'd seen closed assessments at just over $11.00 per foot, and I think it
will be a long time before the Council sees it proposed again. You should note that the study that
w~s done in 1980 was used as a guideline for the improvements, but nothing 'much more than that given
that the major portion of the road was realigned. Any included improvements at the trailways and whatnot
that were not included on that earlier study and even with the reduced improvements that were proposed
the roadway assessment on that study was just under $22.00 per foot and we have done everything we can
I think to get that down to a minimal street section equivalent to normal wide 24 foot wide 5 ton design,
if even that. Again, I think the report is quite c~mprehensive. And, the people who live in the area
who have specific questions and we can get to those after Mr. Roos gives his report, but at this point
I'd ask the Council and the public to listen to Jeff's run through on the report and bring up a lot of
the issues and then we can through a kind of question answer period.
Jeffrey Roos: Members of the Council and citizens from the Lake Lucy Road area. At the City's direction,
we did prepare a preliminary study and Feasibility Study report for the street improvement project for
Lake Lucy Road. This report included an examination of existing conditions, doing a preliminary design,
estimating the costs associated with the proposed project and then looking at the funding for the project.
The improvements that were considered were not only state improvement~. We did look at a bikeway facility,
a future water main facility and storm sewer work which is necessary when you do a little bit gravel.
I did bring some slides of the road. Since everyone here is familiar with it, I'll just briefly go over
what we have out there now. As you proceed off Power Road, you soon come to the end of the blacktop.
You go down to a low area where the water is on the south side of the roadway and you begin going up a
steep grade to the west. That grade has one large hill right before Yosemite, but also on the way up
it has a slight crest in it so you will have a double bump going up the hill. This has created some
sight problems to the extent that if you are in the dip between the two crests, you can't see oncoming
traffic. Another problem with the extreme grade corning up from the east and going down to the west
is that you have some sight problems at the intersection of Yosemite Avenue. Then as you get just before
you get to the low lands on the west side of the project is where we're proposing to swing through the
Lake Lucy Highlands plat down 67th Avenue. Because we have a situation here that involves upgrading
existing roads and building new roads, we looked at the project in phases. We call them Phase I and
II with the construction of an MSA road. An MSA road says that you are using state funds and has to
be built according to state standards. To return to those standards, traffic count was looked at, a
20 year design period was evaluated in which 3.5% annual increase in traffic was used and we looked
at the projected traffic count from the nearest 1,000 vehicles per day. That type of traffic road
determined what we would call a cross section of the roadway. We looked at two cross sections. We
looked at an urban cross section which is a cross section using curb and gutter. At the urban section
we looked at, it complies with state aid standards and minimum section is a 36 foot mat with bituminous
curbs on either side, a 2 foot recover area. It's being called a clear recovery area outside of the
curbs and a minimum right-of-way of 60 ft. Now the area of Lake Lucy that fits the existing right-of-way
because the existing right-of-way is 66 ft. So, we can build section roadway out there within
what we have for existing right-of-way. We also looked at a rural section roadway. A rural section
roadway is one that uses shoulders instead of curbs and roadside ditches. It also has 36 ft. top, 24
ft. paved top with a 6 ft. shoulder gravel shoulder on either side. The problem we encounterd at looking
--A
U ~. /-';
Council Meeting, April 21, 1986
-30-
at a rural section roadway was because you do not have curb barrier on the side, the state requires
a 25 ft. recovery area. A recovery area is described as an area free from obstructions and a maximum
grade of .1 which is a very flat grade. Obstructions are trees, telephone poles, fences, or anything
of the like, culvert, abutments all have to be outside that 25 ft. recovery area. The recovery area
starts at the edge of the pavement so in order to fit the rural section in on Lake Lucy Road we would
have to put in a 74 ft. strip to build the roadway. This means moving many of the existing amenities
that are now out there alongside the roadway. For that reason, we recommended the construction of the
more restrictive urban section. And, that was the section we are recommending on Lake Lucy Road as
it's realigned. We also had two what we called residential sections on the charts. Narrower in width,
and lighter in strength. The two sections with the remaining part of Lake Lucy Road and a new cuI de
sac in Lake Lucy Highlands plat. With those two roadway sections, we recommended a rural section for
the remaining portion of Lake Lucy Road. You have a 4 ft. mat, you have 4 ft. shoulders and 2 ft. berm
to either side of the shoulders in order to keep them stable. For the cuI de sac we recommended the
urba~ section with the curb because it was a very steep grade and we wanted to keep storm waters within
the roadway section. Section on Lake Lucy Road in comparison to the I mentioned we also
looked at the pertinent construction would be done. One of the things we looked was the construction
of a bikeway. Now this is a planned view of the Lake Lucy roadway. You can see we have curbed 6 ft.
mat, the center 24 ft., the outer 6 ft. being used as a bikeway. The
bikeway would be marked by a solid white stripe on the side plus lettering, arrows and appropriate signs.
We do have enough room in the existing right-of-way 'to accommodate the future water main without disturbing
the roadway. We then looked at the cost of all of these alternatives. We found that the cost of the
rural section with a 74 ft. right-of-way for the first portion of Lake Lucy Road was $307,000 versus
the cost of the urban section with the curb which was estimated at $267,000, so the urban section was
a total cost savings. The cost of the roadway through the Lake Lucy Highlands plat an urban section
was $233,000 and the rural section was $230,000, so there was not a substantial difference between
section bids. The cost of constructing or upgrading to a paved residential status in the main portion
of Lake Lucy Road was estimated at $144,00 for the curb section and $129,000 for the rural section.
The cost of constructing a new cuI de sac in the plat, then, estimated at $28,000. The total recommended
project cost came out to $658,000 and the recommended project was this. That the urban section roadway
for the road for the reasons that did not improve the necessitate condeming or platting additional
right-of-way for the construction, did not "require removing trees and obstacles for the large
clear zone. It allowed for two traffic lanes and the two bike paths. We are recommending the use of
bitumous curb in lieu of concrete. curb for two reasons: the cost and the fact that we will be constructing
segments of this road, cross fill that is and we prefer to have a flexible curb rather than a regular
concrete curb. We recommended the rural section residential street for the main segment or as
it exists today because of the topography that exists out there and the character of the roadway, so
we are recommending that that roadway be terminated in a cuI de sac before it gets to Galpin Boulevard.
We recommend that because if we didn't we would have what we call short cutting action of roadway
of overweight vehicles using residential roads. The total project cost was $658,000 and as I mentioned,
we are proposing to assess $190,000 of that project to parcels and we are proposing to fund
$467,000 or approximately 71% of the project using state funds. After we finish with this cost estimate
and report, we did address the possible assessment plan for the City and the assessments were proposed
against all the parcels which would be using the roadway or benefiting from the roadway. For all parcels
that abut existing lake Lucy Road, no matter whether it's down here in the residential section or on the
section, we estimated the cost at an assessment rate of $11.25 per trunk foot which is the
.e~uivalent cost by the grading of the roadway, overlaying the roadway with a 24 ft. mat because of a
2 ft. 4 ft. shoulder. This is equivalent cost of a 5 ton residential roadway on the existing roadway
surface. In other words, the permanent cost of upgrading the gravel road to a residentia bituminous
road and that's how we established the $11.25 rate. All costs over and above that would be subgrade
correction cost. We need the grading cost to make the road improvement costs, the bikeway
costs, all those costs would be funded out of the state aid fund. For the second phase of the roadway
which is the roadway portion through Lake Lucy Highlands plat, the rate of to build that is
$22.20 per trunk foot. The reason that is a higher rate is because construction of a new roadway, and
it's a substantial amount of grading and excavation rate and that is an equivalent cost for the new
5 ton roadway. Stellar Court which is totally within t~e Lake Lucy Highland plat, we just said the
total cost of that would be Storm sewer construction is included in
I
I
I
I
I
I
~1~
Council Meeting, April 21, 1986
-31-
the state aid participation costs. We did give credits as Chanhassen has in the past for corner lots.
We received a credit equal to 1/2 of the narrower of the two frontages on the We also gave
credit to lots that abutting wetlands or non-developable frontage and I think you can I have shown you
pictures of the roadway and obviously see those and the large ponding area on the south here and the
large ponding area up by the bend here. There's three or four where we have low wet areas that at this
time are being developed. We did have an opportunity to talk to a field group, we talked with the Council
Chambers before the meeting this evening and we would be happy to answer those questions again.
Councilwoman Swenson: Yes, how long is that cuI de sac that you are proposing?
Jeffrey Roos: This?
Councilwoman Swenson: The one at the bottom. The one that you are stopping before it gets to Galpin.
Jeffrey Roos: Old Lake Lucy Road. It would be about 1200.
Councilwoman Swenson: That seems that it is a little inconsistent.
Bill Monk: Councilwoman Swenson, you have to remember that the Council has. already approved the
concept plan for Pheasant Hill. You can point out where Pheasant Hill is to have a road down to Lake
Lucy Road and Mr. Roos is showing you the approximate location. That is proposed for the second phase
which Mr. Klingelhutz is preparing right now and basically shortens that cuI de sac to about 500-600
ft. We are counting on that and it is integral to Lake Lucy Road.
Councilwoman Swenson: I recognize that, but I'm trying to figure out, but when we approved this we
still got a road going through Galpin Road. Sure, we did. We never accepted this cuI de sac at the
end.
Bill Monk: We talked about this, but it's never been formally accepted by the City Council.
Councilwoman Swenson: What you're telling me is that there will be a second outlet then off that through...
Bill Monk: Pheasant Hill, yes.
Councilwoman Swenson: All right. That's all.
Councilman Geving: The only question I have is you didn't break this out separately.. What would be
the cost of just the section of the old Lake Lucy Road to complete under this Feasibility Study. I
don't see that detailed anywhere. Or maybe I missed it.
Jeffrey Roos: That was considered Phase III.
Councilman Geving: OK.
Jeffrey Roos: At a cost of $129,000.
Bill Monk: Phases I and Phases III.
Jeffrey Roos: Phases I and II are are again, I say, roadways.
Bill Monk: If you average out Phases I and III you would have an approximation of what it would cost
to pave just Lake Lucy Road as it exists right now. But you have to remember, the two sections proposed
for that paving are different. It is a heavier wider section proposed as it would for the eastern section
of the road and a rural basically a narrow rural section. The number is a little bit misleading, but
to pave existing Lake Lucy you could get a rough idea of paving by pages 1....
t2 ""'ll d:?
Council Meeting, April 21, 1986
-32-
Councilman Geving: That particular road will be assessed. That part of the old
that correct?
Is
Bill Monk: Yes.
I
Councilman Geving: Rather than picked up by the state.
Bill Monk:
all the
MSA is involved in the entire project and does offset the assessments on all of the almost
, but there are assessments proposed on it.
Councilman Geving: I guess the quest~on I am asking for $129,000, how many people benefit from redevel-
oping old Lake Lucy Road to that cuI de sac or that 1200 feet you have here?
Bill Monk: You show the sheet with the properties and the property numbers on it.
Jeffrey Roos: On the $129,000 cost, $27,000 was proposed to be assessed and $102,000 was proposed to
MSA.
Councilman Geving:
and whether by who.
I don't care about the assessment in dollar. I'm wondering how beneficial it is
How many people are going to benefit from that road for $129,000? We're using...
Jeffrey Roos: There are six existing parcels and three new parcels in the Lake Lucy Highlands plat
that would be assessed.
Councilman Geving: What you're telling me, there's only nine homes on that stretch of the road?
Jeffrey Roos: There are no homes. There are two homes on that stretch of the road right now. These
two lots are outlots of the Pheasant Hills Addition. They are vacant. This lot is vacant. We have
two small assessments to two existing homes in Hills. This is all vacant property and there
is one home.
I
Bill Monk: I think I know, Councilman Geving, we did look at the same thing and Jeff Wright discussed
this issue. Basically, what Staff would like to see would be that this road extended up to where it
goes into Pheasant Hills and remain at that point, and basically come up and circle through and basically
be complete. There is an existing house that is noted 15 on here that has a driveway that comes out
this way now. That driveway could be relocated so that a cuI de sac wouldn't have to be extended for
that reason. The major reason that it is extended down here is one that perhaps is a little bit more.
legal in nature that is designated as 14 on here, but if you remember, the Council considered Paul
Potter's townhomes and single family over there. A major issue of that proposal was that City would
continue to get frontage to that parcel so that Galpin did not represent its only frontage. In looking
at it, we looked at a couple of different options: a cuI de sac extended off of Galpin a short distance
to service those properties and a couple of different things. We are proposing this one mainly is'that
it allows the cuI de sac to exist more prominently in nature and function as it was intended, but also
allows us to close that existing access onto Galpin which I think is critical. Sight distance and other
restrictions are for there and I guess I have always seen that as a major objective, but I know what
you are saying in terms of that section road is marginal in benefit, but I believe the City has a legal
responsibility to maintain street frontage and access to developed and undeveloped parcels and I guess
that's where we're coming from.
Councilman Geving: I guess the question I have is 20% of the cost of the entire road we're only benefitting
very few people.
'I
Bill'Monk: It would be basically to commit to a County Road 117 access for that one parcel of land.
If we did that, it would be possible. That's an option. I just want you to know.
Councilman Geving: Let's not close out all of our options.
I
I
-.-J --' ,...~
~, t I .
J_ J,- I,
Council ~eting, April 21, 1986
I
-33-
Mayor Hamilton: There are a lot of residents here. I believe if you have any comments about the Feasi-
bility Study, I'd like to hear from you at this time.
We are the residents of Phase I, Lake Lucy Road have signed a petition. We'd like
to see it go back to the original extent that it was for a black top surface with gravel shoulders.
Part of the problem is the development that's further west of us is bringing out a lot more traffic
through there. We feel that we are petitioning against the rate of assessment and the type of road.
Because of sewer and water not in the area, this type of surface is bound to be disturbed to some degree
when this comes in. We've been to other meetings where you've told us the future, we do not know how
quickly sewer will come in. This is of concern to us. We cannot understand basically reading through
the documents here that you have why Phase lover an existing road should cost more than it is for...
There isn't even a road through .some of that parts. We definitely are in favor of having it brough
back Phase I brought back to what it was. At one time we had black top surface there. We were assessed
at that time. The City said they would maintain it from then on. It wasn't a large assessment, but
where do you go? Every year something changes. There are a number of people up in that area have horses.
The stable that Twin Hills. They own the property. They're assessed something like $15,000. They
also own an access back to the island. They like to ride their horses back there to have picnics.
I have 11 acres. We have 10 horses. Weld like someplace to ride. We do not think this is feasible
with the bike trail. What we're looking at.and you're looking at with the cuI de sac being too long
up there, the development to the west of us has 85 houses proposed in there, but 2 and 3 car garage.
And, the ability to bring.out 150 cars through our road. There are 16 people' listed and we maybe have
2 or 3 cars of our own. For what we are paying for this assessment~ we feel that we are not really
being treated fair. We would like to see an improvement on the road, but at this point, something else
should be devised as far as we are concerned. If nothing else, leave it gravel and just keep the dust
control. I can paint my house brown. I would like to see it go back to blacktop. In fact, I prednear
cried when you tore up on our hill because th~t wasn't our problem, but it was necessary because you do
it all at once. At this point, we are very we'd like to see it improved, but we feel that we're carrying
more than our fair share of the burden for the amount of traffic, supposedly all the residents of Chanhassen
are going to benefit if they're going to come I talked to Bill earlier and he said perhaps the people
from Minnewashta would use our road. This isn't why we're living there. We like the rural atmosphere
up in that area. And, when you go by a per foot assessment, it gets very strong to the people that
own any desirable acreage through there as opposed to I'm very fortunate. I only 150 feet, so I'm quite
fortunate, but some of the people are really assessed quite highly through there. So, we'd like to
go on record at this time that we'd like to have the improvement of some degree, but not particularly
at this amount.
Wayne , 1950 Crestview: I'm that person at the end of the cuI de sac, and I tell you that
you're not building the cuI de sac for me, I think you're building it for Palmer. ,There's a couple of
questions I have here and something I felt would be addressed in the Feasibility Study and one of them
obviously would be what the excavation would be for where the cuI de sac would end which now is a road.
I didn't see any provisions for that in the plan which discussed me, obviously, because it affects my
land. The other one I think would be what Councilman Geving brought up and that is the fact that I
personally, could I put up the ...... Two things here that Councilwoman Swenson brought up also. What
I don't understand is that here this is my access and we're going to the road down here. I
heard someone say that this is going to be a little access and not be a cut through and it seems to
me that if you can access up in here and cut down, that's a cut through, so there's in here.
Another problem I have, if I access here, my paper is right there. On the way to work, I do something
like this to go to work. That doesn't to me seem feasible at least personally. What I would prefer
would obviously be something more of access onto Crestview. I'm the only one on the cuI de sac as Mr.
Stellar can attest to. It doesn't have access to Crestview Drive. Those I think are the issues at
least I'~ like to see the Council address. Thank you.
l1li C'"o,il"o G";o,, y," ,,"ld ,,' b"k '"' " G'lpio " C"",i,,)
Wayne Yes. Crestview would bring me right here. My driveway now is here.
What I'm essentially saying is that bringing in a driveway which you'd have to go across my lawn just
-,.. ..".... .._~
i1 11 .R
Council 'Meeting, April 21, 1986
-34-
.now. I don't have a problem with that. I'd much rather do that than have a mile-and-a-half to go
Ted Coey, .1381 Lake LucyRd: I just want to reiterate a couple of things. That area from 17
all the way down to where the road is going to split is basically very rural, which I think everybody
knows that and there's a lot of large tracks of land in there and it seems to me like you're trying
to accommodate all the development at the far end of the road at our expense and I really don't appreciate
that plus the fact that at the time that I moved out there there was a blacktop road. It was not great,
but it was there and Klingelhutz's development has beat the heck out of it. I don't see where Klingelhutz
is getting hit a very fair share because if they run an. access road down to the cuI de sac, the people
on Pheasant Hill are really going to really benefit from the new part of the road. And, they aren't
getting hit at all with that. Obviously, they don't have any frontage on the road, but they're devel-
opment is a major reason why we are sitting here tonight. It would come in the future. It wouldn't
have come anywhere near as fast and I don't think you have to have that kind of a mjaor road through
a rural area which we live in. Now, most of the people there have horses, like Al said, you know, we
don't need two bike paths, one for each direction. We sure as hell don't need curb and gutters. It
isn't that kind of development. Now, if you want to put that stuff in, fine, put it down at the other
end where you've got 85 houses packed in one acre, but not where we live. And, we feel strongly. That's
why we're out there. We aren't out there to get city sewer and water and curb and gutter and bike paths
going allover the place. That's not why we're there. And, besides the fact, like Al said, most of
the people have 300, 400, 500, 1000 feet on the road. It's going to kill us. I'm not dying to pay
$4,000 for a road down there. I don't think that's fair. I think you have to look at what we had when
the road started and all the development is going to come in and require more roads and more this and
that, they should be levied with a lot heavier share. Especially Pheasant Hills. They've got two
outlots for about $9,000 total on the whole shebang and all the people north are going to benefit from
this road. That's not in the cost at all.
Terry O'Brian, 1420 Lake Lucy Road: What you're doing is putting another highway in. When you hit
Highway 41 you're just going to eliminate or the traffic from 7 and 5 are going to zip down that road.
You've got another highway is what you're going to have. So, the people who are benefitting from it
isn't going to be us. It's going to be traffic control or developers and we're going to pay for it.
And, that's all I want to say. I think .you're putting another highway through there. The state is
going to pay some of the money, but that's what you're actually going to be doing. You're putting a
highway through there.
Ray Kerber, 6700 Powers: The road doesn't benefit me in anyway, I'm just on the corner. So, that's
my first point. My second point is on the part of my property that does abut Lake Lucy Road, that is
the only tarred section of Lake Lucy that remains. There's 400 feet. There's four property owners
on that. We've already paid for that in the Carver Beach assessment and I noticed that we're being
assessed the same rate as the rest of the owners on Phase I of Lake Lucy Road. I'm wondering why. What
are they going to do? Tear that road out? It's the only part of Lake Lucy Road that's blacktopped
and is driveable.
Bill Monk: I'll answer a number of questions.
Al Krueger, 1600 Lake Lucy Road: I feel too that the strip going through here will really facilitate
Pheasant Hills in terms of traffic coming through and really decrease your plan for stopping cars going
through because it really is a short cut between 41 and 7. I'm against as you go it so deep the road
up to Pheasant Hills. In terms of a bike path, I have a couple of kids, so I could use a bike path.
I don't know that I need it on both sides. I enjoy the horses going by, too.
West 67th Street: I sure don't want all that traffic coming past the house.
It's going to come right down on the corner of West 67th Street. That's the reason I bought the place,
to get away from the traffic and then it's going to go right by me. I live on a dead end street now.
Bill Monk: I don't want to go back and forth on this thing. I cannot answer all of the questions to
everybody's satisfaction. The reason for the explanation on state aid roads and going back to basic
I
I
I
I
I
I
~~~
Council Meeting, April 21, 1986
-35-
roads was you really do have a conflict here. You are at the very edge of Municipal and Service
area. You've got some areas developing within that area, some developing outside and you've got a lot
of long time residents who want a rural atmosphere in this area. You definitely have a clash or a mixing
of things that just don't go together. In the report we tried to come up with a method to go back and
forth between paying for the improvement. We are proposing that Pheasant Hill get assessed for all
the frontage, but also proposed the City realizes the need for cross connections of roadways for allowing
multiple outlets for those who use Yosemite and other roads that people have a multitude of ways to
go through a neighborhood. It'sthe entire reason or basis behind such a heavy state aid participation
in even recommending the City participate the level of $468,000. A couple of details, as far as the
cuI de sac for the time being we have shown the easement going to the north and it would mean that we
might have to require additional right-of-way and that has been included in the report. Again, the
proposal to extend the road is not to service any individual, but is trying to meet the City's respon-
sibility to service the areas properly. These lots all back on the road and some of the lots on here
have no direct rent access. The major question here #15 here as the individuai stated here, they could
change their access to come.off Crestview or come off Galpin. You have to go around this way to work.
.1 cannot deny, if the access comes out this way, and they should ever want to go downtown, they would
have to come around come back this way. That's basically a detail of the parts you could get. Our
major intent was to service the properties while disconnecting this access which I felt was very important
to the overall project. I'm going to take a chance here. Of course, I haven't been here that long.
Mr. Harvey did bring up to me the point of paying something for assessments, or whatever. I went back
and talked to Henry Rase, City Street Superintendent. He remembers walking the street with the County
Engineer and asking the County Engineer whether the road was whether the base was sound and all I remember
is the County Engineer nodding and walking away. This was basically tarred a number of times, he put
it and the only thing I could come up with was that as it was dust coated or tarred, that the residents
were asked to pay something for that surface. The only reason that the street kind of turned to blacktop
eventually that after so many applications of tar, that it got to the point that where the potholes were
asphalt was put in and that's basically how the street got paved in the first place.
To answer the question, there's about 400 feet in here as Mr. Kerber stated. I did go back after he
called to take a look at past assessments. We are recommending that the 36 foot section go all.the
way for conformity to Powers Boulevard. In going back to assessment roles, it did conform that the
previous owner was assessed on this parcel some very long parcel was assessed on five sewer and water
with no street frontage. Mr. Clark, right here, was assessed one unit with street frontage and the
street frontage totals $600 per unit. Mr. Irboe was assessed a unit where he got no street frontage
and Mrs. Jakes was assessed for two houses that are here. Again, for $600. In looking at it it was
important for us to extend to 36 feet all the way just for conformity. Again, so that if the bikeways
or trailways were put in so that they would extend all the way. The existing blacktop is not that wide.
Some sections of blacktop have started to warp and that is another reason why we thought it was a good
to take care of the entire section. I guess the recommendation comes down to a position that the existing
assessment of $600 is reasonable for 10 years of use of the blacktop section. And, so what is being
quoted is not unreasonable in terms of what was previously assessed as far as part of the project.
Again, I'd like to note that this is a Feasibility Study. The reason that everybody got copies of it
was because we knew this type of discussion would take place. In calling a public hearing, the
can Council can direct Staff to revise the study in any way, shape or form that it sees fit and when
you do so for the public hearing. I think that it's important that the road get paved. I don't agree
that we are trying to transfer the major portion on here again. I think $11.25 is very reasonable given
that the existing rate in most subdivisions that we have been approving is anywhere from $25-$35 a foot,
that it is for 90 foot lots and there is a big difference here. What we have attempted to
do though would be $11 is that even a larger parcel on still have assessments fairly close to what even
an early one urban lot has right now. They are between $2500 and $4000 a lot. And, that's about what
I
we've got here. It's just the way it worked out. Again, I think that it's fairly reasonable. I won't
attempt to downplay the residents problems or believe that I am against them all because we are in a
little bit of a different situation. I just can't answer that.
Councilman Geving: I just have one question. It seems to be a natural one. What about all the people.
who live on Yosemite and are really virtually land mark in terms of getting in and out of their property?
~ c'i0
lJ. ...:'_L ~
Council Meeting, April 21, 1986
-36-
They have to drive this road everyday. It seems to me that they benefit as much or more from the completion I
of this road than the people who live on it because there's an awful lot of homes back there and I tend
to think we ought to expand the assessment area to include an area. An area such as Pheasant Hill. And
an area such as all the homeowners who live back on Yosemite. I don't know how many there are, but I
think that they're getting off scott free and driving that darn road everyday. So, I would like to
take this and expand the thought at least of bringing it into the assessment picture. All the people
on Yosemite who have to access and get access to their property from Lake Lucy Road as well as the
people in Pheasant Hills as well as any other development that would be reached up there.
Sill Monk: When we have an awful lot of assessments, you're getting into a different perspective.
As far as Yosemite goes, you have to remember a large portion of that road is gravel. The City Council
will look at a project in the future where those people will be assessed for their plat. At this point
I think the reason the City is putting in so much state aid involvement is because there is such a large
section of population that will use this road. There is no question about it. "Sut, at this point I'm
not recommending that we go off line, but again it's a possibility.
Councilman Geving: I have to follow up with my second question then.
$129,000 for a very small piece of road, can we take a good portion of
the overall road and reduce the overall assessment to everybody else?
If we're talking about spending
that $129,000 and throw it into
Sill Monk: You mean if we stop the cuI de sac where the road goes to...
Councilman Geving: Right. Stop it about mid-way at a cost of if it's $129,000, let's say that it would
cost half that. You put the other half back into the pool.
Sill Monk: Again, you know, you are causing consequences to some of the other properties we could assess
that and look at that possibility. I do worry about our legal position as far as in terms if a person
then wanted to take, let's say the Palmer piece and come back with six residential lots with frontage
on Lake Lucy Road, you might have a good case if the road is not there.
I
Councilman Geving: But there aren't any homes there at this time, either.
Sill Monk: A land owner has certain rights as far as the road goes. We are proposing to stop it short,
but
Councilman Geving: I think a landowner only has a right to get access to his property. That's how
I feel about it. And, I don't care if it has to be an MSA approved 32 foot wide or 36 foot wide road.
I don't believe that's necessary. As long as the Council fills our responsibility, but provided you
us. That's the end of my comment. I just feel there should be some way of diverting that
$129,000 back into the pool.
Phillips, 1571 Lake Lucy Road: I think you're right on when you say you feel there's
a much greater area going to benefit from this than the 8-10 property owners that live between Yosimte
and 17. And, I think to try to justify it on the basis that state aid is paying a large lump sum, what
it's telling us is that the state aid is paying for the portion of the road that benefits Pheasant Hills,
Koehnen, Yosemite Road, but it isn't benefitting those of us that live on Lake Lucy Road. I think that
should be expanded.
Councilman Horn: Why would you think the people on Yosemite would use that street?
Councilman Geving: Well, I think if you talk to the people I know out there, they're normal access
to their residential property is on Lake Lucy Road. That's their normal way of getting in and out of
there because they are doing their business in this direction.
I
Councilman Horn: at least. They wouldn't be going up and down Yosemite? If they go south.
If they go west, don't they go Stellar Circle?
I
I
I
~0~
Council Meeting, April 21, 1986
-37-
Councilman Geving: I think there is a greater tendency to come out Yosemite than probably turning east
and go on Lake Lucy Road.
Councilman Horn: I thought you were talking about this section over here. The long cuI de sac. What's
that got to do with Yosemite?
Councilman Geving: I'm talking about two pieces. I'm talking about the number of people who live down
on Yosemite back in that section who use Lake Lucy Road everyday as much as these people do.
Councilman Horn:
understand that. I thought you were referring to this 129,000.
Councilman Geving: Oh, no. I'm referring to that also. I've given you a double whammy here. I'm
trying to pull both of those people over.
Councilman Horn: Yosemite would benefit from the $129,000.
Councilman Geving: Oh, no. That's something else.
Councilwoman Swenson: Bill, if I heard some of these people correctly, they seem to be concerned about
the magnitude of the project as opposed to a plain blacktop road. I think perhaps we have to emphasize
again that in order to get the MSA funds at all, we have to comply with one or the other of the streets
that were for us at the beginning of the presentation. One being the rural road, which would
take 74 feet through their line. I think that would be disaster. And, the urban road which will stay
within what we now have. Would you care to hazard a guess or would you know I mean if we were to just
finish what we are doing with the road and blacktop it and all the assessments for this entire road
in the future maybe another year or two years..... what kind of money are we talking about to
these people then? It still would be a very expensive project, wouldn't it?
Councilwoman Swenson, that question was proposed to me out in the hallway earlier
as to what the cost of putting on a 24' bituminous mat over the existing road would be, and putting a
shoulder alongside that 24 ft. mat. And, I pointed out a number of things, that that cost would be
every bit as much as what your assessment is proposed to be because basically the basis of $11.25 was
what we call light grading, putting down a 24 foot bituminous mat and two 4 foot gravel shoulders and
that's the basis for $11.25. It does not include what we are proposing on the MSA project which is
to go through all the again soils areas taking out 4 feet of material and putting down the fabric, building
up the roadway to where it doesn't deteriorate. All we would be doing would be putting on
in these areas.
,Councilwoman Swenson: But in the long run is going to prove much more costly than doing it at this
particular time. I think we have to emphasize that there seems to be a lot of concern about this.
Bill ,Monk: It's a good point. But also there is the 1980 Study that said not including state aid.
That was basically a straight assessment to repave the existing alignment and the proposed assessment
at the point like I noted was $22.00, so I believe there is appreciable decrease in not only the work
that is being done, but also the assessment and it basically has. And, I think that this people are
realizing a benefit to state aid.
Mayor Hamilton: Did you have a comment about the Feasibility Study that hasn't been made at this point
that has something to with it that you want to add?
Councilwoman Swenson: I wonder if we're not putting the cart before the horse because
Mayor Hamilton: No, it wouldn't.
I guess to see a sewer or a water project go through and not disturbe an existing
, especially where you have embankments that we have. What do you do with the
road is
Council M~eting, April 21, 1986
-38-
dirt?
I'd like to know
the last two or three years for all
the road. That's what broke it up.
how much in fines that you have collected from Klingelhutz over
the violations he's had for all the equipment coming up and down
All that money in fines could go toward the road, too.
I
Mayor Hamilton: Do Council members have any other questions on the Feasibility Study?
Mayor Hamilton: What we want to do is accept the Feasibility Study and set a time for a public 'hearing.
Do you have a suggestion?
Bill Monk: In the memo it would be May 19.
Don Ashworth: Do you want that set off in li9ht of some of the questions? Do you think
Bill Monk: Usually it depends on the direction from the Council.
items changed or something like that, then I would like it pushed
If the report is the way the Council wishes it to be presented at
of notification.
If the Council wants some of the
off to the first meeting in June.
the hearing, then it is just a matter
Don Ashworth: I guess what I'm thinking about, Bill, is if you're going to pursue the question of off
line assessments, the only way that could be pursued is through an appraisal to show that those properties
have in fact have Quite truthfully, I think it's going to be quite difficult to show that,
but we would have to bring in a professional appraiser to do that. So, we could push it back off the
date that May 19. Can we just move ahead with it and notify the owners, hopefully, May 19. If not,
reset it to June I?
Councilman Geving: I hate to bring this up, but I think this is the point to do it before we get too
far and that is to look again at that extension of that cuI de sac and try to shorten it up to see if
we can save some money on that.
I
Mayor Hamilton: Well,
think that will be part of it.
Councilman Geving: OK. As long as that's a part of it.
Councilman Horn: I think the big issue is the off line assessment
I see that as a major policy.
if we can still
that.
Councilman Geving: It is a policy issue. I'll back off.
Mayor Tom Hamilton moved to approve the following:
RESOLUTION #86-24: Accept the Feasibility Study for Improvement to lake lucy Road with a May
19 Public Hearing
Motion was seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen
Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried.
lori :Sietsema~ The Park and Recreation Commission asked that the City Council give approval of North
lotus lake Park Master Plan and we are about to do that. We reviewed plan one and sent it back for
a couple of revisions. This is the second plan that they sent to you. The plan shows entering the
park off of Pleasant View Road into a 30 car parking lot. There is a soccer field here with a I
slot for our baseball diamond and let's see, then to the other side of the parking area, there
is a nice hill here that goes down to the lake that is just very nice for winter activities with a skating
rink being on top of the hill and a sliding hill. The plan shows a future park shelter or warming house.
It shows a trail coming in from the north leading to that neighborhood and winding on down to the lake
I
I
I
Council Meeting, April 21, 1986
-39-
area and then going off to a trail that we have down by ~he lake on the west side. This whole lower
area being picnic area. This shows a small parking area with room for six cars off Black Hollow Drive.
Tne original plan did not have that parking lot there, but since the tennis courts are up here, the
Commission felt that there may be parking along streets along Fox Hollow Drive instead of parking along
So, we put in a parking area there for the tennis courts.
I reviewed this park plan with Dale Gregory and he felt coming back a little bit. The Park and Recreation
Commission, the first plan showed just one skating area up here on top of the hill and they felt that
with hockey being as big as it is, there be a conflict with the figure skaters and hockey players, and
so we felt that there should be two separate skating areas, so that's why they are showing a larger
skating 2rea and a smaller skating area. Dale felt that with the skating rinks around here, there are
~'couple rinks not used as heavily as we might think and he suggested that we just flood one the first
couple of years and see what the use of that is and if the need be, then go ahead and flood the, second
one. T~~ fark and Rec Commission seems ag~eeable to that. The Park Commission asked that this backstop
be put,o~ this end of the soccer field. They felt that the same problem may occur with people parking
al~ng fox Hollow Drive instead of in the parking lot so they don't have to walk so far. In the grading
pl~ri,.that will also be changed. Any questions?
~
. Counc~lwoman Watson: Just quickly. Hockey and figure skating simply don't mix. By the time you have
tw.~ or three boys out there with hockey sticks and hockey puc~s, you're not going to have anybody skating.
Up here. You can't figure skate in the hockey rink, but they're forever out on the regular skating
rink with their sticks. So, it just doesn't work. You're not going to have anybody figure skating.
Councilman Horn: I don1t think hockey takes on the big element it used to.
Councilwoman Watson: They try. It doesn't work. Because they are adjacent to each other they skate
from one to the other.
Mayor Hamiltop: Most of those hockey players can play indoors now.
Lori Sietsema: Well, that is not the point I WaS bringing up to the Commission. The hockey rink shown
is just basically an ice rink with hockey nets on it. It doesn1t have boards and ev rything on it.
At least for the first year, see if anybody skates at all. At the Minnewashta ice r"nk we still go
up there once a week and see two skate marks across it, and then drive back down her where there is
a lot of activity. It often isn1t used at all during mixed time. So, he was just c ncerned of going
in and putting in all the hours of building that ice. Let's see what the use is fir t. If need be,
then put in a hockey rink.
This doesn1t include any landscaping.
both tapes blank at this point
Mayor Hamilton: Council presentations. Dale?
'Councilman Geving: I'm going to pass on that.
Don Ashworth: Do you want to set a special meeting date for Wednesday night. Should we not be doing that
as part of regular public business project? We should be poing that literally at this time.
Mayor Hamilton: Can everybody make it Wednesday night?
What time is convenient for everybody? 6:30 p.m.
The next item is to consider a partial sprinkling ban.
Bill Monk: I very quickly I hesitate propqsing this from a notification and enforcement standpoint.
It will be nothing but headaches, but (.truly believe after talking with the Utilities Superintendent
and looking at the system over and over again we really need to do this, not just to ighlight the problems
that we are having, but to avoid majop~~r?hfemS that could occur between the hours of 4 p.m. and II p.m.,
'"
,1 6') /.J
Council Meeting, April 21, 1986
-40-
so I am making a recommendation that the Council invoke its authority under the Water Ordinance and
prohibit sprinkling between the hours of 4 p.m. ann 6 a.m.
Councilwomen Swenson: That's the only time you water.. Male or female who work all day. When else
are they supposed to try and then they'll 'leave them on in the morning...
Bill Monk: Pat, that's exactly the problem. Everybody comes ~ome from work and turns on-their sprinklers
and takes their showers and prepares their dinners. The tower level does nothing but go down. . About
10 p.m., then we start to build back up again. We can keep up with the demand, what it does is create
pockets of low pressure at the high spots arou~d City; which is one thing. ~e can kind o~ survive that
we have survived that. The problem is that we cannot handle' : at ~hat time. I don't 'believe
adequately. We're trying to leave some times open so that people can sprinkler early in the morning
and people can sprinkle their new sod, and so on. It's the reason we're not prohibiting outright.
But it's exactly the point.
Councilman Geving: Haven't you seen places, though, that have something like this where on even numbered
days of the ",onth, if your house number was even, you could sprinkle that day and couldn't sprinkle
that day. Or some way that so it isn't a total ban, but you could sprinkle every other day that w~y.
Some kind of a method so that you don't say there's just no sprinkling from 4-3 a.m. Then you've got
an enforcement problem.
Bill Monk: That's basically what it came down to. The problem is I don't know how......
Councilman Geving: I assume that it's 50-50.
Bill Monk: It could be, but even assuming that, it really came down to an enforcement .type approach
we were
Mayor Hamilton moved for
following voted in favor:
woman Swenson, Councilmen
water usage restrictions. Motion was seconded
Mayor Hamilton and Councilwoman Watson. The
Horn and Geving. The motiun does not pass.
by Councilwoman Watson.
following voted against:
The
Council-
Mayor Hamilton: The next item is to set a date for the spring tour of construction projects.
Bill Monk: We can put this one off, too. That's no problem.
Councilman Geving moved to adjourn the meeting. Councilwoman Watson seconded.
Prepared by: Jerri Martin
Chanhassen Secretarial Service
April 30, 1986
I
I
I