1986 06 16
"~~T
';:'<.'".,11 ..
/:....J~; _'"._
REGULAR CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MEETING
June 16, 1986
I
Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. '!he meeting was
opened with the Pledge to the Flag. .
Members Present
Councilman Horn, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilman Geving, Councilwoman
Watson.
Staff Present
Don Ashworth, Barbara Dacy, Bill Monk, Roger Knutson.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilwoman Watson moved, Mayor Hamil ton seconded to
approve the agenda as presented. All voted in favor and motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA: The Council decided to run through the Consent Agenda by
each item because there were questions on three of the five items.
lea) Final Reading of Ordinance 47-BF Allowing SUbstations as
Conditional Uses in the R-lA District. Councilwoman Swenson
requested that corrlition (f) be amended to read:
I
f. SUbstations shall be a minimum of 500 feet from single family
residences.
Councilwoman Swenson also requested to amend Section 4, Rules and
Definitions of the Zoning Ordinance relating to Power SUbstations
to read:
Power Substations: A facility comprising of transmission towers,
transformers, power equipment, arrl structures necessary to house
said equipment.
Councilwoman Swenson stated her reason for removing the phrase ''but not
limi ted to" could mean anything and changes for description should come
before the Council. Councilwoman Swenson moved, Councilwoman Watson
seconded to approve Final Reading of Ordinance 47-BF Allowing Substations
as Conditional Uses in the R-lA District with the noted changes. All voted
in favor and motion carried.
l(b) Request for Renewal of Charitable Gambling License, Chaska Lion's
Club.
I
Mayor Hamilton reqested that the City receive a copy of their books and
also to have the Chaska Lion's Club tell the City what percentage of the
profits will go to Chanhassen. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving
seconded to approve the Request for Renewal of Chari table Gambling License,
Chaska Lion's Club with the noted changes. All voted in favor and motion
carried .
1
/-'.~ ,0'.0
L~ 2':;/./.J
Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986
1 (c) Mayor Hamil ton moved, Councilwoman Swenson seconded to aFProve
Final Plat Approval, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 2nd Addition.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
I
1 Cd) Councilwoman Swenson moved, Councilman Geving seconded to Approve
One Day Beer Licenses for the Fourth of July Celebration, Filly's
Bar and Chari table Gambling License for Street nance, Chanhassen
American Legion with the condition that the area is cleaned up
afterwards. All voted in favor except Mayor Hamil ton who opposed
and motion carried.
Councilwoman Swenson wanted to state that she did not consider 3.2 beer
to be a non-intoxicating liquor.
Resolution 86-37: ICe) Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilwoman Watson seconded
to Approve No Parking Restrictions on Lake Drive East Between Highway 101
and Dakota Avenue. All voted in favor and motion carried.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: There were no visitor presentations at this
meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING:
Vacation of a Portion of Lake Drive East, City of Chanhassen.
I
Mayor Hamil ton: I think we have dealt with this several times previously.
I think we all know what it is we are looking at. Are there any Council
members who want Barb to give us any briefing?
Mayor Hamil ton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to close public hearing.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
Resolution 86-38: Councilman Geving moved, Councilwoman Watson seconded
to approve the Street Vacation Request #86-4 for a Portion of Lake Drive
East as presented in the Staff Report. All voted in favor and motion
carried .
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Councilwoman Watson moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the City
Council minutes dated May 19, 1986 with the following changes:
Page 8, delete paragraph:
Mayor Hamilton: If it were a condition and the approval came back from the
people who owned the property and made their rights, then we would see it
back again.
Page 27, change the word "me" to "we" so the following sentence stated by
Councilman Geving would read: The reason I say that is when you live in a
community and watch it grow, as we all do, we know where the pressures are
and we know that we are growing at a substantial rate but I would like to
hold on as long as we can before we make substantial improvements.
I
2
~.=~? ~E~
Chanhassen City Council Meeting ~ June 16, 1986
I
All voted in favor aDd motion carried:
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the minutes of
the Special City Council Meeting dated June 9, 1986. All voted in favor
and motion carried.
Councilwoman Watson moved, Councilwoman Swenson seconded to approve the
minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission dated May 6, 1986. All voted
in favor and motion carried.
Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the minutes of
the Park and Recreation Commission dated May 17, 1986. All voted in favor
and motion carried.
Approval of Findings of Fact, Tomac Development, Southwest Corner of
Highways 7... and 41. (See Findings of Fact as prepared by the City Attorney
and labeled Exhibit A attached hereto) .
Mayor Hamilton: 'Ibis was tabled at a previous meeting until the City
Attorney could prepare Findings of Fact am we have those before us.
Do Council menebers have any conments on the Findings of Facts?
Councilman Horn: No, I thought they reflected what our feelings were.
Councilwoman Swenson: Agreed.
I
Councilman Geving: I have no comment. I think it very well signifies what
we said that night am it is a finding of the facts.
Councilwoman Watson moved, Councilman Horn seconded to adopt the Findings
of Fact, Tomac Development, Southwest Corner of Highways 7 and 41. All
voted in favor and motion carried.
Susan Minsberg: I am one of the attorneys representing Tomac Development
and I would just like to make a few comments before you vote. As you know,
as a Council you have fiduciary responsibilities to your citizens to act in
a certain manner am that manner is to find facts that are supported by
evidence, not to find facts based on conclusion. What I would like to do
is go through numbers 7, 8, 9 am 10 of the Fimings of Fact am discuss
those with you and show you that in fact, those findings are not based on
the evidence but are based on your conclusion.
7. States C-l zoning provides viable economical use of the subject project.
As you know, C-l zoning is primarily office buildings am statistics have
shown that there is a glut of office buildings. 'Ibere is a tremendous
office vacancy in the southwest quadrant of the metro area. There is 20
some percent vacancy. In the City of Eden Prairie there is 47% vacancy.
It is Tomac Development's position that C-l zoning is not a viable,
economic use for the City of O1anhassen.
I
8. Refers to the uses of C-2 zoning. There is a error in there. Hotels
are not part of C-2 zoning. Beyond that the Findings of Fact states that
these source uses are imcompatible with surrouming residential
3
-"" ~j ~
II r,-;.L.",:
--~ ""'"
Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986
neighborhood. That is erroneous for a couple of reasons. First of all, I
there are no facts or evidence which state why it is incompatible. It is
another conclusion simple that it is incompatible. Secondly, that this
area is not in any way surrounded by residential neighborhoods. The north
side there is C-3, on the west side there is C-l and on the south and east
there is proposed multi-development housing. The latter part of the
Findings of Fact 8 relates to noise, congestion, long hours of operation,
traffic and littering. All of those issues have been addressed. The
Planning Commission, as you know, also studied these areas and these
potential problems and recommended that C-2 zoning be passed for this area.
One of those items listed in 8-Traffic is also dealt with in 9. As you
know, a traffic study was done in this area and it was shown that there
wouldn't be any impact on the neighborhood other than potentially five
extra trips through the neighborhood during peak hours. In fact, if this
was zoned C-l and there were office buildings, the traffic would arguably
be more congested as there are people coming and going at peak times. For
example, start at 7:30 or 8:00, people would flow in at that time and
quitting time say 4:00-4:30, all the people would be leaving at that time.
There would be more people in the area and they would be leav ing at peak
hours which is not true with C-2 zoning.
10. Lastly, says that C-2 zoning would decrease the value of the
surrounding residential neighborhoods. There is also no basis in fact for
this. There has been no study done. I have been informed that this is
based on one telephone call a few years ago. If you speak with developers I
around the Twin Cities, in fact, when a development such as what Tomac
Development is proposing to put in the area, surrounding property values
increase rather than decrease.
So before you vote, I want you to consider those remarks and consider the
standards the Minnesota Supreme Court says that you should use. What
you should use are evidenciary basis not neighborhood opposition. That you
should use a rational basis if it promotes the public safety, health and
welfare, then that is something you should do. You can't act in an
arbitrary and capricious manner and if the decision is reasonably debatable
then you can not reject it. Therefore we ask that you reject these
Findings of Fact. Thank you.
Councilwoman Watson: (be comment. The Planning Commission voted to allow
one lot to be C-2, not the entire area.
Councilman Geving: I would like to ask Roger if in fact, it is a question
on the hotels there.
Roger Knutson: Hotels are listed as a conditional use in the C-2.
Councilman Geving: Then you feel that is appropriate in item B?
Roger Knutson: Yes, hotels and motels.
Councilman Geving: Then the only other question Roger, I don't know how
I
4
I
I
I
-r:r ~r-..
1.L ~c) D
Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986
this item was written that night arrl how we spoke on this issue. I suspect
that we probably said that the C-2 zoning could potentially effect the area
as the value of any residential neighborhood. I don't know exactly the
wording we might have used in presenting this case. I believe that would
be the only change that if the words that we spoke that night did in fact
indicate that.
Roger Knutson: I think this summarizes, as I understand it. I have
reviewed your minutes. I should also point out, in addition to having
office buildings, C-l allows lots of other uses like multiple dwellings,
apartment buidlings and things like that. That is just one small thing you
can do with C-l zoning.
Councilman Horn: I just had a question about the comment about there being
no peak hours with the C-2 usage. It would appear to me that there would
be peak hours in usage for fast food restaurant.
Susan Minsberg: What I was doing was simply comparing it to C-l, office
building where people leave at set times and there are large groups of
people. There would be, if you are thinking of maybe a restaurant at lunch
hour, a group of people coming to a restaurant at a lunch hour is
considerably smaller than an entire office building leaving at say 4:00,
4:30 or 5:00 in groups. There would be hundreds of people leaving at one
set time.
Councilwoman Watson: We aren't putting the IDS 'Ibwer there, so I wouldn't
think there would be hundreds of people in an office building regardless.
Councilman Horn: I was just curious because I had the same comments as
Carol.
Councilwoman Swenson: I would just like to reiterate the Attorney's
comment that multiple dwellings are a viable option here under corrlitional
use and certainly. this is economically feasible. Secondly, I do not
have the minutes handy, but my recollection is that the Study that was made
by 'Ibmac's people indicated that 40% would be going west and I think this
would be quite a considerable impact on the adjacent residential district.
Dacy: Verification for the record, could the Council act to table the
preliminary plat action, it was not listed on the agenda.
Councilwoman Watson moved, Councilman Geving seconded to table action on
Tomac Development, Preliminary Plat Request to Subdivide 7.9 Acres into Six
Lots. All voted in favor and motion carried.
Approval of Findings of Fact, Sewer Extension Request, Lots 977, 1002-1006,
Carver Beach, Terry Cook.
Roger Knutson: I did not get the minutes for the meeting. I got them for
Tomac but I did not get them for this section of the meeting so I was not
able to prepare the Findings of Fact.
5
11 t?, r?,
..1.:..\0'V'
Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986
Mayor Hamil ton moved, Councilwoman Watson seconded that this item be tabled
until the July 7, 1986 Regular City Council meeting. All voted in favor
and motion carried.
APPROVAL OF ACCOUNTS: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilwoman Watson seconded
to approvethe bills dated June 16, 1986, check numbers 023757 through
023869 in the amount of $1,859,271.77 including the 11 bills as shown on
page 15 of the Accounts Payable dated June 16, 1986 in the total amount of
$94,591.65, and check numbers 026646 through 026752 in the amount of
$204,625.05. All Council memebers voted in favor and motion carried.
Beachlots:
a. First Reading of an Amendment to Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance No.
47 to Amend sectfOn 6.04, SectIOn 7.04 and Section 14.04 -
('Recreational Beachlo~ City of Chaiiliassen.
b. First Reading of an Amendment to Section 3.04 of Water Surface
Usage Ordinance No. 73. - - -
c. Conditional Use Permit Amendment to Allow a Total of 3 Docks to be
Constructed on OUtlot B and to AllOW Overnight Storage on these-
Docks of a Total of 91Wa1berc:raft without Restrictions as-to
Whethersaid Watercraft are Motorized or Non-motorized~-
Don Ashworth: When the Planning Commission reviewed this item, there
appeared to be a great deal of emphasis placed on the fact that the lawsuit
and that was really the reason that this item was coming back to the City
Council. I disagree with that position. This issue is being considered on
its merits. The lawsuit potentially did hasten that process, but is really
not the reason for such. The City Staff is responsible to process and
review applications that come before the City. In that process we look at
the reasonableness of an ordinance and its consistency of enforcement. The
reasonableness of an ordinance is very subjective. The best example would
be the City Council has a lot of discretion in terms of establishing a new
ordinance that would require a 50 foot setback. A developer can come in
and question the reasonableness of that type of ordinance. He could
contend that you were depriving him of his ability to develop. His ability
to sustain that position really would not be very good. In adopting the
ordinance, especially one that represents a leading edge, one which there
is not a great deal of other communities that have similar type of
ordinance. You always chance questions as to the reasonableness of this
new ordinance. The beach lot ordinance am water surface usage ordinance
really represented that type of an ordinance. They represented a leading
edge and the question as to could we defend or is this ordinance
reasonable, could only be answered by continuously monitoring the ordinance
itself. Looking at it in terms of development proposals that came before
the City. From its very beginnings, and I go back to the Derek Development
proposal, you have 10 riparian lots am some of the initial questions were
one of should the developer be allowed to have a beachlot, should there be
6
I
I
I
1G7
Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986
I
riparian rights associated with that? The Council looked to trying to
establish a protection of the spawning area that existed in that area. In
doing that, looked for mechanisms to have some give and take and to be able
to allow the developer potentially the right to share docks or share usage
and still preserve that area that was the spawning area. That really
became a kind of first test of the reasonableness of the ordinance. Since
that point in time you've had questions associated with the will Thompson
development, Red Cedar Cove, Sunnys10pe has been back in front of you
asking for consideration under the beach10t ordinance and Lotus Lake
Estates has been in several times as well. In each instance, the parties
have questioned the reasonableness of the ordinance. That reasonableness
can be determined in a court of law but typically the question of
reasonableness will come back and be answered by the City Council
themselves. The second issue is really one of consistency of enforcement.
In the Plocher-Geske variance that was approved, really questionErl again
the reasonableness of the ordinance and our ability to consistently enforce
it. The issue before the Council was one of a developer attempting to
develop a piece of property where he had the right to develop 10 single
family lots. As part of that process he could have put in 10 docks each
having five boats. In total you would have been looking at 50 boats and
instead the developer presented to this Council the position that the City
of Chanhassen needed and could use condominium type of housing, that he
could live with and in fact would be willing to reduce the total dockage
rights from 50 to 15. Under the current ordinance the Council could not do
that. The Council made a decision to provide a variance to that developer
as part of that process. That variance has created in fact, back to the
ordinance itself because again, the two tests become one of reasonableness
and consistency of enforcement. The issue of the ordinance amendments that
you have in front of you are the same ordinance amendments that were
introduced by Councilwoman Swenson at that point in time, one year ago. I
do not again believe that they in any way are related to the Lotus Lake
Estates lawsuit. They were hasten by Lotus Lake Estates. There is no
question they were hasten by Lotus Lake Estates but they were not presented
at the same time. At the time P1ocker-Geske arose, the ordinance amendment
again of Councilwoman Swenson was presented. The issue presented at the
Planning Commission was one of what makes you think that if you change your
ordinance at this point in time that you won't have another change or that
this is any different than where we were 2-3 years ago. I will go back to
the same two positions and those are reasonableness and consistency of
enforcement. If the City Council believes that the amendments before you
are reasonable and that you can consistently apply those in cases in the
future, the ordinance will remain intact, be enforceable and be law of the
City. At this point I would like Barbara to go through the specific
amendments.
I
I
Barbara Dacy: First I will discuss the amendment to the recreational
beach lot ordinance. Just to remind everyone, as everybOOy knows a
recreational beach lot is a conditional use in a residential district in the
zoning ordinance of the City. After this I will talk about the proposed
amendment to the water surface usage ordinance. That ordinance is not part
of the zoning ordinance but is a general ordinance of the city. I will
just highlight the major changes between existing beachlot ordinance and
7
-4 ;-rJ}?
lL. ~~:JLt)
Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986
the proposed ordinance. The first one is in regards to the first section.
Originally under the existing ordinance chemical toilets are permitted
subject to them being located 75 feet back from the ordinary high. The
proposed ordinance those facilities are prohibited. What remains the same
in this section is the prohibition against any type of structure.
Secondly, while the proposed ordinance continues to maintain existing
restrictions to probibit launching over the beachlot, the proposed
ordinance does allow overnight storage of watercraft at docks to number no
more than three motorized or non-motorized watercraft per dock. The
proposed ordinance also allows up to four sailboat moorings, the storage of
canoes, windsurfer, sailboards and other small sailboats overnight if they
are stored on racks specifically designed for that purpose. The third
change between existing and the proposed ordinance is in regards to the
size of the beachlot. The existing four dock, right now you have to have
100 feet by 100 feet for a beachlot. The proposed ordinance regulates the
number of docks by requiring that it have at least 200 feet of lake
frontage, 100 feet in depth plus 30,000 square feet in area. Additional
dockage can only be granted for another 200 feet of lake frontage and
another 20,000 square feet in area. You have to have both lake frontage
and the lot area requirements in order to have the docks. The ordinance
does restrict the total number of docks per beachlot to a total of three.
Another difference in the ordinance is that the ordinance does specifically
regulate sailboat moorings. No more than one sailboat mooring is allowed
within 200 feet and each additional mooring has to have an additional 200
feet of lake frontage. It should be noted that the proposed changes to the
beach lot ordinance does not effect existing beachlots. Your packets
stamped for informational purposes, analyzed existing beachlots to see
how the proposed regulations would effect those if they all came under the
proposed standards. Only three beachlots would be allowed to have docks.
The Planning Commission recommended denial of the proposed amendments
wanting to convey to the City Council that the existing ordinance should be
maintained.
I
I
The water surface usage ordinance proposed amendment is simply to reduce
the amount of boats stored at a dock where private riparian lot from five
boats to three boats. The Planning Commission action on this particular
item was to recommend approval to the Council. At this point I would like
to refer the Council to Councilwoman Swenson's concerns regarding the
consistency between the two proposed ordinances. Basically the concerns
are that while existing beach lots are grandfathered, the proposed reduction
in the number of boats in the water surface usage ordinance, the existing
boats are not grand fathered. Secondly, the proposed beachlot ordinance
does not limit the number of additional watercrafts such as canoes,
sailboards and small sailboats. While the water surface usage ordinance
simply says three watercraft period. Third, the water surface usage
ordinance is conflicting with the beachlot ordinance in concern to the
ownership of the lot. At this point if Council would 1 ike I could talk
about the conditional use permit amendment request or would you like to
discuss the ordinances at this point.
Mayor Hamilton: We will take the ordinances first. I think what I would
like to do at this time is ask if there are any citizen comments dealing
I
8
I
I
I
~,,{,~~, 'J)
~l!_ ',,: ;':,:~!~
Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986
with the amendment to the ordinance.
Margie Gargalotty: 7413 Frontier Trail. You said not to give any new
evidence so I won't but I would like to present to the Council a petition
that was circulated among Chanhassen residents and on here are 290
signatures of people who would like the Council to uphold the current
ordinance with no changes.
Councilman Horn: I got a call today from Mr. Dave P~illarnaE il1d we
discussed this issue. He asked me to pass onto the Council that he would
like his named removed from the petition opposing this ordinance.
Henry Sosin: I live at 7400 Chanhassen Road. I would like to ask a couple
of questions and make a couple of points and I would like Mr. Ashworth and
Mr. Knutson to pay special attention because I would like to hear an answer.
One, the point you bring up about reasonableness and enforcability. They
intrigue me. The definition of reasonableness first of all, how you come
about that. I would think that one of the laws from one of the state
agencies, namely the DNR might be considered as one judge of reasonableness.
They assume that for safety purposes alone, that the number of boats on a
lake should be restricted at anyone time to one power boat per 10 acres of
water. They assume that the people who live on the lake get 50% of that
and therefore when they put in a boat launch, such as you know they are
doing here now, they take the number of one boat per 20 acres, which is 50%
of the usable capacity of the lake and they assume that is a reasonable
figure. What you are doing by changing this ordinance and allowing
essentially in this particular one spot with reference to one lake at
least, this change in ordinance would allow nine additional watercrafts,
motorized plus other boats by the way, onto the lake which would account
for 75% of the "off-lake" usage of the lake surface. lmy more than that,
according to the DNR, promotes an unsafe situation. The argument is that
if you add all of these extra boats, then it is almost like adding another
portion of usage to the lake and I wonder if that is reasonable. The other
thing I would like to mention is what you said was consistency of
enforcabiI ity. I would like you maybe to expand on that or maybe Roger
can explain that to me. Just because the Council thinks something is
reasonable doesn't seem to mean that it is enforcable or that they would
enforce it. We have had laws on the books, there have been persistent
violations of those particular laws and regulations which to this date
continue. Assuming that these laws which are not up for change are
reasonable and enforcable, they haven't been enforced. The point being
is that the Council doesn't seem to enforce the rules or the law and it is
maybe not up to the Council to do that, City Staff whatever.
Enforcability is determined in a court of law. At least that is my
understanding of it. What I would like to ask, and maybe I can get an
answer to this, is it seems in its current form the ordinance says that for
all the reasons that the ordinance was written, it was written this way and
we are limiting usage of the lake to riparian owners except for all the
usage that is allowed through normal access. That is a principal of the
law and that to me seems defensible. What I don't understand is your
presumption that making 200 feet plus 100 foot depth plus 30,000 square
feet is reasonable and defensible. If I were in the position of owning a
9
-n riO
~tJ'U
Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986
beachlot or having a lot that had 175 feet or 190 feet and you passed this
law, then you tell me that now the Council is comfortable with this and
this is defensible, you tell me how that is anymore defensible than our
current law because I think it is less defensible because that is being
arbitrary. You have no basis upon which to say 200 by 100 by 30,000 square
feet has any scientific merit. Where is the merit of that argument? I
would like that answer if possible.
I
Councilwoman Swenson: Henry, if I might respond to your DNR comment.
It is my understanding that when the DNR establishes that 20 acres as you
say, they take 50% of the people that are using it and they include .all of
the lakeshore, not just the riparian rights. OUr regulations are based on
the premises of 75 foot lots. with the riparian rights for instance, with
1,000 feet on riparian rights, they would allow 13 docks depending on the
DNR which allows four boats par dock without addi-cional penn.its so that would be
a potential 52 watercraft. Now when a beach lot is processed this triggers
what they call a PUD count which takes one mat for each of that 75 feet
then they add 50%. So in the case of 1,000 feet, the DNR would allow 20
mats. This is their regulations so they do take into consideration PUD's
in that form. Just clarification.
Don Ashworth: The question of reasonableness is a decision of a City
Council. Other cities typically define reasonableness of an ordinance to
mean one of the ability of existing beachlots, in this case or whatever the
use happens to be, to conform to the existing ordinance or the ordinance I
that is proposed to be passed, and reasonableness in terms of your ability
to require new developments to comply with that same ordinance. Again that
is typically a test used in other communities. The question on consistency
of enforcement, the Lotus Lake Homeowners have made Staff aware of var ious
violations during the past 2-3 year period of time. I think that we have
responded to each of those. I think there has to be a recognition that
the Court process and the ability to enforce an issue is very difficult.
It can take a period of time. The one noted by the homeowners is Mr.
Harrison Winters. That has been in court several times. The Court just
made a ruling in the last two weeks in favor of Mr. Winters. In light of
that, the other one noted which is Mr. Gordon Talk really becomes very
questionable for the City to continue to pursue recognizing his number of
years on the lake and that he is a victim of polio. The other violations
that are referred to, I'm not sure what they are. I know there has been
some questions on OUtlot 12. outlot 12 has existed since the City was
incorporated. I know of nothing they are doing there today that was not
done there 50 years ago. If there are other violations, Mr. Sosin, I guess
I would like to know of them.
Tom Merz: I live on Lake Minnewashta. Rather than go through my list of
the many things that you have heard before, I would hope that all of us are
here to, our primary concern is that 10 years ago we started out to
preserve the lakes and the natural resources that we have. For that we
implemented that Lake Study. We had a findings and we spent a lot of time
on it. At that point we had certain guidelines that we were all willing to I
follow. less than three years ago with the implementation of the DNR and
their public access to the lake, we again in my mind in reading these books
10
\ "1 F711
_(J_
Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986
I
that we all site laws, we have gone over that am gone over that. At this
point, we are not maintaining the lakes that we all moved out here for.
The clarity is gone from 10 feet to 7 feet, the wildlife is disappearing
and we are not maintaining what we've got and I guess I'm up here to say
we've got to stop someplace. We are abusing our lakes at this point, why
should be allow any more abuse.
Henry Sosin: Can I have an answer to the 200 feet question?
Mayor Hamilton: That was one of the items I wanted to discuss dealing with
this amendment. I had some questions about that also and I interrl to bring
it up when the Council discusses this, we will get into that. I was
uncomfortable wi th that same issue arrl that was one of the points I wanted
to bring up so perhaps in our discussions here, that will answer your
question. I have some comments that I would like to make prior to the
Council's discussion of this issue. There are a few statements that I am
going to read to you.
I
Based on comments made by residents and Commission members, there seems to
be a need for clarification of some questions. The City Council has
responsibility of maintaining and directing growth and development in this
communi ty for all interested persons. That includes residents arrl non-
residents alike. All ordinances are open to challenge at any time. It's
not a this year, not next year arrangement. It is anticipated that at the
time of passage, ordinances will stand the test of time. Unfortunately
situations arise that can diminish the legality or usefulness of a
particular ordinance. When that occurs, the ordinance will be reviewed and
changes made, if necessary. The Council has a responsibility to be fair
and impartial to everyone. The residents, future residents, commercial
organizations am employees of commercial organizations, visitors and
guests. Olanhassen is not an island or a community that is suddenly
stopping development. I refer to this as "I have mine now don't let
anyone else in" syndrome. Some residents have suggested that the Council
knuckles under to pressure or to developers. We have an obligation on this
Council to listen to each and every request made. To consider an issue, if
it is requested every year am to review that every year it is requested.
This Council continually examines questions and dissects all proposals
brought before us. In my opinion there are very few errors made in our
decision making process. Unfortunately, in today's society experts can be
hired to give an opinion on anything am if you don't like what the first
expert said, hire another, who for a price will also be an expert. Most of
these experts are attorneys, in my opinion, looking for sometliing to do. I
heard a story the other day that I actually thought was humorous. The
fellow said that he understarrls that experimental laboratories are going to
start using attorneys in their experiments rather than white mice for two
reasons, because there are more of them am because you don't become quite
as attached to them. The City of Chanhassen has assembled a team of
professionals to advise the Council on technical matters. Outside consultants
are also used to advise the Staff and Council when necessary. cne of the
major factors in building a team is trust and confidence in their
abilities. I have a great deal of trust and confidence in the entire staff
of the City of Chanhassen. The COuncil and Staff goes out of its way to
I
11
172
Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986
solici t input from the community. Most of the time input is constructive I
and useful and is greatly appreciated. At no time has an issue ever been
ramrodded through or acted upon without input from all commissions am the
public. Everyone has an opportunity to submit some sense of information
about why or why not a project should or should not be acceptable. This
proposed ordinance amendment before us tonight is no different. All
information is looked at in an objective, unbiased perspective, one will
find that there is very little, if any, net change to the use of the lakes
and fair treatment to all residents in the future will occur. I would like
to now have the Council make their comments and questions about the
amendment to the recreational beachlot ordinance 47.
Councilman Horn: I think some of the comments Torn made really go a long
way for what happened in my thought process in reviewing this. I have been
involved in this since the inception as part of the first lake study
commi ttee that was appointed and I understaoo what we set out to do with
this ordinance and know a lot of the reasoning behind it. I didn't follow
the committee all the way through but I did follow their recommeooations.
I think one of the real issues to me that really had any question when we
originally had done, was the comparison of saying a piece of property with
900 feet of lakeshore doesn't at least have the same amount of rights as
one who has maybe 50 feet of lakeshore. Believe me, I am one of the most
emotional advocates of saving lakes and saving trees and those things, I
would say of anyone of the Council, but I have a little trouble with that
when it carne to reasonableness and I had a little trouble when I equated I
that with what we were trying to do, which was to keep down the density on
the lake to a reasonable level. 'Ib the issue of when ol:hese ideas oriS"L'lated,
the night Pat brought up her proposals to the Council which was prior to
any lawsuit that we had and was prior to the approval of the property on
Lake Minnewashta, I was willing to go along with that am listen to those
arguments as long as we would apply that equitably to the proposal that was
before us and also to reduce the number of boats per dock to three. I felt
this was a reasonable compromise. I think if we take all of the docks on
the lake that now could have five boats am put three boats on them, we are
going to decrease the amount of density on the lake and that will
compensate to a great degree in allowing other docks for large property
owners. I think, first of all, I don't favor the the idea of outlots. I
tend to favor riparian lakeshore owners not so much for the idea of
crowding in this case, but for the idea of maintaining the lake. As we
toured the lakes we saw many inconsistencies on how well people maintained
their properties. There was a lot of inconsistencies in the riparian
lakeshore owners but there was an even greater inconsistency in outlot
owners. My concern with outlots at that time was that some type of a
communi ty ownership doesn't seem to bring about the sense of pride that an
individual owner does, but there are exceptions to every rule. The Sunrise
beach outlot situation is very well done. It is immaculately kept. If we
had all outlots like that, I couldn't question it but I feel that what we
have corne to this evening, is a reasonable compromise because of the density
issue. I tend to feel that new residents, new developers have some rights
to lake use also. I'm not sure that I followed Henry's comments completely I
but it seemed to me like we were talking about using up a quota with the
number of uses we had. If we were to look at that, it would appear to me
12
I
I
I
i! /'"1 '>
JL lj e...f)
Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986
that a lot of the small lots along any of our lakes, would use up this
quota much faster than what three docks is going to do for us so I don't
feel we can shut the new developers and the new home builders out of the
uses that other people get priviledged to. For that reason I have changed
my original concept of what I felt was reasonable on this and feel that if
we do have the restrictions of 200 feet or whatever a reasonable criteria
is, so that we don't have the 25 foot outlot with 100 homes on it that we
will adequately control their use.
Councilwoman Swenson: I think that Don and you and Clark have covered
pretty well my feelings on the subject also and I think it was important, I
thank you Henry for giving me an opportunity to mention the alternative
were we without an ordinance in remote possibility that we might be forced
into one with 20 watercraft which would be 7 more than the current amended
ordinance would allow and 40 less than would be permitted under riparian
ownership. By no means do I mean to imply that I disapprove of riparian
ownership. Being a lakeshore owner myself, I do confess to being as
sensitive to the condition of our lakes as anybody else which mayor may
not make it more difficult for me to come to some of these decisions.
Sometimes these decisions are personally difficult because it costs
relationships with people you admire and respect but in the capacity of an
elected official one has to override these things. I think that perhaps
the time to make the recommendations would be after everybody has their
comments done so I will pass with that.
Councilman Geving: My comments are that I don't know of a single issue in
the last four years that we have spent more time on then docks, the number
of docks, the number of boats per dock and the whole issue of the
recreational beach lot ordinance along with the water usage. During the
last 10 days I suspect I have received as many phone calls as the rest of
the Council, but it is interesting that as I tallied up the scores, I had
almost equal number of fors and against on this whole issue. There are as
many people that wanted to amend the ordinance as to leave it alone. I
think that for anyone to suggest that at any time this Council has ever
been intimidated or an attempt to influence the Council by developers, if
you have that feeling it is totally false because it just doesn't happen.
If you look deep enough you will usually find that the people that are
behind the developers are the people who are trying to market their land.
They are the farmers, the local ci ti zens and they are the ones, not the
developers who are intimidating or attempting to put pressure on whoever,
to market that land, so it isn't an outside influence. It is generally
local. The main thing about this particular issue tonight is that I think
we have studied it fairly, we have had public hearings on this issue, we
have had input from li terally hundrEds of people and we have spent a lot of
time on it and even though we were party to the original ordinance, we are
a dynamic community and changes do take place. There are at anyone time,
500-700 building permits issued and available in the City of Chanhassen
right now. Houses are being built all over the lakes and the lakes are a
big issue with Chanhassen because I know how many people live out there.
Approximately 15% of all our citizens live on lakes and because of that,
they are very sensi ti ve to what is happening around them. Changes are
taking place and as the ordinances that we put into effect neEd to be
13
11 F7 A'c-
-~!_... ....-
Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986
changed because of some reason, whatever that might be, we have to take I
another look at the issue. On this particular case, I feel that as long as
we are consistent am we try to be fair am we try to make every attempt to
be deliberate in our sound decision making process, we are going to come up
wi th a good solution tonight. Another thing is that we can't hurt the
existing homeowners. If we are fair to those people and grandfather those
people in where necessary, I think we will have accomplished that
objecti ve. I am very much in favor of reducing the density of boat traffic
on our lakes. I have been attempting to get to this point for some time.
This may surprise a lot of you but we have been considering this particular
amendment very early this spring. It is nothing new. We have talked about
it for the last six months and we have had several large meetings, 1ength1y
meetings. This isn't something that we just arrived at so the issue of
reducing the boats from five to three on a dock, I have gotten many good
comments on that am that seems to be one issue that people are in favor
of. As far as violations are concerned and the enforcement of those
violations that are brought to our attention. I think it is a citizen's
duty to bring those violations to our attention. We have 24 square miles
in this City Henry, am it is very difficult at anyone time to catch
everybody who is doing something wrong, but you as citizens have a
responsibility. When you see a violation taking place am you know it is a
violation, report it to City Hall and it will be carried out swiftly. That
is how I feel about answering that particular question. We can't be all
places at all times. In terms of the ordinance itse1ves, I am very much in
favor of the way we are moving here on this particular issue. I think the I
beach10t ordinance has to be amended. We probably don't like beach10ts but
they are a fact of life. If we can eliminate am at least attempt to come
up with some standards as proposed by Councilwoman Swenson, I don't know
where her criteria came from but I believe it is reasonable am I believe
we can enforce that. At least we will have a standard. We didn't have a
standard before so I think that will work. Again, if we can gram father
those people in tonight that are existing riparian homeowners on the lakes
and take care of the other issues, I think this will be fine for the
corrmunity.
Councilwoman Watson: I feel like everyone else. Most of the comments have
been made. I will just repeat one that we take great pride in that
regardless of whether there is a public hearing held here, everyone gets to
talk. There is always an opportunity to speak here even though these are
not public hearings and I think that is something we all take a great deal
of pride in. The other comment I have to make is I'm not opposed to the
amendment, more my opposition is to the timing. '!he action that some feel
percipitated the change of the ordinance involved the variance process.
The variance process is used in conjunction with other ordinances and
doesn't necessar ily . ccrnpromise the ordinance.
Mayor Hamilton: I have two issues that I would like to have the Council
discuss. One is when I was reviewing this change that has to do with what
Dr. Sosin said earlier, I was looking at 200 feet and 30,000 square feet of
land and I thought that if we are going to be fair with the ordinance, that
isn't necessarily being fair to everyone because you can have a 100 foot
lot on the lake, we may allow 100 lot now. Consequently, I thought it
I
14
--,,-,' I""~ ~ f-l:"'",J
JL't5
Chanhassen City council Meeting - June 16, 1986
I
might be a gooo idea to at least consider having a scale of some kind so if
you reduce 200 down to 100 by 10 foot increments or whatever increment you
want, I just took 10 feet, for each 10 feet that you reduce the frontage on
the lake, you increase the square footage of land space by an increment.
Whether that is 2,000, 5,000 or 10,000. Again, it would have to be an
arbitary number that would need to be selected and see how that would work
once it is put into place. I worked out two ways. One using going down in
10 foot increments on frontage on the lake having 100 foot setbacks though,
and then going up in 10,000 foot increments so when you get down to 100
foot frontage on the lake, you would need to have 130,000, that is if you
go up 10,000 square feet for each 10 feet of frontage you go down, that
would give you 130,000 square feet of land space to have your outlot. Now
it you went up in 5,000 square foot increments, you would have 100 feet on
the lake and 80,000 square feet of space. It is a question I discussed
with Barb and Don this afternoon and we just kicked it around some and
thought it was an interesting concept and to me we need to have something
like this to make it fair to everyone so we aren't just saying 200 is the
only size you can have and you can have something smaller than that but you
have to meet the rest of the criteria.
Councilman Geving: Using your example then Tom, if you had the 200 feet
what would you come up to.
Counci lwoman Swenson: At 200 feet you would have 30,000.
I
Councilman Geving: So you would have the basic 30 and there is no problem
there. M:>ving down then, 100 would give you 80.
Mayor Hamilton: In awlying that ratio to the outlots that are in
existence, the only outlot that does effect would be Frontier Trail. They
have 180 feet of lake frontage and 105,000 square feet of space. The rest
of them don't have the square footage required or they don't have the
frontage required but again it is an arbitrary number that would be
selected and I'm not sure how you would select that number. It could be
1,000, 2,000, 5,000, 10,000. Let's say you had 150 feet of lakeshore, you
would then be required to have 55,000 square feet.
Councilman Geving: That is exactly what the Sunrise Hills would fit into.
Mayor Hamilton: '!hat is grandfathered.
Councilman Geving: That type of thing.
Mayor Hamilton: Yes, right.
Councilman Geving: IX> we have any idea at this time, how many of these
potential beachlots we have? Where there are large acreages of land next
to a lake. I'm talking about future.
I
COuncilwoman Swenson: Since there is only one and that will be
grand fathered in, doesn't this become a fundamental requirement of future
beach lots? We're not really effecting anybody who is already existing so
15
~>
..')
Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986
actually the 200 isn't any more arbitrary than the 100 was before or the 4
feet per dwell ing or anything like that. W:mld that be correct?
I
Councilman Geving: I guess there is really no answer to the question.
Councilwanan Watson: It will all be on the decision we make.
Councilman Horn: My response to that would be that typically the area that
you have to use on a lake is dependent on the shoreline, not how much area
is behind the shoreline. That is why I don't really feel that is really
relevant to what the purpose of the ordinance is, which is density of the
lake surface itself. Lake foot frontage is relevant to that overall usable
size but the amount of area is not.
Councilmen Geving: I'm thinking of developments Clark, in terms of those
developments that might come to us in the future with beachlots
permissions. I can think of 2 or 3 right off the top of my head.
Councilman Horn: I understand what you're saying but what I'm saying is
the purpose of the ordinance was not to promote development. The purpose
of the ordinance was to keep the lake fran becoming overcrowded.
Councilwoman Swenson: If I may, I think there were also considerations
given to the surrounding area and adjacent property owners and as a result
of that I think, for instance you can't take something that is 150 feet and I
100 feet deep or 200 or 50 or whatever it happens to be. I think the
square footage of the lot is pertinent in that there is more expanse for
people and not as much immediate effect on the adjacent property owners
which is why the 20,000 feet was important and the 200 satisfied that the
lake usage to 20,000 hopefully satisfied 30,000, satisfied the area which
could be used without hopefully effecting riparian adjacent property
owners. I have no argument with what you are saying, I just wonder whether
it would be effective inasmuch as we don't have anybody that is going to
be...
Mayor Hamilton: I was thinking more of the future. If another one comes
in I thought there should be guidelines to deal with. The other question I
had in dealing with this issue was the area of the lake. For instance, and
Pat has brought this point up before but I will bring it Up again, Lake St.
Joe, we will use that as an example, small lake. If a person were to
purchase the whole lake or half the lake, the property around it and
decide to put docks in there and rent boats out or something. They could
do that with this ordinance so I was merely thinking of that and thinking
perhaps somehow we should try to tie in the acreage of the lake. Again I
don't know exactly how you do that but it is something that I think we need
to consider in light of the different size lakes we have.
Councilman Horn: If lakes were perfectly round, that would take care of
itself in just the number of people who could build around it but because
of the odd shapes that some of them have, you might run into something like I
that. That is why we run into the crowding problem on Lotus Lake for
instance, is because of the shape. Theortically a small lake would allow a
16
I
I
I
--1'"'.. :-'7 p7
f. I ,~
_:.- ...., t,
Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986
small number of boats just with the strict front footages: That is why I
think the front footage is a reasonable method to use when we establish a
cri ter ia .
Mayor Hamilton: Roger is using a scale any more reasonable or is something
in your opinion would be better.
Roger Knutson: I think that really is a judgment call for you to make. I
would be comfortable frankly with either one is fine. Maybe Barb could
help us. Are you going to have any situations where you would have 100
feet of 1akeshore and 140,000 square feet, are you going to get plans like
that?
Barb Dacy: Here is an overhead of Lotus Lake. Vacant properties, the
Kerber area on the east side, the Moulton property on the west side may
redevelop and so on. The remaining frontage along Lotus Lake is either in
riparian ownership or Carver Beach lot and this is Fox Chase so there could
be two potential areas on that lake for some type of subdivision request
that may request a beach10t. On Lake Minnewashta it is a different
situation in that on the east side you have the regional park obviously
occupying that area and then there are obviously a number of existing
beach10ts. Vacant areas that stand out in my mind right now are this area
on the west side of Minnewashta Parkway, south of Pleasant Acres. These
property descriptions are tied across Minnewashta Parkway. As a matter of
fact, we did have an inquiry on this piece a couple of months ago that the
Planning Commission considered a beach10t request on it on an informal
basis. The depth of these areas is 100 to 150 feet. I don't know what the
area is but as you move south down toward the beach property becomes less
deep or shorter and shorter so that possibility of a beach10t in this area
is remote. other vacant areas on Minnewashta would be southeast corner of
Minnewashta Parkway and TH 7. The remainder of the lake appears to be in
riparian ownership unless some of these lots down in here would be
developed.
Councilman Geving: I think you are forgetting one area. I recognize 2 or
3 spots there but I think Lake Riley on the south side has tremendous
potential for future growth.
Councilwoman Swenson: There are 130 acres for sale right now.
Councilman Geving: That is the only other big area that I can think of.
Mayor Hamilton: There is the Gagne property. I think he has about 800
feet.
Barbara Dacy: Yes, I'm sorry I neglected to make a transparency of that
lake but this piece...
Councilman Geving: That's okay but that is the only one that I can think
of.
17
~. F7Q
JLf1B
Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986
Councilman Horn: I think developers with 200 feet, they always have the
option of putting single family homes with riparian lakeshore. This isn't
taking away use of their property. In fact if you hear all their arguments
they will tell you that is greater intensification of the lake.
I
Councilwoman Swenson: What we are talking about are, I have the opInIon
that when we discussed this at other meetings that we have been talking
about the 200 feet and the 30,000 or then the additional 200 feet with the
additional 20,000 as all being a solid, contiguous piece of property not
broken up by a road. I don't think any of us want to see a narrow strip
along the lake taken by 100 feet by 100 feet. Let's say 10,000 square foot
lot and then have the other 30,000 feet on the other side of the road.
This defeats the purpose all together.
Henry Sosin: I would like to point out a couple of things. Pat, when you
were talking about the number of boats and the length of the shore and that
sort of thing. You seemed to dwell on the 9 boats. The 9 boats on the
docks. You didn't count the four sailboats and you didn't count the 30
canoes and other sailcraft and as we all know, usage by one boat per family
is far different that usage by three boats per family so that when you make
the assumption, as example the only one I know the numbers on is Lotus Lake
Estates, if this were to go through, you're not talking about nine boats
and you were telling me the DNR would allow 20, you are talking about maybe
40 boats when you count all of them.
Councilwoman Swenson: These are 20 slips though Henry and an unlimited
amount of storage on land for the DNR. They don't control the number of
boats and canoes.
I
Henry Sosin: But Counci 1 does or has in the past.
Councilwoman Swenson: What I mean to say really is the fact that the 20
boats would be 20 slips so we would have in this particular one that you
are talking about. Incidentally one of the recommended changes that I have
is one sailboat mooring per dock, not four sailboat moorings so future
develofments there would be a limit of 12 boats in the water in storage.
Henry Sosin: Stored in the water but utilization...
Councilwoman Swenson: One rack with a limit of six canoes or small
sailboats per dock so you have three of those. These things are already
there and if we are going to refer to Lotus Lake, Lotus Lake which is what
we are all familiar with, the only thing we would be adding there Henry,
are the two additional dock and the motorized, and there are already four
boats allowed so we would be allowing five more boats. They already have
the sailboat moorings so the only thing we are doing is saying they can
have nine watercraft and they can be motorized.
Henry Sosin: I'm not talking about the differences. I'm talking about
utilization and numbers. You are talking about in that particular spot 40
watercraft in that area. That seems a lot more than what riparian owners
currently use now. Riparian owners, they may store more than one
I
18
'l'!70\
1L <:.)1
Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986
I
watercraft but they only use one at a time. utilization is far different.
Councilwoman Swenson: '!his is, I think subjective but I understand what
you are saying.
Henry Sosin: Can I point out one other thing. You are talking about
future lots and I think you should make sure that this doesn't happen and I
don't know what language you are going to need to do this but I could
readily visualize if I were a developer and I had a lot that stretched from
here to here and whatever you are talking about is the minimum number of
feet required for a dock. I could take this portion or any portion,
whatever it is, as long as this linear footage meets your requirement and
put my outlot back here in some kind of wetland that I can't touch anyway,
get my required square footage and have four docks down here or x number of
docks down here. You were talking about a road not be acceptable. I would
suggest that is not acceptable either.
I
Georgette Sosin: As all of you on the Council know, I live at 741010
Chanhassen Road and I swore I wouldn't speak tonight. However, I do want
to respond to a few comments that were made to set the record straight
which is why I'm here tonight to be counted really. First of all, this new
amendment to your ordinance was brought up for the first time to my
knowledge at an August meeting of last year to which I was present. It was
voted down by I think all but two votErl against it. To my knowledge there
has not been a public meeting about this other than the public hearing
which took place several weeks ago in front of Planning Commission and I'm
sure all of you studied your notes very diligently and you knew that it was
roundly defeated by all of the Planning Commissioners who felt that the
ordinance was excellent as it stood. You read all of our comments I'm
sure. There are a few points that you made that I think should be in the
record as being corrected. We, as a group, were the ones who wanted the
reduction of boats from five to three. We as riparian owners recognize the
problems of crowding on the lake and even though it effects a number of
people in our own group who are going to have to give up some boats, are
willing and wanting to do that so I think some recognition of that fact
should be made at least for your records. I also understand the position
that you are all in and I understand the tone of the evening and I think
that might account for your group making the statement that we don't make
mistakes. I think everybody makes mistakes.
Mayor Hamilton: I don't think any of us said we don't make mistakes.
Georgette Sosin: Well, that we try not to, I appreciate that and I know
that all of you work very hard and that you study very hard and you try to
responsive to everyone. I think this is an unusual situation this evening.
I
Tom Merz: One last thing and I guess to only follow what Georgette said is
that we do have a Planning Commission, we do have a study and as I heard
you Clark and Pat, the four of your, if I understood, for the change in
this beach lot and I wonder what kind of study or information you four can
have that can be so different than these other two committees. What type
of knowledge or research could be possibly be done that we have two groups
19
11 PAl).
_:..L........... -v
Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986
that are amicably against this and you people are for it. It is all the
same. We are using the same criteria. I don't understand it.
I
Mayor Hamil ton: Probably the Council discussed this issue, as Pat said, a
couple years ago. I have been one of those who wanted to discuss it and
probably was I who asked to have it on the agenda because I thought the
ordinance was unfair to the city. I have not been in favor of not allowing
overnight storage on the lakes. The Council has discussed it perhaps more
than the Planning Commission has. I don't know if we had any information
that the Planning Cmmission did not have. Everything that we have had
should have been passed on to the Planning Commission. I think it was
simply a matter of this body has been more in favor of change to the
ordinance at this time rather than the Planning Commission.
Councilman Geving: I think too Tom, that this body has been together for
the last four years and we put this ordinance together. I think the
Planning Commission has turned over somewhat during that time and there are
probably some new commission members that are not as familiar as we are
wi th this subject. I do know that all the information, all the notes and
data we have was given to them so 'Ibm, I can only respond the same way that
I think we were quite a bit more familiar with this issue than the Planning
Corrmission.
Jack Melby: 40 Hill Street. I would like to know if you think that the
ordinance with these changes is as defensible or more defensible than the
old ordinance.
I
Roger Knutson: As you know I am in an awkward position but I think Mr.
Ashworth summarized things. It involves reasonableness and consistency of
enforcement. Looking forward, I think what you have in front of you would
be enforceable ordinance consistently applied.
Mayor Hamilton: He said looking at the ordinance we have in front of us,
he thought would be enforceable in a consistent manner.
Councilwoman Swenson: I would like to add one condition be made to the
ordinance and I would like the Council to consider it. In view of the fact
that one of the reasons that this entire beachlot ordinance was initiated
in the first place was because there are certain lots, the Derek property
was one, when dockage would interfer with the wetland area which since that
time we haven't discussed or initiated in the past the wetlands ordinance
specifically identifying (a) and ~) but we all know that have certain
shoreline that is so classified specifically which is still habitat for
wildlife and so forth. I would like to have as a stipulation in the
beachlot ordinance, not just as part of the conditional use but the Council
must approve the placement, docks, bouys and I suppose diving ramps would
be important also and also the racks because in that way we can monitor and
protect the wetland area. Since we do have the clause in the ordinance
that allows a clustering of docks, there is no great necessity for three
docks. If they are allowed three, they can have one or two if this will I
better protect the wetland ordinance. Therefore I would like to add
Council approval is required in the placing of docks, bouys and whatever
20
1S1
Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986
I
would be pertinent to the subject.
Councilman Geving: D::m't we have that now?
Councilwoman SWenson: It is not specifically stated.
Councilwoman Watson: w= have used that discretion but it is not stated.
Councilwoman Swenson: It has not been stated am I would like to make it
quite clear.
Mayor Hamilton: Since this is the first meeting, that could be a condition
for Attorney's review and adoption for the second reading.
I
Ladd Conrad: Just two quick points. First one, Dale, as far as your
comments. The Planning Commission has been pretty aware of the lake issues
and there hasn't been much turnover until the last couple of months so we
are really pretty convinced of the validity of the current ordinance. The
recent two weeks ago when we looked at it, there was no new information and
there were three new Planning Commission members. My other point that I
think is real relevant and I think Clark has brought it up, as far as
reviewing the ordinance that you have in front of you, the best control on
lake usage is lakeshore and Clark made that point. Whether it be riparian
owners or whatever. Lakeshore does control the use. It does promote safety
and therefore I guess, pay real good attention I think Tom, to your
particular interest of a pie shaped type of development on the lake. I
don't think that serves the lake whereas lakeshore itself is a barrier or
it does tem to promote the safety in the things we are interested in.
Thank you.
Mayor Hamilton: Did I suggest a pie shape arrangement? I don't think I
did.
Ladd Conrad: You suggested an area which really goes back off the lake and
I don't believe that is a valid use when you do have lakeshore which is a
better way of controlling the use on the water.
Councilwoman Swenson: I have a real problem here with passing this without
the amendment for 73. Inasmuch as they are, at the present time as you
know, inconsistent and the fact that they are open.
Councilman Horn: Your recorrmendation is correct then if we pass it.
Councilwoman Swenson: If we accept these.
I
Councilwoman Swenson moved, Councilman Horn seconded to accept the
amendment to the Recreational Beachlot 47-AB as amended by Councilwoman
Swenson's recomendations and concerns listed in the letter to the Council
of June 10, 1986 which states: No recreational beachlot shall be used for
the purpose of overnight storage of more than three (3) motorized or non-
motorized watercraft per dock. If a recreational beachlot is allowed more
than one dock, however, the allowed number of boats may be clustered. Up
21
ill P GJ!
-'"- d &1
Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986
to one (1) sailboat mooring shall be allowe:1 per dock. Canoes,
windsurfers, sailboards and small sailboats may be stored overnight on any
recreational beachlot provide:1 they are store:1 on a specifically designe:1
rack having no more than six (6) such watercraft, per rack, per dock.
Docking of other watercraft or seaplanes is permissible at any time other
than overnight. OVernight docking, mooring and storage is further
restricte:1 to the owner/occupants and renter/occupants of dwellings within
the Homeowners Association. Simulataneously to accept the water surface
usage ordinance amendment No. 73-A with the recommendations as stipulate:1
in my letter to the Council dated June 10, 1986 which states: Except for
privately owne:1 commercial resorts and commercial boat landings established
prior to the adoption of this ordinance, no person shall dock overnight
more than three (3) watercraft. OVernight docking, mooring and storage is
restricted to the owner/occupant or renter/occupant of the lake site home
to which the dock, storage or mooring site is an accessory use. I would
like the stipulation be included that the Council approve placement of
docks, bouys and so forth be included. All voted in favor except
Councilwoman Watson who opposed. twbtion carried.
I
Roger Knutson: Just so I have it clear in my minutes. I have adde:1 to the
Recreational Beachlot Ordinance the following: the City Council may
regulate the placement of docks, if allowed, bouys, diving ramps and boat
racks. I will place that into the recreational beach lot ordinance. Now is
there any other change?
I
Councilwoman Swenson: [b you have the stipulated changes in the amendment
of June 10, 1986. Why don't I give you my copy. The one for the beachlot
ordinance will replace item (e) and the one for the water surface usage is
Section 3.04 of the Zoning Ordinance No. 73.
Roger Knutson: '!hose are the three changes then? I have the two changes
you mentioned here in the letter of June 10, 1986 and the one change you
said earlier this evening.
Councilwoman Swenson: That is correct.
Mayor Hamilton: We now have the Conditional Use Permit Amendment to Allow a
Total of 3 Docks to be Constructed on Outlot B and to Allow OVernight
STorage on these Docks of a Total of 9 Watercraft without Restrictions as
to Whether said Watercraft are Motorized or Non-Motorized. Does Council
want to discuss this item.
Councilwoman Swenson: I would like to review this approval location in
this contract requiring the Council approval of the location of the docks,
etc.
Roger Knutson: '!hat is what Barb recommended be approved, the site plan
they bring in.
Councilman Geving: No, we want to see the physical site on the lake by a
Staff member and maybe even some photos that would prove to us that they
are not into an area where there is a habitat problem.
I
22
? !f1J 5.
~{.--;_! '--'" ~j
Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986
I
Roger Knutson: You are going to approve a site plan. How you get there:::
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the Conditional
Use Permit Amendment to Allow a Total of 3 Docks to be Constructed on
outlot B and to Allow Overnight Storage on these docks of a Total of 9
Watercraft without Restrictions as to Whether said Watercraft are Motorized
or Non~otorized with the following conditions:
1. Submission of a revised site plan irrlicating the proposed location
of the two additional docks.
2. Compliance with requirements of the Recreational Beachlot
Ordinance.
All voted in favor except Councilwanan Watson who opposed. M:>tion carried.
Councilwoman Swenson: That the previous contract of the Corrlitional Use
Permit is still effective as regards to limitations of the four sailboats
arrl racks?
Roger Knutson: Yes.
Councilwoman Swenson: Everything else is as stated.
I
Roger Knutson: It is noted that this will have to be continued upon your
approval before the next meeting is before us.
Dacy: Mr. Mayor did your motion include the two corrli tions in the Staff
Report also?
Mayor Hamil ton: Yes it did.
Request for Water Obstacle Permit, Minnewashta Water Ski Club, Dana
Johnson.-
I
Dacy: The water surface usage ordinance requires that the Council issue a
permit for a water ski slalom course. This particular request though is
put before the Council for in excess of 72 hours which is allowed only in
the ordinance. The attached materials that you have in your packet
includes a letter from the applicant as well as petition from the property
owners along South Shore Drive arrl Ironwood in favor of the proposed
application. Use of this ski slalom course would begin immediately and is
proposed to last until the errl of September. Use of the course would occur
on weekday mornings and the primary users would be the parents and by the
Sheriff's office as well as the Public Safety Director am their comments
are attached. It should be noted that they submitted an original
application in 1984 but have since changed the location of the ski slalom
course in reaction to the Sheriff's office comments and those comments have
now been resolved. On the secorrl page of the memo, the ordinance lists
five standards which the Council can use as a basis for approval or denial.
Approval would require at least 3/5 majority vote. Should the Council
approve the applicaton we are recommending implementation of two
23
cp f~: ~~
La~ '~"-~, ""-':'"
Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986
recommendations. That the applicant assume responsibility for the presence
and removal of the water obstacle from the lake and secondly that
comprehensive general public insurance by submitted in the amount of One
Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) for each year.
I
Mayor Ham il ton asked if there should be a hold harmless clause in the
approval. Roger Knutson, City Attorney stated that in the last session of
the legislature passed a law that stated if the City issued a permit it is
not issuing any guarantees any longer and the City automatically is held
harmless.
Dana Johnson stated that first of all they were looking for the permit.
The last year in the Water Ski State Tournament, Lake Minnewashta
representing the City of Chanhassen, took 16 out of 32 trophys. He stated
that some of the people ski for the Tommy Barnett Water Ski Show which
could be a National contender which can bring some publicity to the area.
The Sheriff's department had contacted the other three ski clubs in the
area, Prior Lake, White Bear Lake and Bald Eagle and found there were no
problems with the water ski courses on those existing lakes as stated in
his letter which is attached. Dana Johnson and John Merz then showed what
the bouys used in the obstacle course looked like. The course will be
approximately 600 feet long by 100 feet wide. There will be approximately
22 balls sitting in the water. If they are hit by a boat they are
submersible and the line breaks away from the ball if hit by a boat.
I
Councilwoman Swenson stated her concern was night traffic on the lake
having a boat prop getting caught in the rope.
John Merz stated there was no danger of this happening.
Dana Johnson stated they would be taking the bouys out of the water on
Friday evenings or Saturday mornings.
John Merz stated the course would be used for just a limited amount of use
time per day per skier.
Councilwoman Swenson then asked how far out in the lake does the course go
and how close to the shore.
John Merz stated that an ideal location so that boat traffic could go
inside the course by the shoreline without any interference with the course
itself.
Councilwoman Watson moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the request
for Water Obstacle Permit, Minnewashta Water Ski Club with the following
conditions:
1.
The applicant assuming responsibility for the presence and removal
of the water obstacle from the lake.
2.
The applicant submit a policy of comprehensive general public
liability insurance, including insurance against injuries to
I
24
€1'ln7
,~ '(JI
Chanhassen City Council Meeting ~ June 16, 1986
I
persons and to property in the minimum amount for each occurrence
for each year of $1;000;000:00 for public liability and_endorsed
to show the City of Chanhassen as an additional insured.
That the Public Safety Direction make an assessment at year end of
the Water Obstacle Course and its use and report its findings to
the City Council:
All voted in favor and motion carried:
3.
Meritor Corporation; Chanhassen Hills:
a. Evaluation of Environmental Assessment Worksheet.
b. Preliminary and Final development Plan to Subdivide 124 Acres into
180 Single FamIly Lots, a 6.5 Acre "MliIt:fPIe Family area and to-
create 7.8 acres of park-land:---
c. Land Use Plan Amendment to Redesignate 20 Acres of Medium Density
ReSTdentialto Low DensitY Residential;to RedeSIgnate 6.5 Acres
of Low DensitY ReSidentia1 to High DensitY Residential; and to
Re"desginte 7.8 Acres of LOW"""'i5ei1SItY Residential to Parks and()pen
Space. - -- ---
I
d.
Wetland Alteration Permit to Alter Existing Wetlands for Drainage
Purposes and Single Family Home sites on Property zone;a--p-l,
Planned Residential Developnent. - -
I
Dacy: What I would like to do, members of the Council, is to briefly run
through the proposals, the development plan itself and briefly review the
request and end the presentation with a discussion on the EAW and the City
Engineer also has additional comments as well. The Council considered the
sketch plan for this proposed PUD, I believe it was April 7, 1986. The
plan that you see before you is consistent to that plan that you reviewed
before with the inclusive of a couple changes that was recommended by the
Council. First one was the inclusion of the riparian lots along
Lake Susan with the reservation that the City would retain a walkway
easement and secondly that the park area be expanded. The sketch plan
consideration was around five acres, now has been increased to 7.8 acres.
The proposal consists of 180 single family lots and 52 multiple family lots
proposed to be constructed over a 3-5 year period. The project is divided
into five phases. Primarily the first phase would start in the northern
part of the site and would proceed in the southwest fashion with phase 5
being the seven single family lots on the east side of TH 101 in the multi
family area. As you can tell, the site is bounded on the west by
significant wetlands. A Class A wetland exists roughly along the boundary
line of the property and is surrounded by Class B wetlands between the A
and the rear of the proposed lots. From the south property bounded by
Lyman Blvd., on the east 'IH 101 and as you know, the proposed alignment of
TH 212 and the one they have shown is consistent with the most recent
alignment considered by MnDot. Quickly to run through the density of the
25
nno
~Vct
Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986
project and lot sizes. The gross density of the entire PUD is 1.87 units
per acre and the net density is 2.95 units per acre. '!he single family
portion only has a net density of 2.49 and a gross of 2.0'5. These density
ranges are consistent with the guidelines in the comprehensive plan. Lot
sizes from smallest to largest range from 11,20'0' to 150',195 square feet.
That is the lots adjacent to Lake Susan. '!he median lot size is 14,466
square feet and the average is 17,415 square feet. Approximatley 130' of
the lots are 80' feet in width or greater. '!he remaining 50', a majority of
those are along cul-de-sacs and have a lot width of between 65 and 80' feet
which is typical and has been approved in the past by the City. '!he lot
layout is characterised by the largest lots adjacent to the lake, around
the perimeter of the development, along the west and on Lyman Blvd. along
TH 212 and TH 10'1. The smallest lots are contained in the center of the
development. '!he lot pattern is consistent with our standards for tiering
for PUD's. Just a minor note, there are four lots however in Block 4,
adjacent to the wetlands area that are just shy by about 40'0' square feet of
15,0'0'0' square feet. These lots have to be increased, or we are
recommending that they be increased to the 15,0'0'0' square foot lot size.
The Lot in Block 4, Lots 13, 14, 15, 17 and 18. They are 60'0' feet low.
I
Councilman Horn: What about Lots 27 through 3l?
Dacy: Those are beyond the 20'0' foot radius of the lot area. As I
mentioned earlier with the creation of the three riparian lots along Lake
Susan, as you recall from the topography of the area, from the lakeshore I
there is a steep rise in topography to the rise of the hill. '!he proposed
building plans are located at the knoll of this hill. There is a small
wetland at the base of this hill also it has been proposed to be used for
sedimentation phase. Because of the slopes involved in these areas, Staff
is recommending that detailed grading and erosion control plans be
submitted at time of permit application. Another item, the PUD has
proposed that the middle part of the lots along Lymand Blvd., TH 212 and TH
10'1, applicant has submitted a landscaping and berming plan which is
included in your packets which proposes a 4-6 foot berm as well as
deciduous and evergreen vegetation. We are recommending that at the time of
final plan inspection that a more detailed landscaping plan be submitted.
The proposed traffic pattern has gone under a tremendous amount of
revisions since the origInal sketch plan was considered since last fall.
It provides vehicular movement and proposes only one access coming in on
Lyman Blvd. and one on TH 10'1. '!he utilities on sewer is located in the
norhteast corner of the site and can be provided to serve the development.
Extension of the water main will have to be provided from the Lake Susan
Park area south on Powers Blvd.. You also have a memorandum in your packet
from Lori Sietsema regarding the Park and Recreation Commission action on
June 3, 1986 which is basically consistent with their action on April 1,
1986 recommending that the Council accept the proposed 7.8 acre parcel
along TH 212 for active park purposes. The wetland area along the west
side of the development. An easement to be located off of Barbara Court to
provide access to the wetland area and pedestrian easement along the south
side of Lake Susan. Further, they recommended that the pavement width of I
Lake Susan Drive be increased 4 feet for pedestrian and trail purposes.
The Park Cbmmission recommended that Staff proceed to negotiate with
26
-rlnr:>
JLo rf
Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986
I
I
the developer for a reduction in park dedication fees. Briefly I would
like to go over the Land Use plan Amendment request. Staff finds that this
proposed request is minor in that the adopted land use plan was merely
trying to be consistent with the proposal for the old Lake Susan Lot Plan at
that time. Basically what we have done is that medium density area will be
removed, the 6.5 acre high density area will be created consistent with the
proposal but then the 8 acre park site will be designated on the plan as
parks and open space. '!he Planning Commission recommended approval of the
Land Use Plan Amendment request. Finally, the Planning Commission also
recommended approval of the Preliminary and Final Development Plan of the
POD study subject to the conditions contained in the Staff Report.
Finally, there was an alteration permit request that goes hand in hand and
one of the major issues that came up during the EAW process. As you all
know, the purpose in the Environmental Assessment worksheet is to determine
the need for environmental impact statement, is to analyze any potential
significant adverse impacts from a development. City Council is designated
as the RGU in this case. If the Council finds that an EIS isn't necessary,
the scoping period will have to be implemented and the EIS process beyond
that will take three to four months. In the analysis that you have in
your packets, we go through all of the comments that have been received by
phone or by mail from reviewing agencies. The majority of the comments
recei ved stated that there were no adverse impacts. '!he major issue
regarding the EAW was the effect on water quality and the maj or comments
came from the Metropolitan Council. '!heir report is contained in your
packet and their concerns are the eventual downstream impacts of the storm
sewer runoff from this development through Rice Marsh to the east. What
the applicant has done, Staff and appl icant went to the Metropol i tan
Council meeting on June 12, 1986. '!he applicant has submitted additional
drainage information which is also included in your packet. It has revised
ponding plan that is also incorporated into your attachments. Basically
the ponding plan has expanded the proposed sedimentation basins to be
consistent with the recommended capacities by the Metropolitan Council
Staff. The Metropolitan Council Staff is also concerned that a fraction of
the runoff from the eastern portion of the site, it's impact onto Lake
Riley and the additional information that the applicant has submitted shows
that runoff from the this area has to travel approximately 5,000 feet and
through two significant wetlands areas and wouldn't mitigate any type of
impact. Staff finds that what is being proposed is meeting the
requirements of the City, the Watershed District and the Metropolitan
Council in addressing these concerns are trying to mitigate any impacts as
much as possible. Staff is recommending that Council find that an EIS is
not necessary. '!hat the Council adopt any recommendations made by any
review agencies as well as adopting the June 4, 1986 ponding plan. At that
point I will switch you over to City Engineer.
I
Bill Monk: The sanitary sewer is proposed to be extended from the
northeast corner of the site and will easily handle the proposed
development. Council is fully aware that they initiated a municipal
improvement project to extend trunk water main down south from Lake Susan
park area down to the western portion of the site where we stub into the
property and where Staff will be presenting a feasibility study on those
improvements to the Council shortly. As far as traffic goes, the City
27
-1 r-:."'"
J' \_b';>:
~ c... t../
Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986
Planner has noted the plan has undergone marked improvement in terms of I
reducing accesses to collectors, namely TH HH, Lyman Blvd. and also
promoting better internal traffic flow as well as leaving right-of-way for
the potential realignment of TH 101 and the potential construction and
right-of-way needed for 'IH 212. The maj or aspect of this plan has been
reviewed from an engineering standpoint. A lot of work has been done by
the developer. Based on comments that came back as part of the EAW, a lot
more detail work was done on the ponding arrangement because it is always a
foregone conclusion that the volume of runoff will increase. Every attempt
is made to at least maintain the rate of runoff if not reduce the rate so
the overall effect of the developnent on the adjacent water courses,
whether they be channels, streams or lakes, is reduced. '!he ponds have
been interconnected to allow better functioning between them and to
actually allow for on-site retention of probably a six month flow on-site
in an effort to meet the concerns of the Metropolitan Council and some of
their Staff members. '!he line in red here is a drainage divide. Water on
the east side of the drainage divide will drain to existing wetlands and
creekbeds directly over to Lake Riley and as City Planner has mentioned,
extensive work has been done in that area to determine exactly where that
flow is going to which wetlands and channels to make sure that again, that
controlled rate of runoff is continuing to be treated and handled as it
flows over to Lake Riley. As is noted on this plan, on the north and west
side of that drainage divide, the bulk of the runoff is being directed over
to the wetlands over along the west portion north and west portion of the
si te. To mitigate the impact as proposed, the wetlands eventually to Lake I
Susan and to Lake Riley. Again, these ponds have been enlarged and the
Class B wetland area in order to reduce the impact on the Class A which
exists a little bit further over to the north and west before it heads to
Lake Susan. I believe this plan, which does need some further
modifications, maximizes to an extent almost beyond what the City has seen
in recent subdivisions as far as mitigating the impact as much as possible
through creation of ponding areas. Again, the pond surface is exclusively
in portions of the Class B wetland designated by City ordinance in an
effort to protect the Class A wetland and the lake. I guess with that,
questions on the drainage scheme, utilities or phasing plans, I will leave
until Councilor the public get to direct questions.
Councilwoman Swenson stated she didn't see anything in the report from the
Watershed District.
Barbara Dacy stated that they sent the plans out as part of the normal
referral agency review.
Councilwoman Swenson and Watson questioned whether the Watershed District
received the papers.
Councilwoman Swenson stated she was genuinely concerned because it didn't
state in the report how the rate of the storm water is going to mitigate
impact on the lake. She stated the increased flow through Rice Marsh Lake
and also from the impact directly east into Lake Riley is a real concern.
Lake Riley is high now, having lost 10 feet of shoreline in the past 7
years. The Watershed District has received a grant and the Environmental
I
28
11 8 e,:~
_ ~.i,_ "...;,,' l:.":/
Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986
I
Protection Agency concerning treatment of these five lakes. The outlet
for Lake Riley is directly to the south by the Eden Prairie-Chanhassen
border and water flows out of there fast. The water quality of Lake Riley
from increased flow from Rice Marsh from the development to the north, and
she questioned the impact at the time and was assured with ponding the
impact should be negati ve. '!he water level has risen while the
classification level has lowered from 2 to 3 this year which takes it off
the swimming list. She asked for the Developers to look at this extremely
closely.
I
Larry Frank: At our meeting with Dick Osgood from Metropolitan Council, we
had an initial meeting there three weeks ago, and our initial submittal to
him, we had a real good discussion with him. We talked about Lake Riley,
Rice Marsh and the reason water quality on Lake Riley is bad is because of
Rice Marsh and he was very concerned with the amount of water that would
come through it. The water coming upstream wasn't polluting Rice Marsh nor
Lake Riley. However, the water coming in, and correct me Bill if I'm
wrong, the flowage pushed more of the pollutants that are in Rice Marsh out
into Lake Riley and we got going on a very interesting discussion. '!he
best solution at that point, in just throwing it out, what you should
really do is ditch around Rice Marsh and not let the water go into it
because the water coming like, out of Lake Susan into Lake Riley, there is
no problem with that water. However, as long as it comes into Rice Marsh,
it turns up the phospherous which adds to the poll ution problems to Lake
Riley. Dick Osgood broke life down into three equations, which we found
pretty interesting. He took everything in 1 ife and was all up on the board
in three equations and basically he came up with a number. What he wanted
us to do was to hold on the site, in other words, if you take 12 months of
rain and snow melting, he wanted us to be able to pond on our site 60-70%.
He felt from the spring melt to the spring rains, that is when 60-70% of
your water, so he said if we could retain that magic number on the site up
to June 1st and after that he felt just the natural rains and natural
runoff would be alright, that we would not be increasing the flowage into
Rice Marsh and into Lake Riley. His number was very high and we didn't
know if we could do it but we did go back and look over the numbers and he
redesigned the ponds and did achieve that. In actuality with the ponding
situation that is laid out right now, there will be less water running off
the property when it is developed than it is right now in its farming
state. '!hat is taking into account evaporation, seepage into the ground
water. I never knew Rice Marsh existed until that meeting and we had quite
an interesting discussion but it was a very stong point that was made to us
and we spent a lot of time on it so we did take care of that situation.
Councilwoman Swenson: I can understand what you are saying about the
pollution aspect, probably not being as big a problem going into Riley but
there is swamp.
Larry Frank: It is the flowage of water.
I
Councilwoman Swenson: If we keep having developments like this and we do
have the continued impact on the lake, we are going to run into another
Lake Blassy. I would like to know what Bob Obermeyer's response would be
29
....JL. (0';!f\1
eJ,;! \UJ
Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986
as soon as possible.
I
Barbara Dacy: '!heir approval is required as one of the conditions. In
reviewing the file, they have received at least two plans.
Jim CUrry: I just want to say that I have dealt with a lot of buyers,
particularly in Eagan as a lot of you know, and I am thrilled with the
thoroughness that Larry has used here. '!he expense in the engineering and
the study. Nobody I have dealt with in Eagan has been more thorough and I
am pleased too because I'm a lake nut myself up in paradise northern
Minnesota. The fact that the Staff feels that way, makes me feel very good
because this is a paradise of lakes in this town as I have been listening
for the last hour about beaches and stuff and I share your concern.
Councilwoman Watson asked if Staff could find out what happened to the
Watershed District, if they do have cornnents, Council should see them.
Councilwoman Watson: We should use this development as an example of building
along potentially high traffic areas. People will live on those areas,
they can be designed and houses can be made. I think it is an excellent
point that needed to be made. I'm not sure that the pedestrian walkway
along the lake is necessary. You are never going to be able to walk all
the way around the lake and I kind of think those three lots just ought to
have their riparian rights and be done with it. I just don't see that we
are going to gain anything by walking along that little piece of shoreline I
and stopping dead in somebody's lap so to my way of thinking that walkway
isn't necessary. It seems that every time we get into these interiors, we
end up with those little lots and the little ll,20'0"s with their little
skinny fronts all seem to in the development again and I don't know if that
is just a development hazard or how that happens but it always seems you
get in the interior development and the lots get smaller am skinnier as
you move on. I guess, just for the record, say I'm not thrilled with
those.
Councilman Geving: I am really pleased with this particular plat and I
would like to advise our planning staff of that fact because I think this
represents the kind of plan for a development that we can market in
Chanhassen. I think that the mix they have come up with in terms of lot
sizes, densities 2.95 net density, I think what they have done with their
cul-de-sac sizes is excellent and I would like to promote this particular
development as the kind of thing that I would like to see continue with
future developments in Chanhassen. I think it has everything I am looking
for as oppposed to some that are currently in the mill, and you know what
I'm talking about, several that are currently before us can take a lesson
from they are proposing here. en terms of lot size, cul-de-sac size and
the net density, always think in terms of the net density. OVerall, I
really only have one concern and that is about the amount of water that
would remain in those drainage areas and I want to be sure that it would
drain out of there so it would become a hazard, a safety hazard. If you
are retaining it for a period of time, we are hopefully not going to have 2 I
or 3 feet of water that is going to be in a ditch area, potentially a
hazardous situation for a young child. Can you assure us of that?
30'
.., ~ 1i
!; .<,...p ~:
_._ e......, _
Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986
I
Larry Frank: I'm not an engineer. We are kim of caught between the
proverbial rock and a hard place. Metropolitan Council says they want us
to hold water for a certain period of time am magically when June 1 comes
it is suppose to disappear.
Councilman Geving: What I am talking about though is so that there is at
least shielding. If there is water in there, will be a potential storing of
water for a period of time, is a depth that could be dangerous, we want to
make sure that it doesn't happen.
Larry Frank: I think none of them will be drop off types, they will be 3 to
1, 4 to 1 slope type things but not a drop off situation so when little
children walking don't fall in.
I
Councilman Geving: I just want to make that point because it is extremely
important. Another thing, I do agree with Carol on the pedestrian easement
along the south side of the Lake for those riparian homes. I don't see any
reason to keep that walkway personally, but we can discuss that as a
Council and make that decision later. <X1e thing I would like to do
tonight is add an item (e) to our discussion of this particular plan am
that is to resolve this evening the issue of park dedication fees. I think
we ought to leave tonight with this thing wrapped up. Jim Curry can go on
home and he knows what our plans are as far as the park dedication fee is
concerned and he won't have to come back again. I would like to discuss
that later on in the agenda. I do have a question on the phasing of the
development. I note that the park area that we are speaking of is set
aside as 7.8 acres, is scheduled for phase 4 and I feel that is pretty far
down in the development phase. It is possible we will have a number of
residents in this plan and there will be a very park deficient area long
before we get to the point of doing anything with developing that park so I
would like to see us accelerate that phase and at least move it up one
notch to phase 3 or something. I don't know what your true phases are but
somewhere in there, it is going to take a long time to get to the point
where we can start putting swing sets and things like that in there for the
tot lots so I would like to see us move that up. Is that possible Jim?
Larry Frank: I don't have the phasing plan and preliminary plan so I don't
know right off but when we go into our second phase, our drainage system
will have to be graded at that time am chances are real good that we are
going to need the drain in on that pond first for spring water...
Councilman Geving: That is why the recommendation that we move that park
phase up to phase 3.
Councilman Horn stated he thought the plan looked good.
I
Mayor Hamil ton: I hope the Council knows, I want to call it to your
attention that 12% of the lots are under 12,000 square feet, 52% are under
15,000 square feet. I just wanted to make sure that when we review and
perhaps pass on this one that we remember what we have done with other
developers come in. I know Jim is one of our favorite people out here but
I think we need to treat others the same way we treat Jim. If you look at
31
1C.j/
JL <'''; ,.,',.l
Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986
Block 4 you have Lots 1, 2, 3, 10, 34, 50 and 51 are rather large lots. I
Take those out of the overall picture, which is what was suggested on the
last development we looked at, your average lot size is going to reduce
significantly. I was glad to hear Carol's comment on the Lake Susan
because I don't want the walkway there either. I guess I have been opposed
to creating a walkway someplace that starts no place and ends no place so
there isn't much sense in having it there. Then I just had a question on,
I don't know if it is for Staff or Jim, many times we have looked at this
property and talked about how it was going to develop. We have thought
about the idea of changing the alignment of TH 101. I noticed on the one
map we had there was an almost readable in the small print, a proposed
realignment of TH 101 moving it to the east. What can you tell me about
the possibility of that happening and I would assume the current TH 101
would become one of those streets or you would vacate it.
Jim Curry: You would probably be vacating it at the time. Here is what I
have learned about it. I know that new TH 101, according to Bill here,
says it will not be done until TH 212 is done and TH 212, the earliest it
will be done is 1992 if everything goes on schedule. I have an appointment
with Fred Hoisington Wednesday morning at 9:00 to be brought up to date as
to where he is coming from because obviously if he did anything with that
intersection, a new TH 101 and TH 212, it would involve much of the rest of
that land over there so I will be keeping in touch with that and we will be
knowing that has to be approved before anything else is done with the rest
of the land. I think what you have been going through is excellent. Doing I
a real soul searching about what kind of intersection you should have
there. I feel good about it. I saw Fred at the last meeting, Planning
Commission, and I said I would really like to be brought up to date as to
where you are at so I have an appointment to see him. The whole thing is
planned with the time it will take will mean that we won't be over there
until it is very, very right. Hopefully, TH 212 is right because I really
think it is going to happen. But it's not the wilderness so we can work
with it so that is why everything Fred has worked with so far, the
possibilities are on the east side of new TH 212 which isn't included here
at all so I am very aware of what you speak. One of the inspirations I
have, of course, I have a bunch more land south of TH 212. I think it is
35 acres at least, and what happens at that intersection is going to be
very important to what we can do south of there so I'll be with you in
working that out.
Mayor Hamilton: Just to clarify my comments on the smaller lot sizes. I'm
certainly not opposed to that. I guess I'm the one person on this Council
who has continually been in favor of smaller lots. They seem to sell and I
think that is a good product and if they didn't sell we wouldn't have
developers coming in suggesting 11,200 square feet or 12,000 so I think it
looks like a good project. On the Evaluation of the Environmental
Assessment Worksheet to accept the findings of that so we do not have to
go through an EIS.
Dacy: Yes, if you wanted to act on the proposed recomnendation on page 7.
I
32
~~ t~c''i
/1:.. \;J ~:/>
Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986
I
Councilman Horn moved; Councilman Geving seconded that the Council
recommend the "negative declaration"for the Environmental Assessment _
Worksheet subject to the revised ponding plan stamped "Received June 4, _
1986" and subject to compliance with the comments of the review agencies.
All voted in favor and Motion carried:
Mayor Hamilton moved; Councilman Horn seconded to approve the preliminary
and Final Development plan Request #85~6 for 180 single family lots and 52
mul tiple family units based on the plat stmaped "received May 7; 1986" and
the grading and planting plan stamped "Received May 20; 1986" and subject
to the following conditions:
I e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
I
a. Detailed landscaping plans shall be included in the plans and
specifications for lots abutting TH 101 and TH 212 during final
plat review process:
b. Reservation of a trail easement between Lots 23~24; Block 4.
c. Satisfactory completion of the EAW process in compliance with
Environmental Quality Board rules including.compliance with
recommended conditions of reviewal agencies.
d. Loi;. areas in Block _ 4 (Lots 13":'15; 17 and 18) shall be a minimum of
15,000 square feet.
Detailed grading and erosion control plans shall be submitted in
conjunction with the development of Lots 1~3; block 4 including
certification of plans by a registered architect/engineer:
All utility and street improvements shall conform with city
standards for urban construction:
Final plat approval shall be withheld until approval of trunk
water extension that will service the development.
Approval of the final drainage plan by the City, Watershed
District and DNR and compliance with all applicable conditions.
utility and drainage easements comply to accomodate all site
improvements.
Lake Susan Drive, the main street going through from Lyman
Boulevard all the way over to TH 101, be constructed 4 feet wider
than standard residential sections to a width of a driving surface
of 32 feet to better accommodate pedestrian uses.
k. The street names shall be reviewed by the Public Safety Director.
1. Lots 20 and 21, block 4, shall be revised to equalize the lot
widths.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
33
'Jilin
L1S.& .-.- '-"
Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986
Councilwoman Swenson: I guess when we worke:1 on this before, I wasn't
aware that this lots were 80 feet wide and I guess I'm not as concerned
wi th the footage as I am with the width. I'm concerne:1 about the footage I
guess, TOm pointed out that 52% of these lots are under 15,000 square feet
and I guess that scares me a little because it didn't appear to be like
that. I am mostly concerned about these 80 foot frontages and I see on the
four there, the ones the are going to be changed, there is a 73 or
something like that and those I assume will be changed so if you have to
make them 15,000 square feet anyway. I wish there was some way we could
take out a lot in the middle of those and just spread it around to bring it
up at least to 8,500 which is going to be a recommendation of mine that as
a minimum when our new proposed zoning ordinance comes out. Does anyone
else concur. We just had another development that we sent back am said he
had to come up to 8,500 feet.
I
Mayor Hamil ton: I don't think we did. '!hey had some 7,000 and 7,400 feet.
Councilwoman Swenson: What did we send them back for? I guess I'm trying
to be consistent with what we have done particularly in view of the fact,
as we have all taken note, that we all know Mr. CUrry am we don't want it
to appear that we are bending over backwards for him. I would like to
eliminate, if at all possible, anything under 80 feet in width, if you can
Larry.
Larry Frank: I think the only time it occurs is when there is a curve in
the street, on a cul-de-sac.
I
Councilwoman Swenson: '!hen back some time, I don't remember who it was,
exception was taken to the fact that the Lake Susan name was userl for the
street so frequently creating potential confusion for the Fire Department.
You might want to address that.
Larry Frank: I guess the Fire Department and Police Department, the
comment on that if they want it change:1, they can. I fim just the
opposite. You are better off, if you are going to have them, have them all
together rather than one on. the south side of Lake Susan am on the north
side of Lake Susan. Typically what we try to do is keep the names that are
the similar in the same area am typically that helps for visitors coming
to an area. I would think it would help the Police and Fire Department
also, but if they have problems we will certainly change it.
Councilwoman Swenson: I would recommend that we get a recommendation from
the Chanhassen Police Department.
Councilman Horn: Just to refresh my memory, how does the density compare
on this proposal versus the last one for this area?
Dacy: '!he original Lake Susan South?
original proposal.
I believe it is less dense than the
Councilman Horn: I think one of the criteria we used too when we consider
a property am what it was already approverl for versus what we are allowing.
I
34
211
Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986
I
Resolution 86':"'39: Councilman Geving moved~ Mayor Hamil ton seconded to
approve the Land Use Plan Amendment Request #86-1 to redesignate 20 acres
of Medium Density Residential to Low Density Residential, to redesignate
6.5 acres of Low Density Residential to High Density Residential, and to
redesignate 7.8 acres of Low Density Residential to Parks/Open Spaces
subject to Metropolitan council approval. All voted in favor and motion
carried.
Councilman Horn moved, Mayor Hamil ton seconded to approve the Wetlands
Alteration Permit Request #86-1 to alter the wetlands for drainage purposes
subject to final drainage plan approval by the City, Watershed District and
DNR. All voted in favor and motion carried.
Councilman Geving: I think at this point it would be appropriate for Lori
to indicate to us what the Park and Recreation Commission had recommended.
If there was any recornnendation from them in terms of percentages, etc.
Lori Sietsema: The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed this and
because they didn't have any figures on appraisals or anything, they didn't
feel they should make a recommendation as to a percentage of reduction fee.
They were very open to a reduction of fees but they fel tit should be left
to the Councilor Staff to detennine what that amount should be.
I
Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve a 50%
reduction in park dedication fees per unit and this would not include
credi t for the outlot areas. All voted in favor and motion carried.
Councilman Geving: I believe the figures that we have arrived at here
would mean that, Don and I talked about this, roughly it came in at
$4,700.00 per acre was the estimated amount and then you would give a
credit of 50% for each unit which leaves us somewhere in the ballpark of
$50,000.00 for development of the park. I think that was the figure I
originally found based on the number of units that we are talking about
here. We are talking about $450.00 per unit at least for the single family
and it comes in at about $96,000.00 for the total project which would leave
us close to $50,000.00 for dedication and $50,000.00 for development. To
me that is a fair amount of credit to give to this particular project even
though they are giving us a substantial amount of outlot area and wetland
area. I do believe that the credit would be right.
Mayor Ham il ton: I would like to ask Don if that is consistent with what we
have done on others.
Don Ashworth: Yes it is. '!he recommendation being made is consistent with
the percentages and allowances, etc. offered on other projects and
whatever.
Review Petition for Watermain Extension on Chaska Road, Frank Reese.
- -
I
Bill Monk: The City has reviewed a request for private extension of a
water line. The water main runs along Chaska Road on the south side would
go from the existing terminous just to the northeast of Melody Hill and
35
Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986
exterrl toward the City's corporate bourrlary so if you look at your map the
water main extends beyond Melody Hill, along Chaska Road to this point.
Right now the request is to privately exterrl that line approximately 600
feet just about to the corporation boundary to make available to other
sites adjacent to the roadway. Again, it is proposed that the extension be
handled completely privately and at this point there is no request for a
city project to exterrl the water main. It looks like a pretty straight
forward request but I wanted to run it by the Council before the applicant
spent money for their plans arrl sPeCs arrl so on. I am requesting that the
Council take at a look at the request and give their approval or deny the
extension request.
Mayor Hamilton: '!his again will be constructed when it is done in a manner
that the PeOple along that road will not lose accessability to their homes?
Bill Monk: '!here may be one driveway but I'm not even sure there is that
so there is very little disruption to the existing street.
Mayor Hamil ton moved, Council woman Watson seconded to approve the Peti ton
for watermain extension on Chaska Road. All voted in favor arrl motion
carried.
Review Septic System Situation ~ West 65th Street/Crestview Drive, Don
Kelley.
Bill Monk: At a visitor Presentation in the last meeting, questions were
brought up concerning septic systems on 65th Street. I put several maps
together just to show the existing MUSA line, where it exists and how the
properties along 65th Street and Crestview are just outside of that Urban
Service Area. '!he reason for that, besides the few lots at the end of 65th
Street, none of the other lots in this area can be fed by gravity sewer
service to the north or to the west to those existing lines. As I noted in
the Staff Report, this spring the City did receive several complaints about
septic systems that were, allegedly running over ground. When the
building and zoning official did go out to inspect the area, he did find
several systems to be failing. Coming back and talking to myself about the
problem that existed out there, we did firrl that 65th Street, on the back
end, was extremely flat. We were having trouble draining the water off of
65th Street, getting it down into the ditches along the County Road and
basically away from the site. '!he decision that was made in-house was that
we would install minor storm sewer system in that cul-de-sac, do it
completely in-house in an effort to lower the water table in that area or
at least get positive drainage off 65th Street to see what effect that
would have throughout the area. '!he project was done. Several weeks later
the inspector did go back out, then did write letters to six property
owners in the area who had systems that continued to fail. '!he reason
Staff notified the individual property owners, is that is consistent with
the way we handle septic systems in the rural area. '!he systems are indeed
private and the City has a responsibility to alert the owners that there is
problem and to try and assist in whatever ways we can to correct the
situation. In this particular instance, the City did not step in arrl
36
I
I
I
-1r;P7
J~_ ~::' /
Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986
I
I
immediately propose to run sanitary sewer lines in here. As I noted in
your report, you've got 18 existing residents in this areas, six of which
have been found to be failing. Several of which since that time have
contacted the city to say their systems are indeed not failing but be that
as it may, with 6 out of 18, Staff did not immediately propose a major
sani tary sewer system. Two reasons. ene, being of course, there being at
least as many people who would might oppose such a system because their
systems are functioning. The other one is any system that would service
this area would include installation of a lift station. Sewers would have
to be run down to Galpin. I did think about that early on. What we get
involved in is not only the lines going in existing streets and major
restoration costs, which will be expended when sewer and water become
available to this area anyway, but the major overriding cost that all these
owners would be required to pick up, would be the cost of installation of
any lift station in this area and the force needed to pump it up the
street. It is a extremely expensive operation with a lift station costing
initially anywhere from $30,000.00-$40,000.00. Taking those type of costs
and potentially assessing them to such a limited area, it would be
extremely expensive and for that reason I guess, alone with the number of
systems that continue to seem to function properly, Staff alerted the
individual property owners and I believe acted according to standards which
we have always acted under. I believe at this point it is in the best
interest of everybody for the individual owners to fully check out system
upgrades at this point in time. I guess that gives the Council a little
bit of history on how we got to the point we are and can at least discuss
the situation with Mr. Kelley who is here and see if the residents or the
Council wish to initiate any type of project above and beyond the
individual upgrades.
I
Don Kelley: Several of Bill's comments were related to the correctness of
the City's handling of the situation. George Donnelly and I had a
disagreement about that and I suggested that we just forget about that
disagreement and work on the problem so that is what I would like to do.
My problem right now is we have a septic system that doesn't satisfy our
needs. Six of us got letters. George's memo suggests that several of
those had reported to him that they felt their systems were working okay.
I know that at least four of the people that got the letters feel their
systems are not working so a maximum of two people could have called and
said their systems were okay. Several things. One is the only solution as
far as a private solution would be for each of us who have problems to
to install a mound system. Because basically we have clay soil, you dig a
hole in the clay and fill it up with gravel then you fill it up with
affulient and it flows back into the house so that isn't a very practical
solution so the only other solution is to build a mound system. Pump it up
in the mound then I'm told that it sits there and evaporates. The main
thing is we are looking at a cost of several thousand dollars, I've heard
estimates. My next door neighbor installed a mound system when he buH t
his new house and it was a $10,000.00 expense. I heard that in our
neighborhood we might expect to spend $7,000.00 on a mound and lift station
but I don't know. So if half a dozen of us spend $7,000.00 to each put in
our own lift stations and each put in our own mounds, we end up with a
neighborhood with a lot of mounds. I don't have room in the logical place
37
--1 ~. 0
lL'.' \~\: ,;<'
j (::.....P ......~y
Chanhassen City Oouncil Meeting - June 16, 1986
where my field is in, I don't think I have room to put a moun) in.
Essentially we are saying we are going to spend $42,000.00 putting in half
a dozen moun) systems to serve half a dozen of these 16 lots in the
neighborhood. It makes more sense to me, if we are going to spend money on
a temporary situation, to spend $42,000.00 on a lift station. I would like
to think that some of that can be recovered and used elsewhere. I don't
know if it can but a portion of that could. Obivously the excavation an)
all that work would be throwaway work when the final interceptor goes in
but maybe some of that can be recovered. The force line that would go
north, presumably the lift station would be down by Crestview Drive, the
force main then would go up the hill to Melody Hill to the existing main.
I don't know if a portion of that could be turned around later and used for
gravity feed corning back. It would seem possible so that wouldn't be a
total throwaway expense. What I would like tonight is a consensus that
sewer is necessary for our neighborhood. Bill has another map that is even
more grahic that is not quite so much a close-up and you will find that the
MUSA line on the west drops down even further an) on the east it drops down
to include the Klingelhutz subdivision so it looks even more graphic there.
We are surrounded by the MUSA line but we can't have sewer. One of the
things that carne up is the number of neighbors who mayor may not be in
favor. You are using a number of 18 systems an) there are 16 on the map.
If we are looking at the two sides of 65th and the two sides of Crestview
an) one large lot on the en), there is 16. What we did was I han) delivered
a letter to all of our neighbors explaining the situation including a copy
of the letter we received from the City an) inv i ting them to comment on
their feelings with regards to having sewer. I asked please indicate your
interest in installation of public sanitary sewer in our neighborhood. OUr
neighbors reponsed. Nine of them responded either in favor or strongly in
favor. Those who are strongly in favor are the ones who have the most
problems I think. Of the remainder we have one, Murry Bent, who didn't
give me a written response but he has a moun) system an) he feels it is
working. He is not in favor of sewer. One of the neighbors is Hugh
Wilmore who is interested in learning the cost of the sewer. Of course, we
are all interested in learning cost. We feel we don't have a great deal of
choice. One of the neighbors, the Madsens, one of them was out of town an)
they hadn't been able to get together and really corne to a conclusion so
they are undecided. Wolfs didn't provide a written response. They have a
lot that will probably be subdivided into a minimum of two lots. I don't
know how that would be assessed so they are concerned that even though they
may be interested in sewer for their own lot, it would be a significant
expense. I also didn't receive a response from the people who apparently
purchased the property identified as James McCulloughs property on the map
an) that would be presumably assessed as several lots. Here is a summary
of the individual comments and I have the originals of the questionaire
here. What I would like to do tonight is develop a consensus that sewer is
the right solution to our problem and that we should proceed with whatever
is necessary to identify the cost an) identify how those costs would be
paid and what could be done to complete a sewer project in our
neighborhood.
I
I
Mayor Hamilton asked what is the possibility of appealing to the Metropolitan
Oouncil to make a spot or to include this particular development inside the
I
38
-:;10'0
t, ~"'I;:"j
.......:_ <:....J>" lLI
Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986
I
MUSA line so it can be hooked up to sanitary sewer. He felt when you
have systems that are failing such as this situation, that is certainly not
an unreasonable request to include this development in hooking up to the
MUSA line.
Bill Monk stated that if the Council was going to initiate any type of
improvement project, he didn't feel PeOple would be too excited when they
saw the cost of installing the line and lift station but Oouncil can go
that route. If the City does, they would make application at the same
time when a study was done and come back with the findings from the study
plus the answers from the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission and the
Metropolitan Council. If the City cited a health emergency, there is a
good chance they would respond. The City can initiate a study as long as
everyone knows that the 16 lot owners would start out with a $3,000.00
charge just for the lift station and build from there. In the em what
you may have is half the people for it and half the people against and not
being sure in the end which way is better. There definitely is another
option like there would not be down in pioneer Hills or some of the other
subdivisions down south. It can be handled either way but it is definitely
a health hazard and needs to addressed one way or another.
Oouncilman Geving asked Don Kelley is any of the PeOple knew when he made
the survey of the approximate cost of this project.
I
Don Kelley stated that the PeOple who were strongly in favor, he didn't get
into conversations with them. When the question did come up, he said they
talked about numbers in the $10,000.00 to $15,000.00 range. He stated that
the numbers were high but they didn't have any choice because he couldn't
sell his house as it is right now and if it isn't done right now it will
have to be done in eight years and might cost more. He then stated he
didn't know the means by which this project would be paid if by private
funds, assessments, tax money, etc.
Mayor Hamilton asked how the City would proceed, if by a feasibility study
that might show costs.
Bill Monk stated the Council could initiate a feasibility study and try and
turn it around from a cost perspective and it would be assessed on some
type of a per unit basis. Several of the properties might be difficult
because they do hold potential splits but he stated he felt if the
Metropolitan Council and Metropolitan Waste Control Commission approved
this, they would approve the lines contingent upon no further connections.
I
Don Ashworth stated he though a peti tion process should be used. <:ne of
the City's regular petitions outlining the scope of the project and have
the property owners sign it and that would end up with less problems down
the road. The Council could initiate a study but what it will mean is
that each decision from here on out will require a vote by the Council so
it really makes it easier all the way around if they petition for it on a
regular petition form.
39
n .'i"10
L'~ i"J ',';y
Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986
Don Kelley stated the reason they were here is because George Donnelly
suggested it. He felt he already had signatures and addresses from all
the neighbors on a petition form with the question on the form of are you
interested in installation of sanitary sewer. He said he would like to go
back to these people and say that a preliminary study says that we are
looking at $42,000.00 divided 16 ways plus what it costs to do this and
that.
I
Councilman Geving stated that if the decision is made to go with this
project, it is all or none and everyone would be included in this project
with an assessment.
Don Kelley stated there wasn't anyone that was strongly opposed. He felt
people would be more responsive is they had a firm yearly figure for cost.
Councilwoman Swenson stated it would appear we have an emergency here and
we are talking about something that is going to take a considerable period
of time.
Don Kelley stated that there weren't any problems with sewer backing up
into the house at this point but it might begin again in September. His
problem appears to be from runoff of rain water in the spring and when
there are very heavy rains.
Mayor Hamilton stated he should use the City'S Petition form. The City
Attorney stated he should use that and have the residents sign it as an
official form then the City can go ahead with a feasibility study and he
didn't think it would take that long.
I
Don Kelley asked what could be done in the interim of completing the
peti tion form.
Councilman Horn asked is the Council could make a motion tonight with a
condition of the Staff receiving the Petition.
Roger Knutson stated 35% of the frontage would be required to proceed.
Resolution 86-40: Councilman Horn moved, Mayor Hamil ton seconded to
approve the feasibility study to the time of receipt by the Staff of an
acceptable petition for sewer. All voted in favor and motion carried.
Councilwoman Swenson stated it was her understanding that this would go
through an assessment policy procedure and if you have retired people and
senior citizens, there is a senior citizen deferment policy in the event of
hardship.
Request to Allow "Group Reserved Camping" in Non-camping Areas at
Minnewashta Regional Park.
Lori sietsema: We have a request from the County Park Commission to
consider allowing group reserved camping in a non-designated area. The
master plan for the Minnewashta Regional Park designates an area for group
I
40
O..,1Q
~JLV'
Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986
I
camping as opposed to just individuals coming and camping. One _area for
big groups to come in with a capacity being of about 450 people. That area
is still an open field that hasn't had trees planted on it, it is not ready
for that use yet. The park has received a request from a Boy Scout troop
to hold a camporee there. Because it would be held in a different location
than designated in the master plan, the park decided they should come to
the City to see if that would be allowed. We have a com i tional use
permits that states that the City wouldn't have authority over development
standards unless it was different from scoping capacities in the master
plan. The master plan also shows that a temporary area could be used for
this purpose until the area was ready.
Lori Sietsema than went to the overhead to show where the area was located
on the map.
Mayor Hamil ton asked if the request was coming from the County.
Lori Sietsema stated the request was coming from the Park Director, Mark
Liddicoat. The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed this and basically
recommended that the conditional use permit be modified to allow this at
the discretion of the County Park Board.
I
Councilwoman Swenson stated the letter from Mr. Liddicoat presented two
questions. She agreed that the City should be notified and approve each
time the County park system gets such requests. She disagree with the
theory that there are not undesirable groups.
Mayor Ham il ton: I think the request has to go through them. He has to
approve it first. If somebody is going to in there and camp, if this is a
group they have to get permission from the County.
Lori Sietsema:
group they are.
be for.
They have to get permission and describe what kind of a
It outlines in the master plan the type of groups it would
Councilwoman Swenson asked if it was within the confines of the City and
she felt it wouldn't take much time to approve each group or not.
Councilman Geving stated the question is how many groups does he get in the
course of a year.
Councilwoman Watson stated it probably wouldn't be more than 1 or 2.
Councilman Geving: I think the answer am we need to respom to him on
this or Lori, I suppose, I would say my answer to number 1 would be yes, we
would encourage this type of activity, the Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Camp
Fire Girls, Church Groups and so forth. We should encourage this. The
secom one, as far as I'm concerned I don't care if we are notified or not.
I
Councilwoman Watson stated she cared. She thought the County should be
responsible for the policing and making sure these groups stay within the
confines of the park.
41
214::
Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986
Councilman Geving: '!hey are now. I think they have that charge.
Councilwoman Swenson: They ask us if we want to have this approval basis
and I think we should accept it. If they hadn't felt they would be
receptive to the idea of an approval from the City, they wouldn't have
asked. Since they have asked, it seems to me perfectly logical that we say
yes we appreciate having this on an approval basis. I can't fim fault
with that. '!he City should know what groups are going in there and say
whether or not they are agreeable to it.
I
Don Ashworth asked if there was a mechanism that would spell out certain
groups. His wife is involved with the Girl Scouts am they are volunteers
who sometimes forget they need permits and it is the last minute before
they finally call am ask to use the park.
Lori Sietsema stated there was list of groups. In the master plan it
specifically states the groups that would be allowed.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the Request to
allow "Group Reserved Camping" in Non-camping Areas in the Minnewashta
Regional Park with the list of approved groups that can use it such as Boy
Scouts, Girl Scouts, Camp Fire Girls, etc. The list that is in the Master
Plan and should there be some group that wouldn't be on the list, the
Council should be notified and asked for approval. All voted in favor and
motion carried.
Don Ashworth stated he would ask Mike Liddicoat to provide an annual report
at the em of each year as to the total usage and by what groups.
I
Authorization to Proceed with Development Plans and Specifications for Lake
Ann Park BallfIeld Lighting Project. --
Councilwoman Swenson moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the
authorizaton to proceed with development plans and specifications for Lake
Ann Park Ballfield Lighting project. All voted in favor and motion
carried .
Mayor Hamilton asked if this would start in August.
Lori Sietsema said it would probably start in August after the ball season
is over.
Revise 1986 Budget, Defease Lake Ann Park Bonds.
Resolution 86-41: Councilman Geving moved, Councilwoman Watson seconded to
amend the 1986 Budget to allow for prepayment of the Lake Ann Expansion
contract for deed. All voted in favor and motion carried.
Approve Specifications for 1986 Sealcoating Program.
Bill Monk presented a map showing what has been accomplished the last two
years and what will be accomplished this year. '!he City will get to about
42
I
?(ft'Ql
"'.<rl0~LO
Chanhassen City Council Meeting - June 16, 1986
I
7 miles of streets this year.
Resolution 86':'42: Councilman Horn moved, Councilwoman Swenson seconded to
approve the 1986 Sealcoating Specifications per the June 13, 1986 Memo of
Bill Monk. All voted in favor and motion carried.
Councilman Geving asked why the connection between Del Rio and Laredo Drive
wasn't included.
Bill Monk stated he was wondering that himself. It is a very small street
and he will check into it.
Accept Resignation from the Planning Commission:
a. Bill Ryan
b':" Michael Thompson
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilwoman Swenson seconded to approve the
resignations of Bill Ryan and Michel Thompson from the Planning Commission.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
I
Councilman Horn asked what the City was doing to make sure the mud wasn't
going into Lotus Lake.
Bill Monk stated the City had received calls on Saturday with concern from
the local residents that what was specified on the plans that were approved
were not adequate to protect the lake and he would be meeting with the
Design Engineer on site tomorrow. Bill Monk did go on Saturday to make
sure the Watershed District specifications were being met. He felt the
snow fence had been installed adequately.
Councilwoman Swenson wondered if the items that don't require much time be
put on agenda before the items that are more lengthy so people from the
public don't have to sit through the entire meeting before coming to their
item of interest.
Councilman Geving moved, Councilwoman Watson seconded to adjourn the
meeting. All voted in favor and motion carried. The meeting was adjourned
at 11:15 p.m..
Minutes Prepared by Nann Opheim
June 25, 1986
I
43
I
I
I
-d
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
EXHIBIT A
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
IN RE: Application of Tomac Development to rezone 5.4 acres at
the Southwest corner of Highways 7 and 101 from C-1, Office
Building District to C-2, Commercial District.
On June 2, 1986 and on June 16, 1986, the Chanhassen City
Council met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the
application- of Tomac Development to rezone 5.4 acres at the Southwest
corner of Highways 7 and 101 from C-l, Office Building District
to C-2, Commercial District, in the City of Chanhassen, Carver
County, Minnesota. The City Planning Commission conducted a public
hearing on the proposal and made its recommendations to the City
.Council. The Applicant was represented at the City Council meetings
and the City Council heard testimony from all interested parties
wishing to speak and now makes the following Findings of Fact and
Decision:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The subject property is a 5.4 acre parcel at the Southwest
corner of Highways 7 and 101. The property is designated as Lots
3, 4, and 6, Block 1 on the proposed plat known as Minnewashta
Gate.
2. On June 3, 1985, the City Council amended the City's
1990 Comprehensive Land Use Plan to change the land use designation
of the subject property from Residential Low Density to Commercial.
On the same date the City rezoned the subject property from R-1,
Single Family Residence to C-1, Office Building District.
3. The following are the permitted and conditional uses
in the C-1 zoning district:
-
A. Permitted Uses. (1) Administrative and executive
offices; (2) Medical, dental, legal and similar professional
offices; (3) Financial institutions.
B. Conditional Uses. (1) Any use permitted in Section
7.04 of the Single Family Residence District, as regulated
therein; (2) Multiple dwellings containing no less than
three dwelling units; (3) Hospitals, (4) Mortuaries; (5)
Research facilities and laboratories; (6) Passenger facilities
I
for mass transit services.
4. The following are the permitted and conditional uses
in the C-2 zoning district:
A. Permitted Uses. (1) General retail sales and services,
but not including automobile, truck, tractor, trailer,
boat, or other mobile power-driven equipment sales or services,
building material yards, or automobile car wash estaolishments; II
(2) Financial institutions; (3) Business and professional
offices; (4) Restaurants, theaters, and taverns, but not
including "drive-in" type service; (5) Dry cleaning and
laundry collection stations and self-service laundries;
(6) Mortuaries; (7) Government owned and operated civic
and cultural institutions including, but not limited to
administrative offices, libraries, public safety buildings,
and places of assembly.
B. Conditional Uses. (1) Auto service stations for
gasoline, oil, tire, battery and accessory sales, excluding
body and major power train repair; (2) Establishments of
the "drive-in" type, except drive-in theaters, offering
II
-2-
~
I
goods or services directly to customers waiting in
parked motor vehicles; (3) Hotels and motels; (4)
Parking ramps; (5) Pr~vate clubs and lodges organized as
non-profit corporations; (6) Passenger facilities for
mass transit services.
5. The property to the south, east and west of the sub-
ject property is zoned R-l, Single Family Residence District.
The property to the north of the subject property, located in the
City of Shorewood, is zoned C-3, Commercial Service District.
6. The subject property is served by public sewer and
water.
I
7. C-l zoning provides viable economic uses of the sub-
ject property.
8. The C-2 zoning district allows fast food
restaurants, general retail sales, hotels, and other intense uses
that are incompatible with the surrounding residential neigh-
borhood and zoning because of noise, congestion, longer hours of
operation, traffic, littering, and the like.
9. Allowed C-2 uses will introduce more traffic into
the residential neighborhood than C-l uses. Section 9.01 of the
Zoning Ordinance states that the C-l district uses allow "limited
contact with the ground public"~ Many C-2 uses on the contrary
are dependent on people constantly coming and going.
10. C-2 zoning would decrease the value of the
surrounding residential neighborhood.
I
DECISION
The application to rezone the subject property to C-2 is
denied.
-3-