Loading...
1986 07 14 -rJ Q"':'! JL 0 _~_ SPOCIAL CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MEETING July 14, 1986 I Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order. '!he meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. MEmbers Present Councilman Horn, Councilwanan Swenson, Councilwanan Watson Members Absent Councilman Geving Staff Present Don Ashworth, Barbara Dacy, Todd Gerhardt, Bill Monk APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilwoman Watson moved to awrove the agerrla as presented-With the addition of discussion of a zoning ordinance violation allegation made by a resident, Art Partridge. Councilman Horn seconded. All voted in favor and motion carried. Continuation of Public Hearing to Consider Water Storage Facility and Trunk Line Extension-Improvements. -- I Don Ashworth stated he distributed a letter from Rick Murray, B.D. and Elmers Development Finance to the Council Members. Councilman Horn moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. Councilman Horn: I found this study very interesting. I always heard that you looped water systems to get rid of stagnant water but I never heard the argument that you looped them so you have the most efficient flow. It makes a lot of sense. It was something I don't think we were ever presented before and I think it is probably more of a significant reason for doing it than any. I had a question starting on page 12 of the report. The last sentence in the second heading below Service Area. Significant additional storage and supply is required to meet ultimate demand. I was wondering if in that statement they took into account the availability of the high service area to be able to service this when they are talking about this. They seem to divide the uses into the high and low and they tend to take them separately but it would appear to me that with the loop between the high and the low, that the high service could serve as a back-up to the low. I Don Ashworth: I know that it does and the time that we have refurbished the water tank in the downtown area, we were looking to that washed area to provide water service during a pericrl of time. If you will recall, we picked a period in the year when we would have very little lawn watering, etc.. We are getting into an area that I would prefer having Mr. Monk present for. He will be here in about half an hour. 1 -~ ;-:) GJI JL U E;' City Council Meeting - July 14, 1986 Councilwoman Swenson moved~ Councilman Horn seconded to table the public hearing to consider water storage facility and trunk line extension improvements for approximately 30 minutes or so until the City Engineer arrives. All voted in favor and motion carried. I Front Yard Setback Variance Requests, Lots l through iL Block lL Minnewashta Creek Third Addition, David Kosmecic. Front Yard Setback Variance Request, Lot lL Block b. St. Hubertus, Jack Barnes. These items were approved by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals at a hearing held just prior to the City Council Meeting. Approve Construction plans and Specifications for Improvements to Lake Lucy Road. The Council members felt there were no major discrepencies or changes from what had been presented in a prior meeting. Councilwoman Swenson asked when the Assessment hearing would be. Don Ashworth stated the next step would be the collection of bids which typically takes 6-8 weeks. Resolution #86-44: Councilman Horn moved, Councilwoman Watson seconded to approve construction plans and specifications and authorizing the taking of bids for improvements to Lake Lucy Road. Further to designate a "No Parking" zone along the entire length of Lake Lucy Road. All voted in favor and motion I carried. Councilwoman Swenson moved, Councilman Horn seconded to table discussion of the Triple Crown Estates matter until the City Engineer arrived. All voted in favor and motion carried. Consideration of Amendment to Planned Unit Development Ordinance. Mayor Hamilton: I would like to see the Council agree how we are going to handle this procedurally. If we want to make suggestions going to back to the Planning Commission or if we want to make specific recommendations to be sent back to the Planning Commission or how we would like to handle it because I think it is important in our discussion how we would structure comments or specific recommendations for this to be sent back to Planning Commission. I guess, first of all, I need an agreement that this is want we all agree should go back to Planning Commission. All Council members were in agreement. Mayor Hamil ton: Would you like to see us make specific recommendations or just general comments about investigating this particular area and make our comments more general and allow them to look at our general comments about areas of the PUD ordinance and then allow them to just blue sky it from there and make recommendations back to us? I Councilwoman Watson: I guess in thinking about that question, I did think about that when I was reading this, I think I would like to set some 2 Q17 ~,) (; City Council Meeting ~ July 14, 1986 I guidelines because it is the arnbigui ty of the whole issue that has kind of led to the point where we have decided that maybe there should be something more structured. Mayor Hamilton: '!hat could be a general opening statement to them that it is too ambiguous, the whole section and that is the reason for our making suggestions back to them for areas we want them to reconsider. I think that is the kind of premise we are going on here. The whole section is not clear and not specific and we all have problems with various parts of it or all of it. Councilman Horn: '!here may be quite a few other options that would be under consideration too. Councilwoman Watson: Last week when I said I don't know as though we have ever seen a PUD, I wasn't making a joke. I'm not sure that we have ever actually seen a real, live POD. I think we have seen some very large subdivisions. Mayor Hamilton: It seems like our comments back to them should begin with the whole section is rather ambiguous. The current one and the proposed one am right at the very beginning of the whole thing in saying we wonder whether or not there should even be a PUD section and start from there and let your mind take you where you want. I Councilman Horn: '!here is one comment I don't believe I agree with if I fully understand it and that is l(c) under Alternatives. c. 20% of the proposed units should be designated for single family attached units or multiple family structures for diversification of housing styles. I think it would be really unfair to propose that on all developers if that is what they mean . Mayor Hamilton: '!hat is getting into specifics again. I guess Don wanted to make some opening comments too. What we agreed to Don, is that procedurally this should go back to Planning Commission and what we would like to do is, we would could probably do both, make specific am general comments as to what areas we want them to look at in the deliberations. Don Ashworth: That was solely going to be my recommendation so there is no confusion in making the two alternatives, Councilwoman Swenson's and the Staff. We see those as both being really the same. All we are trying to do is to get some ideas as to what the ordinance might look like not necessarily saying that the wordage in either one of them is better or worse than the other. I Council woman Swenson: '!hose two points that I would like to see. At this point I'm not concrete either about specific items. I think on (b) here it sounds a little dogmatic about 50%, the 20%, the 20%, the 10%. I wouldn't know how else to phrase it. That was really not to restrict the creative 3 QP ~)() City Council Meeting - July 14, 1986 ability of the developer but merely to give, shall we say, the guideline. How I far we would consider going if a POD was enacted. We would like to see, in other words on this proposal, I'm not saying we all would but I guess I felt I would like to see a minimum of 12,000 square feet and I think 10% of those in a PUD is fair. '!his, to me, sort of summed up what we are trying to find and that is a variation of housing and housing styles wi thin a PUD but this would have to be the limit we would have is the top of the down scale. '!he second point that I would like to keep is that (a) the Section 19.13, which is the one that requires a PUD be eliminated for the obvious reasons. I would like also, if there is anyway it can be done, to work strictly in square footage as opposed to presenting density percentages, i.e. 2.4 to 3.something. To me this is one of the major problems that we have in the semantics of operating wi th this thing which is why we have wound up with all of these. Well, these are the pages that are obvious as to why I decided that something had to be adjusted, it is just out of whack. The comments that I have received from most of the people in this city is that they don't like this direction so I guess those are the two things that I am trying to accomplish is the use of the lot sizes from the preservation of our natural resources, which is terribly important and the elimination of the PUD mandatory regulation. I think if we are going to have a PUD, it should be given on the basis of merit am not as a mandatory thing. I would like to see them establish some minimum widths and setbacks. Either that or have a subdivision ordinance applied. Councilman Horn: I'm not quite so adverse to the density concept. We relate to it in our Comprehensive Plan. It is a concept we have used for quite a few I years, at least since I've been involved with the City Council and Planning Commission. I don't know as though I really object to that. I think this breaks down the thing a little more specific than what a density would do for you. I guess the Staff's recommendation is an interesting concept saying that we're not going to tell you what it has to look like but if you don't have 15,000 square foot, then tell us why you think we should go below that and here is what we have as a trade-off for doing that, which is rather interesting. The problem I have with it is that it doesn't really give you any guidelines. Councilwoman Swenson: '!hat is the problem with the densities, because this is exactly the problem plus the fact that you have, I know it is your turn Clark but just let me interject this. I think it is important for us to remember that virtually five new members on the Planning Commission am I know that they are all confused about how we arrive at the densities and what they mean. The problem with density is having a 40,000 square foot lot am your averages coming down to 14,000. We have maybe 50% of your lots are under 12,000 square feet or something like that. You still em up with an acceptable density average but it isn't the overall structure. Sorry for interrupting you. Councilman Horn: I guess my feeling there is that I think some of the reasoning behind getting a proper density when we had maybe an abnormal number of small lots, had to do with the amount of things that we allowed to be part of that density. I think this goes through and defines some of the things that should be taken out when the density is used. I still feel that the I density is a viable concept and I think that people can understand it. The other thing it allows you to do, is it allows you to factor in things larger 4 39 City Council Meeting - July 14, 1986 I than a 15,000 square foot lot and some of the arbitrary guidelines that we have here doesn't make any difference whether it is 15,000 for one or whether it is 40,000 square feet, if that is the guidelines we set up. We still allow a certain number over a given point but those are all the kims of things that will have to be played back. I personally still don't have a problem with density and I don't think it is a difficult thing to accept as long as we pull out the areas that should not be included which I don't think we have properly done with that. I Councilwoman Watson: Just to speak to what Clark was turning up. I believe the concept of those densities is a good idea. I think it has just gotten so abused that they aren't viable anymore because they will take in some of these areas. They will suddenly give us a 52,000 square foot lot because 99% of the lot is virtually unusable. It has a 90 foot bank up the back or something and there is probably barely a spot big enough to build a house am that 52,000 square foot lot throws off that entire density figure. It gives them the ability to say, we may have 56% of our lots are 12,000 square feet but they have 3 or 4 lots like this which are virtually unusable property, wouldn't be any good to anybody for anything, am all of a sudden they say, yeah but we only have 2.4 units per acre. Well, it's a crock and there is nothing that can be done about it because it does work that way. When you throw those lots in, it works. They are absolutely correct. The density figure is 2.4 but it is misleading. It isn't actually 2.4. The density is much higher but they take that unusable property, call it a lot and then they are able to bring down those density figures. I like the concept of a much more structured lot size concept. I think it is easier for everyone to deal with because otherwise we keep hearing, this is what you have done before. They have this many of this size in this development. I mean they have all come in here and read them. There isn't one of those developers that hasn't gone through every development we have had in the last five years and read every lot size so they can see just how far they can go. Just how far down can we push before they are going to cry "ouch" because, they say "well yeah, but you've already done it". That doesn't really have anything to do with it but if you said in a more structured form that the lots must meet, and there is nothing here that says they can't be more than 15,000 square feet. They can certainly do that. tb upper limit to it but it just keeps them from taking a density figure am destroying the whole concept by having a couple of those great big lots that are of no particular use. I Mayor Hamilton: I guess I would like to have the Planning Commission have the benefit of what we are thinking so I will just cover one of these rather quickly. First of all, I guess as we have all mentioned and I will say it again, do we really need to have a PUD and I think that is where they ought to start their deliberation. Also, realizing that any change in the current ordinance or proposed would not effect POD's coming under consideration. I guess the density issue, I agree with Clark. I can certainly go either way. The density can be used and I think it can be changed based on what you put into it. If you say that you are not going to put in, we are not going to allow lots of 40,000 square feet that are on a 20% grade that you can't build on anyway, you can put one home on there. That is not going to be part of your overall density, I think then we are talking awles to awles. You can say that is not permissible. It is not a part of the overall density so I 5 40 City Council Meeting - July 14, 1986 think that needs to be evaluated by the Planning Commission. I'm not hung up I on density. You could go a specific lot size too. The analysis am defini tion of issues that the Staff put together, I thought were good. 2 and 7 can be combined. What constitutes a "trade-off" to consider a reduction in lot sizes or an increase in density in areas that are unbuildable, such as wetlams, should not be considered for a trade-off. You can combine those. Item 4, how can regulations be strengthened during review process to protect natural resources? I think you can require x number of lots of x size or x number of trees or shrubs and x size be on each lot after they have done their cutting and when the home is for sale. I think we can put that in. Right now we only require one. '!here is no reason why we can't say you have to have four. I mean if the guy wants to cut every tree down am bulldoze them over and burn them all up, that is fine but then he can replant them all at his expense. Whether we say 3 or 6 or we can say size. There is no reason why we can't say diameter or caliper of size. '!hat is another issue they can discuss. Number 6 I didn't understam at all. If it is over 25 units in size are called a PUD but in fact are not. Why aren't they? Councilwoman Swenson: I think that is what Carol was saying is that we haven't seen any. '!hey are mandatory that they come back. Councilwoman Watson: They don't have any choice. They have to be one but whether they are or not is debatable. Mayor Hamilton: I did like the definition of a PUD and that could be part of I their original deliberations too where it says Section 20, intent of Planned Unit Developments are to provide for and encourage creative site planning in sul::di visions of high quality through the use of lam development which is planned as an entity, grouping dwelling units into clusters, allowing an applicable amount of lam for open space, mixing housing types and uses, am preserving useful natural resources. '!hat would seem to me to give them a very good definition. That definition seemed really gooo to me. It seems to cover everything that we are all trying to accomplish and if they use that as a guidelines, a definition, I don't think they can go too far wrong. On the next page 3, at the bottom the page. '!he POD process does involve negotiation to achieve identified objectives. A-F I thought were all pertinent except for (e) unique site planning features such as solar access design or earth shelter design. That doesn't seem to be a widely used means of buiding today and I'm not sure that there is really a lot of technology. It seems like most of the solar people have gone out of business or with the price of gas now, people don't care anymore, I guess. But then again, maybe we want to leave it in because it may be pertinent again. I think to require that a builder have some of his homes facing south so they can use solar energy I think is kind of harsh. Barbara Dacy: '!he intent was not to require but if a sul::di vision came through am said we are going to be using a earth shel ter design, that there would be a basis possibly for this. Councilwoman Watson: So you mean that we would have to approve his design in I order to make use of this possiblity. 6 P-fl L;'-lL City Council Meeting - July 14, 1986 I Barbara Dacy: It is an al ternati ve that has always been available. We wouldn't want to discourage it. Mayor Hamilton: '!hen Councilwoman Swenson's suggestions. I had a little trouble with again, and you had already commente1 that you had the same problem, with like Item B where you are saying so many lots are going to be a certain size. I think that can be worke1 out but the guideline that was there, I guess I was a little uncomfortable with and also it seeme1 like when you say all lots should be 15,000 square feet at maximum however, 50% of the lots must be 15,000 square feet or greater. Councilwoman SWenson: This is semantically... Mayor Hamil ton: I understand. '!hen Item C, I just thought the wording in that, instead of saying 10 or whatever percentage of the propose1 units "should be" should say "can be designated for single family attached". Barbara Dacy: I have to accept some of the blame here because what you see here is what Pat and I discussed over the phone and so on, so I put it into my usual cold, ordinance language. I Mayor Hamilton: Well again, these are comments that I hope the Planning Commission has an opportunity to see rather than, all I'm saying is rather than have it say that they should do, which sounds like they have to, give them the opportunity to do it if they want to. Councilwoman Swenson: Since they will be reading this, I would just like to comment. The basic reason and the only reason I put that in was because, I did it with great intrepidation because looking today and discovering that a considerable percentage of housing that we have in this city are already multiple. Over 25% of the dwelling units we have are already multiple housing so I'm certainly in no mass hurry but this is really put in only to accommodate a diversification of dwellings which is in the POD definition. Mayor Hamilton: I am assuming that the Planning Commission will receive copies of what we are looking at so they will know what we are talking about. Barbara Dacy: Yes. I Mayor Hamilton: Item D on Pat's comments. Up to 10% of areas consisting of starrls of trees arrl other natural amenities should be de1icate1 to the city as a "forest preserve, natural resource preserve, or wild life preserve area". I fel t that was really restrictive. Maybe it could work out but if you have some trees on a piece of property the developer is going to develop, I think he has the right to develop it. Again, if he wants to cut down all the trees then we should have some way of making him plt some more trees back. If it is a stand of trees that are virgin and never been touche1 then that is a different story but that is just my comment. Item E, Wetland areas or other unbui1dable areas will not be considere1 for de1ication. I felt that was a little unfair. In the past we have always negotiated that and it has been a percentage basis of what the land was considere1 for de1ication. Urrler other items, Item C. Slope areas in excess of 25% shall be specifically identified 7 ;",. /.1 CD Lfc:,t.".J City Council Meeting - July 14, 1986 on the plat and shall not be used for building purposes (except for drainage I purposes). Again, I just wondered why. It seems like if somebody wanted to build over a slope like that, for instance Bluff Creek Golf Course, technology is here I think to build on those if somebody can show us how they are going to do it without our getting into trouble like we did over in Carver Beach on that one that was sliding down the hill. I just thought we shouldn't totally eliminate the possib1ity of that occurring. Under e(4), as is done in Eden Prairie, establishing requirements for tree replacement. That is the same thing I was getting at. The developer be required to replace trees that have been removed during construction and that would probably need to be clarified to say as long as he hasn't removed them for the road or actual building pads because if the guy wants to put a house in there it seems like maybe he has to take down some trees to put a house up, it doesn't seem fair to make him replace those for that reason. Those are my comments for the Planning Commission. I'm not trying to be critical of anybody, Staff or Pat's comments in here, those were just questions that were raised while I was reading this. Councilwoman Swenson: May I respond? Mayor Hamil ton: Sure. Councilwoman Swenson: In reference to the 10% of the stands of trees for a forest preserve and the slope areas am (g) of the Section 6.6 as referred to replacement of trees. All of these were put in because the major intent was to conserve the stands of trees that we had. It was a concession to I recommendations of clear cutting. I guess the reason I am saying, I'm not suggesting that every tree in the development has to be maintained but I think when there is a sizable stand of trees such as the one off of Kerber and they were cut into, I think this is total desecration and my intent was to try to eliminate that. It started out, if you had a chance to mull over the attachment that I had, the first thing I gave you folks last Monday night, you can see that I had a suggestion that for those stands, we take 10%. Let's say they had 6 acres and it is a 30 acre plat, we take 3 acres to set aside. It doesn't cost the City anything to maintain that because we are going to leave it wild hopefully. It is almost impossible, and I'm sure that this will be born out by any of our nursey people. You can start with a sapling and it is going to be a long time before you are going to have a 12-14 inch diameter tree. They are just irreplacab1e. From an ecological standpoint as well as an aesthetic standpoint, I think it is encumbrant upon us to figure out some way to maintain these areas. If we include them or allow them to be included in a lot, there is nothing to keep the fellow that buys the lot from taking down his trees which is why I was suggesting that we go about it from the standpoint of having the lam turned over to the City where we would have control of it. I don't intend that we should take this from them, I intend that this would be part of the consideration for the lot sizes. I guess that is how I stand on that part. As regards to the lot sizes, I think in the figuring on this, my point was they can go over 15,000 square feet. The densi ty could be figured on the basis of such figures. They've got a 30,000 square foot lot or a 45,000, when we figure out how many 10,000's or how many 12,000, 13,000 or 14,000, to be based on the 15 and not on the 40 because this I is how we run into these instances of small lots. I think that is all, because those to me, are the crux of what I was trying to get across. To me, working 8 Lift)) -'c I'..}) City Council Meeting - July 14, 1986 I with lot sizes is a heck of a lot more simple for people coming in. We have all had the benefit of working with these things for a good many years am even we find it confusing because each one that comes in is different. If we have specific lot sizes, it is a much more elementary way to figure. Those are my recommendations. Mayor Hamilton: What you say is true Pat and often times we have felt that we are being very consistent when we are looking at developments. The five developments that we have the numbers on here for the square footage of the lots, number of lots am percentages. I believe that we felt we were being consistent when we were approving these things and each one was fairly similar to the last yet when you look at the numbers, which we haven't had the opportunity to do previously, each one is considerably different than the next. Councilman Horn: It would be interesting to put on those what the density's are. Councilwoman Watson: What they said the density would be or what the density actually was. Mayor Hamilton: That is a pretty good idea for the Planning Commission consideration to include the density's. I Councilwoman Watson: So they can actually see this. How difficult it actually is. Mayor Hamilton: This kind of information is really helpful in reviewing this. It really lets us know where we're at. Councilman Horn: I was going to suggest also, I'm sure this is an awful lot of work but I was going to suggest that we take some of the older, established sulxH visions and include those in here as a comparison. All we have here are relati vely recent. It would be interesting to compare that to say Western Hills, Lotus Lake Estates or Colonial Grove or something like that just to get some other benchmarks. I Councilwoman Watson: The thing about the trees has to be dealt with because it has been proven that the developers come in here am they are in here to see how many lots they can pack onto a piece of property and how much money they can make. They have not proved to be particularly trustworthy as far as preserving the trees. They are much more interested in their lots. The number of lots, where the road is going to be am how many lots they can get in then they are to saving these things. Unfortunately, we have to go back am be the ones that say, you can't cut them all down because they will cut them all down because they develop and they leave. They have no stake in trying to preserve Chanhassen like it was in the past or what we hope it to be. They don't feel that the way we do. Mayor Hamil ton: That is true to a point. They will do that. They will go as far as we will let them go and if we stop them somewhere along the line and say you can't do that, then that is where they will stop but they do have, not 9 . I' ['.1. ~- .L- -- City Council Meeting - July 14, 1986 necessarily a stake in Chanhassen but as far as building in other communities. I' If they do a rotten job here, just by word of mouth, am it happens, you talk to someone in another town and they say a developer is coming in here. '!hey say, "Oh man, we don't want that guy in my town again". The guy is in business and they want to stay in business. I think they have an interest in doing a good job am doing what they can but that is true they will go as far as you will let them. Councilwoman Watson: What counts as good and doing what the community wants has to do with density figures am things of that nature. I don't think they count trees the way we do. Councilman Horn: Although in some cases we have had developers that recognize the natural amenity of the trees am they work aroum them. I think a majority of the people who have developed here, have recognized the need for that. In fact, that is why they came here because we have those. Recently we have had an exception to that but I don't think we have had too many exceptions to that. Mayor Hamilton: Like Glen Berglund in Bluff Creek. He probably wouldn't cut down one more tree than he absolutely had to. He is into the trees rather than cutting them down. Council woman Watson: We have developers who live in this community too who are much more concerned about what they leave am how it is treated as well so I in all fairness to those people who develop here but also live here, they are probably more careful. Councilman Horn: '!here is another thing too and that starts really getting into the nitty gritty of tree preservation. A lot of it depems on the species of trees. If you have oak trees, you are not going to replace those. There is no way you are going to replace them. If you have maples am things, they come back pretty quickly and you can transplant a pretty good size maple tree am get it back within a few years so it is really dependent on the type of woods that you have. Mayor Hamilton: Was that yours Pat, I saw that here someplace where a plan be submitted. Identification on plat of species, average caliper size, am acreage of vegetation. Councilwoman Swenson: '!hat wasn't mine. I think that was Barb's. Mayor Hamilton: I think that is a good idea because certainly the major ones. Probably, certainly oaks and some of your nicer maples, birch. If you just have scrub stuff on there, any good pines on there... Councilwoman Swenson: I think the caliper, like you said, I think that is important because if we require that they replace them with like size, they would be a darn sight more careful with what they take down. '!here are certain trees that there is no way that they can conceivably replace. I 10 , ! >'-' L:~> :.c. ..:.......~" City Council Meeting - July 14, 1986 I Councilwoman Watson: Even the fastest growing tree is not likely to reach much size during any of our lifetimes. Mayor Hamilton: Ash can grow pretty fast and like Clark said, maples grow pretty fast. Councilwoman Watson: But still, even a maple to acquire any... Mayor Hamil ton: I've transplanted a maple that was this big aroum am already it is that big. They grow like crazy. Councilman Horn: M:= too. Councilwoman Watson: Well yeah, I've done that too but still, when you talk about the ones that are this big around. Councilwoman Swenson: We know from an ecological standpoint, the trees playa very important part. Reading the other day that the 5 billionth imividual has been born on this earth and I keep saying is take down everything and wondering where are we going to put them am what is going to happen if we use everything. At least if we can have a little acre here and a little acre there and say that was a tree. I Mayor Hamilton: Ibes that give you an adequate amount of information to go to the Planning Commission with? Is there anything we should be more specific on? Barbara Dacy: The only other issue is the lot width. In the recent past we have been recomneming 80 feet. I just want to confirm, is that... Councilwoman Watson: I like 85 much better as a minimum. Mayor Hamilton: Let's just say that they should look at that am review that. Councilwoman Swenson: 25 front setback could be an optional thing. I'm not sure we have to show that because if it comes up. If the developer comes in and says I have this huge band of trees back here or I have a great big oak tree in the back yard and I want to preserve it, I think we can make exceptions on that particular lot at that time. I'm afraid this kind of opens the door for a whole, there is one lot here that has a tree am I can't stagger the houses in front so I would rather not give them an option. It will be entertained if this comes up. I Councilman Horn: Just one other quick comment about this dedicating 10% of the tree area. That seems to me like it would be a little hard to work. The other concern is that we would end up with a 2 acre clump of trees right in the middle of a bunch of lots am nobody would have access to it. Ci ty property held inside of a land locked area and in some cases you would say you are creating an attractive nuisance because you are creating a nice tree area for people to use but they would have to trespass on other peoples property to get over to use that. 11 40 City Council Meeting - July 14, 1986 Councilwoman Watson: We would have to have an easement. If that actually I occurred where you have 2 acres of trees, an easement would have to be granted somehow to get there just for practical purposes. Councilman Horn: I see some real complications in making that. I like the concept but I'm not sure in the practical case how you could make it work. Councilwoman Swenson: What if it is a parameter? Mayor Hamilton: That could be defined more clearly. Councilwoman Swenson: There is one further thing I think I would like to specify and that is with the designation saying 12,000 square feet. I think there should be a minimum of the number of lots, which is what I think I was trying to get to with this 50, 20, 20 and 10. If we say a minimum lot just so we don't end up with 50% of the lots at 15,000 and 35% at 12,000. I think we should have a maximum number of lots that can be granted wi thin an area so we don't have a subdivision with 12,000 square foot lots. Councilwoman Watson: I think your grading down theory is one possible way of avoiding that. Councilwoman Swenson: That is what I was striving for. Mayor Hamilton asked when this would be heard at the Planning Commission. I Barbara Dacy stated it would probably be this upcoming Wednesday, at least for discussion purposes at which time the Planning Commission could direct Staff to set a public hearing date for a specific draft unless City Council wanted to see it before the public hearing. Councilwoman Swenson asked what normal procedure would be. Don Ashworth: I think the intent was to allow the Council to look at what it was that they were thinking of prior to p.lblic hearing. Councilwoman Swenson: Would that be a very big problem if we made a modification, after it goes to p.lblic hearing, the Council can still make amendments to it can't they? Don Ashworth: That's correct. Since by law they are required to hold a public hearing. If you look at the draft it said, we would just as soon not have you take that particular item to public hearing. They are not bound to make that change. They can go ahead am hear the i tern based on what they thought. My thinking though was that they may appreciate your comments before it goes into public hearing. Councilwoman Swenson: With all these developments corning up, I guess the idea was to try to get it through as quickly as possible. Continuation of Public Hearing to Consider Water Storage Facility and Trunk Line Extension-Improvements. -- Monk: I apologize for being late, it couldn't be avoided. I will go I 12 47 City Council Meeting - July 14, 1986 I I over just some very basic issues as far as the water study is concerned and will probably answer questions which is what we are doing tonight anyway. After reviewing the water study completed by Orr-Schelen-Mayeron and Associates, Inc., this was over a year ago, Staff did come back with a recommendation to the City Council to do some major water system improvements to take care of pressure problems both throughout the city as well as meet the expanding reservoir requirements that the city is needing as it grows at quite a fast pace. 'lb facilitate, along with the pressure problems am the flow problems that the city is experiencing, we are proposing to finish two important links in the city system. This is a map of the low pressure area in the city and the existing lines. It is a little bit jumbled but two links are proposed, one along County Road 17 between Greenwood Shores and West 78th Street and the other is a major feed from West 78th Street up to the Chaparral sul::rlivision where an 18 inch line is presently stubbed. Those two trunk lines, again will help with flow and alleviate a lot of the existing system problems with getting water throughout the entire low service area. In addi tion to that, the city's most basic water need at the present time is with it's storage capacity and Staff looked for the most economical way to meet that need. What we did was look at the low service area where the tower would have to be located and look at locations where potentially an elevated storage tank or a ground surface reservoir could be located. After looking at several locations and the cost factors associated with the different types of storage facilities, a surface reservoir is being proposed on the only spot in town such a facility could be located. It is a spot in town just to the northeast of the Lake Lucy Road/Powers Blvd. intersection. There is a small hill at that location and the elevation at the top of that hill is approximately 1050. With a 70 foot high storage structure we would be at the same elevation as the existing elevated storage downtown. At that spot can meet all of the expanding part of the city, all the capacity needs in this section well beyond the year 2000. It is being proposed at that location, I will go over it in a little more detail, as a ground surface reservoir which is the same diameter, top to bottom, as versus an elevated tank. The reason for that type of a facility is that it does prove to be much more cost effective to use water as your standpipe instead of building an elevated storage type facility am you triple the cost per gallon as you go from an elevated storage to a surface reservoir. You can build this type of facility for approximately 25 cents per gallons whereas the elevated storage tank can be 75 cents per gallon or higher depending on the amount you are trying to store in that reservoir because the foundation for a 2 million gallon facility would be far in excess. Those are the facilities being proposed at this point in time. I went through these very quickly last time and the minutes are available. We did find there were five major lam holdings in the center portion of town that would benefit directly from the extension of those trunk lines and this would handle their water needs for development purposes so Staff's proposal is to assess these properties for trunk benefit as part of this project. Hopefully this will not speed up the development process for these properties. The City can not continue to pay the way for these type of improvements and we are finding that the land owners must pay up front. Those five properties break into the following graph. Parcels 1 and 2 are at the present time being proposed to be combined into Chanhassen vista, the John Brose property has been sold to the James Company who have been talking to Staff about a potential preliminary plat on that property, the AdelIa Kerber property has been sold to Builders I 13 City Council Meeting - July 14, 1986 Development Finance formerly B.T. land. Staff and/or the Council have seen preliminary layouts for development on all of these properties short of the Adella Kerber property and Staff has seen about six different layouts in preliminary form so all of these properties are being thought of at this point in some way in terms of development over the next several years. As far as financing of the improvements go, it is proposed that the trunk benefit be assessed to those five properties. '!he amount on that assessment is approximately $452,000.00. The balance of the project which is just under 1.2 million, is proposed, at this point, to be general obligation. You may remember from a work session possibly a month ago, Staff and Council did review how that general obligation would be covered using redesignation of existing debts to cover that so if there is no proposal at this point in time, general tax dollars on a tax increase would be used to fund the improvements. The improvements are defini tely necessary am at this point in time I don't think the City is in a position to let the storage capacity issue go any longer without seeking some tyPe of resolution to that problem. with that I will answer Council questions or questions from the public or whatever. Councilman Horn: I asked this earlier but Don asked me to defer it am that is in the studies of the requirements in the low service area, it didn't appear to me that they took into account the back-up capability of the high service area either in dual storage or emergency flow needs. It seems like they treated it totally separately. From this table you couldn't tell. This table would have been much clearer had they designated it between the high and low service areas. They just mixed them all together am you couldn't tell. Bill Monk: (be of the things you have to remember is potentially we could have separated these into two sections. One thing you have to keep in mim with the city system, and I tried to go through it in a little bit of detail in the feasibility study, is that in looking at the low system you can include the high system as a part of that review because the high system can easily feed back into the low system so then you can look at it as a whole. The only way you look at the high system as an isolated piece, it is isolated because the low can not feed. The reservoir that is proposed will act as an emergency back up to the high system. It will only provide very low pressure because of the elevation but the amount of water will allow it to act as an emergency back up. When you look at this chart, if you come down to Total Storage Required. Whenever they come in here Existing Storage, they are always using and when you go Storage Needed, you can see that you go from .3 or .65 to 1.8. If you look at the break up, am maybe the OSM report did not go into this in enough detail, when you look at the break up, most of the increase, if not all of it, is in the low section. Very little of that storage increase need is in what would be the high area or west of Galpin. You have some sudi visions over there, Piper Ridge, Red Cedar Cove am so on. Almost all residential. The only significant increase could potentially be Tomac but as far as water use goes, the high service area has very little impact on the overall storage needs and as such maybe doesn't get the write up it may deserve but the 200,000 gallon storage tank on the high area will service those needs past the year 2000. '!he biggest problem again is that you have to be concerned up there with emergency back-up am the groum storage facility that we are proposing will give me minimal storage back-up for the high system and that was really the only prerequisite in what we were looking for in terms of 14 I I I 49 City Council Meeting - July 14, 1986 I satisfying the higher. Councilman Horn: My next question would be more succinct to the report. en page 12 of their report, the last paragraph under low service area it says: "An analysis of the system should plan to answer storage provided by the low service area tank is not adequate for domestic flow across recommended fire code demands for existing condition. Significant additional storage and supplies is required to meet ul timate demand.1I They don't say anything in there about the back-up of the high service area and they don't imply that it is needed for this additional storage or how much less additional storage would be needed because of that back-up. Bill Monk: As far as storage needs go, as I said, the immediate storage needs and the long term storage needs that the city has are with the low system. The major recommendation as far as the high system goes, in the future, will be potentially the Lake Lucy Road connection because when that connection is in there, or any connection between systems where we can get the water to the high system below a booster that is on G:llpin or relocated somewhere in that area, then the low area tanks can completely feed the high area. There would be no need for any other storage capaci ty needs in the high area at all so we can't totally ignore the recommendation for the Lake Lucy Road interconnect but since this storage facility being recommended can act as emergency back- up for the high area when needed, we see that the Lake Lucy Road connection can be pushed off. I Councilman Horn: But you said minimum additional requirements in this storage facility. Bill Monk: What happens when I say minimum, really what I mean is pressure wise, not gallon wise. The problem is elevation not capacity. This would satisfy forever the storage capacity needs on the high side. The problem that even on this knoll, the tower is not high enough. The other tower is still 80 feet higher and when I say minimum, it's pressure that causes our problem. Councilman Horn: On page 13 it looks to me like they made a mistake. Their percentage of flow need in the first sentence there it says, existing demand at the high service quandrant may be 7 gallons per minunte or 27% and the ultimate demand is 79 and 12%. I don't know how the percent can go down. Bill Monk: It is generally because you have to remember, the ul timate what we did was we planned on, I took great license in doing the demand number and what happens is that when you look at the low service area and the high service area on ultimate demand. What happens is that it is the low service area that makes that number actually be used. Councilman Horn: Because the ultimate in the low service area could... I Bill Monk: That is exactly correct. If you look here, the service areas are basically located in this location which is about G:llpin. The low service area is so much larger that by the time you take into account ul timate, the percentage actually goes down. 15 50 City Council Meeting - July 14, 1986 Councilman Horn: Ql page 15, it talks about a problem in the Lake Minnewashta I vicinity with adequate fire capacity. Can't they use the lake? Other communities do as a back-up. Bill Monk: We could look at using the lake especially since so much of our development is close to the lake. I can not address that as far as equipment. I don't know whether you need special equipment or special pumpers or whatever. The problem is quite evident, here you can see the existing line on this map as it comes across the north side of the lake all the way down the west side, ends right here. Council several years ago had to deal with pressure problems at this very high section but to think about this line coming all the way back and connecting at this point when this area's outside use is a little bit before it's time especially when improvements run about 3/4 of a million dollars, but Staff can look at that in a little bit more detail. Councilman Horn: Ql page 15, about the third paragraph they are talking about their flow modeling and they say, the flow can not be maintained for a 3 hour fire any duration without supplemental from the high service area. Well, why would they even consider that. They will have the supplemental from the high service area. Bill Monk: They must be talking about, we're in the third paragraph as the preliminary to number 1. On number 1 I believe is done under existing circumstances and what they are basically saying is that the low service area I can not stand on it's own without major back feed from the high service area just to point out the need that the 100,000 gallon storage facility can not meet existing fire requirements. Councilman Horn: But they are saying without that, we have a 3 hour need. They don't tell you what the current fire need is now with it. They totally ruled it out saying it is only 3 hours. I didn't understand why they did that. Bill r-bnk: Water for 3 hours used... Councilman Horn: No, I understand where the 3 hours are used but why even give us that figure because it is a hypothetical case. You obviously would use supplemental from the high service area so who cares how long it is without that. Bill Monk: I guess they were just trying to point out the extreme needs because any time that one system has to draw off another, it does present a problem. What number 1 does do is start to point out the multiple weaknesses in the existing system. If one of our pumps should go down, I don't even like to think of that. If that was not in service, the high area or low area or whatever, that model basically just takes the existing situation, puts hypothetical situations on it and models and that is really what they are doing. We knew the system was bad but I guess this was to show what would happen in certain circumstances. Councilman Horn: I think we can prove it is bad under normal circumstances. I 16 City Council Meeting - July 14, 1986 I Councilwoman Watson: I want to go back and discuss where the tower is going to be. I honestly believe we better have a Plan B. The alternative to where the water tower is going to be. I guess I have serious doubts that we are going to acquire that absolutely gorgeous piece of property to put a water tower on. Has he been approached at any way because his daughter was discussing the other night building their house there and I really think we are either going to have to talk to him and find out whether he is interested in the water tower or we are going to have to come up with the alternate site. I don't see how we can even figure how this is going to work when we don't even know, I mean there isn't another high spot like that so the whole theory is out the window if this one property owner says I'm sorry, I'm not interested in selling that property for your water tower. Bill Monk: What would occur if we can not find a location on which a ground reservoir could be located, what we would do is go back and look at other options where a slightly higher, maybe smaller diameter, such facility could be located. If that proved impossible, what Staff would move to do would be to look at 1 1/2 million gallons of usable storage under some modified elevated arrangement. I Councilwoman Watson: I guess I just feel that if we are going to sell the bonds and we are determined to do this and this is really necessary, then I think we should be seriously taking into consideration that possibility because I just have a feeling we may have to live with it. Councilman Horn: '!hat is what evident domain is all about. Councilwoman Watson: Ob, give me a break. I would be 100% owosed to evident domain taking that property for a water tower. Councilman Horn: We do that in other cases where critical needs exist. Councilwoman Watson: Yes, but I think we would have a hard time proving that this need was that critical and could not be done in another manner except we haven't figured it out. Councilman Horn: I think it can be for more money. Mayor Hamilton: Bill has said that. We can build a tower someplace else on a higher elevation at three times the cost. Councilwoman Watson: I understand that but I don't think that is that property owners problem. I Mayor Hamilton: I guess that is something we need to decide as a Council. If Bill recommends that is the location where a water storage facility should be and he talks to the person and he is not amenable to selling it, we can always take it by zoning it for a water tower. That is an option that we have. I'm not saying we are going to do that. We haven't adopted it so we haven't even gotten to that point in discussing that yet. Bill Monk: '!here is no attempt here to force someone to give up a piece of 17 City Council Meeting - July 14, 1986 property that wants to use it for other purposes. There is no question that I the City will compensate the owner for that piece of property. Many times when you take a high hill for a ground water storage, you are basically taking high property which is at a premium, eSPeCially here in Chanhassen. Councilwoman Watson: EsPeCially since we have to preserve all those trees according to our new agreement. Councilman Horn: But if you take three times the cost of a water tower, that lam owner might fim it very attractive to sell it to us. Bill Monk: In the end I think it would behoove the City to make a reasonable offer as far as that piece goes because of the other alternatives that present themselves and so on. Councilwoman Watson: What do we propose is a reasonable offer? Bill Monk: We will have it appraised am work with the owner in every way possible to find out what the intended use is, what the potential uses are and have it awraised am that is included in the cost of improvements. If it falls through, it would be required of Staff to go back and either look in that area or any other area for alternative sites for some type of mooified, on ground storage and/or elevated storage and keep the costs of that as close as possible to what would be approved. I Councilman Horn: I guess I don't see that one piece of private property being used for public use any different than another piece of private property being used for public use. ~ose things happen in certain areas. Mayor Hamilton: And it's not like they wouldn't be compensated. Councilwoman Watson: Some things can't be compensated for with money. Mayor Hamilton: I guess I'm not going to argue with you because I don't know what the land owner is going to say. When he sees the price he may say, geez that's great, my daughter can build a house someplace else, am he might say no under any circumstances. Councilwoman Watson: I guess my only point is that we haven't come up with a contingency. We have put all our eggs in this one basket if we build a tower based on this premise. Mayor Hamil ton: I think what Bill is saying is that he wants to have the opportunity to talk with the PeOple am if he can't make any headway he is going to have to find another spot within the same area to either build a similar type of facility or a taller one. Bill Monk: And stay wi thin the budget that would be approved as part of this proposal and I believe it can be done but it will definitely crimp storage I that we will be able to provide but at this point in time I just don't see where the City would be able to come up with 2 1/2 million dollars for a different type of facility. 18 TO. /:_,-.1 City Council Meeting - July 14, 1986 I Councilwoman Swenson: I talked with Bill today, in view of last week's conversation, arrl this suWly would last well into the 21st century am of course my concern was, if we do this now and we are going to keep building down south into the rural area, hopefully, will this take care of this area or will we have to do something further down there so my question to him was would we be better off reducing the size of this unit am not having anything as large and his engineering prowess came up with a very logical answer that we had to have this kirrl of gallonage to work. Also, of course, the Pedestal typ: is 3 times as expensive as is this type. My only other questions, having settled that, the problem being that we are proposing adding to tax throughout the city with a balance, until you get to the people who have no prayer of being able to use this facility. However, my question on that was satisfied. Let me ask you this Bill. If there is a problem. Now we have, I assume, allotted a certain sum of money for property to put this at. You have estimated it is going to cost X number of dollars. In the event that this becomes an unpleasant acquisition, have you lookerl at all for an alternative place? I Bill Monk: Yes, I have been considering the comments from last week and even before that, we looked at possibly some al ternati ves. I have given up on some locations. The problem, one of the things that I have, a lot of our pressure problems exist right now into this whole area. There is a piece of city owned land over on this location that I have taken a good look at. The problem is it's not quite high enough as it exists right now but it is right next to a hill. Again, private property that we would have to take a look at but this is an area nearby and I have taken a close look at it. When we start to move down into this area, you are moving down elevation wise which really starts to put a big crimp in what you're doing. If you put a tank in anywhere in here, it would do nothing but serve the localized area. It just won't provide the pressure you need for the overall service area. I have concentrated my efforts up here. I guess I can not point to a certain spot and say this is number 2. This is what we go for if we can't but I do believe that there are other options with some kind of a modified system could be built within the budget given that would still fit the neerls beyorrl the year 2000. I am pointing strongly towards this one because I guess I do agree if you are going to have to take a piece of private property, I don't want to play the game that this one is better than this one and have fights with landowners and so on. There is no question in looking at the low service area, that one place jumps out at everybody who has looked at it. That one spot. There are other options but they are up on a higher side. There is a ridge in Near Mountain that we have kind of given up on. You could go up here in the trees and locate on this knoll all the way up here. It is about the secorrl highest point in the entire service area but it isolates you on a trunk line that is kind of all by itself which I hesitate again to do. The other thing nice about this point is that it is right near where all the trunks are proposed ultimately to come together so again, I have stayed in that area but there are other options. Mayor Hamilton: IX>es this deal with the high area? I Bill Monk: The problem is, as soon as you cross Yosemite, you are on the high side and as soon as you move to the high side, you are feeding back to a pressure reducer which drastically cuts everything. Your efficiency, your capacity, you are limited to the size of your feedback and everything else so 19 .-n 17~ City Council Meeting - July 14, 1986 all our efforts to date have been this way because of what I was talking to I Clark about. As you move this way, you just don't have the needs in this area. We concentrated our needs here and that is where we need to concentrate the tower location. There is about 3 beautiful sites up here. All private. Mayor Hamilton: What you are saying is from a field that be acceptable? Bill Monk: No, not for a ground storage reservoir even for the high system. It would have to be an elevated tank and even then quite high. Because if you think about the knoll that is right behind the school where the existing tower is, that is the highest point in town and you move down as soon as you start coming away fran it. It may not seem like much, but it is quite a bit. Mayor Hamil ton: '!he reason I was thinking of that and I think Pat was thinking the same thing, we already own that property and that would considerably reduce your cost so you may be able to go higher with... Bill Monk: That's right. We would probably take a closer look at this just to get a comparison between the two. Councilwoman Watson: Now where is that property located? Bill Monk: It is a triangular piece that the city owns, don't ask me how we got it. Mayor Hamilton: It was given to us by the Hermann family. I Bill Monk: This is up on Powers Blvd. and it is right there, just south of Lilac. It is a triangular piece with a County Road. Right in that location the city does own a triangular piece. That probably, right now is the secondary location but again it will probably involve the purchase of the private piece next to it because it is not large enough as it stands by itself. Resolution 86-43: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve authorization of the Water System Public Improvements and Public Improvement Project in preparation for plans and specifications. All voted in favor and motion carried. Councilwoman Swenson stated that the Council would appreciate it if he would look at sane alternative sites and give the Council a report on his findings. Triple Crown Estates, Laukka Deve10fXIlent: a. Review Grading Plan. b. Consider Petition for Storm Sewer nnprovements Across outlot ~ c. Approve Construction Plans and Specifications for Improvements. I 20 -~~ (. ~\:0.' ~,;;.J 55 City Council Meeting - July 14, 1986 I I Bill Monk: What I would like to do is explain a few things. This is the Triple Crown Estates for the Laukka Development formerly known as Chaparral 4th. What I did on here is the tree line is outlined in green and I hope it shows up on the monitor. It is the tree line that has been shown on Triple Crown Estates from the very beginning. It has never been given by staff or a developer, has not been played up I guess by either side. Council may remember that at one point there was a proposal to run a street across down in here. There have been several changes on the plat since it was originally proposed in an effort to actually reduce grading and pull the subdivision back. As part of the Council discussion of earlier this morning, I guess there is no question that Staff will be paying more attention as preliminary plats come in to where tree lines are, the type of trees that are there, size, SPeCies and so on, as required in the zoning ordinance and will basically plan on new subdivisions that show just those items. I guess the only other thing I would mention to the Council is that you can see the edge of the plat and you can see on your copy of the grading plan, Outlot A which does include this ditch along the southern edge. All the property, the trees up on the slope, the wetlands and everything on that property, that entire site, I believe it is about 7 acres, is being dedicated to the city as a part of this plat. For drainage purposes, slope and tree preservation but there is no question that extensive trees were removed along the northern and the eastern portion of the sites. We don't at present have any type of a tree cutting description. Staff will be definitely paying more attention as plans go through in terms of where trees are and that type of thing as I said. If there is anything else the Council wanted to raise, this is more just a discussion. There is not much I can say on this issue at this point in time. We will get into the drainage issue and some of the others on parts (b) and (c) but I wanted to give the Council a chance to make comments to Staff or amongst themselves as a part of this. Maybe you have done it all as a part of your review of the subdivision but a lot of the trees that were removed on this were visible because the knoll is higher than a lot of other subdi visions. If you go into Piper Ridge or Near Mountain, where extensive trees were removed, you just don't see it because it is back away from the roads and so on. Councilwoman Swenson: There are still a lot left. Bill Monk: Yes, they didn't prep the lots in there so what is taken down in there right now is not the full extent on either of those subdivisions that would be taken down in the end. On this subdivision, they prepPed the site and the lots at the same time and in doing that did make a situation, just did it all at once. It is very visible. Council should look at this issue and I'm not saying that they shouldn't. I guess again, this was just put on the agenda because of the other two issues being raised, I wanted to give this one a full airing by City Council and perhaps you have already done it. Councilman Horn: I have just one question about what went down. I couldn't get through the mud but it looked to me like they planted trees back in in some places. I Bill Monk: Kyle Covin is here representing BRW and the developer but I did see a tree spade out there moving some trees around and they have actually 21 hP- ~J.' .-...)1 City Council Meeting - July 14, 1986 marked some large oaks that will, I think in the end, be in the front setbacks I am they worked aroum them. There is no question that isolated trees as you move through but they have gone to that extent. Still, there are a number of trees in the house pad locations and street locations, but they have done those two measures. If you go out there now, you will see some oaks and larger trees staming by themselves with ribbons aroum them am they are, I assume, the front setback area and will be left. Councilman Horn: Depeming on how close they got to them, they might not live anyway. If you disturb these areas arourrl the oak trees, you kill it. Bill Monk: The attempt is being made to keep them am in some of those areas, the grade change is aligned but there is the possibility that some may die. They have been out lately moving them which I did not know they were going to do. Councilman Horn: Yes, I noticed that too. Bill Monk: We will follow through on all the tree issues am those that were mentioned by the Council required of their zoning ordinance review. Mayor Hamilton stated they had walked through this subdivision and a few others at the same time such as Pheasant Hill and Fox Chase, and stated there were quite a few trees cut down but there were still a lot of trees left standing without any houses put in. When houses get put in there will be a I lot of trees removed. He agreed with Bill in saying that he didn't necessarily agree with what they have done, he was one of the first developers who has come in here am really more or less cleared everything that was on the property that was real visible for us to see and it became rather distasteful so consequently the Council is trying to correct that situation. Bill Monk: Staff is serious about following through on the items that Council has already mentioned am this is not an attempt to down play that attempt at all, but just instead, if the Council wishes to make SPecific recommendations or comments concerning the subdivision, I didn't want to try to brush this aside as we moved into other issues concering this subdivision. Mayor Hamilton: It probably might be adequate to hire a representative carry back to Laukka and his Associates that we are not happy with the way he is developing on it. Bill Monk: Item B, what we have of all the utilities on the site that are being recommended for approval tonight includes sewer am water am storm sewer to this entire subdivision. Item B on the agenda is a petition for the Ci ty to enter into am construct, as a .PJblic improvement proj ect, a storm sewer line along the southern edge of the property. '!hat line is shown in more detail here. It ranges in size from 24 inches to 44 inches. It does take the drainage from urrler Kerber Drive corning from the Kerber Estates and also from Chaparral, controlled the least am now come through the creek area. After looking at improving the existing creek, so much grading and work was I needed to stablize it to meet Watershed District stamards, they have gone back to a piping arrangement from Kerber all the way down towards where the 22 57 City Council Meeting - July 14, 1986 I pond is being created down on this portion of the site. '!here is a pond being graded in on this entire portion of the site being created basically through grading of a berm on the east portion of the site. '!he storm sewer would come along south am outlet into that low area am pom up before it would flow through a reduced 21 inch pipe that is being put in through that dike. Because any uncertainties involving the subidivisions to the south am non- participation by that owner and developer at this point in time, the Laukka subdivision has petitioned for the City to install just this line along the southern edge. '!he rest of the storm sewer system including the pond would be installed as part of the development. It is important to make one note that this pipe is required as a part of the Triple Crown Estates subdivision. '!he Council's decision is purely discretionary tonight in terms of whether it believes that the overall benefit from this storm sewer pipe is city wide or area benefit that the city might want to become a part of this improvement project. As part of the Watershed District approval and City approval of this, some resolution of this item as they have shown a piping arrangement, will have to go in. '!he developer, his letter of credit does include installation of this pipe. At this point in time we are asking for a change in that, at least preliminary approval to include that as a municipal pipe line. I Mayor Hamilton: Are you talking about piping from the west side of Powers Blvd., you want to pipe that instead of having the open, the creek that is there now that handles the storm water? I Bill Monk: Yes, that is exactly what is being proposed. '!he problem with the existing creek, we took a long, hard look at preserving that creek. The problem is that at the end there is such angles right now that there was no way that we could keep the existing ditch on it's alignment as it exists now and stablize it to the point where it would not become a huge maintenance headache for the city. It just cuts in am out at over 90 degree angles am there it was just impossible to do. '!hat being the case, we started to look at the possibilities for realigning sections of it but so much riff raft am stablization was needed to get to a point that we would be able to maintain it, that it actually became more economical to pipe it with then the ditch being put back over the top of it so the bulk of the water would carried in the pipe from the other subdivisions but the existing drainage coming down there would continue to go through a creek. '!here is no question that whether you go piping or whether you go stabilizing the ditch, that extensive regrading through that area is necessary and at this point in time Watershed District has been pushing for the piped arrangement for a long time. I have been much more relunctant to accept that but after reviewing the alignment changes necessary am the cost involved, I think the pipe will allow us to have a much more maintainable, which is one of my major concerns in this area. One, how it looks but also that the City ems up with something that is actually maintainable from erosion control and so on. It is proposed, this is Kerber Drive, to pipe it from Kerber which is over on the west side, to pipe from that location, the existing creek meanders all the through this location. To pipe through this location to this site where it would then pond behind this berm and be slowly released out of a 21 inch pipe instead of the existing 48 inch pipe so the water in essence, ponds in here as heavy storms occur and in the end, I believe, this guiding smaller pipe and control structure will 23 58 City Council Meeting - July 14, 1986 have a very, very big and beneficial effect on Lotus Lake. Right now water just blows right through here, comes right through this 48 inch culvert, right next to it is a 21 and right now water still over tops that driveway and it just blows right through here am into Lotus Lake. There is nothing to slow it down, nothing to stop it, nothing to catch sediment. Whether it is piped or whether it is not, I think the berm am this poming area will have a tremendous effect on sedimentation. It gives us an area where we are looking at work on dredg ing every five years or so to take out the tremendous sediment load that I do expect from this area because we have a lot of growing sub:Hvisions that will ultimately come down this way including vista to the south and the John Kerber Estate, which again has been bought by Builder Development Finance which will drain this way. OVerall we do have a good drainage system. It is because of all the drainage that is coming through here that the developer is asking the City to think about this project. If the City were to proceed with the 429 improvement for this section of the storm sewer, preliminary review is proposed that a portion of it would be assessed to the north and a portion of it would be assessed to the south and at this point in time, that would be it. There is no proposal at this point in time to go back and assess the properties to the west or to the east, at this point in time, but I want to layout the whole thing for the Council because this decision is at their discretion. You are not being forced here to make a decision for or against the pipe. I do believe that what is being done on here, although the grading is some in question, what is being done down through here, again will be extremely beneficial to Lotus Lake because I have had numerous calls about the swirling and the sedimentation that occurs at this outlet fram people as far away as the other side of the lake. Mayor Hamil ton: I agree that is going to be really good for the lake but the thing I don't like is putting a creek in a pipe because it is a nice amenity now for wildlife, there are pheasants and other things there. Bill Monk: Even if we do preserve the creek, which would be done over the top. You would have to provide a creek for overland flow to get into this. There is no question that either solution to get something that is maintainable and the changes are very extensible. We looked at trying to stabilize the existing creek but it is virtually impossible. If you walk the creek, if you have walked it lately, I know you have all been up in here, but if you have walked the creek in several locations, the erosion is quite bad and in some places 8 to 10 feet. It is taking the sediment load right from the creek itself so maintenance has been a major concern. Council woman Swenson: Is this a natural erosion or is this created by developnent? Bill Monk: It is erosion that would occur naturally but there is no question it has been helped along because Chaparral does drain about 13 CFS through that creek that might otherwise would have been between 5 and 8 CFS so it has been helped. Councilwoman Watson: Part of Greenwood Shores drains through there. Bill Monk: Yes it does. It is a large drainage area. I would say that 2/3 24 I I I 59 City Council Meeting - July 14, 1986 I or at least 1/2 of the John Kerber farm comes down this way so there is an extensive amount of existing washing so the erosion would be taking place but probably not quite to the extent that it may be now. Councilman Horn: You are proposing if we would go to the ultimate underground system, then the areas to the west would be assessed? Bill Monk: Not at this point in time. We will look at that because if we do go with a 429, we have to back up to a feasibility study. I don't think we will go in that direction because those properties have paid an extensive amount to controll their rate in that large pond that is next to the pond in Chaparral, has a controlled outlet. They have done a credible job in keeping the runoff from that site at about the existing rate and have paid dearly to do that in both larrl and money to put in the improvements so at this point in time, I'm saying that most major improvements in this area would probably go to the adjacent properties. They are also making use of the pipes through direct connection. Councilman Horn: But every other time we have had a storm sewer assessment program, everyone who drains into that contributes to that improvement. I Bill Monk: In many of those cases, the upstream owners have not made the same attempt in both land and money. In some cases, potentially yes, but like I don't know, you take an example and this may get me in trouble, something like Western Hills in Lot 12. A lot of that drainage from Western Hill goes directly there, there is no attempt at sedimentation, ponding, major storm sewer in the streets and so on. A lot of it is low land drainage, goes right down to Lot 12 and zooms right down. I believe that in Chaparral they have four ponds. Major storm sewer throughout each one with controlled outlets so if the outlets from those ponds is equal to the existing and we make the same requirement on the Kerber Estate in that they provide porrls to control the outlet and make major storm sewer improvements so this pipe doesn't have to be sized to a 60 or 72 inch pipe because they do all those things. Councilman Horn: Yes, that is true but how do you equate, well because I made an attempt to reduce my water flow that I should pay this much less than the development who hasn't? I have never heard of that principal. Bill Monk: We did it before with Hidden Valley. We required that developer to put a 40 something inch pipe through the center of his development to handle the drainage from downtown. We did not assess the upstream. I think we have done it in a number of instances where if an attempt is being made by the upstream owners to control runoff and so on, that we have made it a requirement of the developer. I'm just saying at this point in time, at the preliminary look, the adj acent properties may well be the only ones to be assessed and they are aware of that. I Councilman Horn: But you are looking at it in terms of the developer. A lot of this storm sewer activity has happened in terms of individuals property owners long after the developer already moved away. The attempt has always been if you contributed to that water flow, you are part of the assessment. 25 t9?l1< V3 '-Lr" City Council Meeting - July 14, 1986 Bill Monk: '!hat is one of the reasons that this developer is proposing to do I it as a municipal improvement. If this becomes a municipal improvement because he doesn't believe that he should be responsible for the total cost. If the Council decides to go that route and handle this as a municipal project, those issues would be looked at. At this point in time though, the developer, at least to the north, has been made aware that Staff may make that recommendation to the Council as part of that study, that only the adjacent owners be assessed and that we not get into a huge assessment of all the properties in Chaparral and Greenwood Shores. At this point, whether they have been hesitant to accept that, have not objected but that would be looked at but that is one of the reasons that they are petitioning for this. Councilwoman Swenson: How large a pipe would you be considering using? Bill Monk: 'Ib handle the water from both the City and watershed prespective, it starts at a 24 inch next to Kerber Drive am the outlet pipe is a 42 inch. Again, those pipe sizes would be tremendously increased if upstream owners had not made an attempt. Councilwoman Swenson: And you would bury this under the creek? Bill Monk: Yes, then the creek would be regraded on top. Councilwoman Swenson: How are you going to keep the top of the creek from eroding am filling in? I Bill Monk: Stabilization, as you can see on this grading plan, all the~e heavy, solid lines through this area, regrading in there would be substantial and I believe 3 and 1 slopes would be established on both sides. A more gentle slope could be maintained am intermediate ditch blocks would be put in wi th a series of catch basins over each manhole along the way so that water could be caught up periodically as it goes through. Every attempt is being made as part of this plan to catch water as it goes down through the creek and minimize erosion because it is a major problem with that creek right now. Councilwoman Swenson: What you are saying is, I'm not going to think about the rest of the watershed for the moment, this particular development am the one to the south, we have danger really of losing the creek without taking care of it so this is, in essence, a means of preserving the creek. We will still have a natural amenity but now you are talking about emptying into this holding area. The water from a 40 inch pipe am this creek and we have all this corning in here and we are going to have a hay and straw bale ditch check off of the construction area which is a drop of about 50 feet, as close as I can figure. Now it is a 70 foot drop from the cul-de-sac down to where the catch basins are going to be because it is 970 here then 30 here so it has to be a 70 foot drop down here and we are going to have this corning in here and then you are going to take it out with a 21 inch pipe. What is this going to do to the private property that is on the north, Pope's driveway for instance. How are you going to be sure that this area you have here is actually, let's say we have two 100 year floods or three in a row and we've talked about this before. After this unfortunate situation that we had, that we have to look at something from the ultimate catastro[he and will it hold. I heard about these I 26 (J',) -.. >~'" j...' ~ .~ 1!.. City Council Meeting - July 14~ 1986 I 11313 year flood things and I was always very much impressed until one year we have three 11313 year floods wi thin three weeks or rains. I guess I'm worried about all of this water. It's one thing to have a creek flowing in albeit with erosion then it is a different thing to have all this with a pipe. I'm worried about this. I Bill Monk: O1e of the number of concerns in that area, right now what you've got is all that water from the vacant sites and from the developed sites comes down and it kind of roars through that creek and goes through the existing two pipes and on it's way to the lake. The intent is being made here to actually build a dike. A dike has been built now west of that existing driveway so the driveway is not needed anymore to act as a dike. There is a separate dike there that has been built as part of this subdivision. That 21 inch pipe will allow water from the creek to go through it and a certain amount to continue on it's way on a regulated basis. This is an intermediate pond or basically it will function as a dry pond kind of set up. Water will build up behind that dike, be discharged out that 21 inch pipe am be released. As you can see the property over to the north, if you look at the grading plan, the elevation is approximately 924 before you get on to pri vate property. The elevation of the dike is 924. Should anything occur and let's say you have three 11313 year storms one day after another and it can't discharge out the 21 inch pipe fast enough. Basically what it would do is overtop the berm and follow the existing channel out to the water. That provision is always made as a part of any subdivision that you don't create an internal pond that will flood people. We have taken care on this to make sure that the properties to the north, because if you are familar with Carver Beach and you look at the grading plan in this location, the wetlands or the lowlands just keep going all the way up through a major portion of Carver Beach which is wetlands all the way up through that entire area. The intent was not to back water up into that. That was not the intent. That was why the berm and the elevation in this location was chosen so that water would not be ponded off-site because you don't want to get into a detrimental type of situation but that spillover is always there. In that instance you would have a situation that would be similar to existing. Councilwoman Watson: That is what I was thinking. It would almost be exactly the same as it is right now. It always overflows right now so the only time we would really suffer from this sudden swoosh of water that just takes the dirt am goes down there, if we were to have three 11313 year rains in a week or something. Bill Monk: If you were to have tremendous storms on top of each other or that 7 1/2 inch rain in one day, which has happened. Councilwoman Watson: But it wouldn't be any worse than it is right now at it's worse moment. I Bill Monk: The good thing about this is the 11313 year storm or the smaller events, would be totally contained except that major sediment would be dropped and then it would go through the pipeline on it's way. There would be some increase in drainage due to this development and potential development down here but in creating this, they definitely are handling their own situations 27 1'20> (yo City Council Meeting - July l4~ 1986 and also trying to handle the situation of upstream properties. The other I thing that the 21 inch pipe does is it does allow this property, there is one more property to the east, the Moulton property. As that develops, that creek goes across the Moulton property, this size reduction in here will allow them also to downsi ze their improvements so I mean everybody along the way has made attempts to handle their own drainage so no one owner has to pick up the entire. . . Councilwoman Watson: When that property were to develop, some sort of ponding or some sort of system be done there that would even improve this situation? Bill Monk: They will have to do some on site to theirs but they will also then have to provide a way for this to get off. Councilwoman Watson: Because should the three Hm year storms occur, this starts washing over. Eventually down there, that property then they would have ponding that would slow it down again or pick it up which would never get worse then it is right now. Bill Monk: I really see this as a tremendous benefit. Councilwoman Watson: This whole issue has been discussed for a long time because I remember the first time I saw assessments was long before I ever came down here. Bill Monk: About 7 years ago, 8 years ago this was a major project when I Western 3rd was proposed to do a major storm sewer improvement that included Greenwood Shores. Councilwoman Watson: Then it got kind of dropped for the time being and then Chaparral came in and was willing to accept the responsibility for it and Greenwood Shores ended up literally not doing anything because Chaparral took the responsibility for ponding. Bill Monk: TO do it on-site, that is correct and they were restricted to the outlet from that pond next to the park, so eveybody is basically being required to do what they can do on-site and that is the only reason for my comment about how assessments may well be handled. If it was done as a municipal improvement. Again, the petition is to handle this southern storm sewer as a municipal project. Mayor Hamilton: This would be 100% assessed? Bill Monk: That is proposed at this point in time to some land owners, yes. At this point in time it looks like it will be adjacent land owners north and south. Councilwoman Swenson: If they were to put this in themselves, it would have to be according to specifications already established? Bill Monk: Yes it would. Extensive work has already been done and it would I not be useless if the City were brought into the project but we would have to 28 ~~ f)1. \C$(!]) City Council Meeting - July 14, 1986 I back up and still do the municipal process. Do a feasibility study, hold a public hearing and go through those issues, but this work would not be just ignored. It has been engineered quite extensively. Mayor Hamilton: What is your position on this Bill? Is it something you think the City should undertake or is it a project the developer should do? Bill Monk: At this point in time it would be a lot more simple if the developer were to do it but I guess after looking at the overall benefit to all the properties involved, I can see the reasonableness in the City doing it as a 429 project. Basically buying for and doing it as an assessment project. Mayor Hamilton: How many years would it run? Bill Monk: I'm sure if we were to assess it out it would be somewhere between 5 and 8 years. At this point in the meeting the sound system was turned off due to a loud hum in the speakers. I The Council decided that they wanted to talk to Chanhassen vista about their feelings on this storm sewer improvement proj ect and if Chanhassen vista am Iaukka Development could work together on this, they would prefer that over it being done as a municipal project. Councilwoman Swenson moved, Councilwoman Watson seconded to table consideration of the Petition for Storm Sewer Improvements Across Outlot A until after the July 21, 1986 meeting at which time Council would be talking with Chanhassen vista regarding their view on this improvement project. All voted in favor of tabling the motion and the motion carried. Councilman Horn moved, Mayor Hamil ton seconded to approve construction plans and specifications for improvements as submitted including storm sewer along the creek alignment. All voted in favor am motion carried. Councilwoman Watson stated she had received a complaint from Art Partridge regarding a zoning ordinance violation and he was not pleased with the way the City was handling the situation and the letter he had received from the City Attorney. Councilwoman Watson stated she had read the letter from Roger Knutson to Art Partridge and felt the letter was inappropriate. Mayor Hamilton stated that he had visited the site today and had talked with Mrs. Barrett. He stated she was very cooperative and that the area looked better than he could remember it looking in the past and could see no evidence of a zoning ordinance violation. Mayor Hamilton asked the City Manager to talk with Mr. Partridge to find out what would resolve the issue and to talk with Roger Knutson and ask him to clarify his letter to Mr. Partridge. I Councilwoman Swenson moved, Councilwoman Watson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and motion carried. '!he meeting was adjourned at 10: 20 p.m.. Prepared by Nann Opheim 29