1986 07 21
~r:;,
~~U}
I
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
July 21, 1986
Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order. '!he meeting was opened with the
Pledge to the Flag.
Members Present:
Councilman Horn, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilman Geving and Councilwoman
Watson.
Staff Present:
Don Ashworth, City Manager; Bill Monk, City Engineer; Barbara Dacy, City
Planner; Todd Gerhardt, Intern; Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Board
Representative; Roger Knutson, City Attorney.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilwoman Watson moved, Mayor Hamil ton secondErl to
approve the agenda as presented. All voted in favor and motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA:
Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the following
consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations:
I
1. b.
Resolution #86-45: Accept utilities for Near Mountain 5th and 6th
Addi tions and Trappers Pass.
c. Preliminary and final plat approval to divide 2.15 acres into 2
single family lots of 1.15 acres and 1.0 acres on property locatErl at
6240 Hummingbird Road, Evelyn Lohr.
All votErl in favor and motion carried.
Councilwoman Swenson stated she would like to discuss briefly Item lea) (1,2,3)
of the Consent Agenda. Due to the length of the agenda, the i tern was
discussed at this point in the meeting instead of at the end of the meeting.
Councilwoman Swenson stated that Item F on Sections 1, 2 and 3 of the
Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance be amended to read as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 6.04, subparagraph 10 of Ordinance 47, the Zoning
Ordinance, Item F is amended to read as follows:
I
F. No recreational beach lot shall be usErl for purposes of overnight storage
or overnight mooring of more than three (3) motorized or non-motorized
watercraft per dock. If a recreational beach lot is allowErl more than one
dock, however, the allowErl number of boats may be clustered. Up to three
(3) sail boat moorings shall also be allowed. Canoes, windsurfers, sail
boards, and small sail boats may be stored overnight on any recreational
beach lot if they are stored on racks specifically designErl for that
purpose. No more than one (1) rack shall be allowed per dock. No more
than six (6) watercraft may be stored on a rack. DockiO] of other
watercraft or seaplanes is permissible at any time other than overnight.
1
e6
City Council Meeting - July 21, 1986
SECTION 2. Section 7.04, subparagraph 9 of Ordinance 47, the Zoning
Ordinance-; Item F is amended to read as follows:
F. No recreational beach lot shall be used for purposes of overnight storage
or overnight mooring of more than three (3) motorized or non-motorized
watercraft Per dock. If a recreational beach lot is allowed more than one
dock, however, the allowed number of boats may be clustered. Up to three
(3) sail boat moorings shall also be allowed. Canoes, windsurfers, sail
boards, and small sail boats may be stored overnight on any recreational
beach lot if they are stored on racks SPecifically designed for that
purpose. No more than one (1) rack shall be allowed per dock. No more
than six (6) watercraft may be stored on a rack. Docking of other
watercraft or seaplanes is permissible at any time other than overnight.
SECTION 3. Section 14.04, subparagraph 2 of Ordinance 47, the Zoning
Ordinance-; Item F be amended to read as follows:
F. No recreational beach lot shall be used for purposes of overnight storage
or overnight mooring of more than three (3) motorized or non-motorized
watercraft Per dock. If a recreational beach lot is allowed more than one
dock, however, the allowed number of boats may be clustered. Up to three
(3) sail boat moorings shall also be allowed. Canoes, windsurfers, sail
boards, and small sail boats may be stored overnight on any recreational
beach lot if they are stored on racks specifically designed for that
purpose. No more than one (1) rack shall be allowed per dock. No more
than six (6) watercraft may be stored on a rack. Docking of other
watercraft or seaplanes is permissible at any time other than overnight.
SEX:TION 1. Section 3.04 of Ordinance No. 73 is amended to read:
Except for privately owned commercial resorts or commercial boat landings
established prior to the adoption of this ordinance, no person shall moor
overnight, dock overnight or store overnight more than three (3)
watercraft and one sailboat mooring on any lakeshore site or upon the
waters of any lake. Canoes, windsurfers, sailboards, and small sail boats
may also be stored overnight. Overnight docking, mooring, and storage is
further restricted to watercraft owned by the owner/occUPant or
renter/occupant of the lakeshore site home to which the dock, storage, or
mooring site is an accessory use.
Councilwoman Swenson moved, Councilwoman Watson seconded to accept the
following Item 1. (a) as amended. All voted in favor and motion carried.
1. a.
Beachlots:
1) Final reading of an amendment to Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance No.
47 to amend Section 6.04, Section 7.04 ,and Section 14.04
(Recreational Beachlots) .
2)
Final reading of an Amendment to Section 3.04 of Water Surface
Usage Ordinance No. 73.
3)
Review Lotus Lake Estates Beachlot Site Plan.
2
I
I
I
I
I
I
ell
City Council Meeting - July 21, 1986
VISITOR PRESENTATION:
Margie Gargi10tty, 7413 Frontier Trail, stated she is the new president of the
Lotus Lake Homeowners Association (LLHA) as of July 1, 1986. She was present
representing LLHA on behalf of a letter they had received from the City
Manager on July 11th which implied that the cost of enforcing city ordinances
is perhaps more than the City can or is will ing to spend and if that is the
case, why does the City bother to make ordinances? The letter implies that it
is up to the citizens to enforce the ordinance which they know can't be. It
is the City's responsibility. LLHA stated they would like in writing how the
City plans to enforce beach10t and water surface usage ordinances.
Don Ashworth stated he could prepare a response letter to that question.
PUBLIC HEARING
VACATION OF UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT REQUEST, LOT h BLOCK h CHANHASSEN
MEADOWS, PHASE IV, KEVIN MARl NAN .
Barbara Dacy: '!he last phase of the Chanhassen Meadows Apartment project was
approved by the Council in 1984 an::] was under construction this sprim an::]
summer. During the construction process for the garage, there arose the
question as to where the utility an::] sewer line was in awroximate1y the
middle of the property. In trying to avoid the line in over the easement, the
garage was placed into the rear 10 foot utility easement so that at minimum it
encroaches 1.3 feet at this point and extends to 1.9 feet or almost 2 feet
into the rear utility easement. Suwosed1y when they were measurim the
distance and the dimension of the garage, it was measured from the building
an::] not the rear lot line. As the Council is also aware, there is a 10 foot
rear setback. '!hey would have to obtain a variance as well. We have
scheduled one for the August 4th Board of Adjustment meeting. This 10 foot
utility easement was created when the plat was done last year. It is the
standard requirement on all of our plats that utility easements line lots to
provide for access for any type of utility or frontage need. All utility
companies have been notified, Minnegasco, NSP and Northwestern Bell. There
are no lines currently in this rear easement and they have not stated any
objections. As far as the City is concerned, again, we have the sewer main in
the center easement and not along the rear. Staff's recommendation is to
awrove the vacation of just this portion of the easement that will allow the
remainder of the easement to remain subject to the Board of Adjustment and
Appeals grantim a variance at the August 4th meeting. The aw1icant had
called earlier and said that he would not be able to attend the meeting. He
is in Chaska at another meetim at their Council meeting. He said he would
try and make it.
Councilman Geving stated the applicant must have thought this item was not
very important.
Mayor Hamilton: When this happens, is there any precedent for assessing a
charge for the developer exceedim where he ought to on this property?
Barbara Dacy: I guess a charge that he sees incurring is a $100.00
application fee for the vacation and $75.00 aw1ication fee for the variance
3
/7;0
"'"il;,',)
'-'...J_
City Council Meeting ~ July 21, 1986
and there is also; if you want to call it, the headache that the developer had I
to go through to get the cloud removed fran the title.
Mayor Hamilton: I would suspect you could determine how many square feet has
been taken am what the value of that is. It is a private piece of property
that he built on, he would have to pay whoever owned it what the value is.
Barbara Dacy: It is wi thin your prevy to deny the vacation if you so choose
and then obviously the building would have to be removed from the easement.
Mayor Hamilton: I'm not saying they should remove the building. I'm saying
we should assess the charge for taking that land that wasn't his.
Bill Monk: I was just going to clarify a point. You have to remember that
even though this situation should have been avoided at all cost, it is an
easement on his own property. It isn't like it is City land. If it was
extending beyond the property line, what you are saying could well be the
case. That he could be assesserl damages for going onto city property but
there is a legal difference between an easement and ownership.
Mayor Hamil ton: Then we don't own the property, all we do is have the right to
have drainage utility set there.
Councilwoman Watson:
are you going to say,
him come and pay the
exists.
'!he variance process is unusal. If that passes, what
move the building? It is nothing for formal i ty to have
$75.00 and ask for a variance where the building already
I
Mayor Hamilton asked if there was anyone present from the public with any
comments on this item. There was no response. Councilman Geving moved,
Councilman Horn seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and
motion carried.
Resolution #86-46: Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamil ton seconded to
approve the vacation request #86-5 subject to obtaining a variance from the
Board of Adjustments and Appeals. All voted in favor and motion carried.
Councilman Geving stated that any future applications such as this should not
be considered unless the applicant is present at the meeting.
Councilwoman Swenson stated that the City Building Inspector should be a
little more cautious about where buildings are being put on before the
foundation is put in am the City gets into a situation where it is
unreasonable for the developer to move the building.
AWARDS OF BIDS
Mayor Hamilton stated he wanted to thank Mr. Bob Sanders for all the services
he has providerl for the City of Chanhassen over the years am gooo luck in his
retirement endeavors.
I
4
I
I
I
I
g.~
''-,' "..?j
:E_C~
City Council Meeting - July 21, 1986
Andy Merry and Bob Sander were present to publicly open the bids: Andy Merry
stated that they had prepared the official statement and had sent it out to 33
separate dealers in New York, Chicago and locally. Moody's rated the City of
BAA was reconfirmed again. They also sent an official statement to New York
for MBIA Insurance qualification. By qualifying for MBIA Insurance, it
elevates the rating on the bonds to AM. status and the City qua1ifiErl for MBIA
coverage.
Resolution #86-47: Councilman Horn moved, Councilwoman seconded to award the
sale of $4,534,237.50 for General Obligation Improvement Bond for 1986
to First National Bank of Minneapolis. The minimum bid for this
particular issue was $4,525,007.00 so the company has exceedErl the minimum
purchase price. The net interest cost is $2,923,062.50 which produces a net
effective interest rate of 7.5653%. All voted in favor except Councilman
Geving who opposed. The motion carried.
There were two bids received for the sale of General Obligation Equipment
Certificates:
1.
First National Bank of Minneapolis
Net Interest Cost:
Net Effective Interest Rate:
$191,587.50
$38,706.25
6.5327%
2.
Mark Kott Hume and Associates
Net Interest Cost:
Net Effective Interest Rate:
$192,094.50
$38,024.24
6.418%
Resolution #86-48: Councilman Horn moved, Councilwoman Watson seconded to
award the sale of $192,094.50 to Mark Kott Hurne and Associates for the General
Obligation Equipment Certificates. All voted in favor except Councilman
Geving who opposed. Motion carried.
Mr. Merry stated that these bids were submitted without benefit of MBIA
insurance. In other words, the underwriters wanted to bid the City of
Chanhassen's credit on a stand only basis without the enhancement which Andy
Merry stated lends some credibility to the fact that the mme contines to 00 a
good and recoginizab1e name in the market and even with the insurance, the net
effective rate for the city still can not exceErl a better rate for the city
than a stand alone basis which says something pretty good about the city.
At this point Bob Sander made his presentation regarding market trends,
interest rates and the current economic status while Andy Merry check the
accurancy of the bids. Andy Merry stated that the bids were all accurate.
Mr. Merry also stated, as a point of interest, on the General Obligation
Improvement Bond, because the bid carne in actually below what had been last
forcasted on May 28, 1986, the debt service savings over the life of the issue
amounts to approximately $50,000.00. The average coupon rate is 12 basis
points stronger and the net interest cost is 13 basis points to the ci ty's
benefit. On the General Obligation Equipment Certificate, the average coupon
rate is 32 basis points to the city's oonefit and the net effective rate is 47
basis points or almost half a percent.
5
70
City Council Meeting - July 21, 1986
The next item of discussion was selecting a Registrar and Paying Agent for the I
two issues. Andy Merry took the liberty of asking for bids. He had not
heard from Norwest Bank yet. He had received a written proposal from First
Trust Company and a copy of their fee schErlule. In general terms, there is a
$500.00 set-up fee per issue to put the bonds on their computer system and the
administrative fees on the larger bond will run an average of $500.00-
$1,000.00 per year and the smaller issue will run an average of $300.00-
$600.00 per year. The City is subject to fee increases when they oo::ur on
occasion. '!hey also have a program where you can pay them an up-front one
time fee, which in certain respects offers a discount, am in the event there
are fee increases during the life of the issue, the fee increase is not passed
along to the City because it has been prepaid for the services that they will
provide. On the large issue their one time fee would be $11,500.00 and on the
smaller issue, their one time fee would be $2,675.00 so you can see by the
pricing that they expect a lot more activity on the larger issue plus the goes
over 18 years.
Don Ashworth stated he would like to put the item of selecting a Registrar and
Pay Agent on the August 4, 1986 meeting agenda.
Councilwoman Swenson moved, Councilman Geving seconded that Don Ashworth,
City Manager and Andy Merry be assignErl the responsibility to obtain the
lowest responsible bid to carry out the work of selecting a Registrar and
Paying Agent am authorizing them to sign the documents to do that. All
voted in favor and motion carried.
I
LAKE DRIVE EAST IMPROVEMENTS BE'IWEEN DAKOTA AVENUE AND TH 101.
Bill Monk: City Council has gone through the improvement process for street
am drainage improvements to rake Drive East between Dakota Avenue and TH 101
and at this point you are prepared to review bids received for actual
construction. Six bids were received, the low bid being Preferred Pav ing Inc.
in the amount of $336,544.70. '!he second bid was extremely close, Midwest
Asphal t Corporation in the amount of $337,722.35. The bids have been
verified. Council is quite well versed in this improvement project and unless
there are specific questions, Staff is recommending that the low bidder,
Preferred Paving, Inc. be awarded the construction contract for this
improvement.
Counci lman Geving asked what factors accounted for the bids to come in at 10%
higher than estimatErl in the feasibility study.
Bill Monk stated the inclusion of a sidewalk along one side of the road was
not includErl in the feasibility study. The other item was that MnDot had
requested that the TH 101 widening improvements be enlarged beyond what had
first been anticipated because this was preceErling the other extension of rake
Drive East so they were requiring more TH 101 improvements as part of this
project instead of one half of one and half of another which had first been
estimated because we weren't sure which project was going to go first. '!hose
two items make up for the difference.
I
6
I
I
I
rJ"".l
(J 1.
City Council Meeting - July 21, 1986
Council woman Watson moved, Mayor Hamil ton seconded to award the bid for the
lake Drive East Improvements between Dakota Avenue and 'IH 101 to Preferred
Paving, Inc. in the amount of $336,544.70. All voted in favor and motion
carried.
1986 SEALCOATING BIDS.
Bill Monk: As in the past two years, the City received two bids on the
sealcoatinJ program. About 6 1/2 miles of street maps are enclosed. Council
reviewed those not too long ago. Allied Blacktop came in with an extremely
low bid of $72,323.00. Buffalo Bituminous, Inc.'s bid was $82,465.00. Staff
is recommending that Allied Blacktop be awarded the bid. We are looking
forward to doinJ the project in the warmer weather so we get a little bit
better product and end result on the sealcoating operation.
Councilwoman Watson moved, Mayor Hamil ton seconderl to award the 1986
Sealcoating Bid to Allied Blacktop Company in the amount of $72,323.00. All
voted in favor and motion carried.
Councilwoman Swenson asked if this included the sealcoating of any curbing.
Bill Monk stated that if there is bituminous curb, then chances are the oil
will spill over and rock will cover it up but the intent is to seal all
bituminous surface on the streets designated.
Councilman Geving stated that $100,000.00 had been levied and he asked what
happens to the difference between the amount levied and amount of the bid.
Bill Monk stated one thing you have to remember when you award a contract
like this is that it is based, especially on a sealcoat program, on your best
estimates of exactly how much you will use. It could go over or under this
amount by a little bit. If there is an excess of funds left over, it would
probably stay in the general fund.
Councilwoman Swenson: I'm a little dismayed because when I made the
recommendation to levy at 2 mils, you are supposed to have $120,000.00 a year
that is going to go into the street fund period and the funds from that is
not sUH;>osed to be diverted to anything else. I'm not sure I like the idea of
this going into the general fund and then being disbursed into someplace else.
M3yor Hamil ton: -It can be carried over.
Councilwoman Swenson: '!his is fine but I don't like the suggestion that it
can be transferred to something else because I think it has to be carried over
into the street fund. It is earmarked for that.
Bill Monk: That would be Council's decision. Staff would not make that
decision.
Councilwoman Swenson: But that decision though was made in the beginning when
we levied the 2 mils to begin with. That was a set fact that those 2 mils
were strictly for street maintenance and repair.
7
',1-9
C I~l,
City Council Meeting ~ July 21, 1986
Mayor Hamilton: I don't think that eliminates another Council member or staff I
member from suggesting that some of those fuoos be use] for another purpose.
Councilwoman Swenson: I think we were very specific about that at the time
and I don't think this comes into the realm of a Council discretion because it
seems to me we're talking about a levy now, we're not talking about any type
of decision.
Mayor Hamilton: My only comment is that I don't think you can eliminate
somebody from at least requesting some other use or something. I sUfPOse it
would then be up to the Council to decide but I understand what you are
saying. I agree that this would be used for the street am I would like to
see it carried it over into that same fund so that next year would have
$120,000.00 plus whatever is carried over.
Don Ashworth: In previous years the total amount allocated has gone totally
to street programs. I think what Bill is saying is that we will carry out
this year's program as with last year we came back to Council with other
streets that we felt we could add in at that point in time. Council will
receive a report as to total expenditures made for paving. If there are
monies remaining you will have the choice as to how, if you wish to see those
carried over or to use.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Councilwoman Swenson moved, Councilman Horn seconded to
the City Council meeting dated July 7, 1986 as amended.
Councilwoman Watson and Councilman Horn voted in favor.
Councilman Geving abstained. Motion carried.
approve the Minutes of
Councilwoman Swenson,
Mayor Hamilton and
I
Councilwoman Watson moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the Minutes
of the Planning Commission meeting dated June 25, 1986. All voted in favor
and motion carried.
Mayor Hamil ton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the Minutes of the
Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated July 3, 1986. All voted in favor
and motion carried.
Councilwoman Swenson moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the Minutes of
the Park and Recreation Commission Special Meeting dated June 23, 1986. All
voted in favor and motion carried.
ROCONSIDERATION OF SEWER EXTENSION REQUEST, LOTS 977 AND 1002-1006, CARVER
BEACH, TERRY COOK.
Don Ashworth: City Council had reviewed the site previously and had
instructed the City Attorney's office to prepare Findings of Facts. Those
findings are included in the City Council packet. In the course of that
review, the question really became one of how similar lots had been acted upon I
by the City Council and it was noted at that point in time, that in similar
situations, the Council had approved a building permit for the applicant and no
8
I
I
I
Fj~
(j (U~
City Council Meeting - July 21, 1986
variances were required: According1y~ this item was presented back to the
City Council. The Council on July 14th acted to approve reconsideration. The
i tern has been pub1 ished and is back on the agenda this evening to be
reconsidered.
Councilwoman Watson: Just the one comment. In preparation of the Findings of
Facts, the City Attorney's office had an opportunity to review similar size
lots in Carver Beach area. This disclosure reflected that the Council has
consistently approved building permits for similar size lots. I don't know
that I agree with that 100%. I'm not saying we haven't approved building
permits on lots of similar size. I guess my question there is, and something
that maybe we have to give more thought to all along the way is, if we can't
view things on their own merit but rather have to view all these things as a
whole then maybe we can't give building permits on small lots if we are going
to have to consistently go back am view everyone of them as the same. That
leaves no room for discretion for you to decide that certain circumstances
warrant that one lot...
Roger Knutson: I guess what it goes back to, and I don't even know who I got
the information from, a member of the Staff, in that area there are homes
built on similar sized lots.
Councilwoman Watson: I don't doubt that for a minute but to say that the
Council is consistently granting building permits...
Roger Knutson: All I'm saying is that there are homes builtin that area on
similar size lots and you might want to take that into consideration. As far
as precedence and all that, every situation is different but they are similar.
The Courts try to treat th=m similar am that is always th= difficult
questions. Is it similar or is it not?
Councilwoman Watson: Then I think that is almost a whole policy that we are
either going to have to decide if we are going to like them all or are we
going to have to decide we don't like any of them?
Mayor Hamilton: That is why there is a precedent. <:nce you set a precedent
you need to be careful in what you do because you set th= policy.
Councilwoman Watson: But the same could be said of lot sizes in developments
then.
Don Ashworth: When you get into variances, you have an ordinance and that
ordinance requires whatever it happens to be and I think the Council saw that
at another issue here in the last two weeks. If you have an ordinance and you
consistently apply that, you do not have a problem. When you provide a
variance to that ordinance and after you have provided say five variances and
th=y are all similar in nature, you have pretty well dictated that that is
your policy.
Councilman Geving: This is a procedure question that I vigorously object to.
I think that sometimes that we make work for ourselves. Tonight we have an
agenda of 18 items and this particular item was brought before the Council
9
'14
City Council Meeting - July 21, 1986
about one month ago, I don't remember the date exactly, but it was discussed I
and all the facets of the application were reviewed and it was subsequently
denied. We had a Findings of Fact to prove that point. Whenever we have an
applicant that comes before us to present his case, that is one thing and we
will discuss that but when we bring these things back without the applicant
even probably being in the audience here tonight, on our own, I question
whether or not we ever do anything in it's finality. I thought we had denied
this case and we denied it on merit. I believe we probably spent about
$200.00 in attorney's fees in writing up several opinions on this and it just
bothers me that we continue to plow the same old ground over and over again.
Once we make a decision, it seems like it is never final and it bothers me
also that procedurally the applicant should be making this petition to us
, rather than corning back from our City Attorney. cne of the points to be made
here is that an individual bought a piece of land from the Tax Court. Paid
fair price for it. He took his chances that this was a buildable lot and it
was not a buildable lot. It doesn't meet our City Ordinance 47-J and as such,
it doesn't have the sewer unless we extend it to the lot. He knew that at the
time that he was taking a substantial risk so I really don't see too merits of
having this corne to us time and again. Finally it will get passed by a Board
such as this tonight or another board in the future but what I'm trying to
point out to you is that the character of this particular neighborhood could
change substantially by allowing a 10,000 square foot lot be created and a
house placed on it. As I indicated in my previous discussion, there are 13
such potential lots in this particular neighborhood located on Carver Beach
Road and if we want to have a neighborhood that looks like a lot of small I
lots, 10,000 square feet and a setback of 30 feet, both front and back, then
you can have that if that is what you desire of Carver Beach but it has been
the intention of this Council since 1976 to make Carver Beach area a very
nice, livable area. We have substantially built larger lots, nicer homes,
removed a lot of the shacks that were down there and I think we have upgraded
the whole area of Carver Beach considerably. Anybody that lives in Carver
Beach right now knows what I'm talking about and if we attempt to do what we
are talking about tonight by reconsidering this item merely because it has
been brought back to us for reconsideration and we allow it to pass, then I
think we are making a big mistake. First, from a procedural standpoint
because it was not brought before us as a petition by the owner, Mr. Terry
Cook. We are considering it and reconsidering ourselves when I thought we had
already denied it. I happen to sit on too Board of Adjustments and Appeals
for the past 10 years and we look at each piece of property in its entirety as
differently as any other piece when we are looking at that particular
application for a variance. Notwithstanding that there are sometimes
precedences that we create. Carol knows what I'm talking about there. We do
create precedent because a particular situation will allow a building be
placed on a lot. Now we haven't denied this particular individual anything.
He took his chances when he bought the piece of property in the Tax Court. At
that time he knew it was unbuildable. It was a 10,000 square foot lot. The
minimum standard is 15,000 square feet with a variance thing prior to 1972.
So again, I'm saying to each of my cohorts here, let's not make work for
ourselves and continually bring these things back to the point that
eventually they will get approved and will destroy a neighborhood. That is I
the end of my cornnents.
10
I
I
I
70
City Council Meeting ~ July 21, 1986
Councilman Horn: I was not the one who made the motion for reconsideration
but I do have to support the decision that was made and it does follow exactly
City Council procedures that any Council member who votes a majority in a
certain issue and has second thoughts about their vote, it is well within
Council procedure for them to ask for reconsideration of a particular motion.
That was the case that happened at this time but unfortunately you were out of
town that evening but the motion was made for reconsideration and I think we
followed appropriate procedure. I think the other arguments are appropriate
and well worth restating. en the other hand, I think there are some things
that precedence does dictate to us and that is the reason we have things
called arbitrary and capricious which means that we deviate from precedent and
policy that we have set in the past. I think we were well within our bounds
of procedure to bring this back and I think we all have to consider precedent
and other issues, the condition of the neighborhood and everything when we
vote on the motion here this evening.
Councilwoman Swenson: I think everything has been said. We all received our
letters from the Attorney. In fact, I think Mr. Waibel, a point which I had
missed when this was brought up before, had stated that there was indeed a
building site provided and that city water and sewer could be put in. Mr. Cook
has stated that he will pay for these things. '!here will be expense to the
city. There is little or no possibility that that road will be extended. I
can't see that we are going to create such a terrible situation by granting
this. Actually, if we do not grant it, we will be in a position of taking
something without having any means of use of this property for the owner and
that constitutes a taking. A fact that I really hadn't thought out but it
came up before and having thought it out, I realized that my decision was
incorrect and that is why I requested the reconsideration.
Councilman Geving: I think you are making a mistake.
Mayor Hamilton: I think I will just reiterate that we have an Attorney that
gives us legal counsel and he has suggested that we perhaps need to be careful
with this one. In the past, it is a taking and. if we end up in Court, there is
a very good liklihood that we would lose. Consequently, I guess I agree that
it certainly is reasonable to bring it back tonight to reconsider it.
Councilman Geving moved, Councilwoman Watson seconded to deny the Sewer
Extension Request for Lots 977 and Lots 1002-1006, Carver Beach Road for Terry
Cook. Councilman Geving and Councilwoman Watson voted in favor of denial.
Councilman Horn, Councilwoman Swenson and Mayor Hamil ton voted to oppose denial
of the request. M:>tion was defeated.
Councilwoman Swenson moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded that the Sewer Extension
Request for Lots 977 and Lots 1002-1006, Carver Beach, Terry Cook be approved
with the understanding that all expenses for such extension and for the
roadway to the eastern section of his lot line will be carried out by Terry
Cook. '!here will be no expense to the City. Councilwoman Swenson, Councilman
Horn and Mayor Hamilton voted in favor. Councilwoman Watson and Councilman
Geving opposed. M:>tion carried.
11
r7~
tfG"
City Council Meeting - July 21, 1986
I
APPROVAL OF ACCOUNTS
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilwoman Watson seconded to approve check numbers
023850 through 023980 in the amount of $1,699,141.59 and check numbers 026757
through 026935 in the amount of $1,278,898.05 dated July 21, 1986. All voted
in favor and motion carried.
PARK AND ROCREATION RELATED REQUESTS:
a. CHAPARRAL RESIDENTS REQUEST TO PURCHASE A LOT FOR A NEIGHBORHOOD
PLAYLOT. - - - --
b. MINNEWASHTA HOMEOWNERS REQUEST FOR A TRAILWAY ALONG MINNEWASHTA
--
PARKWAY.
c. CARVER BEACH HOMEOWNERS REQUEST FOR A TRAILWAY ALONG CARVER BEACH
ROAD. --
Lori Sietsema: The Park and Recreation Commission recently reviewed a request
made by a number of homeowners in the Chaparral area for the City to purchase
a lot at 6821 Redwing Lane for park purposes. The homeowners feel that the
existing parks in the area are too far to send their small children. The lot
is located right here and the two dominant parks in the area are Carver Beach
playground and Meadow Green Park. Carver Beach playground is 2 blocks from I
that area and Meadown Green Park is about six blocks from the area. The area
lies within the service area of about four parks total. Those are the two
closest. This is a map showing park deficient areas. The park deficient
areas are not in the area in question. I contacted the owner of the vacant
lot. They are asking $24,500.00 for that lot. Park and Recreation Commission
did not feel there was justification to purchase tre lot with the number of
parks in the area. The Park and Recreation Commission is recommending that
the request be denied due to sufficient existing parks. Mr. Nordby who wrote
the letter with this request was here earlier but had to leave and he just
wanted to reiterate that there have been a number of close calls with small
children in the streets and they felt that there are about 15 children who are
very, very close within this one lot and he felt this would eliminate a
potential problem. I indicated that perhaps maybe it was a traffic problem
more than a park problem. The Park and Recreation Commission did not feel
at this time that they wanted to set precedence to start putting small
playgrounds in each neighborhood so that was another reason for recommending
denial.
Councilwoman Watson stated she felt that these kind of play areas don't solve
the problem, they almost create them. There is no such place as a safe place
to send a 3 year old by themselves. A child that age should always be
accompanied by an adult and if an adult is with them, then they can easily
make use of the other parks in the neighborhood.
Councilman Geving: I have a comment that is kind of related to all three of I
these requests that we are looking at tonight and it involves the fact that we
need a park plan and trails plan and if there are any of the Park and Rec
12
I
I
I
FJ7
(j ()
City Council Meeting - July 21, 1986
people out in the audience, I think they will recognize that we are kind of
getting by by the seat of our britches on parks, trails am plans. I think
there are enough interested citizens such as the person who proposed this,
Phyllis Pope, we could resurrect her from the old Park and Rec team 10 years
ago and others who might be interested enough to work on a committee with the
Park and Recreation people and develop such a plan am I have such a plan. I
have been working independently. I told Lori some time ago that I would
develop a plan with her am for her but I think we are at a point where we
need some citizens help and I would like to propose is that we advertize
opening for park people. people who would like to work on a park am trails
plan and let's develop one for the city and not get too prematurely involved
in looking at individual requests like this particular one or the Minnewashta
homeowners and others but develop a whole plan for the city once and for all.
We need to do that so that is the only thing I wanted to add am I would be
very willing to work on that to complete my plan with the help of others.
Sue Boyt: That is in our last minutes. The Park and Recreation Cormnission is
requesting that a plan be made.
Councilman Geving: What I'm saying is let's turn it around and let the people
in Chanhassen build the plan.
Sue Boyt: We want input from the people. '!hat is in our plan for public
hearings.
Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Geving seconded to deny the request to
purchase the lot for a neighborhood playlot for Chaparral. All voted in favor
of denial and motion carried.
Councilwoman Watson moved, Councilman Horn seconded to table Minnewashta
Homeowners request for a trailway along Minnewashta parkway and Carver Beach
Homeowners request for a trai1way along Carver Beach Road until a designated
plan has been formulated indicating the direction the City is going to take as
part of an overall city plan for parks and trailways. All voted in favor and
motion carried.
Councilman Horn suggested that if a ci ti zens group is put together, that it
be under the auspice of the Park and Recreation Cormnission am not the City
Counci 1.
Mayor Hamil ton indicated that Don Ashworth had a couple of items regarding the
Terry Cook matter which needed clarification.
Don Ashworth: My concern was as the item was left there may have been
confusion as to what the City Council's action was on the item. The Terry
Cook item did not involve any form of variance. '!he lot did exist prior to
1972 am as such did represent a buildable lot. The question to the City
Council was whether or not he would be permitted the opportunity to extend
sewer am water to that lot. The City Council's vote was in the affirmative
allowing him to do that.
13
F1Q
flU
City Council Meeting - July 21, 1986
Councilwoman Swenson: It also included the extension of the road at his
expense.
I
PROPOSED SUBDIVISION REQUEST TO PLAT 5 COMMERCIAL LOTS ON 17 ACRES OF LAND AT
THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF TH ~ AND~Rs BLVD., B.C-:-BURDICiC - --
Barbara Dacy: As you will recall, the Council approved the subdivision of
this particular property last April as well as the rezoning of this piece to
C-3, Service Commercial. It is located on the southeast corner of Powers
Blvd. and West 78th Street and TH 5 is along the southern boundary. In April
you approved a three lot split, preliminary plat split. The three lot lines
are marked by the solid line. The approval was subject to resolution of
providing sanitary sewer through the parcel. The request now by the applicant
is to receive preliminary plat approval for five commercial lots. The
Planning Commission considered this request at two meetings, June 11th and
June 25th meeting. At the June 11, 1986 meeting the Planning Commission
tabled the item so the access issue for Lots 1 and 2 could be resolved. At
the June 25, 1986 meeting the Planning Commission did recommend approval of
the preliminary plat subject to that the developer either combine Lots 1 and 2
or that he provide access through Lot 2 for Lot 1. In either case, no access
onto West 78th Street would be allowed closer than 300 feet from the corner of
Powers Blvd. and West 78th Street. Again, the second condition was that sewer
plans must be submitted and approved prior to final plat approval. In both
applications, the access and sewer issue have remained the most important. At
the June 25th Planning Commission meeting, the applicant had hired a I
consulting traffic engineer from Barton-Aschrnan and submitted a traffic report
at the Planning Commission meeting. That is included in your packet. At this
tUne I believe the City Engineer wants to make a presentation.
Bill Monk: As the City Planner has noted, Council has previously approved a
preliminary plat for three lots. Those locations are shown by the solid
lines. The proposal right now is to subdivide into five lots designated by
the dash lines. The way the original preliminary plat for the three lots went
through, Staff made a statement at that point in time that we looked very
carefully at any proposal for access into those lots and went so far as to
state, as part of that report, that we would be looking for, at the very
minimum as far as Lot 1 was concerned which was here over to Powers Blvd.,
that the access into Lot 1 be over as far to the east as possible. There were
reasons for that at that point in time, I would like to go over those briefly.
Staff's reasoning in that was, and I'll go over this briefly and answer
questions if the Council or public has any. Right now I've got a situation
where there is a free right corning northbound off of Powers onto eastbound
West 78th Street. When we first looked at this, I started to awly some
standards that we have used in the past from the Roadway Design Manual that
MnDot puts out and updates every year. In that they have minimum turn lanes
and in the book it shows a turning lane of 280 feet for design speed of 40
mph. It does say that design speed can reduced down to 30 mph for certain
situations but we always start with the 40 mph design speed as the most
desirable. The reason that we did show this, as where Staff was recommending
the first access point was, as you corne around this free right we wanted to I
give this traffic the owortunity to get onto West 78th Street, establish
itself to the curve before it would signal it's move to move off the street to
14
I
I
I
7PJ
City Council Meeting - July 21, 1986
make any kind of turning movement. Whether the turn lane would be put in or
not, this would allow at least some distance for vehicles to signal to move it
safely off the road and make the turn in. When the proposal came in for the
five lots, which again the solid line right here was the edge of Lot 1, the
proposed Lot 1 is right here at this point in time. We reviewed this in more
detail given the good sight distance in this area. Staff did take a look at
this and we have as the recommendation approved by the Planning Commission
which this office would support, is to widen Lot 1 to 300 feet wide, adding an
additional 70 feet in width. ~t for the useability of the site but to make
the access point safer. That would allow us to probably start the turn lane
back in the curve. Again, it is flat with fairly good sight distance. Be
able to start PeOple off to the side and actually get a modified turn lane.
We would not be able to fully meet the minimum requirements shown by the State
but I still believe that this is reasonable given the close proximity to the
intersection and noting the increases that are expected in traffic flow in
through this area as the City develops. A couple points I would like to make
note of. One is that Staff is taking the position that if Council approves
any plat layout, that in essence it is also approving the right for a site
plan to come back with an individual access unless that issue is specifically
addressed as a part of the plat consideration. There is on proposal here for
anything other than individual access points, joint access or access across
one lot to another. Given that, I am reviewing this proposal strictly from
the point of view that the City would be required to provide access to each of
these lots as site plans were develoPed because the applicant would have the
right to sell these lots individually and there would be no requirement as
sales occur that access would occur in any special format. As a second issue,
one that has been talked about but did not specifically enter into Staff's
consideration, where this access point or how the lot should actually be
structured had to do with the realignment or proposed realignment of West 78th
Street. The applicant on his submittal has shown a potential realignment
wanting to see this as tight as possible in this vicinity so that access could
be accomodated in certain ways. Again, Staff is reviewing this proposal in
terms of the existing roadway but we had noted to the applicant that as part
of the traffic study that is being done in the City right now for a large
portion of the city starting with the downtown area, there is a recommendation
upcoming in that report that as 'lH 5 gets widen, that this intersection of
Powers Blvd. and West 78th Street be moved a minimum distance of 600 feet from
that new center line. The line is shown on here is that point of 600 feet.
What the consultant is concerned about is as TH 5 gets widen in this area, it
will be widen totally to the north because there is no possibility that it can
be widen to the south given the slope going down as it is right now. As that
widening occurs in this way, the distance between the center line and this
intersection will be reduced from that which exists now to the point that the
consul tant who is looking at the overall downtown plan has recommended that
the City seriously consider this realignment. Again, we did not enter into
what is being recommended now. This is very potential but what Staff is
looking at with the developers to the north, the Brose property has now been
sold, is the alignment for this potential reroute. That is shown with the
dash line. Again, this is the point at 600 feet. The applicant wishes this
road to be stretched out instead of the tight curve shown in here. I'm
showing these only to show how Staff is apporaching the potential rerouting
here and also that Staff is fully taking into account potential service to any
15
01'[)
t..:J \_~.p.
City Council Meeting - July 21, 1986
number of lots that might be created on the present Burdick site itself. This I
existing right-of-way could be used in a couple of ways. This being one where
a cul-de-sac would be extended down for access to anything that might be
created on this corner as well as anything that would be created on any number
of lots in this vicinity. I believe that no matter what is done with the
existing West 78th Street alignment, that this one could occur arrl satisfy any
development pictured. The only reason I am really showing this mayor may not
be the way the City finally decides to service this property but it derives
direct access to the properties. It is the only reason it is being shown.
Again, the main point here as far as Staff is concerned, is that the distance
from where this road makes it's curve to where I believe a safe access point
should be, is further to the east than shown. Again, I concur with the
recommendation of the Planning Commission and I truly consider that a minimum.
I would really like to see it moved even further to the east but again I
believe that this is a reasonable position. The last point I would like to
cover in this item is it should be noted that tre Burdick property presently
has an access off of West 78th Street at the very east edge of Lot 1 in this
vicinity right here. It goes onto the street right now. Staff's position as
far as that access goes is that the applicant will be requesting multiple
access points as this property is platted into three, four, five or any number
of lots and it is indeed reasonable, with these multiple access points that
the City is well within its bourrls to ask for the relocation of an access
should that access be unreasonable and unsafe. I don't have problems with
multiple access points in here as long as we can maintain 200 foot intervals.
I believe that can be done with the lots given but I don't believe just I
because there is an access here that the City is required to maintain that
access as long as it is willing to the agreed accesses at the other locations
into that property which exist as one lot at present. With that I guess I
will answer questions.
Councilman Geving: I think it is important that we hear from the City Manager
at this point because this leads right into it.
Don Ashworth: The summation of this item, I felt the request before you is
really premature in light of the points raised by the City Planner arrl the
City Engineer. In reviewing the records of the Planning Commission and again,
going over through the items that you have before you, I feel that until Mr.
Burdick presents a specific site plan that can resolve the access issues, that
the plan as presented is premature.
William F. Kelly: I'm an Attorney. I represent Mr. Jim Burdick. lather than
addressing the questions that have been raised by Mr. Ashworth at this point
in time, I would like to introduce Mr. Deane Wenger of Barton-Aschman
Associates, Inc. who can speak to some of the matters involved in safety which
have been raised by Mr. Monk. I think that those items might well be
addressed initially before we have an opportunity to discuss Mr. Ashworth's
recommendation to the Council so may I introduce Mr. Wenger from Barton-
Aschman Associates, Inc., Traffic Engineer.
Deane Wenger: I am vice President with Barton-Aschman here in the Twin City area I
arrl have been working in this area, particularly in Eden Prairie, Bloomington
and other adjacent suburbs for some time. There are a number of things that
16
I
I
I
Bi
'''-Y J:...
City Council Meeting ~ July 21, 1986
we would like to point out that would be appropriate. I would like to use the
sketch over there so I can explain a little better what I am going to say.
One of the problems with these intersections, as Mr. Monk has indicated, is
that westbound TH 5 has a continuous right turn lane at the signal which then
creates a leading section on Powers Blvd.. In our view, this is desirable in
that there are no extensive conflicts am in the case of Powers Blvd. and West
78th Street, there is no left turn so that means this intersection is not that
critical. However, in the southeast corner of Powers and West 78th Street, a
continuous right turn, we think is creating a problem. In fact the County
Road was infringing on the owners property and that has since been corrected.
There is a sweeping turn which encourages people to come around this corner at
higher rates of speed than would be typical and therefore create some problem
between the first access and that turn. We think a design for an intersection
like Powers Blvd. and West 78th Street, the function for this street which is
to provide primary and local access and so on, it is probably inappropriate to
first encourage people to come aroum the corner fast am then start
presenting them with intersections or conflicts and so on. This is a conflict
in our jargon that is the difference between high am low relative speed. For
example, freeways and expressways are designed for low relative speed. That is
both vehicles are going at about the same speed am so on. If it becomes
impossible to merge and leave that traffic, then you are better off to slow
both streams of traffic down. We see no reason why the speoos have to be high
on this section of West 78th Street. A route like TH 5, using low relative
speed is appropriate for weaving am turning am other things. This also has
the implications and the State standards that follow that tapers have to be
for the length of turn slots am so on. Powers Blvd., being an arterial, we
think it's somewhat lesser function is having through traffic and has to
provide some local access. When we get to streets like West 78th Street, we
think that one of the primary functions of this street is to serve the local
properties am so on. On that basis, we would suggest that something could be
done at the intersection of 78th and Powers to reduce any potential problems
that traffic which has been infringing on the property, to slow them down so
that other movements and local property access would be permitted. Another
question has come up is a question of tapers, length of tapers for turn lanes.
In a case like this, we would expect since West 78th Street is a four lane
street, that the right turn lane would be the right lane am we would not put
in another separate right turn lane for a single entrance. Any of the uses
that are proposoo with these five parcels are relatively low trip generaters
and they don't warrant that type of design. In some instances State Standards
are indicating that even for, as Mr. Monk indicatoo, even for design speeds of
30 mph they want 180 feet of taper. Having workoo with the Department when
these Standards were first developErl, that is fine on routes such as TH 5 or
any other major arterial. It could be a County Road as well, but in an
instance like this am in most every urban area, including the Twin Cities
which most of the streets carry much heavier traffic, these kinds of tapers
can be achievoo and there is adequate provision in the State Standards to make
exceptions to that rule. For example, a recent design on TH 55, which I'm
sure all of you are familiar with in the vicinity of the Mooina Ballroom and
so on. On the State Highway itself, which is now a four lane divided road,
they are proposing tapers of 5 to 1. The length of the turn spots and
therefore the distance between an intersection and a first access point is
being exaggeratErl by these lengths of tapers which, in the first place we
17
ocrl
5~
City Council Meeting - July 21, 1986
don't need a taper here, and the second place we can slow the speed to fit in
with the other spacing am access requirements. When I was with the DOT or
the former Minnesota Highway Department. It was when the Municipal state Aid
arrl the County state Aid system was first implemented. The important thing
there was that there was going to be 28% of the Minnesota Gas Tax Revenues
were going to be given to the Counties and 9% to the Municipal i ties. However,
we found after the experience from the first couple years that the Counties
and Cities would build almost anything. They were using overlays arrl didn't
stick to standards and so on. We also had some bad experience on 1-494 when
the interchanges like Penn Avenue and France Avenue arrl some of the others
were built, where we had ramp turn offs that were coming off very close to the
frontage roads. In those cases it was within 59-75 feet. That couldn't be
helped because the State law prohibited from moving them out without City
approval. That is when the State Starrlards were set up arrl the Standard was
primarily to get the frontage roads away from ramp turn offs along the
interstate system. That is also appropriate in getting the first
intersections away from major State Highways such as TH 5, particularly when
it is a divided route. However, that Standard pertains to the distance from
the center lane of TH 5 to the center lane of West 78th Street along the
north/south dimension. Those Standards were not intended to designate a
minimum distance for access from, for example on the east/west roads or minor
arterials, from Powers Blvd. to West 78th Street. A compromise would be that,
in the first place the distance from the center lane proposed TH 5, along
Powers Blvd. to West 78th Street is merely 399 feet. This being a "T"
intersection, that might very well be adequate. Where you come up with 699
feet, which may be the recommendation. If we had our druthers, we would have
1999 feet but then we wouldn't have any access any place but at the same time,
I think it is a little arbitrary to say now it has to be 699 feet. The lines
on West 78th Street have increased from about 3,599 to 3,999 or about 19% from
1989 to 1984. They really haven't changed since between 1982 arrl 1984. The
place the line is building up is on the east end of West 78th Street. Much of
the traffic from this area terrls to go to work in the morning to the east and
therefore we would expect the traffic generated in this area would have the
tendency to be going on it's course east. The intersection down at I believe
it is Plains Drive, I might have the name wrong for it, but this will tend to
increase faster than Powers Blvd. A reasonable compromise then I think would
be to have a joint access in on the property line. We discussed this with the
property owner. We have a joint access in. That is we would be moving it
from 215 feet from the center line to about 239 feet. A joint access in and
some kirrl of joint easement, perhaps going 69 feet into the properties. From
that point then, each property owner would be free to take access as he
chooses. It is probably most important that we retain some access rights
or have no intersections on that access road or the driveways some reasonable
distance from the curve line of West 78th Street. This kirrl of policy then,
or that kind of a pattern which has been used successfully elsewhere, would be
applied to each one of the property lines and would limit the number of access
points to four or five. If you assume the last one would also have access. I
suspect, although I'm not a lawyer, that the property owner currently has
rights of access to County Road 17. We concur or recommend that the County's
proposal that no access be provided, and this is also the City's proposal, no
access be provided on the west edge of the property. However, if we now also
start restricting access along the north edge and the parcels that be required
18
I
I
I
I
I
I
1(;)\~
- u: e)'
City Council Meeting - July 21, 1986
for proper zoning and proper uses, which are commercial and not service
station necessarily, the convenience stores or fast foods or whatever, if
those properties are also blocked off and those lots get so big that you can't
get a developer in to use them, then there is some question in my mind as to
whether we are restricting on one side and two sides, it ends up that there
really isn't an access to that property at all. Not for the sellable use.
You can also document that these uses of ones that are permitted and preferred
according to the City Comprehensive Plan, do not want extremely large parcels.
Typically a convenience store would want about 1 1/2 acres or something less
than that. Some of these better restaurants and so on want no more than 2
acres and so on, for obvious reasons of taxes and costs and paving costs and
so on. 'Ib that extent then, we feel that they are preventing some of these
uses for no legitimate or documented reason or standard. As far as I know,
there is no place in the State Aid Standards or anyplace else that restricts
the distance between access points along a local arterial street. I think you
would be concurred by the County and so on. They have reviewed the plan and
have not suggested that the access for the first lot line is unreasonable.
One final item that Mr. Monk brought up, and I understand that if they pull
West 78th Street back and put this area on a cul-de-sac then, then again,
these properties for the proposed or permitted use as according to the City's
Comprehensive Plan, severely curtails and becomes a matter of damages. What
it amounts to is that you are effectively eliminating access to these parcels.
I think it is premature to decide, first of all when the State is ever going
to do anything on TH 5. Hopefully, they will get going on it this year. The
most critical section is east of County Road 4 and over toward Mitchell Road
and prairie Center Drive and so on. The lines on TH 5 build up to almost
25,000 cars a day. 'Ibis, as far as I know, that and 169 coming up from Chaska
and Shakopee, are the two heaviest traveled two lane roads within the State.
Certainly within the metropolitan area. 'Ibe critical section however, is
east of this point. The volumes increase dramatically east of County Road 4
whereas the lines out here are increasing at something less than 10% a year.
We don't expect that increase is going to continue. The volumes out here are
11,000-12,000 vehicles per day. Whereas east of County Road 4, up around
25,000, similar to 169. I think all of us are hopeful that they will get
going on TH 5 this year. 'Ibat is the intention of the State. 'Ibat however,
is a temporary improvement. Temporary from the starrlpoint that it is not the
proposed solution to this whole area. A more permanent solution is the one
where they would route TH 212 and construct TH 212 as a four lane expressway
out toward Waconia and down to Norwood, Young America and so on, on the north
edge of Chaska. At that time, as you all know, there is a split in the
traffic near Norwood/Young America.
Mayor Hamilton indicated to Mr. Wenger that he thought he was getting off the
topic here.
Deane Wenger: My only point is that there is a split point out there, when
they get the new route TH 212, we would expect volumes on TH 5, in this area,
to drop or hold steady and not have the heavy increase. It is my opinion that
TH 5 is taking the traffic that formerly was on 212 because of the difficulty
in using it.
19
~ ,f~:.A
LU':;;;::
City Council Meeting - July 21, 1986
Councilman Horn: Have you read the study for this? '!he study has projected
to increase on this even after TH 212 is put in. It is projected to be at
higher levels than it is today.
I
Deane Wenger: '!hat study isn't available for anyone outside of the City as
far as I know. They indicated that we were told that it would be available on
the 31st of July. You may look at that study if you like. It would be my
opinion that the lines will drop somewhat on 'ill 5 and then start building up
again gradually but not the type of increases we have been seeing over the
last 5 or 6 years where the lines have just jumped horrendously.
Councilman Horn: I don't think it will decrease.
Councilwoman Swenson: I think perhaps you might not also be aware of the vast
development that we are having in this city at this particular time.
William F. Kelly: I read the report and recommendation of the City Manager
and I would like to comment on it, if I may. <Xl April 21st the Council
approved a three lot division of this property and rezoned it to C-3. At that
time this was a preliminary approval plat and at that time there was a
contingency attached to the approval which involved providing sanitary sewer
to the property and there was no problem with handling that as far as the land
owner was concerned. Now the problem of bring ing sani tary sewer to this
property is the same whether you have a three lot subdivision or a five lot
subdivision. Therefore, I can not justify a position which would say that
this planning is premature at this time when it was not premature for a three
lot subdivision on April 21st for exactly the same reason. That we will
again, of course, abide by any of the recommendations of Staff and of the City
relati ve to the method to provide sani tary sewer and that can be a contingency
and there is no justification, that I know of, for saying that it is
premature. Now we had two meetings before the Planning Commission. They were
quite lengthy and I'm sure you have probably seen the very detailed review
that was given to this particular request. Not only did we have two meetings
before the Planning Commission but we have met several times with Staff. With
Mr. Monk and with the City Planner and the subject of all these meetings
always got down to the fact that, out there somewhere, there were standards.
Standards that the landowner was going to be required to meet in order to plat
this property and provide access to the land. We were told at the last
Planning Commission meeting that those Standards were standards adopted by
MnDot and Mr. Monk referred to those Standards in his oral presentation and
indicated that they would be made available to the Planning Commission and
ourselves, which they were. But, if you read Mr. Ashworth's recommendations
to you tonight, he says that in fact there are no standards. In fact, there
are no standards and yet you have had two meetings of the Planning Commission
at which time they made a recommendation to you on the platting of this
property based upon the fact that, yes there were standards. We have all
along said that there were no standards. We didn't know where to go to find
standards. We looked for them. '!here were none. We asked what are we
required to do in order to plat the property. Now, the next thing that Mr.
Ashworth comments on here tonight is that if there isn't standards then of
course, it is the obligation of the lam. owner to provide safe access. We
agree 100%. We are not disagreeing with that at all but we feel we have met
I
I
20
to [-1;
" .
C'\~.-'
City Council Meeting - July 21, 1986
I
I
the requirements of providing safe access. These lots meet the minimum
standards of the City. To accomplish what the Planning Commission suggest,
the combination of Lot 1 and 2, would mean that the minimum si ze commercial
lot we could have would be 144,131313 square feet and be well over 3513 feet along
the roadway. N:>body wants to buy 3513 or 144,131313 square feet lot of commercial
property. They just don't want it. We can provide safe access to this
highway as suggested here earlier this evening by our Traffic Engineer without
any difficulty. We don't think that we should be asked to come before you and
say we can not plat our property until we have somebody who wants to use it.
We feel we have a right to plat the property if we plat it in accordance with
the provisions of the subdivision ordinance and the zoning ordinance and any
other regulations which might be in effect here for the City of Chanhassen.
We want to follow those rules but we have to know what they are and we are
willing to follow them. We don't think we are required to go out and say,
here, we have a user. A user for this particular property, now we would like
to come back and say is it alright if we plat the property in accordance with
this user. It seems to us it has to be the other way around. That is why you
have these ordinances. We ask you to give us the opportunity to plat the
property so long as we meet the requirements of the ordinance, which we do.
We meet it in minimum size am we are asking only for reasonable access. We
are not asking for excessive access and we are willing to put it as far back
as possible. May I point out that in fact, the driveway, the blacktop does
not go as shown by Mr. Monk across Lot 1 but actually it turns up in here.
That plat as to that point is inaccurate am we think that we have met the
requirements and we ask that you grant us the right to the preliminary plat.
There is nothing premature about it. I can't see one ordinance we have not
complied with.
Bill Monk: I would like to answer just one thing. (be thing that was
mentioned about my drawing being incorrect. I would remim the Council or
make note to the Council that this is the plan that was submitted as the
preliminary plat. This is the applicant's plan. On several occasions he has
told me that the plan is inaccurate and that the road has been moved back off
his property by the County am so on. No new submittal has ever been made. I
am using the applicant's submittals in my presentations.
Mayor Hamil ton: Did you have that done Jim?
Jim Burdick: Yes, I did have Schoell and Madsen do it at our expense, about
$1,51313.1313. I left it at the desk about 113 days ago.
Mayor Hamilton: You left it off up here?
Bill Monk: I haven't seen it.
Jim Burdick: I have another dozen out in the car. I gave one to you sir.
Mayor Hamilton: Yes you did.
I
Bill Monk: I continue to believe that what the City is requesting is indeed
reasonable.
21
86
City Council Meeting - July 21, 1986
Don Ashworth: I think Mr. Kelly basically proved the point that we are trying I
to make, that it is premature in stating that it will be 1 1/2 years before the
sewer is really resolved. We are saying, go ahead resolve that issue.
Proceed with the petition which is before the City Council as part of this
agenda but I see no necessity to consider further subdivision of that property
before they resolve that issue. Secondly, I have a great deal of respect for
the engineering firm in front of you but the premise there is that they have
not seen the engineering study that the City is preparing. You are basically
using that or referring to that as a part of the presentation that you made.
I have not seen any documented evidence showing the trips per day that you
project on West 78th Street, TH 5 or County Road 17. Until that is completed,
I don't think we are in a position to state that a safe access has in fact
been demonstrated.
Councilman Horn: A couple of questions. <:ne is I think the statement was
made that the primary purpose of West 78th Street is to serve the lots, not to
bring the local traffic through. Was that the statement or did I
misunderstand that?
Deane Wenger: N::>, as a classification mark here it drops, for example from TH
5 to Powers to 78th. I think there is a distinction. Each one of those has
some responsibility or some purpose or function to serve through traffic but
as you go down to the lower classification of routes, now the major routes
here is TH 5, then Powers then 78th. As you go down the line, each one has
got more function to serve property than to handle the traffic which has an I
implication on the speeds that you try to maintain and the frequency of
access. I didn't say there is no function of handling through traffic on West
78th Street. It is a lesser function than for example, TH 5.
Councilman Horn: I think you said the primary function is to service the
lots.
Deane Wenger: It is more of a primary function on TH 5. TH 5, I would
suspect, it's primary function is to serve just through traffic. Powers to a
lesser extent and 78th to a lesser extent.
Councilman Horn: The end of West 78th Street, in my mind, the primary
function is to serve as the main method of getting to downtown Chanhassen.
Deane Wenger: Much of this, when we say serving through traffic too, has to do
with the length of the trips that are using each of the routes. I would
suspect those on 'Ill 5 average much longer trip length than those on Powers
second and then those on West 78th Street. Although it is an important route
and we need high capacity, we don't have to handle them at 40 or 45 mph and
you can get higher capacity on the route as an arterial.
Councilman Horn: Another question. Are you also suggesting then that we
change that to a "T" intersection and take the sweeping curve out?
Deane Wenger: Yes, we are suggesting that if the pavement has been changed or I
not, I'm not certain. It is difficult to just go out there and take a look at
it. I am suggesting that to provide a free right turn, you are going to be
22
I
I
I
~ ~"~-:
'.' '.." A
lL\U; (J
City Council Meeting - July 21, 1986
confronted with intersections or local access and much slower speed traffic in
a matter of a few hundred feet. It is not appropriate to encourage people to
go around that corner at more than 25 mph.
Councilman Horn: Are you aware that is also a turning lane off of 'IH 5 right
at the edge of that intersection?
Deane Wenger: Yes, so the traffic that comes off TH 5, it is appropriate to
have a separate turning lane and somewhat of a free right turn at 'IH 5 and
Powers. I don't think it is appropriate to have it at Powers and 78th.
Councilman Horn: My point is that what you are getting at is you are going to
get people who are coming off TH 5 and pulling onto Powers Blvd. and it
appears to me that it is going to be inappropriate to expect speeds of 25 mph
along that route.
Deane Wenger: In the first place you can't make that corner from TH 5 at 50
mph and the other thing is that those people are also supposedly going through
a yield sign. They are getting under more and more traffic control to try to
get them slowed down before they start up on Powers Blvd. and particularly
around the corner onto West 78th Street. I think that is an appropriate
function that they come from the high speed route. The one that is primary to
having through traffic to lower speeds on the secondary route then even lower
speeds as they get to the more local routes.
Councilman Horn: Assuming that they take West 78th. Another stream of
traffic pulls off and keeps going on Powers Blvd. at 50 mph.
Deane Wenger: In my judgment, that is not appropriate. ~rhaps it would be
reasonable as this area is built up that those speeds should drop. We are
having the same type of problem, and again I don't want to get way off the
subject, in Woodbury where they are talking about putting in a regional
shopping center and some of the people are objecting because they can't go 50
mph past the shopping center anymore. As the area develops, quite logically,
people will accept slower speeds.
Councilman Horn: 'Ib some degree but I think one of the things traffic
engineers have missed in general is the primary purpose of the arterials and
any street is to move traffic to a given area. Then you take secondary
streets and further streets, as you eluded to, to get down to the slower
traffic area but what has happened is a lot of the development has to be right
next to the high speed road and if the traffic engineers allow access from
there into a parking lot. A prime example is the K-Mart access and the access
to the townhouses on 'IH 7. MnDot is letting everybody put accesses on to TH
7. When they become dangerous they slow the traffic down, now your traffic
bottlenecks all the way back and that is what we are going to see out here.
Deane Wenger: I certainly agree with that and that is one of the reasons we
pointed out that to have an access into the property, which there would be a
legal access on the west edge has been dropPed, and we think there is a
reasonable distance along the north edge on 78th Street to move the traffic
back away from TH 5 or the higher speed movements and so on. In many
23
~ f.1'.. ~
JL \L)) b
City Council Meeting - July 21, 1986
instances~ including the K~Mart and some of those other things on TH 7, it is
a matter of the State having to restore legal access. It's they either do
that or buy the rights of access, which in a case like that amounts to buying
the property.
I
Councilman Horn: I think there is another thing too that you mentioned
included the stacking distances put on when the northern hook is made, that it
will cut off access back to the property. It would seem to me that could
still be done through, I think you eluded to a cul-de-sac, they would still
have access to that.
Deane Wenger: It is a matter of the indirection of the access. If that
commercial property was served on a cul-de-sac, I would presume that the
access is inappropriate for that land use and therefore it is a matter of the
highest and best use of the land and they probably would be eligible for some
kind of damages. At least that has been my experience. '!he other thing is
the matter of the stacking distance coming back from 'lH 5. For example, we
did make some counts out there and with the existing volumes and projected
volumes in the first two lots, we see no need for a stacking distance of more
than 100 feet. Also, if we have to increase that stacking distance, we do
have the option of widening or increasing the number of lanes just between
West 78th Street and TH 5 as well as pushing the frontage road or 78th Street
way back.
Councilman Horn: I think this may be a legal question. It seems to me that
our obligation would be to provide access period. Not the type of access. Is
it a Council obligation if we design a road structure and it is now not a high
speed access but a slower access that might not provide as much service that
we have established the property?
I
Bill Monk: I guess I can answer this and maybe Roger can take off of this,
but if the City realigns or makes a decision at a future date to realign West
78th Street and creates that cul-de-sac, the City may well have to look at the
appraisal value to see whether there have been any damages to existing
properties that have new access made to it. We are trying to provide as
reasonable an access as possible. With the one sketch I showed, we showed a
reasonable access. If the appraisal on any realignment, the property is seen
as damaged from an access situation, the City, on a realignment project, could
indeed be liable for damages. en a lot of State projects that is why
businesses are bought. Not because they are in the way necessarily, but
because their access is so screwed up that the State has no option but to
purchase it but that is something that we are saying is a future situation as
far as the realignment goes. ~w Roger may take off on that if that is the
question you are asking.
Roger Knutson: '!he current situation on the realignment. Right now there is
one lot. Then they said they wanted three, now they want five lots. The
subdivision ordinance statute can take into account safety considerations. It
seems to me if you impose a serious safety problem by allow ing an access too
close to an intersection, you can force that access back. '!he question I I
think you have to come to grips with is, do you think there is a serious safety
24
I
I
I
"11., (jt~D
E. ~p Q)/
City Council Meeting - July 21, 1986
problem or not or do you think there is another solution to that safety
problem.
Mayor Hamilton: I think to go back to Clark's question though, are we
required as the City to provide a specific type of access or just an access.
Roger Knutson: Reasonable access.
Mayor Hamilton: What is reasonable for me may not be reasonable for the
developer.
Roger Knutson: I think you will find that if it causes a safety problem by
leaving the access in the location desired by the applicant, I think you ought
to move it. You have to decide if that indeed, that is a safety problem.
Councilwoman Swenson: I have a very bad habit of making things very
simplistic, which doesn't necessarily mean that I have all the answers.
of all, I would like to know Bill, do you have any idea of how, when TH
going to be widened north, say it will be moving north, how far north?
First
5 is
Bill Monk: Two full lanes.
Councilwoman Swenson: Are we talking about 80 feet or 100 feet?
Bill Monk: Envision doubling the street all north.
Councilwoman Swenson: What I am trying to determine is to how far into Lot 1
would the yield lane then encroach? That would be the State.
Bill Monk: On the proposal there is a dash line down along the south shows
the minimum driveway MnDot thinks it will need to construct that movement.
Councilwoman Swenson: Are you saying there is 235 feet on the west line
there. Does that refer to the potential distance between the yield mark am
County Road l6?
Bill Monk: No, I believe that is the full width of the property.
Councilwoman Swenson: The existing. This is existing now so when I add two
lanes on TH 5, obviously this is going to move everything farther north. My
question is, and maybe Jim knows the answer, how much is going to come out of
that Lot 1 when they move that?
Bill Monk: The dimension isn't on here. Again, this dash line goes across.
I don't have a scale but the State would need probably somewhere between 50 -
100 feet of additional right-of-way. I think on the plan it shows about 50
feet of right-of-way.
Jim Burdick: Yes, I was told by the Chief Engineer in Golden Valley with the
Highway Department, they are going to take 40 feet.
Councilwoman Swenson: Does that include the new turn lane and everything?
25
1JLO
City Council Meeting - July 21, 1986
Jim Burdick: They are going to take 40 feet of my property.
I
Councilwoman Swenson: It doesn't show here Jim, what will that give you then?
How much frontage will that give you on Powers Blvd. after they have taken
that? This says 235. Is this the existing, so it would be around 200?
Jim Burdick: That is the existing yes.
Councilwoman Swenson: You still have a pretty substantial size lot out there.
Now my thought on this is this. We don't know, this curve on West 78th Street
is relatively new. Until this project I hadn't known that this was even
considered. What would happen, by way of suggestion, if you put your access
in from the eastern most line of Lot 2 and ran a road across to run into Lot
1, similar to what is being suggested by the Planning Commission. I guess why
I say that is because if that is done, even if or when that extension or that
curve would go up, 78th Street will still extend to that access because it
will have sort of a "Y" which shouldn't really effect your pattern of access
to those two lots at all. If you sell these two lots and the traffic pattern
and the customers become accustomed to coming in on that eastern corner and
using that, your clientele is not going to be disrupted by a change in the
direction of West 78th Street which it would be with a cul-de-sac which you
have to have in order to get onto Lot 1. To me that would be more disruptive
to business than if you establish the pattern now along the eastern line of
Lot 2 and run across there. It doesn't have to be a major street here, we're
just talking about an access road and it is done allover. You go into any
city where they are trying to get traffic an access off of these roads, this
type of thing is not unusual but that certainly would seem to me to tie in
your clientele now and in the future and your potential customers wouldn't
have to worry about whether that road swerved up north or not.
I
Mayor Hamilton: You could perhaps take it a step further. You could do the
same thing and serve Lots 1, 2 and 3. Have one dd veway. Is that something
that you agree would be feasible? I guess that is the question Pat is asking.
Jim Burdick: I just don't think it is feasible at all. Whenever I mention
this to anybody, I just think it makes it completely an unsellable development
according to people I have talked to and I have been trying to say just about
the same words I have heard in the past several minutes. I don't think it
would even start to go over.
Mayor Hamil ton: It seems like if you were led to believe that businesses that
would go in there are generally traffic generaters, I don't see what the
objection they have would be but then I'm not building a building like that.
They have adequate access to the property.
Council woman Swenson: What is the frontage on West 78th Street on those two
lots? Lot 1 and 2.
Jim Burdick: The first one is 230 and the next one is 470.
Councilwoman Swenson: I guess I have a real hang-up on that. I just can't
believe that if you came in on the east side of 78th Street, that road would
I
26
~~.\1
(~ It.
City Council Meeting - July 21, 1986
I
only have to go over 200 feet. '!hat's only two residential lots. I just
can't believe that would impede a business from going into that particularly
when on the long range potential problem, you would never have to worry about
that being disrupted. I see that if you are going in on one lot as being
much more disruptive to a potential buyer than if we went that way. I guess
that is all I have to say.
I
Councilman Geving: I guess I look at things a little more simply than some
people do but to me this project was approved as a preliminary plat in April
for three lots. For some reason Jim you came back and tried to split them
into five and you are getting a lot of flack over this. Apparently there is a
resolution to this. For a number of years we have been trying to market that
17 acres in the corner of Chanhassen extended business area to the west am
Mr. Burdick has held onto that property for some time now. I think it is time
to move. We don't know what is going to happen to 'lH 5. 'lH 5 may never
change. 'Ihese projects have been moved down the road for some time already
and I understam what is going to happen to the area with the Brose property
to the north. It will develop. I don't know how it will develop but it will
develop. It has been sold and somebody is going to move on that and they are
going to try to get as much out of that property as they can as soon as they
can. We need to bring sewer down from the park, bring it across the road and
feed this area as well as the Brose property. I guess I have one question to
ask. I remember little Mary pica about 15 years ago when she owned that
property on the corner and she had a little frame house there and she raised
chickens and she has a driveway access. I have to assume again, and I am
going to ask the Attorney for an opinion, that there is a legal access to
County Road 16 that exists as a result of that Mary pica driveway. Is that
correct?
Roger Knutson: From what you described, they have legal access on there
right now.
Councilman Geving: So for a lot of the discussion here earlier this evening,
Jim Burdick could have an access to County Road 16. Is that what you are
telling me based on that pre-existent access?
I
Roger Knutson: Yes, they have an access right now as I understand it. I
haven't been out to look at the property.
Councilman Geving: I really think this property is going to change
dramatically in it's shape and form before we put some commercial businesses
in there Jim and I would really prefer to have a frontage road all along these
lots. Staff has given you some indication, at least the Planning Commission,
that they are recommending combining Lots 1 and 2. Now why you didn't do that
I don't understand that because they were trying to give you some direction.
I think if you would have come in with four lots, combined Lots 1 and 2 am
made a rearrangement on your access to County Road 16, this may have sailed
through without too much difficulty. So we have two issues. We have the
sewer that we need to bring across the road. I suspect we are about a year
away from that. At least that long before we can get a feasibility study, a
structure project going and to bring sewer into this area. TO develop this
into a plat and give you five lots at this time without resolving the road
27
C;0i,
V.~.:~~
City Council Meeting - July 21, 1986
issue, however, I do agree with the City Manager. It is premature. Without
knowing what the analysis of this traffic study that won't be released until
July 31st, I haven't even seen it. I don't know whether we should have five
accesses onto County Road 16 or three or maybe even one. So I'm hung up too
on this particular point. I am concerned that we have a legitimate developer
who has held his property for a number of years. He is now ready to develop
it. I would not want to prohibit or limit his ability to sell that property.
I want you to bid that property out. To get something on it Jim. I think you
have some beautiful locations there but we have to resolve these concerns. In
,the meantime I think we have the right to give and the responsibility to give
'Jim Burdick some al ternati ves as to what he can do at this time. He may have
some potential sales there that I'm not aware of or any of us are aware of and
I don't think we can hold him up at this point. He has the right to at least
sell the property and get it lined up for eventual commercialization of that
whole corner. So what did I say. Can we compromise at four lots? Combine
Lots 1 and 2. Can we build a cul-de-sac? Can we build a frontage road and
when can we put the sewer in? I don't have those answers but I can tell you
that we want to see those 17 acres developed. Take it from there Jim.
Jim Burdick: I just have one question. Putting sewer in. That's no problem.
Schoell and Madsen have drawn up the plans to come right up from the south and
I'll just simply build it and pay for it. ~ study, no bonds, no nothing.
I'll just write the check for it coming in from the south and the Golden
Valley MnDot says fine. That will gets us sewer there so that would be no
problem.
Councilman Geving: ~w answer my other question though, why did you go from
three to five?
Jim Burdick: I'll tell you exactly why. Because I had number 1 sold. I had
it with earnest money on it until the buyer went to City Hall and they told
him they were going to move West 78th Street and had a different drawing
starting almost back to the bank and he wouldn't ever be able to get in. From
then on no matter what I told him, what Mr. Kelly told him, all he wanted was
his earnest money back so Mr. Kelly wrote him a check to give him his earnest
money back a couple weeks ago.
Councilman Geving: let me ask you this.
preliminary plat approval for three lots.
You know you have received
Would you be satisified with three?
Jim Burdick: ~.
Councilman Geving: So we are right back to ground zero.
Mayor Hailton: How about four?
Councilman Geving: What if we combine Lots 1 and 2 and give you four?
I
I
Jim Burdick: I don't feel I should give up my access there. I l:x:mght it with
access there that has been used for 40 to 50 years and I just don't feel I I
should give this up or that I have to give it up or there is any legal or
practical, ethical, honest way. That driveway has been used for 50 years and
28
~,':~
vu
City Council Meeting - July 21, 1986
I
it goes into Lot 1 at the present time.
I
Councilwoman Watson: Just a couple of points. Like Dale, I like a frontage
road for the whole thing. I would just as soon see that the roads all access
onto one street and that has one access onto West 78th Street. There is
absolutely no sense at all to an access on the west end of that property.
Talk about like a shooting gallery. There is no sense to that consideration
at all. Number 3, exactly where is West 78th Street going to be. Until the
decision to where that is going to be across Powers Blvd. or it will cut
across and that service road will run west over to the park. It doesn't seem
to me that we can line up the east side of 78th Street unless we have some
concept of where the west side of 78th Street is going to be. This looks just
dandy here but we have no idea whether the street on the other side of the
road is going to be directly opposite that particular spot or up 50 feet or
down 20 or whatever. That really hasn't been decided yet and until it is, I
don't see how you can figure where that road is going to be. Number 4, the
intersection at TH 5 and Powers Blvd., there is not going to be less traffic
there. There is going to be more. There is a large development tonight. We
can count about 400 additional homes that will probably be using that access
to TH 5 just in the next 2 to 3 years let alone the potential after that. My
last point is, I remember Miss pica too having lived here all my life. That
was a long time ago. What was a good access for her to her house and her
farm is no longer a viable access now. To say that the circumstances are even
remotely related to when she lived there and had her chickens at the corner of
Powers Blvd. and TH 5. It is just not the same situation at all. We are
talking apples and oranges between Annie pica and her farm and that corner of
TH 5 and Powers Blvd.. That's it.
Mayor Hamilton: Well, I too am concerned about the realignment to 78th. I
can sure understand where Jim is going to have some problems trying to sell
that property if in fact that road is going to be realigned which we haven't
even discussed. I guess I am kind of curious when we are going to. Now we
are telling a developer that there is a potential for that road to be
realigned and he is trying to sell his property but we can't really tell him
if it is going to or not. If he sells Lot 1 and we realign West 78th Street,
I think that guy has a bad deal who has Lot 1.
Bill Monk: As the Manager stated, that report would be out within the month
and I understand that part of that report will be a recommendation to realign
that intersection based on the traffic projections through that whole area and
that is the reason we are looking at it in preliminary form as part of review
of the Brose site. It is part of just trying to disclose all of the facts to
all the owners that that is going to be a part of the report that is submitted
to the City Council pretty quick.
I
Mayor Hamil ton: As a corner, I think we have some other things to consider
about 78th Street also. Perhaps with Jim developing his property, let's
assume there is an access onto Lot 1 or maybe five accesses onto 78th Street
on the south side. That street has, during the past many years been used by
kids on both sides riding bicycles, joggers, whatever going down to Lake Ann.
It is a fairly busy pedestrian street. We may need to consider not allowing
pedestrian or bicycle traffic on the south side of West 78th Street and
29
C~A
Q}; Y'-
City Council Meeting - July 21, 1986
improve a path on the north side so we keep everybody on the north side rather I
than on the south side. Then perhaps even drop the speed limit on that street
to 30 mph. I always wondered why it was 45. You don't need to go 45 mph
from the corner of Powers up to downtown Chanhassen, at least I don't think I
do. I don't have any problem subdividing this property into five lots if that
is what he feels is the most sellable way to handle the property. I certainly
think, as the Attorney has stated, that they have followed all the rules and
regulations that the City has and I think he has the right to request a
subdivision. The only question that we really haven't answered among
ourselves is where is the access going to occur? I wouldn't have any problem
with subdivision of five lots with four accesses onto 78th Street. How he
wants to arrange those is up to him. We are providing the subdivision am
providing access to 78th Street. It is up to the developer in this case to
come back am show us where you want to have the access. Perhaps I would go a
step further and say that I don't think there should be an access for Lot 1
directly even though there is an access there today. I do agree with other
staements made about that access that what was good for a woman who probably
made one trip a day or two trips per week isn't good for another. Whatever is
going to go in there, I'm sure will generate many more trips then what has
been generated previously.
Councilman Geving: I guess I have to ask, when we discussed this with you
before Don, you said that this was premature. How premature in your mim is
this? Is it until we complete the traffic study which is the 31st of July or
is it after we have had some Council discussion as to what we are going to do I
wi th West 78th Street? Could this be done in the next couple of months or how
do you see this?
Don Ashworth: I would say within the next 60 to 90 days, the City Council
will have reviewed alternatives for the Brose property, which would include
access to West 78th, you will have received the Housing Redevelopment
Authority's recommendation regarding West 78th Street am the potential
problems that will occur there and I can assure you that that intersection
will avail under the standards that you are looking at right now and you will
have acted upon the peti tion from the property owner to the north for sani tary
sewer. I think the three major issues that we have discussed will be before
the City Council and a decisions will be in the process wi thin the next 60 to
90 days. Barbara, did I miss the Brose application process at all?
Barbara Dacy: No, we are expecting the application.
Councilman Geving: I guess the reason I asked that question is I think we
have the need to give Mr. Burdick and ourselves an idea of how long this
period of time is going to be before we can discuss it, resolve it and
determine how fast we can give these developers an idea of what they can do
with their property. I know tonight we are starting to think about the Brose
property. This is the first time we have looked at that issue and sanitary
sewer feasibility study which has to be rewritten. So all of this is coming
about in a matter of a short time here Jim so we are looking at some real key
issues for the City that will ha.ve long term effects if we revise that 78th I
Street and shift it to the north. That will change that whole area and they
might mention the biking path, we are going to have to talk about that. I
30
(pj~""
l".-/ ~J)
City Council Meeting - July 21, 1986
I
just want to get in focus a better feel for the time we are talking about. If
we can resolve all of this in 613 to 913 days, I think I would be comfortable.
Councilwoman Swenson: Roger, maybe this has been addressed, there has been so
much rhetoric tonight, can we legally remove that access? Can we take it
away? It has been there umpteen years. Can we require that that access be
closed legally?
Roger Knutson: '!he answer is yes, you can.
Council woman Swenson: Maybe I missed something somewhere along the 1 ine here
but I keep hearing about the Brose proposal in conjunction with the curve or
the proposed change in West 78th Street. Are we proposing a change in West
78th Street premised on what another developer would like to do?
Bill Monk: We have alerted the new owner of the Brose site, the James
Company who is petitioning for sewer at this point, about the preliminary
fimings that will be coming out in the upcoming traffic study which do
include a realignment of West 78th Street. He is taking a look the
preliminary fimings, along with his engineer he has come in with some
sketches to date which show potential realignments and how his property would
develop aroum that. That is all. There is nothing more but we are expecting
some form ofa preliminary plat within the next 613 days.
I
Councilwoman Swenson: Jim, is it conceivable if this Council were to agree,
to agree to a tentative five lot subdivision at this point leaving open the
subject of access. I think we are pretty unanimous on the fact that we are
all ready to accept the fact that access that exists now is not safe but if we
were to leave open the access subject, unless you wanted to come back with one
eliminating that and moving it farther to the east, pending this study that is
coming up. It's 613 days you say? I understam you said you would put the
sewer and water in yourself depending on whether that would conform with what
the City's plans are? I suppose that would be necessary. You would have to
know how that is ~oing to get hooked in.
Don Ashworth: That is correct. We should review both alternatives am a
decision made as to what is not only cost effective for Mr. Burdick but the
long range plan for the City.
Councilwoman Swenson: My problem is, I don't want to tie this man up. If he
has a buyer for one of these lots, I certainly don't like the idea that we are
holding him off like this. At the same time, I don't want to get ourselves
in a position where, if we are going to change that road that we wim up with a
lawsuit or having to put in new access to his property. I guess that is my
big hang-up. If we give him an access arrl this depreciates your property,
the City is putting itself behind a proverbial 8 ball and I don't think that
would be particularly prudent. That is my problem am I would be real happy
to let you have the five lots but I have to admit right at this particular
point I really don't know where these accesses should go.
I
Mayor Hamilton: I think if anything is premature, it is probably where the
road is going to go. I would prefer seeing a drawing of this with the drawing
31
or::::
("JV
City Council Meeting - July 21, 1986
of TH 5 being moved over and where the turn lanes are going to be so we can I
see how that is going to take place, then after the discussion of changing of
78th Street, if in fact that is going to occur. Then I have absolutely no
problem sul:rlividing this into five lots, I think it should be. However, I
think if Jim is going to sell some of this property prior to any action being
taken on realignment of West 78th Street, any buyer is going to have to be
made aware that there is a potential change and of course, that is going to
have an effect on any sale that you might have. Perhaps someone is going to
take a look at that, and it obviously had an effect on one that you had. It
is still going to hold up your sale, I would suspect unless you have somebody
that would have use there no matter what occurred. If you had a cul-de-sac or
you had a street flow that continues to go through.
Mr. Kelly: I just merely want to point out to the Council that in our two
meetings before the Planning Commission, staff, they always made it quite
positive that the only thing that was to be considered was what was there
right now. Do not consider, the Planning Commission was told and we were
told, do not consider any changes in West 78th Street because we don't know
when that is going to come or how it is going to occur or what is going to
happen, only what is there now. tbw, we always said when that was brought up,
we are faced with it because you talked about it. When our buyers looked at
it and say what is going to happen. It seemed to us that in order to make a
decision here, the only thing you can do now, because it has gone this far,
the only thing you can do now is decide what you want to do based upon what is
there on the ground now, not what might happen in 6 months or 3 years or I
might not happen.
Don Ashworth: The presentation by Mr. Monk was based on what is there now.
The showing of the drawing that he presented was really one that showed a real
concern with what is there now and by a car coming around, a potential
accident may exist because of the existing turn lane and the shortness of
that. The latter discussions about roads and what not, did not deal with the
primary portion of Mr. Monk's report that an access needs to be demonstrated
by the developer. Let him bring in uses that he wants to show and how he
would combine that, then we would favor the lot split but right now it is up
in the air.
Councilman Geving: Here is what I would propose Mr. Mayor. I would say that
we should give an affirmative response to Mr. Burdick tonight that we are
willing to proceed with a five lot split on the plat so that he can plan on
that and he can probably make some preliminary sales based on that with the
idea that we would have this completed by the September 22, 1986 City Council
date. We would table this tonight, we would proceed with our study of the
31st of July and get the traffic analysis, put together whatever information
we have from MnDot regarding 'lH 5 and show us the bigger picture of how it is
going to, with this particular corner, with the full understanding that we can
provide to the developer and to ourselves, the satisfaction of completely this
wi thin the next 60 days.
Mayor Hamilton: I would propose that we would follow what the Planning I
Commission did with their conditions. That gives Mr. Burdick a choice of how
he wants to handle the lots. He can either combine Lots 1 and 2 or he can
32
(G;7.
u'
City Council Meeting - July 21, 1986
I
provide access to Lot 1 somehow through Lot 2. By doing that, we are
providing a subdivision of five lots and he can then sell those lots knowing
full well that there is still some work to be done here by ourselves am by
the state prior to somebody building on there. You may have a buyer who
doesn't want to do anything on there for a couple of years am I would hate to
see you lose a sale of the property.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the Subdivision
Request #86-6 as shown on the preliminary plat stamped "Received May 14, 1986"
with the following conditions:
1. That the developer either combine Lots 1 and 2 or that he provide
access through Lot 2 for Lot 1. In either case, no access onto West
78th Street will be allowed closer than 300 feet to the corner of
Powers Boulevard am West 78th Street.
2. Sanitary sewer plans must be submitted and approved prior to final
plat approval.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
Roger Knutson: Just so I have this clear, basically the first condition, am I
correct in saying that it is based upon safety concerns outl ined by the City
Eng ineer, Mr. M:mk?
I
Mayor Hamil ton: Yes, that is correct.
Councilman Horn: As I was trying to say earlier. The issue of the curve up
here is not new to me. I have seen that plan for years. Every time we have
talked about downtown, it has included that type of thing. That is why it
surprises me that we think that is a new proposal just tonight. In fact, Mr.
Burdick and I were discussing that on the phone before I had ever seen it. I
don't really like to dictate to him that he has to provide access to Lot 1 via
Lot 2. I would prefer it stated that the developer recognizes that at some
point West 78th Street might be realigned am it might be in the position as
shown here and that he provide access so that it is (1) safe today, (2) for
his own benefit, have an option that would work if that realignment did take
place. I don't think we need to tell him how to provide the access. I think
he can figure that out as long as we give him the restrictions.
Mayor Hamilton: How does that go in a motion?
Councilman Horn: I think we said that he has to provide access to Lot 1
through Lot 2 and I don't know as though I agree with that. I think it is
however he chooses to provide access to Lot 1 in a safe manner.
Mayor Hamilton: Directly?
I
Councilman Horn: That's not a safe manner. It has to be 300 feet.
Mayor Hamil ton: Well then, I think we are saying the same thing.
33
95
City Council Meeting - July 21, 1986
PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT APPROVAL TO DIVIDE 7.5 ACRES INTO 4 SINGLE FAMILY
LOTS SOUTH AND ADJACENT TO WEST 6300 STREET, 1/2 MILE NORTH" OF LAKE LUCY
ROAD, LEONARD KOEHNEN. - - - - - - --
I
Todd Gerhardt: What the applicant is requesting is preliminary plat approval
for Koehnen addition to subdivide four single family proposed lots. One at
15,000 square feet, Lot 2 at 15,000 square feet, Lot 3 at 278,065 square feet
and Lot 4 at 20,875 square feet. Staff recommerrls approval of this
subdivision as it meets all zoning ordinance requirements.
Barbara Dacy: The Planning Comm ission also recommended approval of the
request as well.
Mayor Hamilton noted that the City had received one letter from a resident
stating their disapproval of the subdivision.
Councilman Horn moved, Mayor Hamiton seconded to approve the Preliminary Plat
Request #86-10 as shown on the plat stamped "Received June 4, 1986" as
recommended by the Staff and Planning Commission. All voted in favor and
motion carried.
Councilman Geving stated that the City should make sure that the three new
lots are levied in accordance with the north service area. Mr. Monk stated
that the three units were deferred, the deferred interest may exceed what
has been previously received.
CHANHASSEN VISTA PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, ENTERPRISE PROPERTIES:
I
a. PRELIMINARY AND FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO SUBDIVIDE 70 ACRES INTO 124
SINGLE FAMILY LOTS. - - --
b. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT.
Barbara Dacy: What Staff would like to do, I would like to review the
proposal in some detail but not too much. The last time the Council saw this
application was May 5th. '!he plan has been revised two times since your
sketch plan consideration so I would like to start off then Lori Sietsema
wants to give a brief Park and Recreation Commission update and the Engineer
would like to address the street and grading and drainage issues. As I
mentioned earlier, the last time the Council saw this application was May 5,
1986. At that time, proposed was 126 single family lots. I believe 124 was
indicated in your Staff report. At that time the Type 3 Wetland in the
northeast corner of the site was being preserved arrl the Council's comments at
that time were that lot size and lot width should be increased as well as the
Council noted the concerns that were presented in the Staff Report at that
time. '!he Planning Commission considered this application on May 9, 1986
wherein 129 single family lots were proposed and alteration of the wetland in
the northeast corner of the site was proposed. At that time the applicant was
proposing construction of a street through that wetlarrl as well as the
creation of single family lots. At that Planning Commission meeting the item I
was tabled. The Commission was very concerned about the lot size issue and
wanted the park issue better addressed. '!he applicant revised the plan for
34
e),~
cJe../
, City Council Meeting - July 21, 1986
I
the June 25th Planning Commission meeting. In the meant'ime the Park and
Recreation Commission conducted a special meeting reviewing the appraisal that
was conducted for the area in and around Chanhassen Pond. I would like to
review the changes that have occurred or the most prominent changes on the
plan here.
I
What is being proposed is 124 single family lots. 91 lots on the north side
and 33 lots on the south side of Chanhassen Pond. The grading and drainage
plan has been revised to preserve the Type 3 Wetland in the northeast corner
of the site. It is now becoming part of the storm water natural system.
Third, the street alignment for the connection of Santa Vera has been drawn
slightly to the south as well as a lot eliminated in that area in compliance
with a previous recommendation. Cascade Trail, in the area, has also been
extended slightly to the north to accommodate the rearrangement of Lots 1 and
2. There still remains 8 lots along the eastern lot line on this portion of
the subdivision. Big Horn Drive up on the northern site now, has been
realigned slightly to the north to accommodate the revised street pattern
around the wetland. However, this does not effect the building of the lots in
that area. The minimum lot size remains at 12,000 square feet. The average
lot size of the entire proposal is 16,180 square feet. The average lot size
for the southern portion is 15,349 and for the northern portion is 18,466.
The median lot size for the entire development is 14,000 square feet. The net
density of the entire proposal is 2.69 units per acre which is consistent with
the density guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed lot layout,
it's intent is to locate the larger lots, which is required by ordinance,
around the wetland area. They have to be 15,000 square feet and to match as
much as possible the existing lot sizes that exist along the eastern border of
the subdivision. This is what the applicant is proposing. The smaller lots
are concentrated in Block 7 and 8 and a portion of Block 10. Lots 1 through 6
of Block 10.
Councilwoman Swenson: Excuse me Barbara, I have to make a correction there.
That is not Block 10. I discovered this today. We had an additional block in
there or else these numbers are incorrect because they are going from the west
down, it's 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 then it starts over at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 so there is
either another lot or those lots are numbered wrong.
Barbara Dacy: I'm sorry, maybe I was referring to Block 11.
Councilwoman Swenson: There isn't a block, notice the map. It is all
encompassed. That whole stretch is shown as Block 10 and actually, I wouid
assume, it should be 11 it just isn't designated on the map.
I
Barbara Dacy: I stand in error. The phasing plan is proposed in three
phases. Phase 1 will consist of 33 lots on the south side of the pond. The
second phase to the north and the western part of the site and the remaining
in the northeast corner of the subdivision. One item that we would like to
bring up, because of the concern raised regarding erosion control a number of
times, Staff is suggesting a recommendation that when the building permit
applications are received for the lots abutting the pond area that there be a
slope stablization and erosion control plan submitted in conjunction with the
building permit. This is in conjunction with the proposed conservation
35
.., 8:A1\
Jl..0'V'
City Council Meeting - July 21, 1986
easement that we discussed later in the hopes that we can maintain this slopes
as much as possible. The applicant has also submitted a landscaping plan
indicating the required one tree per lot as required in the subdivision
ordinance and development contract as well as showing the pedestrian corridors
between the streets and the school on the south and connection into the trails
system on the north and in the middle of the property. Applicant has also
indicated the areas of trees that will be maintained and those that will be
removed. Applicant has also indicated the screening along the double frontage
lots. The applicant is requesting a reduction in the usual 30 foot front
setback down to 25 feet in part to bring the building plat as close to the
street in order to preserve as much vegetation on the lot as possible. The 25
feet still allows for adequate parking space for a family size vehicle. The
last matter that I will discuss is the Environmental Assessment Worksheet. It
has been done twice. The comment period on the most recent one has closed at
the end of June. The three major items that were identified were the traffic
issue, construction impact issue and the storm water management issue. Much
of the concern with the storm water runoff was the building and construction
of the street and the wetland in the northeast corner of the site. The plan
has now been revised to preserve that wetland. The second impact was a
construction impact. This is a standard concern that effects all subdivision
projects in the city. One as far as access, construction traffic it is
proposed as a recommendation that construction access the site on Kerber Blvd.
only. Third the traffic issue which has been discussed very much in all of
these and will be discussed by the City Engineer in further detail so at this
time, if it is possible to have Lori review the Park and Recreation Commission
action on the appraisal and the Park and Recreation Commission's
recommendation to the Council then Bill to review the street and drainage
issues.
Lori Sietsema: The Park and Recreation Commission called a special meeting
after the appraisal was brought back to determine the final recommendation
regarding the park issue. The Commission has all along wanted to preserve the
slopes around the pom area to protect the park am promote wildlife. After
reviewing the appraisal it felt that a conservation easement would meet their
needs and the recommendations that they have made are that the City acquire
the land between the high water mark and the 952 contour line which is all
shown in green aroum the pond. The second one is that the City prepare a
park plan in conjunction with the DNR, u.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to
preserve the slopes and promote wildlife in the park. I talked with the DNR
and they are available to help us develop and help us plan that will involve
plantings along the slopes that will best help preserve them and to develop
the area around the pond that will best promote wildlife in the area. The
third recommendation was that the City establish a conservation easement from
the 952 to the top of the slopes which is the area shown in red. That the
conservation easement be our standard conservation easement that would allow
plantings that would be detailed in that park plan. The fourth condition is
that the City allow no reduction in park dedication fees.
I
I
Bill Monk: I would like to go through the drainage issues. As Council will
recall, we reviewed the proposed storm sewer line on Triple Crown Estates just I
to the north but in very brief detail, the proposal is to drain the southern
portion of the site to two locations. One being at the western edge of what
36
-t; (.1, ~
J!_ t~'... _;..;_
City Council Meeting - July 21, 1986
I
I
is called here Cascade Court the other being at the north terminous of St.
Buren into Kerber to collect the water at those two locations and run them
down into a sedimentation pond that would be created on the west portion of
the site before it would be discharged into the existing pond which would
allow some sedimentation quality control as well as quantity control in lieu
of using the existing pond exclusively for that purpose. In addition, the
existing drainage problem that has existed for some time with water coming off
the farm field and runs between existing lots into Saratoga Addition, will be
corrected through the installation of a combination berm and swa1e where water
in this area will be directed to a low spot am collected and taken out in
that same drainage system. The southern drainage system is really pretty
straight forward. There is substantial grading that will take place in the
end of Cascade Trail adjacent to the school property. The back portions of
those lots will drain around the back side where a swa1e will be graded am
allowed to discharge down Kerber Drive. Q1 the north portion of the si te,
this line in red designates water that will need a direct flow overland to the
existing ponds or in this area of Sierra Trail, be caught up in two basins and
taken out to the existing pond. This area to the south of the red line
north of the pond, represents the only area of any direct runoff. Some slope
runoff, of course here, would come down into the pond but where any street or
house development drainage would be directed to the existing pond. This does
represent a decrease in the amount of water that is presently being directed
that way just over land. The northern portion of the site will be collected
along the street and through back lot lines. A portion of it will run through
the existing wetlands just to the west of Kiowa Circle. That would be routed
through. An outlet would be provided and discharged over into the
sedimentation basin being created right now as part of the Triple Crown
Estates. Additionally, a portion of drainage from Big Horn Drive will be
caught in a catch basin system and brought into the piping system that is
again, proposed right now as a part of the Triple Crown Estates. All of the
drainage from the site except the small portion from this section of Sierra,
will be running to separate sedimentation basins before it goes into either
the existing pond or into Lotus Lake and I believe does represent a good water
quality am quantity control effort through development to treat the water and
handle the water as it does run towards Lotus Lake and into the creek outlet.
There also is another problem that will be corrected. This existing wet lams
does drain naturally between two lots right here, Lots I and 2 on the west
side of Kiowa. A berm will be constructed in through that area am overflow
will be directed into the outlet and taken over to the sedimentation basin
over here so that drainage system that goes into that can then be repaired and
will actually have less water going into it and less erosion problems then
presently exist down to the east of Kiowa. Very brief overview of the
drainage situation. As far as the grading goes, the developer has shown on
the plan the existing tree line is designated on the plan am on his proposal
and also through development, the existing trees that would remain in this
area and also up in this area. As you can see, the existing tree line through
this area so a section of trees would be removed in through here for grading.
Additionally, the tree line in this area comes out into here. Again, an area
of existing trees in here would be removed as along the drainage way in
through here. Staff has gone out to look at this. I don't believe that the
stand of trees are the same that existed over in Triple Crown Estates but we
do want to point out that there are some areas in here where tree cover would
I
37
~, n'-"'"
lL 1,J} L;J
City Council Meeting - July 21, 1986
be taken out to facilitate both street improvement construction and house pads
in this area and this area. As far as streets go, it is still proposed and
staff is recommending that Frontier Trail be extended through and also that
Santa Vera be extended through. All along the extension of Frontier has been
the topic of most discussion. Staff continues to believe that with the
offset alignment being proposed at this time, that through traffic with the
number of stop signs in the alignment of the road itself, will be discouraged
and free flow of traffic back and forth through neighborhoods and public
taking problem multiple access points are needed in this area and the streets
indeed should go through. Lastly, I would just go over the park issue picking
up on just, I've been over some of these items so many times, I feel everybody
knows what the Council has only seen in sketch plan. The area in green on
this plan is proposed to be dedicated from the high water mark of the pond in
many instances here to the 952 contour, to give the City a bench for a walkway
in and around this portion of the pond where we presently have no property. Also
this area would be dedicated potentially when the sedimentation pond is
completed in this area, a walkway could be continued around this section and
tie in with the habitat that presently exists under Kerber Drive. The area in
red would be covered in a conservation easement that would have to be written
into the development contract and then show up on the deal for each individual
lot. It is enforceable. We have been over it. We have those in the City and
can enforce that type of easement. The easement approach is seen by the Park
and Recreation Board and by Staff as being an economical way of providing and
obtaining the City's goals and neighborhood's goals for a nature park in
through this area. I'm sure there are a lot of people who want to talk so I
will quit at that and answer questions.
Greg Frank, McCombs-Knutson: We also have with us tonight Mr. David Seigel
and Mr. Saul Seigel of Enterprise Properties to go over the project. I want
to touch on a few points that we have gone through since the conception of
this project to the point where we are at now and also some revisions that we
have done requested by Mr. Seigel last week. I just want to touch on those
with you because I think they will additionally address some of the concerns
that have been expressed over the past several months concerning this project.
Again, the site itself as you know, has substantial topography in this area
around the pond through here and has some additional amenities in the pond
itself here, this pond here and these wooded areas. The intent of the design
all along was to retain as much of the wooded areas as possible and the
request for the setback area from 30 to 25 was basically in order to preserve
trees. '!he administrative staff indicated that it would perhaps be as easy
to carve off the 25 foot setback over the whole project and that is the reason
we have the current project although we could have 30 foot on the other lots
where we are backed by the slopes or vegetation otherwise. I'm just trying to
define the limit of conservation easement and that shows up as this gray line
here and that conforms with the recommendation of the Park Bord and Staff and
the intention would be to either deed that outright or through covenants to
the City. Addition of that line is shown over here along this line as this
being the slope easement that would be preserved. '!hat will work with back
yards and give us adequate backyards so we feel comfortable with that design
and being able to accomplish that for the City. '!he vegetation over in this
area, again, you can see we are retaining much of the native vegetation here.
We have a cluster of elms in this area here and most of the elms in this area
38
I
I
I
I
I
I
, "-iI
JL }L it
City Council Meeting ~ July 21, 1986
here, we are losing a portion of them but again it is the design intent
throughout the project that if there are trees at all, we will certainly
retain them. In fact, there is a cluster of trees in the south area and I
think we are confident that we can preserve every tree that exists on that
si te today in the south area. Certainly our grading plan will make every
effort to. In fact there are a couple in front of the house here and they
will be sloped around in order to retain. We do feel comfortable and we do
want them retained because they are a benefit not only to the developer but
also to the City and future homeowners there. OVer the last couple weeks
since the Planning Commission, the developer has asked us to look at some
design revisions with the intent of trying to maximize the number of lots that
would have a minimum of 15,000 square feet. Again, as a benefit to review
this drawing, I have highlighted in yellow some of the changes. In the street
alignment that you saw originally, we just shuffled a few lot lines aroum am
in some reform, I would just like to show that in the south area there were no
revisions from what you have seen in the preliminary plat but we have 17 lots
that are greater than 15,000 square feet, 16 lots that are umer 15,000 square
feet. Again, 12,000 would be the minimum lot size. In the northern area we
have, with just some minor lot line revisions, we can have 47 lots that are
greater than 15,000 and 44 that would be under 15,000. OVerall then, with
just these small lot changes that we have here, if Council would so desire, we
would have 64 lots out of the total 124 that would be in excess of 15,000
square feet and 60 lots only that would be under 15,000 square feet. '!he
median lot size would be exactly 15,000 square feet am the average lot width
overall would be in excess of 90 feet at the setback line with the minimum at
80. Staff hasn't had an ofPortunity to review this am this is the first time
we have presented this drawing but I think from the directions we had from the
Planning Commission am the City Council before am also from the homeowners,
I think this is something that can be recornnended.
Mayor Hamil ton: Before you get off onto that, can you be specific about what
changes you made.
Greg Frank: IDts 8, 9 and 10. '!he lot lines were shifted so that taking it
from one lot to another, we have Lot 7 is 16,100; Lot 8 of Block 7 is 15,000
square feet and Lot 9 of Block 7 is 15,000 square feet. '!hen as we go from
Lot 17 and 16, Lot 16 is 15,000 square feet, Lot 17 becomes 15,500 square
feet. As we go along this one, before Lot 7 was qui te large. Taking part of
that lot am readjusting the lot line with respect to the road, Lot 7 becomes
15,700 square feet and Lot 8 becomes 15,000 square feet. Adjusting lot lines
between Lots 30 am 31, Lot 31 becomes 15,200 square feet.
Councilwoman Swenson: Wait a minute Greg, you're going too fast here. fet's
go from Lots 7 and 8, we've got that one. Let's go from there.
Greg Frank: Lot 8 is 15,000, Lot 9 is 15,000, Lot 16 is 15,000, Lot 17 is
15,500 am Lot 15 is 13,500. Moving over to Block 8, Lot 7 becomes 15,700,
Lot 8 becomes 15,000 square feet. '!hen Lots 12 and 13, the square footage of
those has been maintained as the same but at the request of the adjoining
property owner, this lot line was increased here giving this one more frontage
than Lot 13. Otherwise in adjusting the lot line in order to accomodate that
again in order to work with that property owner east of the project.
39
-<'l --; cr.
.ELbi
City Council Meeting ~ July 21, 1986
Councilman Geving: WJuld you give him more front footage then?
I
Greg Frank: We did give him more front footage. Before it was 90 feet and
now it is 105 feet on Lot 13. On Lot 12, it has two frontages. One is 105
feet and the other one is 95 feet, that is a double frontage on that one.
That has roughly 200 of frontage total on that one, if you take those two am
consider it as one front yard. Lot 20 and 21 of Block 8, Lot 20 becomes
15,100 and Lot 21 becomes 13,000 square feet.
Councilman Geving: Didn't you change those?
Greg Frank: Yes, Lot 21 is 13,000 square feet am Lot 20 is 15,100 square
feet.
Councilman Geving: So you made a big corner lot there.
Greg Frank: In fact, there was an error in the earlier drawing. The square
footage in the original drawing was an error. It was quite a large lot for
only 13,000 square feet as compared to the next one. In Lot 1 am 2 change in
Block 11, Lot 1 is 15,100.
Councilman Geving: Where did you get the square footage there?
Greg Frank: As you go from basically Outlot C back here, there were small
adjustments made throughout this area.
I
Councilman Geving: I don't know how you did that though because there aren't
any lots that are over 14,000.
Councilwoman Swenson: '!bey reduced 6 from 14,000 to 12,000.
Greg Frank: That is correct, Lot 6 was reduced from 14,000 to 12,000 square
feet. Lot 5 stayed at 12,000, Lot 4 stayed at 12,000, Lot 3 remained the same
and Lot 2 remained the same, Lot 1 we added some footage there to Lot 1. I
guess it is partially because of the fact that the Lot is on Kerber Drive and
would be a better place to have that. In Block 10, all the lots with the
exception of Lot 7, are in excess of 15,000 or larger. One of the other
changes to date has been Lot 10. That lot line was shifted to the west in
order to help Lot 10 out and improve that because of the access that
eventually will have construction of Big Horn Drive going to the north. I
will summarize again statistically what those revisions will do to the
project. OVerall, it would create 64 lots that would have lots in excess of
15,000 square feet, there would be 60 lots that would be less than 15,000
square feet but none, in any case, that would be less than 12,000. The median
lot size would be 15,000. '!be average lot size would remain the same as Staff
indicated which is 16,300 square feet and the average lot width at the setback
line is in excess of 90 feet with a minimum never being less than 80.
Councilwoman Swenson: You have 64 lots now that are in excess of l5,000?
Greg Frank: Yes. Again, touching on some of the other subjects, during many
of the meeting that we had with homeowners as well as with the Planning
I
40
I
I
I
4....Q
Jt lLu
City Council Meeting - July 21, 1986
Commission, concerns were with respect to drainage. I think we have dealt
with those. A lot of cases are existing drainage problems. We have listenerl
very closely to those concerns and I think we have handled, corrected many of
those existing problems by collecting water runoff that right now does go off
the site. Particularly in this area right here as well as this area here.
The intention would be to let that drainage run to the storm sewer system am
get it away from existing drainage paths that we have right now. Staff
indicaterl there was some fill in this area here. This is a side hill right
here going through here right now. We are facing matching grades in here and
creating walkouts along here because you are on the side of a slope so we are
very close at matching grades at this point. A little fill here but these
lots themselves are on grade here then and on the site here is where the fill
would be just to accommodate the buildings of back yard lines. Again, the
back livable area of the house, the backyard areas, are very close to the
existing grades right now. Maybe put fill in most of those areas. Again,
we are going to be preserving vegetation that exists along this area as well
as in this area as well as those in that area. Before any of the runoff gets
to this pom from the southern area, it will first go to the serlimentation
basin and we took a lot of the runoff that now does naturally flow to
this basin here am carried it through the storm sewer system east through the
Chaparral Four project where there will be a sedimentation basin constructed
to take care of that runoff before it should ever get to Lotus Lake. With
those points, if there are any questions, I would be happy to respond to them.
Bill Boyt: You have my written document am I'm not going to repeat it. I
appreciate the opportunity to speak to you one more time. Although there are
several issues that we have stated right from the first with the developer am
we have met with the developer repeatedly, if you will notice a few things.
One, I'm going to speak to the northern part of the development. One of the
things I mentioned in the writing I gave you was that on March 2r3th I believe
there were 913 lots. When that proposal was made you made comments about
densi ty. Since then on other developments, Mr. Mayor you have commented about
the 12,131313 square foot lots and is that something that the City Council really
wants to do. '!hat was a few months ago. Councilwoman Swenson you commented
recently or was quoterl in the paper about the neerl to revise the PUD. This
might be a good opportunity to show how we can do a development with quality
in mind. You expressed your concern about density. Density to me means the
number of houses you put in a given area on buildable land. When we came back
and I think it was after the March meeting, there was a point in there
somewhere in the middle where the developer decided he could develop on the
marsh am the number went up to 95 lots. Then the Planning Camm ission told
him that was inappropriate. He then went back and came in with 91 lots. (be
more lot than he had proposerl back in March. They have just talked about
revisions that include 91 lots. 10 use their term, you can shuffle around the
lot lines all you want, the density has not gotten any better in all the
months we have put into this. When I moved to Chanhassen I looked around. It
is a really great community. When I bought my piece of property, I looked at
the adjoining piece of properties and there wasn't anything adjoining me under
213,131313 square feet. I assumed that when the land behind me was developed, it
would be developed with comparable homes on comparable size lots. I have
spent half the time I've lived in Chanhassen working with the developer am
the Planning Commission and the Park Commission in trying to get a development
that is comparable. I still don't think they are comparable.
41
11 n L1
_.... __ ::J
City Council Meeting - July 21, 1986
Debbie Lloyd: I have not addressed the Council before. I wrote a letter this
afternoon. I composed this letter with my chi ldren dancing aroum my feet am
I would like to read it tonight because it really speaks from my heart and I
think from the neighborhood from which I'm from am how this will effect us in
the traffic issue. I've been a resident of O1anhassen for 6 years. J)lring
those years I have observro the community in it's struggle for prosperous
growth and development. '!he opportunities are here, in abundance, for the
formation of a well plannro, highly desirable, beautiful community. Changes
inevitable but progress is positive change that requires input from experts as
well as residents who have personal interest in the changes made. It is your
obligation to weigh the input from all parties to assure that progress
continues. The extension of Frontier Trail. I live on Laredo Drive where it
forms a dead end and all my traveling leads me to the intersection of Frontier
Trail where, on many occasions, I have come close to being involvro in an
accident due to the nature of the stop sign and the hill on which it is
locatro. I make probably as many, if not more, trips to Excelsior as the
average person from Chanhassen. OUr drycleaners are there and one of my
children will attem school there am the shopping is wonderful. Despite this
I do not want the distance I travel to be shorten and it might have to become
curvacious Frontier Trail. I also fim it simply delightful to live so close
to our downtown area, the Post Office and the bank. In very few communities
being develope:] today can people find the amenities so close to home. The
people who build in Chan vista should be equally impressed with the
convenience of the services, fire hall and all, as well as the natural beauty
of the area surrounding them. '!his is a little history of what I used to
develop my thoughts today. On April 9, 1986 in the Planning Commission
minutes, the Assistant City planner stated that the fire and safety director
reviewro the plan am had no comments. At the Council meeting on April 21,
1986 Bill Monk stated, Staff is supporting both extensions. One very
important reason is from the public safety starrlpoint. Another is the overall
desire to connect neighborhoods to allow vehicle miles traveled to be
minimizro for existing neighborhoods but also, in this case, I think also for
the proposed, but also for the existing neighborhood so that people don't have
to back track through town am down Larroo and Frontier to get aroum to the
same point that they could loop through in about 1/6 of the distance. On
April 28, 1986 Jim Castleberry wrote on the Frontier Trail extension. The
joint consensus is that failure to provide this type of access will
significantly impede emergency response to this new development. He didn't
mention the existing neighborhood, he mentioned the new development. I have a
few comments now on traffic patterns. I drove from the Fire Station down
Kerber Blvd. to the entry point of where the Frontier Trail extension would
be. It was exactly one mile. Then I drove from the Fire Station down Larroo
Drive and Frontier Trail to the cul-de-sac where the entry to the new
development would be am it was exactly one mile. The Environment Assessment
Worksheet projected the average daily trips from the new development to be
1,240 trips. Chanhassen vista traffic analysis, some summary comments. It
can be anticipated that traffic at the existing cul-de-sac of Frontier Trail
am the dead em of Saratoga Circle will be increasro by the extension of
these roadways primarily due to changes in existing traffic patterns rather
than new traffic from the proposro development. Now, for my personal
opinions. Bill Monk wants to minimize the number of miles traveled. Tell me
Bill, how can trips down Frontier Trail be shortenro by 1/6? Sure, you can
I
I
I
42
I
I
I
-:lJL -;' F-'
j JlO
City Council Meeting - July 21, 1986
shortened by distance to Excelsior but everyone in the new development will
have close to equal length trips into Chanhassen by either route. We are
fortunate already to be so close to our services. A little pun here on my
account, I still haven't foum downtown Eden Prairie. Tim Castleberry's
remarks on safety can't be taken lightly. Yes, we all must be concerned
about ease of access in times of emergencies. After having comparErl the drive
from the Fire House down Kerber Blvd. with the drive down Laredo and Frontier,
I wonder why they would chose the later. It is so bumpy, wimy am
residential and therefore slower than Kerber Blvd.. Tb allow access to the
new development it was proposErl that a grass strip be in place to allow for
passage of emergency equipment if needed. Also another footnote, the
developer had no problem with this concept. I have not seen any comments with
respect to this suggestion. It has just kind of been tabled. Judging from
the Environmental Assessment Worksheet, even if 20% of the traffic from the
new development chose to travel down Frontier Trail as access to downtown, it
would incrase traffic down Frontier by 248 cars per day. Not including the
shift of traffic from the local established community going through back and
forth. There will be a significant change in the volume of traffic down
Frontier Trail. It will create a more intense, traffic hazard situation. It
will place into jeopardy the lives of more children. The integrity of the
existing neighborhood should not be compromised. An extension of Frontier
Trail serves no great purpose. A grassy strip is a practical alternative.
Let two neighborhoods coexist close to services, share borders and respect the
independence of each. Let the number of miles driven through neighborhoods be
reduced and the wellfare of each child your concern. Let change be progress
am community interest am involvement a key to a thriving new Chanhassen.
Jay Johnson: It's almost tomorrow. I'm going to really cut down on my
comments. We've been here too long already. We have met with the developer
qui te a bit and a lot of things have changed. I agree that this newest plan
that we just saw still has 91 lots over there. I don't see how it made much
difference. We took some 12's and made them into 15's and took some 13's and
made them into 12's and I couldn't follow what he was doing on my plan. I do
appreciate the drainage improvements he has done on the Saratoga side. '!his
was not just to ease an existing problem but by water rights, we are allowed
not to have an increase of water. Development on that side would have
increasErl the water so they had to do something about the drainage am at the
same time it was most feasible to completely stop the drainage going across
there. The impression that they are doing it just to make it better for us is
not totally true but it did have that net effect. '!he same thing on the north
side. The net effect is that it has helpffi the citizens. They have worked
pretty well with us on the drainage. Earlier had some increased traffic and
traffic patterns. They have done some work on the south side am helpffi us
there. Disruption of the neighborhood during construction was in our earlier
peti tion. They have put some items in the recommemations that no traffic
come in from our side of the street and Saratoga construction traffic. '!hat
will be good as long as it is enforced. The lot size issue we have always
maintained that it is too dense. We had the houses next to us set up pretty
much the way that our houses were then with this last plan they switched it a
little bit and shovErl them together a little bit more. We're not really
complaining too much about that, it's just every time you turn aroum they are
changing it again. We've got another plan tonight that nobody has seen
43
\1 1; (2
JL ~ 1(J1
City Council Meeting - July 21, 1986
before: This thing is going to drag out for months if they keep changing I.
their plans. It already has actually. Now, Chanhassen Pom, one of our main
issues is this conservation easement. We would like to see that. We keep
hearing conservation easement but according to our city ordinance, we are
supposed to have already seen that. That should be here. We should be right
now be able to read that thing. Has it been drawn up yet? That assessment as
part of the development plan that is required for you to approve a development
plan. If you don't have it tonight, the final development plan shouldn't be
approved. The preliminary development plan yes, final no. It is interesting
that my comments on the EAW have not been brought forward. It is also very
interesting that the city ordinance on how to do a POD has never really been
followed too much. The required information for a preliminary development
plan has not been submitted as of yet. This information is from Subsection 4
of Section 14.05 of the Preliminary Development Plan and that states that you
have to go back to Subsection 3 and submit all the stuff you were supposed to
have submitted for the proposed development plan which wasn't submitted at
that time. One of those is a written report which describes the nature of
ownership, description of proposed development, a request for modifications to
the ordinance. These are all the different variances they want. So far they
have asked for one variance. There are several other variances they are
implying in here that, I'm not going to go through and list them all here
today. There is supposed to be a 1 ist of the sequence of development. You
are supposed to have the preliminary plat finished. The preliminary plat
includes an erosion control plan. An erosion control plan has not been made
yet. You are supposed to have the proposed agreements, covenants, provisions, I
etc. regulating the establishment, use, maintenance and continued stability of
the planned development in the open spaces. That is the assessment. Those
are supposed to be in the preliminary development plan. After the preliminary
development plan is approved by Council they then have 45 days to give you a
final development plan. I have been told by the City that the City says you
can do a preliminary and final at the same time although it is not in the city
ordinance anywhere. In the subdivision ordinance you can do a preliminary am
final plat simultaneously so tonight we are doing something that doesn't seem
to be along this ordinance we have here. Since it is late I'm not really
going to go into any details here so that is my comments.
Barbara Dacy: Mr. Johnson's first comment was regarding his comments on the
EAW. His letter was included in your packet. Also, in the Staff Report I
referred to his comment when I stated "concern was also raised by a resident
regarding the construction of the sedimentation basin in the southern portion
of the property." We specifically discussed his concerns with the developer
and discussed those with the City Engineer and it was my understanding that
those concerns were being addressed by the plan that you have before you.
Second of all, Mr. Johnson is referring to the process in our POD ordinance
that is in badly need of revision am I am very happy that the Council wants to
take the initiative to amend the process. The application that you have
before you is complete. This is a preliminary plat. They have submitted an
Environmental Assessment Worksheet which does detail a lot of what is being
proposed in the development including a traffic analysis that is not normally I
required through a subdivision proposal. We normally, in the past, large
PUD's, we have not required a written narrative of a development plan saying
there are 124 lots being proposed, x number of lots are so many square feet.
44
I
_I
I
....~7
Jt 0 :
City Council Meeting - July 21, 1986
Staff has taken over that function. The erosion control detail plans and
grading plans will be submitted as part after preliminary plat approval which
is our standard procedure with plat approvals. Plans and specs have to be
approved by the Council am those documents will be submitted if the
development plan is approved tonight. While there is nothing specific in the
plan that says yes, you can awly for both at once, it has been done in the
past. The pheasant Hill PUD, the Hidden Valley PUD, Fox Hollow PUD, the
Chanhassen Hills Poo. In my reading of the ordinance, there is no difference
between the sketch plan and the preliminary plan as it is written in the 1972
ordinance. What you have here is complete application.
Joel Jenkins: I live at 7226 Frontier Trail and if I could maybe summarize
what the people who live in my neighborhood are saying is that we have, and I
counted them up this evening, 30 children living from Iaredo to the end of the
cul-de-sac, less than age 10. We currenly have lots of driveways where our
children don't even play on our driveways or in our front yards. They have to
play in the backyards. Now with that idea am with the increase of 248
additional cars coming down Frontier Trail, which is windy, which is curvy,
where we have had accidents. It would appear to me that Staff, making their
recommendations to carry Frontier Trail through, is making that not thinking
of the people whose names have been on petitions who live there but thinking
maybe of all the people in Chanhassen, which is fine because we are electing
the Council am hiring the Staff to help us make those decisions. That would
appear to me that the people who signed those petitions have the children that
live there who at least would like some consideration in reference to keeping
that a green strip there if there is no other alternative. It would appear to
me that Dale Geving's comments earlier about setting precedence on a 15,000
square foot lot on a POO, etc., I don't know all those terms, what they mean
or the implications, but I moved to Chanhassen from Mankato. I grew up in a
town of 250 people near Worthington. I like the small town. I also like the
idea that you can build a community however you want it to be built. I think
in summary I would like to say that government is of the people, by the people
am for the people. Especially for the people. It is not for developers who
are here today and gone tomorrow.
Tom Fiebiger, 7494 Saratoga Drive: The only statement I would like to make is
all along there seemed to be a concern about the buffer zone areas and lot
sizes. My concern also is on the southern portion of the development with the
lot sizes that abut our properties. Some of the smaller ones are right there.
They are a lot smaller. We were tossing around 15,000, 16,000, 17,000 square
foot lot sizes earlier in changes that have taken place over in here where it
won't really effect these folks but it will effect us. I'm simply saying that
I would like to see larger lots right out our back door am I'm sure the rest
of our neighbors would also. The developers have been very good in listening
to us up to this point on the drainage issues am almost all the issues we
have touched on but I really think two plans ago, we had larger lots abutting
our property than we do right now am I would like to turn it back the other
way again and at least get it somewhat respectable in respect to how our lots
line up.
Don King, n00 Kiowa Circle: I have been up here before and I guess I have
finally figured out the problem why I am having so much trouble with the
45
~-:1D
11 Ji ~.,
J!_ ,,-0
City Council Meeting ~ July 21, 1986
property that is adjoining me behind me, it is Lot 13, if anybody has a problem I
with that number. Mr. Hamil ton, you said yourself, we should look at phasing
in from the adjoining property on. We should take an additional five lots out
of here. I don't think the developer has even listened to that. We are still
playing games with 90-91 lots. The phase in situation, I'm looking at their
new proposed one. We are talking 200 and some foot of frontage on Lot 12
whereas Lot 13, which adjoins me is only 105. I don't really think that is
phasing in. I think we have our program backwards here. The other thing that
I would like to deal with here is the fact about this green area on Frontier
Trail. I've lived there for 12 years and we have had to put up with a lot of
problems at the end of that street and the City has refused to even deal with
some of it. Even the trash out here so I will be glad to see some homes
built there eventually but the thing that I'm concerned about is still, as
this lady has pointed out, here is a through street. Just coming home the
other night, I almost hit one of these young kids down this street looking
right into the sun into the west. With the additional traffic that we are
certainly going to see, also your stop sign up here on Big Horn is certainly
not going to slow that traffic down. It's a racetrack up and down here
currently as it stands. I think it has been mentioned at one of our meetings
before that the value of these lots is something like $15,000.00 to
$20,000.00. Am I correct on that?
Greg Frank: $26,000.00.
Don King: I think if you multiple that times five, is delaying this program
worth another $100,000.00 to get rid of five or so lots out of there and get
this plan, I think most of the people are quite well in agreement with where
the program is going and I think if we would react to the things that have
been presented, I believe it is going to happen.
1-
Dennis Karstensen, 7482 Saratoga Drive: I live by the pond. I am really
concerned with what happens with the pond and the park around that. I see the
easement as a pretty good compromise. I'm still concerned about enforcement.
It is like the first thing we had coming in tonight was a problem with a
garage being built on an easement and we didn't do anything about it. What's
going to happen when people do the same type of thing on their private
property on the conservation easement around here. That is one concern I have
about that. cne thing on this overall portion, what are we getting for this
PUD? Chanhassen, you, me, everybody here should be getting something from it
for the smaller lots and things that he has proposed and I'm just not sure if
the benefit is there. We have a very small park area that he has actually
dedicated. Drainage improvements is definitely a plus and where the
conservation easement is a plus but is there really enough to off-set the
small lots? I don't think it is at this point.
Rick Friedlander: I think the developer has done a pretty fair job of
addressing a lot of concerns, particularly in the area of the drainage and the
conservation thoughts and so on. Please do as good a job for us in terms of
the street and don't put it through.
I
Councilman Horn: We keep hearing about the traffic on Frontier Trail. The
question I have, do we have any traffic study of what this is doing to Laredo?
46
J
I
I
1119'.
J..>._ @,
City Council Meeting - July 21, 1986
What is going to happen in front of the school, for instance, whether the
street is in or out?
Bill Monk: It is hard to say. '!here is expected to be some traffic from the
existing road that will now travel through this new subdivision instead of
going down Laredo. '!here is also some traffic from the new subdivision that
will go down through that area. I think as far as by the school, there is a
chance that there will be a reduction in traffic in that area but whether it
would be significant or not. We have done no projections on that far down
given the multiple ways for traffic to get through so I really can't address
the question in detail but I would expect some reduction in traffic in that
area because people from the existing neighborhood would not be going around
that way to get to Excelsior. It may have a significant increase or decrease,
I don't know.
Councilman Horn: I guess to me this is one of the more important issues of
this. I came into this thing, it seemed very clear cut. All we were doing was
matching what the previously approved development. I'm not terribly hung up
about matching that or running that street through there but I just want to
make sure because we are putting all of our attention on the safety issue of
Frontier, we aren't forgetting about the safety issue on Laredo. I guess I
can't get an answer to that.
Greg Frank: I think Jay, you can correct me, I think your people from your
area generally favored putting that through, am I correct Jay? I thought that
was expressed in the past.
Jay Johnson: You mean Santa Vera? Santa Vera, I don't think anybody is really
concerned with the traffic coming off of Laredo and cutting through because
that cuts a mile off my route to church in Excelsior. We're going to use it.
I don't think we have much of a problem with that going through. We realize
it is going to increase the traffic on the front part of Saratoga but if it is
good from a public safety point, stuff like that as far as we're concerned.
Councilman Horn: '!hat effects this other one also. It would be my opinion
that if the Santa Vera route is left open and this one is closed, the traffic
would turn off and go through Santa Vera instead of going in front of the
school so it would appear to me that you would get more traffic through that
one if we don't leave the one open on Frontier. All the people up on this
em will take that route to go to Excelsior rather than go down in front of
the school to go out. To me those are the kinds of issues we should be
playing off here when we are treating traffic patterns and apparently you
don't have any data on that. '!hat, to me, is what I consider to be the
pattern you should be addressing. I guess that is my biggest concern at this
point. I have no trouble keeping these neighborhoods separated if indeed we
can have facts that show it will be safer to do that but I don't think we have
those facts today so to me at this point it is just a subjective decision.
Council woman Swenson: I would like to refer to the changes in the PUD that
Bill brought up. Cbviously one of the reasons this was brought up was so that
we could break precedent that unfortunately we have established. There isn't
anybody that dislikes large percentage of lots under 15,000 any more than I
47
120
City Council Meeting - July 21, 1986
do. You can go back through my last 7-9 years of working with the City and
see that. However, having said that, I have to say that when I review this
with the 4 or 5 that we have recently passed, it is favorable. I would find
it difficult to argue too much with it only by comparison. I do have a
suggestion. I still would like to see on Block 8, there are eight 12,000 square
foot lots in a row. If one of those was eliminated, we would eliminate eight
12,000 square foot lots and bring in seven 13,700 which for the exchange of
one lot, I don't think is too bad~ It seems to me that is a relatively decent
compromise. As regards to the 25 foot setbacks. I can see where if we are
going to preserve the tree line, I'm quite content with it. However, I do not
concur that just because we are going to do it in one place that we have to
establish that as a criteria through the entire development. I can see on the
cul-de-sac on Conestoga Court, as has been pointed out, it doesn't show the
tree line on the paper I have here but certainly if in any instance where this
is going to preserve any of our natural amenities I'm certainly not going to
argue about a 5 foot setback in lieu of a 15-18 inch diameter tree but I
believe on a curve, for instance and when it begins to straighten out, I see
no reason why those can't go to 30. However, having said that, I have to say
that there is one thing in it's favor and that is while it does appear to give
a more congested view, it does give us larger backyards for people to enjoy
and children to play. I think this is a very important thing which is why I
want 15,000 square foot lots so I'm not too hung up on this except I don't
want it to become a precedent which is what we seem to have. As far as
closing off Frontier, I have to agree with Clark. I really have a really bad
hang-up on these things and I would dearly like to have some more conclusive
evidence as to which is really the safer. On the one hand we have Mr.
Castleberry who is a respected staff member and suppose to be very
knowledgeable about this type of thing, telling us that this should be left
open for the safety, health and welfare of our citizens and on the other hand
we have the established neighborhoods and I'm worried about those. I have
grandchildren and I'm just as worried about somebody elses as I am about my
own so I guess I am going to have to beg off on that because without
additional information I really don't know where to go. Is there anyway we
can get that Bill? Is there any way we can hold off that particular area
until we get more documentation on this? I mean this road isn't going to be
great. I would still want the road put there but we would have to some kind
of a pilot or chain like we have across the parks.
Don Ashworth: If I could jump in because as Staff members we have discussed
this issue many times and it becomes a difficult one and I know that a number
of people are very concerned. Each of the property owners in that area. One
of the problems that you have is that you really can't predict which way
traffic will go. Staff is concerned about the very hilly, narrow and the
tight curves that exist on Frontier so we have the same basis but the
conclusions may be not necessarily the same. I sincerely believe and I guess
other staff members, that you will see more traffic that leave the
neighborhood changing the basic traffic patterns. Again, if we can table the
matter and go back again to our consultants to prove the fact one way or
another but common sense and being in the business for as many years, people
will take the shortest and safest route when they are going somewhere. People
living at the end of that street, I'm looking at Mr. Gimbler for example, I
don't know why he would travel Frontier Trail going through the section we are
48
I
I
I
I
I
I
. ,.--, 1t
11 "f' I
-L:L. ,,<;:;.1, __
City Council Meeting - July 21, 1986
talking about nor would the service trucks, etc. that would service his
property. They simply wouldn't do it. It is not going to be the safest,
quickest route. In my own mind, there is a good potential that the number of
trips per day in front of Rick's property may very well be reduced. The other
standpoint, we talked about Castleberry, etc., you have to realize that your
emergency vehicles, I'm talking about police, ambulance service, etc. are
scattered throughout the community at anyone point in time whose response
back into the back of Frontier Trail for a vehicle thay may be traveling
Carver Beach area, Greenwood Shores, in most instances the paramedic unit is
not down just at this particular area. You simply increase the City's ability
to serve those properties in case of some type of an emergency. '!hat is
really where the Staff is coming from in making that type of recommendation.
We also recognize that the tornado that this community saw several years ago,
that basically went right through that area. When those types of disasters
occur, and we don't like to think about them but all you need is a good wind
storm with the number of trees in that area and you can block an access to a
neighborhood that requires a emergency vehicle or personnel, your fireman, to
go on foot by 300-500 feet to get to an individual parcel. It is for that
reason that the Fire Department took their position feeling that that road
should go through there and again I recognize those opinions do not
necessarily jive with the number of people that I highly respect and know but
that is the reason that opinion was formulated.
Councilwoman Swenson: Wouldn't the green strip between the two take care of
that?
Don Ashworth: We have not found that to be a good solution. We have tried
that in the southern portion of the community. They have tried it in other
areas and what happens, a good part of our year encompasses snow and what not
and it just literally becomes almost impossible to keep those through. Keep
them open.
Councilwoman Swenson: Do we have an understanding Mr. Seigel or Mr. Frank,
whichever one, your joining with Triple Crown in the creek change project
between your two projects?
Greg Frank: I haven't talked to them recently but I did tell them that if we
did get this approved...
Councilwoman Swenson: You are willing to work with them on that as a private
developer developing that, is that correct?
Greg Frank: Yes.
Councilwoman Swenson: I have just one more thing that I would like to bring
up and that is regarding the grading. I must say I am a little bit concerned
by some of the things that I read and I'm not sure that I totally understand
but these points may be brought up well Bill, and that is there seems to be some
concern that there is going to be an awful lot of grading to fill in these
lower areas and to drain out to the low areas as they show as high buildable
areas, high building pads and so forth and so on. What I'm concerned about,
and this was brought up, is that are we going to be able to do this by grading
49
-t" C :;)
.:.L Ld D
City Council Meeting - July 21, 1986
then by degrees as opposed to having a similar situation that we had just to I
the north where everything is graded down. I understand that this may present
a problem and I don't want to make it impossible for somebody to do this but
at the same time I don't think I want to see this entire area reduced to clay
before it starts turning green.
Greg Frank: In respect to grading, grading would be done in the minimum of
three phases. The first phase would be the southern portion. That would be
the first phase in our project and that area that we would develop would be
developed at one time. That sloped area would be retained and be preserved.
The northern area would be graded at a minimum. Again, based on our
predictions, that the minimum of two phases maybe three phases would be graded
so there would only be basically either one half project on the north half or
else one dirt project being graded at anyone time.
Mayor Hamilton: I think what Pat is getting at is there is a lot of cutting
to be done there?
Greg Frank: '!here is cutting to be going up. '!here is two feet of top soil.
Basically, after removing top soil in order to accommodate the building pads
and get good material for building pads you have to... but in the south with
the draining problems that you have, you have to be more sensitive to that
area.
Council woman Swenson: Again, I want to watch that grading thing very I
carefully because with the sensitive area that we are working with, I want to
be really, really careful that if we go overboard not to have a lot of loose
soil laying around that can erode down which can happen with the best of care.
If we don't develop the situation where that can happen, I think we will be
less concerned with that. On the cutting of the trees Bill, it was my
understanding that one of the advantages of this in talking briefly with the
developer, it is his intent to save these trees and I am going to rely on his
integrity. I'm going to be real unhappy if I see a lot of trees cut out of
there.
Bill Monk: Ole of the things that will show up in a lot more detail as the
Council reviews grading plans in the future will be disturbance of tree areas
and the cuts of fields that you are referring to because of what occurred over
on some other developments where the Council was none too pleased. I think an
effort has been made in this instance to reduce some of the intrusion to trees
that could have been done by putting cul-de-sacs or whatever into those areas
but some of the areas of trees will be disturbed but we will take special note
as the grading plans are prepared.
Councilman Geving: I would like to reserve my comments primarily to the
conservation area around the pond. From the very beginning of this plat, the
most concern that I had was to make sure that we preserved all of the land
from the pond area up to our contour line and the Park and Recreation
Commission decided that the 952 line was a good place to make that so I would
like to build into the Park and Recreation Commission action notes the I
recommendation that we accept the slope easement dedication land as an
outright deed from the developer for all the land from the pond, at the
50
I
I
I
I: r.;, Q
I f:d. ':..J~
City Council Meeting - July 21, 1986
highwater mark to the 952 contour line and that would be an outright deed at
no expense to the City. Next I would like to say a few things about the
preservation of the trees and the areas that Pat mentioned where we had some
very bad experiences to the north of this project and I want to make sure that
never is repeated again in Chanhassen. I had a chance to review that, as well
as I suspect most of the Council members, it is a sickening feeling to see
those beautiful trees. I walked over every bit of that land. Two months ago
I was out picking mushrooms out in that area and I can tell you it was
beautiful and it's not going to happen again, I assure you. We are going to
make sure that on these type of projects our City Engineer and others are
going to be assigned to oversee those projects. We just can't let that
happen. As far as the rest of the project is concerned, I'm not concerned at
all about the southern portion. I think that now has developed into pretty
good shape, at least from my standpoint. I am more concerned now about the
drainage area. As a result of what Triple Crown did to their project, I can
see that there could be a major investment of monies to control the drainage
from this property and somehow we want to build into our conditions for the
approval of this project, one that would absolutely tie down a commitment from
both of these developers, Triple Crown and Enterprise Properties, a long term
commitment to control drainage and that this would be a private project. No
expense to the City. Again, the drainage to the pond is crucial and I hope
that proper wordage will be put into the plan in creating the conservation
easement. I don't know how we are going to do that yet and I want to make
sure that it is properly staked, that there is a no build line and there just
won't be anything on those slopes to preserve them forever. There was another
thing that I had noted earlier on some Park and Recreation Commission notes
and I didn't see it referred to tonight Lori. You had on Kerber Drive an
overlook turnoff. Did you fail to bring that up tonight or did you drop that
from your Park and Recreation Commission recommendations? On Kerber Drive you
had proposed an overlook at approximately where Lot 1 is on this plat.
Don Ashworth: We had a little trail that we were working on, slice off that
corner of that lot. Did you drop that out of the Park and Recreation
Commission recommendation?
Lori Sietsema: We intended to include that in the conservation easement.
Greg Frank: This revised drawing does show that here. Lot 1 is cut back and
that little access is right along here.
Councilman Geving: Okay, so you are going to make a prOVIsIon for that.
I do think that there is at least one too many lots, possibly two too many
lots on Conestoga Trail. The area that Pat mentioned in Block 8. It would be
my recommendation that we drop one of those lots out of that whole area as
well as deleting the word Conestoga Court. I believe if we are going to carry
that road through we will just call the whole thing Trail. I had several
other comments. In terms of the traffic, I too am concerned about the traffic
but I have nothing to base any statistics on. We have not received counts. I
don't know where we are going with the street alignment. I think there has
been a terrific expression by the homeowners in the area and I think that
there has been at least an indication on their part that that trail should not
go through. Again, I'm not sure how we are going to go on that because I
51
-,1 G1J,61
J-'.. L.J j:
City Council Meeting ~ July 21, 1986
don't have all the facts. None of us have. I had a question before the
meeting and that hasn't been answered am that is the number of lots under or
over 15,000 square feet. The developer did go back and made an attempt to
make some larger lots. Now he used nothing but lines. He didn't create any
new lots, he didn't reduce any old lots but at least there will be some larger
lots as a result of some conversation that we had with him earlier. I guess
that really takes care of most of my comments. Again, I have a strong feeling
for the ponding area am the preservation of the pom am hopefully the things
that will take into consideration tonight, at no expense to the City, will be
able to preserve these.
I
Councilwoman Watson: A lot of what I have has already been said. I will
accept those 25 foot setbacks only because they are preserving trees and they
only need to be on the lots where trees need to be preserved. They can go to
30 feet every place else. That 5 feet won't be noticeable on the street front
and we don't want to set precedence that we think 25 foot setbacks are
wonderful, we don't. I'm not sure about where all these bigger lots came
from, I don't know where the additional property came from, I don't know what
lots shrunk. When he was rattling off those lots, the ones he mentioned
sounded good but there wasn't any problem yet so I'm not sure where the extra
lam came from.
Mayor Hamilton: He is basically moving lines.
Councilwoman Watson: When we make something bigger, something got smaller I
somewhere and those are the ones I didn't hear about. I would kind of like to
have the ofPortunity to see that on paper because it didn't make much sense.
On the southern part here, 25 of those 33 lots have less than 90 foot
frontage am we didn't use to compromise on the 90 foot frontages all the
time. The one thing regarding Frontier Trail, true we don't have many traffic
facts, we don't have any of that stuff. We do have one fact, the existing
neighborhood doesn't want it opened up and that is the one fact that we do
have so at this point I feel that Frontier Trail doesn't need to be opened up.
Mayor Hamil ton: Basically my coments are about the same as Clark's and Pat's
I guess. I think the developer has responded to what the residents have asked
for and as you look at this plan, comparing it to some of the others that have
been passed recently, and also realizing that we don't have a real strong and
good POD ordinance at the present time, which is something that we are working
on to correct, I think the developer has come up with a good plan that fi ts
well with the property and I think is a good transi tion into the current
neighborhoods. The street issue, I feel the same as Clark. I don't know as
though we have enough information and perhaps we should have a consultant or
attempt to find out just from someone who may know better than us what may
happen with the traffic patterns. Personally, I don't like creating another
1 i ttle neighborhood because the town is getting chopped up and my personal
feeling is that is not the way you create a good community. I would rather
see us all tied together so that we are all neighbors and friends with each
other. Maybe having access onto Kerber Drive is going to reduce traffic
to the existing neighborhood at the present time. I do have a question for I
Dale. You are talking about the park area, are you say that you want that
deeded and not a conservation easement?
52
I
I
II
11. 6) r:;
J_ L;l t.:) ,
City Council Meeting -July 21, 1986
Councilman Geving: No, there are two things involved. We want the outright
deed from the developer from the land at the high water mark at the pond all
the way up to 952 and that is the green area. '!he red area is the
conservation easement area on the plan so there are two separate situations
and I believe that the developer has agreed to give us both of those.
Greg Frank: That is correct.
Councilman Geving: I would like to tie it down in our conditions and what we
place in our conditions.
Councilwoman Swenson: '!hat doesn't effect the size of the lot or the
useability of it?
Councilman Geving: No, it doesn't effect the size of the lot. It may effect
the no build line of SOOle of the lots, I suspect.
Greg Frank: '!he proposal you have before you with with the changes even,
meets the intention stated here. We do have 952 contour line as indicated as
the conservation easement...
Councilman Horn: I'm surprised that the people in the south part of the
project aren't asking us to open Frontier Trail because I don't have any
speculation about what is going to happen in front of the school but I am
pretty confident that if we keep Frontier closed, you are going to see a lot
more traffic going on Santa Vera because instead of going all the way down to
West 78th Street, they are going to cut through that way to hit Kerber back up
to Excelsior.
Jay Johnson: Ei ther way they are going to.
Bill Monk: If there is a thought that more information is needed, what I
would recommend is that the Council, if they want to act on this tonight, put
in a condition that the plat be approved with the right-of-way as shown but
the actual physical roadway connection be tabled. '!hat is the furthest phase
away that is being contemplated at this point in time. That the physical
connection be left for a future decision. We wouldn't need it until it is
platted so we could let people know whether it was going through or not.
Staff would then back up and reduce some of the numbers and concerns that are
being mentioned here. Approve the platting of the right-of-way but that is
like West 77th Street where the warehouse is. '!he right-of-way goes through
but the roadway connection is not made. If that is the way it would be approved,
then we would corne back and notify the neighborhood of the results of the
study and at a future agenda maybe in two to three months, make that decision.
Not that it is left until two years from now because people as they sell
houses and buy houses should know, is this going through or isn't it but get
some of those numbers. '!here would have been more of an overall traffic flow
situation. Approve the right-of-way but not the physical connection at this
point in time.
53
" C7', {:r~
Ld~\J
City Council Meeting - July 21, 1986
Council woman Swenson moved, Mayor Hamil ton seconded a motion to approve the
preliminary am final development plan #86-1 subject to the plans stamped
"Received June 18, 1986" and subject to the following conditions:
I
1. Construction traffic shall access the site via Kerber Blvd.
2. Detailed berming and landscaping plans shall be submitted in
conjunction with the submission of plans and specifications during
the final plat review process.
3. Regrading of the existing creekbed in Lots 1 and 2, Block 8:
otherwise, Lots 1 and 2 shall be combined.
4. Acquisition of a utility easement across the rear of Lot 1, Block 1
of the Saratoga First Addition.
5. Extension of all watermains to the west side of Kerber Drive.
6. Approval of a final grading and drainage plan by the City, Watershed
District and DNR and compliance with all conditions. Said plan to
specifically address erosion control and slope stabilization as well
as the existing drainage problems adjacent to Blocks 3 and 6.
7.
All street and utility construction shall be consistent with City
standards for urban development.
I
8.
Street construction for Santa Vera from Kerber to Cascade and Bighorn
Drive and Frontier Trail shall be oversized by 4 feet in width (to 32
feet) to accommodate pedestrian use.
9. Submittal of an erosion control plan as part of each building permit
application for all lots abutting the pond and sedimentation basin.
10. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated as necessary for
placement of all utility lines.
11. All duplicated street names should be revised before final plat
submission.
12. '!hat there is compliance with the Park and Recreation Commission's
recommendation as set forth and also as to whatever they feel is
appropriate as a definition of a conservation easement:
a. The City acquire the land around the pond from the high water
mark to the 952 contour line as an outright deed by the
developer to the City.
b. '!he City prepare a park plan in conjunction with the DNR and
u.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that will preserve the slopes and
promote wildlife in the park.
I
54
I
I
I
-rt (,7J 7
JLbJ '
City Council Meeting ~ July 21, 1986
c.
The City establish a conservation easement from the 952 contour
line to the top of the slopes that will allow p1antings and
trails outlined in the park plan.
d. The City allow no reduction in park dedication fees.
13. Remove one lot between Lot 9 and Lot 16 in Block 8 and divide that
percentage equally among the remaining eight lots which reduce the
total number of lots to 90 on the northern portion of the site.
14. That the decision on Frontier Trail be tabled until a later date
until further information is obtained.
15. That Triple Crown Estates and Enterprise Properties formally make an
agreement to develop a drainage control project and this agreement
must be concluded and available to the City before this project can
comnence.
16. All setbacks are 30 feet except those lots in Blocks 10 and 11 to the
north of the project facing the creek and Block 5, 4 and 3 over
looking the pond which would have 25 foot setbacks due to the slope.
The cul-de-sac on Block 8, Lots 6, 7 and 8 would also have 25 foot
setbacks.
Also to approve the wetlands alteration permit subject to compliance with the
requirements of the City Watershed District and D~ All voted in favor and
motion carried.
SOUTH LOTUS LAKE BOAT ACCESS:
a. REVIEW DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION DETAILS FOR DRAINAGE PLAN.
b. REVIEW DRAINAGE AND GRADING PROBLEMS ON PROPERTY TO THE EAST OF THE
-----
ACCESS AS PRESENTED BY RESIDENTS.
Bill Monk: Because of the erosion control problems that have been
experienced on this construction site, Staff was directed to proceed with a
number of items. Some things that have already been done, we looked at
standards that have been used on construction sites and changes that George
has made on newer projects. Additionally, we did go back and review the
concept proposed with the ultimate drainage plan in this area. In your
packets was attached a detailed drainage calculations for this entire area.
What was done, the site was looked at again in terms of flow. The proposal of
the entire plan in this vicinity for phase 1. phase 2 would basically drain
a different way, it will have to be reviewed separately. It drains into two
basins. One being on the upper plateau, this being appreciably higher, some
50 feet or so then the lower area where the boat access actually is. You've
got basically the street acts as the divide. Water on the south side of the
street will all drain directly into the basin which will spillover into the
parking area before it will be discharged through a control down through a
55
128
City Council Meeting - July 21, 1986
pipe in this vicinity to another pond down in the lower portion. The entire I
access is actually being inverted so this entire area down here can become
inundated at time of a storm and berming the ponding area will be extended up
to make sure that water is cut off from going across the adjacent property.
That has always been the intent and purpose of the entire drainage scheme. We
are trying to alleviate some problems that exist on Hill Street by drawing
that drainage down into this basin instead of letting it run down through a
pipe and directly across private property. We are also trying to control the
water that has eroded the access road down to the lift station for a number of
years as it moves across, again, on to private property before it goes down to
the lake. I believe we can still accomplish all those goals. What we have
done already, in the design details that we've got, we have increased the size
of these ponds. Both have been enlarged and will be as part of the
construction so each pond can now retain fully the 100 year storm before it
over tops and spills down at which time the control structures would spill
over, follow the road down, inundate the lower area here before it would spill
over in a controlled spot and go into Lotus Lake. That design is in excess of
what the City had required on many other development and I was very pleased to
see that we can enlarge these ponds to hold that drainage. As a matter of
fact, the other pond can hold in excess of the 100 year rain. At this point I
am recommending that no action be taken by the Council except to note that we
are enlarging and making a line of revisions to the plans. Additionally, as
noted in the packet, the design calculations for the revised plan have been
sent out to DNR, PCA and the Watershed District and Carver County Soil and
Conservation Service for any comments that they may have showing what we are I
trying to accomplish and how we are meeting their standards. I believe that
in the end this drainage plan will help alleviate several problems as well as
fully accommodating the development of phase 1. We were serious in looking at
the plan. Whether anyone thought that it would mean a complete redesign or
actually not going ahead with the development. We didn't go into this
thinking one way or another. Basically what we have done is redo the
calculations. They are conservative and I feel extremely reasonable. Again,
I am pleased with the ultimate design at least for Phase 1 and will answer
questions from the Council or public but I am recommending no changes beyond
the enlargements of both basins at this point.
Councilwoman Swenson asked if this would effect the Bloomberg development that
the Council had just worked on. Mr. Monk stated that a portion of his site
may be allowed to come into this basin because it would be able to hold more
than a 100 year storm event but other than that, no. It would not effect the
number of lots that had been agreed upon.
Jack Melby stated that as of right now he thinks the erosion situation is
under control but once the streets are in Bloomberg's area, this proposal is
not going to be able to handle the velocity that might occur. His concern was
that once the streest and sidewalks are up, what is going to slow the water
down?
Bill Monk stated that all the drainage from the area that is coming along
South Shore Drive will drain directly into the sump before it is discharged
out. Drainage coming down South Shore and Hill Street will be collected in a
number of locations before it can make the turn and go down. The City does
I
56
"l7".Qj
__ J Q.;"
City Council Meeting - July 21, 1986
I
expect some to bypass the basins but he anticipates that a majority of it can
be caught up prior to it coming down the road: The design as presently laid
out includes drop man holes all the way down the storm sewer locations. Those
drop man holes are designed to dissipate energy in the system so that the
velocity as it comes out the discharge into the ponding area will be much
lower. There is a gooo possibility in a major storm that the water will
follow the streets and not be all caught up in the basins. '!here will be a
curb on the street which will carry the water down. That is the reason that
the entire access area has been tipped up in an effort that as the water goes
down, that it will have to fill up a ponHng area before it will be
discharged. A berm on one side will be substantial so private property will
be protected. The intent is to use pipe am also to use the poming area and
the grading that will be done to absorb that velocity either in the system or
on top of the system before it is discharged out. Bill Monk stated he
believes that this system would not only control the volume but also the
velocity.
Jack Melby asked about storm sewer in Phase 2. Mr. Monk stated that Phase 2
will have a storm sewer am will have to drain out in an area pointed out on
the map. '!he ponding arrangement has not been decided as of yet. '!he effect
of this drainage project on phase 2 would be very minimal. The only thing
that might be allowed is some overland drainage from a portion of the
development coming over to this system otherwise there isn't any tie between
the two.
I
Bill Monk stated that the way it is, he doesn't see the access being open
before Labor Day. The utilities are pretty much in but there is still a lot
of grading and blacktopping to do yet and he didn't know when that would be
completed.
Jack Melby asked if in the holding pond, was the water going to stay there all
the time or was evaporation going to occur to lower the water level. Bi 11
Monk stated that the basin on the bottom side as well as the basin on the top
side are designed as dry poms. He did not remember the exact time it would
take to drain but the outlet control structure on both will allow a constant
slow rate drainage out of the poms as the water moves to make room for the
next storm but it takes qui te a number of hours for them to empty so the
sediment can be dropped before the water drains out.
I
Bill Monk: Part of the Council consideration I have seen is concerned with
the boat access area, upper am lower portions in this vicinity. There was at
the last meeting, some visitor presentation concerning sediment along this line
over the top of the existing sanitary sewer am manholes into that area. In
addition, there has been some comment concerning a problem from the people in
this area all along here, also some Council members concerning the
considerable drainage that presently comes along this alignment and is
deposited into the lake in this location. There is considerable drainage
through Eden prairie, considerable drainage along TH 101 drainage ditch. It
comes down in through this area am out to the lake. I kim of tied those two
issues together. '!hey have been around as long as I've been around or longer.
I see a way of potentially doing sane ditch work am rip-rap work in this
location. Using some of that dirt that would be removed from there
57
""'"10A
J:.. i'-.J..Ji
City Council Meeting - July 21, 1986
potentially to fill over here with dirt from this site depending on types of I
material being put in to do some filling over some of these drainage easements
and to accommodate this drainage that goes through. Gi ven the hour and a lot
of things, I'm not going to get into the history concering this drainage
and/or this sanitary sewer. At this point in time, what I would like to do is
to review these in a little bit more detail, have some surveying done, get
some grades, come back to the Council with potentially several options. Not
necessarily for filling this but to get an idea of how much filling would be
required in here to get drainage to work again but also tq handle this
drainage situation in a way that would be good for the lake am the city
and just the area as a whole. 1hat leaves it a little bit vague but I do
believe in the em the lake is the one that is really being hurt here because
there is an appreciable amount of sedimentation that is occurring and roaring
down through this area with nothing to slow it down or break up the flow. I
don't think to prepare that report the City would incur much cost. We would
have to do quite a bit of grade work to get the grade so we can get some fill
and find a way to use rip-rap with some portions of pipe and ditching. 1here
has been general consensus in the area that the easements would be granted to
do that work which would appreciably lessen the amount of money involved
am there is the possibility that should something happen in this area, that
MnDot and Watershed District and even Eden prairie could be contacted
concerning a cooperative agreement.
Mayor Hamilton stated he felt Eden prairie should really be involved in this
project. He was upset when they put in a new pip= under the streets when they I
put in the development to the north and didn't put in a holding pond to store
the water. Bill Monk stated that the State did some work on culvert
replacements and that they replaced the culverts at the same size as what they
were. Sizes were not increased.
Bill Monk stated what he wanted to do was come up with a basic plan then
approach all three entities when a report establishing the money involved is
determined.
Mr. Herr stated that he has paid $26,000.00 for water problems on his
property. He just got finished spending $6,000.00 on his backyard to clean up
the sewer, to fill and to sod. CXle/fifth of that is gone now and that has
been in one year. The water comes rushing over his property from down the
street. Four days after a rain, he called Bill Monk to see how the water was
still coming from the street over his property am his neighbors property.
His yard has been turned into a swamp. He has lived here for 12 years and the
last 2 years have been worse than the previous 10 years.
Councilman Geving stated that Bill Monk should get some kind of agreement from
all the parties involved (Mr. Horr, Mr. Arseth and Mr. Segner, who were
present at the meeting) as to their agreement that if this project proceeds it
will proceed on the basis of cooperation by all the participants. That the
Ci ty can go ahead and not have to worry about easements and so forth. 1he
Council asked the different lam owners am there seemed to be a general
agreement from all families.
I
58
I
I
I
i1 (~1I
Jt Q>> .1L
City Council Meeting - July 21, 1986
Mayor Hamilton moved; Councilwoman Watson seconded to approve a motion to go
ahead with the project to review the design and construction details for the
drainage plan and to review drainage and grading problems on property to the
east of the access as presented by residents and to find out about if the City
can use CSA funding and how Eden Prairie and the State can get involved in
this project. All voted in favor and motion carried.
Jack Melby asked if Eden Prairie was responsible for the dirt and water runoff
problem that is occurring. Aren't they responsible for that legally?
Bill Monk: Yes, there are some legal responsibilities that go back and forth
between communi ties. The interpretation is being taken here that they can put
the flow through that pipe, it will come through a 18 inch pipe and they have
changed their drainage districts to do just that. We could push it to the
limit and take another five years to get it ironed out. That is the tactic to
take, as politely as possible, to see whether we can get them to contribute to
the project. Drainage is a very difficult thing on something like this. We
have tried to work with them and they have changed their drainage boundaries
but they still just have too much water corning down there.
APPROVE THE REVISED FEASIBILITY STUDY AND DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT FOR LAKE DRIVE
EAST IMPOOVEMENT PROJECT BE'IWEEN TH 1131 AND CR 17, SUNNYBROOK AND OPUS
CORPORATION.
Bill Monk stated when the City Council approved the preliminary plat for the
subdivision for Sunnybrook subdivision, which is part of the Opus Chan Parks
2nd Addition, they authorized revision of the feasibility study and that is
before the Council tonight and he is seeking acceptance of it. Also included
is a development contract that calls for some pretty hefty letters of credit
to be issued by both developers as a portion of the project which is attached
for agreement before it is sent out to the developers for signature. As far
as the feasibility study goes, the main portion was the realignment through
the wetlands area. <:ne of the main issues that should be pointed out to
Council is that the surcharge area was handled separately as directed by
Council. It is proposed to be assessed back to the property along the
realigned section of road. That was not assessed back over to the Ward Estate
or any property that was not a part of that surcharge. There has been a
slight revision in the assessment method in that, for everything other than
the surcharge, they have gone to a strict area assessment which is a more
straight forward and a more direct way of assessing benefit. The areas for
the different benefits are shown on the map and the assessments are shown in
the packets. Copies of the report have been sent out to Sunnybrook and Opus.
Opus has commented on the storm sewer system and the storm sewer system
included in this report is very extensive. In essense, the drainage system
includes a lot of pipe and a lot of money to construct. We are looking at
some options for some open drainage through ditches that might lower the cost
but we did tell Opus that I felt obligated to run this system through so that
everyone would be aware of the maximum cost that could be occurred. They did
agree with that and we do have some things to continue to work on as we
move through the process.
59
40C))
lL (j) v
City Council Meeting ~ July 21, 1986
Mayor Hamilton asked about the Ward property. Bill Monk stated that John Ward I
had called him and they talked for qui te a while about the process. He
understands what the Council is doing in accepting the report and the need for
a public hearing and he does plan on coming. He is fully apprised of the
revised feasibility study.
Bill Monk is recommending that the development contract be approved, that
the revised feasibility study be accepted and that a public hearing be called
for August 18, 1986 to review specific improvements at which time the Council
would make a decision as to how far to go with the improvements.
Councilwoman Swenson asked how much of the project was to be assessed. It was
stated that 100% of it was to be assessed. Councilwoman Swenson then asked if
the project is costing $1,549,000.00, why is the City only getting a letter of
credit for $950,000.00.
Bill Monk: The reason that the letter of credit is for $950,000.00, when the
original feasibility study was done, it included a participation by MSA. The
HRA made a decision through that process that this area would be included in
the 7% assessment reduction area. When that decision was made, Staff did go
back and revise the feasibility study and took out all MSA participation as
part of the project because we didn't think it was fair. that they get a double
benefit. They get the 7% reduction and a 33% MSA participation. That being
the case though, we did think it was a bit unreasonable to, the $950,000.00
comes about as if MSA is still in effect. We left the letter of credit to
cover everything that orignally would have been incurred except MSA. What you I
see, the difference is the estimated amount of MSA participation on the
original. At Council's discretion, they could place that letter of credit
requirement at 1.5 million. That is how it came about because Staff felt
this as a reasonable compromise given the HRA's decision for the 7%.
Councilwoman Swenson: I'm still a little confused about this $600,000.00.
Who is going to pick this up?
Bill Monk: It would still be totally picked up through assessments. The
thing is that developers would not be required to put up the letter of credit
before hand to cover it. So in essense, instead of having a letter of credit
for 100% of the project, you have it for 60% of the project. It is unusual in
that the Council normally will have 100% but 100% would still be assessed.
There is a little bit more risk involved in this than normal but because of
the shift in the MSA, that is the tactic that Staff took.
Councilwoman Swenson: I have a problem with that because I think we are
setting a precedent and this word precedent has been coming up and hitting us
in the face for the last 6 months. I just have great difficulties going with
anything that is going to do that. We have been very firm with sticking with
this 110% and I can't agree to changing it.
Bill Monk: Staff's position on this, and we could be off and Council has
discretion to do whatever they want, Staff's position is that this is a very
unique situation where you have an MSA street which will be getting no MSA
participation. Instead they are going to get a different type of City
I
60
I
I
I
tf(:;Q
J~_ f:' i)Qil
City Council Meeting ~ July 21, 1986
participation through the HRA. Being such, I don't believe that this example
can be cited as precedent because in most of your other developments, you don't
have MSA streets involved and where you do, the letter of credit still does
not cover the MSA involvement. I still believe that it is reasonable to allow
this to be the way it has been submitted because it is unique. I can think of
no other example where this would occur except the frontage road by CPT where
it is a MSA street to where the tax income district will probably pay the
total of the improvements and that developer will not be required to come up
with a letter of credit. So I think this can consistently be enforced.
Don Ashworth: Bill is correct. We agonized over this for a long time because
we had done the original feasibility study with Opus and Sunnybrook. They had
looked at certain assurances from the City as to what costs would be. We had
MSA dollars in there and of course, as a MSA project, they rightly should be.
Then the request came back in terms of through the HRA and would that proj ect
area be considered under that special assessment reduction program. In the
process of doing that, Bill and I talked about it. I just did not feel that
it would be reasonable and fair that a developer would basically take
advantage of two things and almost walk away from this thing paying nothing so
we pulled the MSA participation out of there after the HRA decision that those
properties would be included in there. Two things to think about. One, as
part of the 7% reduction program, they have to take income up with the letter
of credit literally guaranteeing the construction of the facility. This whole
project, the construction of the road, everything is dependent upon
Sunnybrook, in fact becoming a reality. Once Sunnybrook does become a
reality, the assessments that would typically go against Sunnybrook, would
then be paid by the HRA as part of the incentive. If those assessments then
are back against the City, then what we are really talking about is a letter
of credit against the State and although the numbers weren't exactly the same,
we went through the process and fel t that in terms of protecting the City, by
providing the $950,000.00 plus the recognition that the only way the 7% thing
would go through would be if in fact they carried out that level of
construction. Once they carried out that level of construction, the HRA would
be participating in that project at that level. Then everything is equal and
we are balancing everything out and we are maintaining some consistency in
what we told these people a year ago versus what we are telling them today.
W: agonized over that for a long time.
Councilwoman Swenson: I'm going to be very unhappy if somewhere down the pike
somebody comes up and says, well if you remember we did this with Lake Drive
with Sunnybrook so on and so forth. It's been done before.
Bill Monk: $340,000.00 of that $600,000.00 that Pat is talking about is the
Ward Estate. That wouldn't be covered no matter what because they are not a
part of the proposal and we don't routinely take their assessment and throw it
back to the other developers so the $600,000.00 you are talking about in
essense is the $600,000.00 minus $340,000.00.
Councilwoman Swenson: Ward is going to pay $340,000.00? I don't find the
breakdown in this.
Council woman Watson: [b we have reason to believe that Sunnybrook has this
money?
61
~1 c:.-:'L:t
JLU' -',
City Council Meeting - July 21, 1986
Bill Monk: '!he plat won't be recorded until the development contract is in
place which requires a letter of credit being pledged.
I
Councilwoman Watson: Have we heard anything from them?
Bill Monk: Yes, Opus and Sunnybrook are working toward a closing as I
understand it. At the improvement hearing you will hear whether Opus and
Sunnybrook want you to proceed or not. At that point in time you will know
exactly what is going on.
Councilwoman Swenson: <:ne more question, on the summary it says, no plans
have been included for the right-of-way acquisition as it is assumed that this
will be dedicated by the owner at no expense to the project. Do we have
anything besides just an assumption? What would happen if they decided that
part of that, you are taking and going through the land, we have to have some
money for that.
Bill Monk: '!he only part that can happen on right now would be the Ward
Estate and in talking with representatives of the Ward Estate, they are
contemplating a possibility of coming in here with a proposal and platting
that right-of-way. It is 50-50 at this point in time. There is money in here
in contingency. Money that could be used toward a purchase if we still think
everything could be covered. we are uncertain.
Resolution #86-50: Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to
accept the revised feasibility study for Lake Drive East improvements between
TH 101 and CR 17 as prepared by OSM, dated June 30, 1986; that the development
contract for Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 2nd Addition between the City and
Opus and Sunnybrook be approved; and that a public improvement hearing be
scheduled for August 18 to review the improvements included in the report with
affected property owners. All voted in favor and motion carried.
I
CONSIDER PETITION FOR SANITARY SEWER TRUNK EXTENSION FROM THE BUSINESS PARK TO
PROPERTY AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF CR 16 AND CR 17, JAMESCOMPANY. - -
Resolution #86-51: Councilwoman Watson moved, Councilman Horn seconded to
approve the petition for sanitary sewer trunk extension from the Business Park
to property at the northeast corner of CR 16 and 17 and to complete the
necessary feasibility study. All voted in favor and motion carried.
AUTHORIZE FEASIBILITY STUDY, DOONTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT.
Councilwoman Watson moved, Councilman Geving seconded to make a motion to
table the item to authorize a feasibility study for the downtown redevelopment
project until the August 4, 1986 City Council meeting. All voted in favor and
motion carried.
APPROVE THE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT, SOUTHWEST AREA TRANSIT COMMISSION (MTS
Opt-out) ~
Mayor Hamilton stated that this is a document that has been drawn up with the I
combined efforts of the Attorney's of the three communities involved. It has
62
I
I
I
.--l~J~
lL00)
City Council Meeting - July 21; 1986
been reviewed by Staff and is being presented to the City Council for their
review:
Councilman Geving asked where this was to be headquarted? Mayor Hamil ton
stated that the agency was going to be headquarted in the Eden prairie
Shopping Center: Barbara Dacy stated that was the first option they were
seeking.
Roger Knutson: Just one point; I had a discussion with Don and based on that
discussion; it might be a good idea to add a provision that this says that the
Joint Powers Commission will not incur any debts during the first calendar
year that comes out of the general revenues of the commission without the
prior approval of the the member cities. Don's concern is that there is some
possibility that the Commission can incur debts in buying buses or what not.
Councilwoman Swenson: Section 6(b) that is exactly the power that they get.
Don Ashworth: state Statute really limits this whole debt issue.
really covered in 99.9% of the cases but I went back through just
potential scenario that I just would like to have Roger clean out
potential.
You are
one
that
Roger Knutson: I don't think anyone will have a problem with that, I mean as
far as the member cities.
Councilman Geving asked how this was going to be enacted. '!he budget is made
out in the Fall am we are looking to getting the money this January. Will
the Council know how much money is involved by O:::tober or so when the Council
acts on the budget? Not necessarily in the first year but in subsequent
years.
Mayor Hamilton stated that funds currently given to the transit commission
would be in excess of the amount required. Fums would actually be given back
to the communi ties because the three communi ties would be pooling their money
together. The way it is set up now am the way it appears it is going to
happen, if it works out, the way it is supposed to happen, it is calculated
that we will have excess fums even after p.1rchasir19 equipnent.
Don Ashworth stated that it sets a July 1st budgetary date from which you
start the process and it does tie in with the recommended section.
Councilwoman Swenson cited on paragraph 6(g) that the Commission may sue or be
sued. Can a suit against the Commission corne back to the cities? Would our
liability insurance cover us?
Roger Knutson: '!hey are going to take out as much insurance as they can buy.
It is an open question as to whether your 1 iabil i ty insurance covers you. You
could end up in a hassle with your insurance company. It depends on how much
control you have over that entity. I think it is a separate entity. You
probably would not be covered by your insurance that Joint Powers Agreement or
it can get it's own insurance am that should cover it.
63
14tO
City Council Meeting - July 21, 1986
Councilman Geving stated that the two members that the Council appoints to
this Commission should be Council members until it gets off the groum. rather
than advertise for someone that is a volunteer from the City.
Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamil ton seconded to approve the Joint Powers
Agreement as presented here tonight on July 21, 1986 with the one condition
that the Commission does not incur any debts during the first year of
operation without prior approval by the member cities. All voted in favor and
motion carried.
Councilwoman Watson moved, Councilman Geving seconded to adjourn the meeting
at 1:15 a.m. All voted in favor am. motion carried.
Prepared by Nann Opheim
July 29, 1986
I
I
I