1986 09 22
I
I
I
1
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 22, 1986
Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order. The meeting was opened with the
Pledge to the Flag.
Manbers Present
Councibnan Horn, Councilwoman Swenson, and Councilwoman Watson
M3nbers Absent
Councibnan Geving
Staff Present
Don Ashworth, Barbara Dacy, Bill Engelhardt
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilwoman Watson moved, Councilman Horn seconded to
approve the Agenda as presented with the addition by Councilwoman Swenson of
recommending to the Planning Commission an Amendment to the Fencing Ordinance.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA: Bill Engelhardt stated that he received the plans and specs
for Fox Hollow 4th Addition Thursday morning and the applicant requested that
he review it right away and put it on the agenda. He did that and brought an
addi tional set for each one of the council members. Mr. Engelhardt stated he
went through the specifications basically word for word and there were two
i terns that he changed. An 8 inch storm sewer that was to provide for an
overflow and it drains a very small area, he changed that to a 12 inch to
eliminate any maintenance problems. The capacity is really needed only for a
6 inch pipe and the other item in the specification, they were short on road
rock. They only had 8 inches specified and he changed it to 12 inch to meet
the City Standards. Those were the only problems he found with the plans and
specs. Bill Engelhardt recommended approval of the Fox Hollow 4th Addition
plans and specifications.
Councilwoman Watson moved, Councilwoman Swenson seconded to approve the
Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's and the acting City
Engineer's recommendations. All voted in favor and motion carried.
1. a.
Certification of Delinquent utility Accounts contingent upon having
the City Manager reaffirm procedures for disconnection of water
service for delinquent utility customers.
b. Approve Plans and Specifications for Fox Hollow 4th Addition
contingent upon the changes recommended by the acting City Engineer.
Mayor Hamilton stated that on the certification of delinquent utility
accounts, he knows that other cities disconnect water when you are behind on
their water bill and they do it as a matter of fact and that the City of
Chanhassen should have a pOlicy to disconnect water for bills delinquent after
1
2
City Council Meeting - September 22, 1986
a certain amount of time. Councilwoman Swenson asked about those people who I
have a hardship and can not pay their bill. Councilwoman Watson stated that
they could come before the Council and explain their hardship. Don Ashworth
stated that the City could prepare an Ordinance that would provide the City
with the ability to disconnect water. The City Manager stated that you do end
up with those instances where an individual does have a hardship situation
and if the Council wishes to hear those, that can be done. Councilwoman
Swenson asked if the Council had to hear them or could they be handled
administratively. Don Ashworth stated that most of the situations you run
into are where they will make a deal based on a hardship. Councilman Horn
stated that he liked that these delinquent bills were now going to be
published but was wondering if just how much was overdue or just the names
were going to be published. Don Ashworth stated that the name, the amount and
the parcel will be published. Mayor Hamilton stated that he would like to see
that delinquent water accounts be published after they are certified with
accounting.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded that Staff review the ordinance
for procedures to discontinue water service for those people who are 90 days
past due with the stipulation that if a hardship exists, the City Council will
work with that. All voted in favor and motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
LOT SPLIT REQUEST TO DIVIDE 1.71 ACRES INTO 2 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, 2461 WEST I
64TH STREET, GARY REED. - - - --
Barbara Dacy: The parcel is located at 2461 West 64th Street. It contains
approximately 1.71 acres. Some of the Council members probably remember some
of the history regarding the area of the parcel in question. In 1979 Andy's
Acres came in for plat approval, which is located directly across from the
applicant's property. That subdivision was subject to conditions that OUtlot
A and B not be buildable until street improvements were made and further
resubdivision and platting for those two outlots. In 1984 there was a
building request for OUtlot B at the end of the Oriole Avenue right-of-way.
That request was denied. Also, in the same year, 1984, a request for OUtlot A
was made and that building permit was granted because of a short driveway that
served that existing house. What the applicant is proposing to do is to split
the parcel by creating an east-west line. The applicant is proposing to share
the driveway with the new owner of the new lot. If such was the case, Parcel
A would have to deed an access easement to Parcel B. The Subdivision
Ordinance does allow for private drives and/or easements to serve up to no
more than 3 parcels. Typically this does occur a lot, as you all know, in the
rural area. However, given the history of the adjacent parcels and conditions
of Council action in the past, plus the fact that Oriole Avenue is proposed to
serve Herman Field to the southwest, Staff is recommending that the applicant
also be subject to submitting a petition for the improvement of Oriole Avenue.
As far as the lot sizes and dimensions and so on, that meets the minimum
requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. The second issue involved with
this particular case is the way in which it is being subdivided. As you can I
tell, the two legal descriptions being proposed are the north 250 feet and the
west 155 feet of Lot G, Bardwell Acres and then Parcel B is the remaining
2
I
I
I
3
City Council Meeting - September 22, 1986
description. We advised the applicant of what the Council's policy on metes
and bounds descriptions. As you know we have had a couple of cases where you
have required that they go back through the platting process. In this
particular case, as not the case of others, we have fairly parallel lines with
no curves and so on, that results in a very easy description. As we stated in
the the report, this type of description Staff can find, it is very easy to
find. We know where Lot G is, we can find the northerly 250 feet of the west
155 feet. However, if you feel the parcel should be platted and feel that
this division is not consistent with what you feel the ordinance to be, then
your recommendation would be plat application. In summary, Staff is
recommending approval of the subdivision subject to the applicant petitioning
improvement of Oriole Avenue and at that time extending the driveway back to
the Oriole Avenue extension. I should also note that that Oriole Avenue
extension would not be a full standard street. There are a number of mature
trees along the westerly part of the applicant's property. The City's intent
to build to the westerly 20 feet of that right-of-way to hold the trees. It
should be noted however that if the dd veway is connected, there may be some
trees that would have to be removed. However, as far as the extension of
Oriole Avenue, we would be using the westerly part of the land.
Gary Reed: I guess at this point I didn't want to plat it because I don't
know what is going to happen with the rest of the property there. My brother
and I also own the acreage to the east of the lots and there is approximately
6 more acres in there that could be platted at a future date. We're just not
sure of what is going to happen with the frontage and everything with all the
things that have been going on with TH 7 and TH 41 and the development of that
corner so we're really not ready to propose a plat for the rest of the acreage
at this time but feel that this way would be a little less expensive to get
the lot split and at the time when the rest of the property is then split, and
probably some access put into the property, then the whole thing could be
brought up to more of a standard type situation.
Councilwoman Watson moved, Councilman Horn seconded to close public hearing.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
Councilwoman Swenson: Barbara, I forgot what did we do with the one at
Greenwood Shores? Did we require a replat there?
Barbara Dacy: Yes, you did.
Counci lwoman Swenson: Why was that different than this?
Barbara Dacy: There was a curve in the northeastern corner of one of the lots
and therefore the description was 2 or 3 sentences long. I believe the
Council felt that it was still too long of a description.
Councilman Horn: I think that is one criteria.
used is that whether it is completing a plot and
area around it. This is not really doing that.
until the whole thing gets plotted.
The other criteria that I've
it will complete the whole
This is a temporary split
Mayor Hamilton: You couldn't get a much shorter description.
3
-4
City Council Meeting - September 22, 1986
Councilwoman Watson: We could require that should there be any further split
of that land that these two lots be platted when the rest of that property is
platted. As long as it is just a split, it is a simple description but when
the whole thing goes then these two can be platted along with the rest of the
property.
Mayor Hamilton: We do like to have property platted so as you develop the
rest of the property, you would be expected to plat the whole thing.
Councilman Horn: I think we would like that as part of our Minutes so when we
go back.
Councilwoman Watson moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the lot split
request to create a 38,750 square foot lot and a 35,650 square foot lot using
the metes and bounds description for Parcel A: the north 250 feet of the west
155 feet of Lot G, Bardwell Acres; and Parcel B: that part of the west 155
fet of Lot G, Bardwell Acres which lies south of the north 250 feet of said
Lot G, with the following conditions:
1. When the rest of the adjacent property belonging to Mr. Reed is
developed and platted, that these two lots be platted along with the
rest of the property.
2. 'Ihat the applicant petition for the improvement of Oriole Avenue and
realigning the driveway access to Oriole Avenue when improved.
All voted in favor and motion carr ied.
PUBLIC HEARING:
ADOPTION OF THE 1987 BUDGET.
Mayor Hamilton asked if anyone was present from the public for this item.
There was no response.
Councilwoman Watson moved, Councilman Horn seconded to close public hearing.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
Mayor Hamilton: 'Ihe adoption of the 1987 Budget, I think we have all reviewed
it and we have the City Manager's comments. Are there any questions?
Resolution #86-73: Councilwoman Swenson moved, Councilwoman Watson seconded
to adopt the 1987 Budget as presented. All voted in favor and motion carried.
Don Ashworth: 'Ihe Council had discussed making the amendment for the
$20,000.00 to insure the maintenance material budget was not disrupted.
Mayor Hamilton: 'Ihat was part of the motion.
4
I
I
I
I
I
I
5
City Council Meeting - September 22, 1986
AWARD OF BIDS: CITY HALL PARK LOT LIGHTING.
Don Ashworth: We have proposed lighting for the east and west side parking
lot for the past several years. We simply haven't had the owortuni ty to get
the job done. It is a relatively minor job but again we just have not found
another public improvement that it fit well into so we just took individual
bids. You have a bid from Robb's Electric as well as Roman Roos. We are
recommending approval of the low bid from Robb's Electric in the amount of
$6,920.00.
Councilwoman Swenson: I noticed that on the Robb's Electric bid they
mentioned three poles but they don't say what kind of finish it is going to
have and I notice on Roos' that they specify this Cor-Ten finish with a
deduction of $95.00 per pole if the pole is to be painted only. If these
poles of Robb's are to be painted their bid is high because when I deduct the
$95.00 per pole, it would reduce Roos' bid to $6,865.00 which is $55.00 less
than Robb's.
Don Ashworth: '!he bid is with Cor-Ten poles from Robb's Electric. I believe
that is the only kind that we are looking for. We really don't want to have
the maintenance. Both firms were told to bid on the basis of Cor-Ten.
Councilwoman Swenson: Can you verify that and have that included in the bid
so there is no question?
Don Ashworth: without question, Roos did a more professional job, not only in
the little plan but also in the description of the work. We will make sure
that Robb's Electric signs off each and every detail.
Councilwoman Swenson: I think that it seems kind of a shame that one has to
be penalized, I realize that this is what we do all the time. I can't say
anything against Robb's because I don't know anything about them. I do know
the quality of the work from Roman Roos.
Councilwoman Watson: It is just a money difference.
Councilwoman Swenson: I guess that is what is really bothering me because the
difference is so minute that it seems rather a shame. However, we don't have
any choice really. According to law we have to take the low bid.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to accept the bid from Robb
Electric for the City Hall park lot lighting in the amount of $6,920.00. All
voted in favor and motion carried.
Mayor Hamilton: In the Manager's comments about any other things we can think
of around City Hall for improvement, I would like to comment on two things.
One is the shrubs in the front lot. Q1ce that whole lot caved in out there
and they rebuilt it. I don't think the shrubs have ever been as good as they
were previously. '!here could be more plantings along there to make it look
nicer.
Councilwoman Swenson: vmat is the condition of the steps?
5
6
City Council Meeting - September 22, 1986
Mayor Hamilton: That was my second question. There is a big crack separating I
more and more.
Councilman Horn: Wasn't that part of your plan?
Don Ashworth: Those will 00 mudjacked. We have gotten different OplnlOns as
to the oonefit of that mudjacking but roughly $500.00, we think that will do
the job.
Mayor Hamilton: What is mudjacking?
Don Ashworth: They put a hole right in the middle of the concrete and
literally pump mud through that hole and that raises it. I've seen them do it
sucessfully on concrete streets where there is a bad hole. ... others who
think that it solely builds up an area right where you pump it then eventually
that will move away and it will lose it but I haven't seen that done and what
it would cost to totally remove it, I think it is worth a try.
Councilwoman Swenson: What if it doesn't work then we will have returned
$24,000.00?
Don Ashworth: If Council would like, I could hold that account open for
one additional year. It has been a number of years right now. If there is
work to 00 done outside though we should, I can ask if there are sufficient
monies to do it. It would 00 better to do the work now...
I
TWO 1986 VEHICLES
Don Ashworth: I would ask to table this item if I could. I was not able to
go out and receive bids from one of the rental firms here today. I don't
know, does Council have any guidelines they would like to offer?
Councilman Horn: I think the rental idea is a good one.
Mayor Hamilton: I would like, looking at the ones you had prices on the back
here intitially, those were over $15,000.00 when you were asking for the
ability to go out with a limit of $14,000.00. Maybe $16,000.00 might be a
more reasonable number now. I think you ought to have approval of enough
dollars to go get it done.
Councilwoman SWenson: I think he wants to.
Councilman Horn: '!he two are worth $16,000.00.
Mayor Hamilton: I guess I would like to see it put at $16,000.00.
Don Ashworth: I believe $15,500.00. Would you like to go with a suggestion
then that we take bids on one day? I could contact any Council members that
would be interested so if you wanted to be part of those bids and look into
that process. Bringing them back in two weeks, you're losing a lot.
I
6
I
I
I
7
City Council Meeting - September 22, 1986
Councilwoman Watson: Like you said, these cars are gone by the time you see
the paper and you are going to get a good deal, you have to be in a position
to make the deal rather than wait two weeks to come back to us am. have us
look at it and then make a decision. By that time the car has been on the
road for a week.
Councilman Horn: I think we would have to be able to respond immediately to
Don's request if we wanted to be involved.
Mayor Hamilton: I think you (Councilman Horn) are probably the most
knowledgeble about cars of the Council so maybe Don can give you a call.
Councilman Horn: I had one more question and this may be more related to the
last item but it was really interesting to try to hear you guys discuss the
difficulty with the sound system of the tape. Is that fair game for this
building budget or is that outside of that?
Don Ashworth:
just approved.
that budget.
'!he budget area, the CATV budget is a part of the budget you
Any types of improvements to the system should come out of
Councilwoman Swenson stated that something had to be done with the system.
Councilman Horn stated that the quality of the tape that he listened to was
terrible. He had to crank it up so loud to try to hear some of the
discussion. Don Ashworth stated that the Council members should listen to one
of the more recent session because work has been done on the sound system.
It could be further improved by going to the lapel type of microphones am.
there is money in the 1987 budget to do those types of things. '!he Council
members asked why the table top microphones wouldn't work. Don Ashworth
stated that according to the professionals, the table top microphone is not as
good of quality as the ones they are currently using am. if they wanted
further improvement, the next thing you should think about is the lapel type.
The City Manager stated that the lapel type microphones did not have wires,
they were remote. Councilwoman Swenson asked if the lapel microphones could
be shut off. She also stated that the City has tried 3 or 4 professionals and
they have been totally unsatisfactory and that maybe the Council should go
with the amateurish idea that they seemed to think might be better. Don
Ashworth stated that he could purchase those if that is what the Council
wanted. Councilman Horn asked if the City could get lapel microphones on
trial to see how they work. Don Ashworth stated that he would prefer that
because there wouldn't be extensive wiring involved with the lapel
microphones.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilwoman Watson seconded to approve the expenditure
of $15,500.00 for two vehicles by the City Staff. All voted in favor am.
motion carried.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the Minutes of the
City Council meeting dated September 8, 1986. All voted in favor except
Councilwoman Swenson who abstained and motion carried.
7
8
City Council Meeting - September 22, 1986
Councilwoman Watson moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the Minutes of I
the Planning Commission meeting dated August 210, 1986. All voted in favor and
motion carried.
PRELIMINARY PLAT REQUEST TO CREATE l LOTS, 1108 PIONEER TRAIL, DAVID HANSEN.
Barbara Dacy: The parcel is presently zoned R-lA and is located on the north
side of pioneer Trail adjacent to the Chanhassen-Eden Prairie boundary and is
also located directly adjacent to the south side of Lake Riley. On the
monitor is the proposed subdivision which consists of three lots to be served
by a private easement in a width of 610 feet. Lot 1, which is the westerly
most lot that contains the applicant's home, is 4.2 acres, Lot 2, which is
the middle lot, is 2 1/2 acres and Lot 3 is 6.68 acres. In order for this
particular subdivision to be processed, five variances are involved. I will
quickly run through each variance for you. The first one involves the
Shoreland Management Ordinance. It involves that each riparian lot contain a
width at ordinary high water mark of 1510 feet. The applicant is proposing
three lots of 133 feet each. The DNR has submitted three letters in response
to the proposed plat. The most recent one represents the DNR's position on
this particular application. That letter stated that it is up to the locality
to determine whether or not a hardship exists to grant a variance for the lot
width. The DNR points out that there is no adverse effects from the proposed
subdivision onto the lake based on the location of the proposed building
sites. However, the letter does state that it is up to the municipality to
determine whether or not a hardship exists. Staff's position is that the I
standard rule regarding a variance is that if there is an opportunity to
conform and if there is no unique hardship then a variance should not be
granted. The second variance involved is that which requires each lot to abut
a publicly dedicated street. In this particular instance, there is a long
narrow parcel. Lot 2 does not have street frontage. As you know, the
Subdivision Ordinance does allow the occurrance of private drives to serve the
landlocked parcel pending approval of the variance from the Council. This was
created in these types of situations in the rural area. The third variance is
in regards to the lot width required by the Subdivision Ordinance which
each lot wid"th must contain 1810 feet. Lot 2 has 133 feet wide and at pioneer
Trail, Lot 1 contains I believe 310 feet. In this particular situation, the
use of the existing driveway is recommended otherwise you would encroach into
the pond area which is not possible. However, with creating Lot 2 with 133
foot lot width, in essence in the rural area, is creating an unbuildable lot.
As you all know, the R-lA District requires 11010 foot side setback on one side
and 10 feet on the other. This would by SYnonimous to creating an urban size
lot that would not be able to meet the urban si ze setbacks. The fourth
variance involved is that the depth of" the lot can not exceed twice the width.
It is obvious that the particular shape of this property and with the minimum
lot size of 2 1/2 acres that that ordinance requirement can not be met. The
final variance involved, as I eluded to earlier with the lot width
requirement, is the fact that the R-lA District requires 110 feet on one side
and 11010 feet on the other. It is Staff's position that the property can be
subdi vided and in fact, we have suggested an al ternate which is attached in
your packet. If the Council feels that this particular layout of the I
applicant's should be approved, we are instead recommending that you go back,
table this particular request and relook at the side setbacks requirements.
8
I
I
I
47
City Council Meeting - September 22; 1986
You have attached, arrl it should be the last attachment in your packet, is the
analysis from our City Attorney's office regarding granting variances. TO
just briefly review the alternate as presented in the Staff Report, if you
look on your monitors, is the red line. The east-west line and then the north-
south line whereby two riparian lots would be created 200 feet each and then
the third lot on Prioneer Trail. Yes, a variance would be required to serve
the two lots with the private drive yet this proposed plan is minimizing the
number of variances allowed. It meets the 180 lot width, you can meet the
setbacks. We have also shown potential resubdivision plan with this
particular piece. As you read in the Planning Commission Minutes, it is not
the applicant's intent to resubdivide the property however, Staff in reviewing
all rural subdivisions feels it is important to see at least how resubdivision
would be contemplated. The Planning Commission recommendation was to deny the
proposed request based on two findings. One that the subdivision was creating
substandard lots and secondly that the request was afoul of the Shoreland
Management Ordinance and the Subdivision Ordinance. It was also suggested
that the applicant try to come up with a plan that did minimize the number of
variances involved. Finally, if the Council does approve the proposed
application, it is recommended that a corrli tion be placed that no clear-
cutting or grading below the 960 contour be placed on the approval except for
a pathway for a dock.
David Hansen: I would like to approach this or answer from two things.
Basically, the Planning Commission, I don't feel, was correct in their
findings that a true hardship does not exist. I think I can prove to the
Council beyorrl a reasonable doubt that a hardship does exist. Secondly, Staff
and the Planning Commission keep eluding to the proposed lot pattern is not
corrlucive to resubdivision. I'm not interested in resubdivision. This is
going to be the only resubdivision of this property, especially on the lake
side as far as the frontage is concerned. Now, the Staff mentioned a number
of variances that basically have to be overcome. The first of course being
the lake lot width of 133 arrl 134 feet. As you are all aware, this standard
of 150 feet is basically set down by the DNR. It is a basic thing set down by
the DNR which requires basically 150 foot width on the lake arrl 40,000 square
feet minimum lot size. OUr smallest lot is 128,000 square feet. The letter
from the DNR, the first letter had nothing to do with the opinion of the DNR.
It was written by one of the staff members before they consulted with the main
people over there. The final letter from the DNR, dated August 13, 1986, I
will just read some excerpts. The three lots greatly exceed the dimensional
starrlards of the Shorelarrl Ordinance. Skipping down a little further. Strict
enforcement of the official controls is impractical. The topography is such
that most of the surface water drainage is away from the lake. Septic system
suitable sites should be able to be located on these large lots proposed. The
shoreland program is designed for the wise utilitzation of water and related
land resources of the State. Might I repeat, for the wise utilization of
water arrl related larrl resources of the State. Specifically, to reduce the
effects of overcrowding, to prevent the pollution of waters, provide ample
space on lots for sanitary facilities, which ours is three times what they are
asking for, and to minimize flood damage, to maintain property values. This
is one of my hardships. TO maintain property values of the adjacent lots.
These provisions should be considered by the City in making a decision for the
project. The reason, before I go on to answering the Staff's Report, that I'm
9
48
City Council Meeting - September 22, 1986
interested in three lots of this size is one, back 12 years ago when I
designed my home and laid these lots out, Mr. Schlenk at that time represented
many functions of the City, we sat down and laid these out. Certainly I
didn't subdivide at that time because I wanted Green Acres, etc. but I built
my home stretched out over 133 foot lot. I want to protect my property
values. I do not want smaller lots. I'm not the least bit interested in this
typ;= of a subdivision. Not in the least. I have never brought that up. I
have nothing to do with that. I would like to have the three lots that we are
applying for. At no time, in fact we will put Covenants in the Deed and
Covenants in our subdivision, can these lots ever be subdivided again in
width. Even Mr. Lokkesmoe, who is the head of his particular division at DNR,
would much rather see my lot in there then the end result that the Ci ty is
asking for. Now again, Staff is eluding to the fact that resubdivision, I do
not want to resubdivide these lots. Let's just take a for instance. My lot
is 134 feet. If I had 200 lots in there, what am I going to do with the other
60 some odd feet by mine and at some future date the 200 is going to be split
into two 100 foot lots. I don't want this. In fact, what I am asking for is
actually less than what the City wants to do. If we went along with the
proposed ordinance and put two 200 foot lots in there and split them, we end
up with smaller lots. 'Ihe day that we can't build on a 2 1/2 acre or 4.4
acre lot, etc. maybe there is something that should be relooked at in our
Ordinance. Again, these ordinances are eluding to resubdivision which we do
not want. I want the lots to remain 133 feet and that is it. I don't want to
make them smaller in time. If we do and if sewer does present itself in the
future at some time, possibly the southern half of Lot 3 and possibly the
southern half of Lot 1 could be subdivided off if the owners choose to do so
at that time and if it met the Codes and Requirements, whatever. There has
been a discussion basically about Covenants and basically through my legal
understanding, to change a Covenant, if we did put a Covenant in there, takes
the consent of all the people involved. In other words, everybody else, and
then it is a problem but common sense wise, if we take 133 foot lot and we
build on this lot with a 10 foot setback and any kind of a structure that is
50 or 60 feet wide with another 10 foot setback, we are using up 80 feet and I
doubt, cornmon sense, that anybody is every going to subdivide those lots
again. Also, the three lots must abut a public roadway. That is not exactly
true. You can have up to three lots served by a private drive which of course
is this. Gary Gabriel, who has been working with subdivisions in the
metropolitan area for over 25-30 years and I have spent many, many hours with
him in coming up with this print and it is our opinion that it is an excellent
subdivision. It allows for large lot, single family. 'Ihere is not one
characteristic of the lot that adds to any possibility of pollution. If you
are familiar with the lots, and I ask anyone who is concerned to come up my
driveway and take a look at it, we are 40 feet up over the lake. All drainage
is away from Lake Riley for ecology purposes, towards pioneer Trail. We've
got a minimum of 128,000 square feet. OUr perc tests are fine and something
that, by the way, they don't mention the perc tests. Sometimes affulence,
when you are talking about drain fields and septic systems, 80% of your
fluids are evaporated, not percolated into the soil and of course, we don't
have any tree cover up in that area so topographically SPeaking, well it
could be more ideal, you could have sandy conditions, but topographically
speaking it is excellent for affulence as far as septic systems and drain
fields. Now if I may take a minutes and run through the Staff Report on this
10
I
I
I
I
I
I
49
City Council Meeting - September 22, 1986
am cornnent on the fimings.
The Zoning Ordinance Section 6.05 requires one sideyard having a depth not
less than 100 feet am the other having 10 feet. Well, obviously this is for
the purposes of resubH vision again and I'm not going to go into that. We've
already stated we're not interested in resuWividing. This is what we want to
have. 6.05 states that every lot or tract of land on which a single family
dwelling is erected shall have a depth not greater than two times it's width.
At the Planning Commission meeting, Staff even said that they don't mind if a
lot is over twice as long as it is wide so there is a consistency here. If
they don't really care about that, which is normal, why is the over emphasis
on the 150 feet. Again, the 150 feet, am the DNR will bear my fact out,
there have been scores and scores of variances given of lots that are much
less then 133 feet am definitely much less then 128,000 square feet. Again,
the Shoreland Management, I just mentioned that in the 150 feet, our Shoreland
Management is definitely relatErl to that of the DNR's. A 15 foot utility
easement is on here. Of course, that can be moved in a moments notice.
Analysis. The suWivision requires the following variances. The Shorelam
Management Ordinance requires 150 feet. We just went over that. '!he DNR is
totally in favor of this. In this it says the DNR in the attachErl letter
states that the hardship does not exist. '!hat letter had nothing to do with
the true indication of the DNR. Item 2, the suWivision Ordinance requires
that each lot abut a public dedicated street. '!hat is only part of the
ordinance. A private driveway can serve three lots. In other words, it says
Lot 2 is proposed to be served by a private drive. It does not abut a public
street. That is not the whole ordinance. I can i tern after item. We
mentioned the depth already and even the Staff said they could live with the
fact that the lots are over twice as long as they are wide. 5 eludes again to
resuWivision and the Council knows how I feel on resuWivision. '!hese lots
are going to be 133 feet am for all practical purposes, common sense says
they will never, ever be split again on their lake width. Again, relating to
resuWivision, plans should be contemplated. We're not interested in
resuWivision and it eludes to the fact here that Lot 2, in the center of the
plot, future property owner of Lot 2 could prohibit the extension of the 60
foot easement in through the lot to allow for lots to be created. We're not
interested in creating any more lots am we have allowed for a 60 foot
easement which will take care of any future street up to Lot 2. If these are
ever suWivision in the future, the south ems, they have access. All lots
have access. '!his road running up right through the middle of Lot 2 right
now, that is my own little private driveway am obviously there is no problem
to change that is and when that lot is sold and develoPed. As far as a
hardship is concerned, yes, I feel I definitely have a hardship in this
situation here in that I built, designed my home to fit on a lot that size and
I feel that the adjacent lots to my home should be equal to that size.
Forgetting all the legal rhetoric, 133 foot lot on any lake is a huge lot.
That is a huge lot. I don't think there is any lots bigger then that on Lake
Riley with maybe one exception. '!he suWivision just east of me in Eden
prairie, the largest lot size in there I believe approaches about 1/2 acre on
the lake, so my lots are basically 5 times the size of that but we have a big
need out in this area for large lots, single family. I don't think that we
should all have to be put into a posi tion where anything we do has to be
categorized for future resuWivision. We all know that a lot of these things
11
~,r~,
u'V
City Council Meeting - September 22, 1986
have resulted from the Metropolitan Council and Metropolitan Sewer Council and
their feelings that they don't want to see basically, septic systems and drain
fields. I don't want to get into this problem but if we studied our homework
on properly installed drain fields and septic systems. In fact, there is a
professor at the University of Minnesota that has written an excellent report
on it. It is still the finest way to get rid of affulence today. I don't
want to get into this but the common inceptor being probably 513 years out of
date but anyhow, this is the result of this but unless my Counsel, Jerry
Carroll, has anything else to say, I would just like to stnU this up and say
that these are beautiful lots. They are large in size. They represent what
is already there in my home. I don't want to make these lots any smaller. I
do have a hardship but most important it is common sense. '!he DNR would
rather see these 133 foot lots. The lots that could be resubdi vided into
smaller width. The type of people that are going to buy these lots are people
like myself. They want some room. They want a horse or two. They want their
gardening. They just want some room and I think there is, I know there is, I
don't want to put any other people in the audience here on call, Mr.
Klingelhutz, but there is a tremendous demand for these lots which we really
don't have in this area and other than what my counsel, Mr. Carroll might say,
I guess I am pleading with the Council to use common sense to basically put
aside the resubdivision aspect of this and grant a practical view of this. I
basically have two variances. Sideyard from 11313 feet down to the normal 113
feet, the same as it is on mine and basically the lakeshore area. The width
and length, like Staff has already said to Planning Commission, they can live
with that. The fact that they need a variance because of three on a road, I
feel that is incorrect. It is right in the ordinance. Three lots can be
served by a private drive so we are really looking at two basic variances and
I think the ones that we are asking for are very, very fair and they have
already been granted in many other cases.
I
I
Jerry Carroll: I will just wait to answer questions.
Councilman Horn: I guess I have been back am forth am sideways on this kind
of deal and all different aspects of it but it is hard to argue with the fact
that they're not big, beautiful lots on the lake. I certainly think we need
large lot developments and I have been a proponent for some time. It comes
down to the imividual variances, I too have a little trouble with the length
times width. I suspect there may be some areas that we don't have to worry
about further subdivision. I would like a clarification from Staff on whether
the abutting a public street and how that is influenced in the sewered versus
the non-sewered area or how that relates in this case. Is it simply a
driveway issue or what is the purpose for that?
Barbara Dacy: First of all, the Subdivision Ordinance requires that all lots
abut their required width along the public street and the intent of that
requirement is for safe am convenient access. However, in another section of
the Subdivision Ordinance the ordinance does allow private drives not to serve
up to three lots meaning that you could have three lots sharing the same
driveway. Because Lot 2 does not abut a public street, it needs a variance.
However, recent policy am it is allowed in the ordinance, is that you can
have a private drive up to three lots and it is obvious that the intent of the
ordinance is saying three am that is it. Anything beyom three am you
I
12
13
City Council Meeting - September 22, 1986
I should be requirilB a fully improvEd public street.
Councilman Horn: I think one of the toughest things I have with all of this
is in the strict definition of hardship which as I interpret it means that
there is not another reasonable use for the lot. Now that becomes a very big
issue. What is another reasonable use. Obviously, there are other uses. I
think the Staff has proposed another use. In my mind though, when you come
down to the other use, it still requires a variance so the issue of hardship
would apply to either alternative. In that vein I have more trouble dealing
with that as a reasonable reason to deny because there is another use even
though it does require a variance. Those are the kinds of things I have been
wrestling with on this. I really don't think pollution is an issue. I don't
think we are going to overcrowd the lake with this kind of development. I
think there legitimately could be a developnent like this without further
subdivision so I'm mixed on the feeling of variances. I don't like to dilute
our ordinances but on the other hand I think that sometimes we have to look at
each individual case and in the length times width type of thing, I think if
you are dealing with a much smaller lot it is much more applicable then in
these very large type of lots and maybe another thing we have to take a look
at is the overall size and I think that may be true in this case.
I
I
Mayor Hamilton: Maybe we should look at our ordinance on the length times the
width because I don't care for that either. That should probably be a
consideration for a future agenda to discuss that particular item.
Councilwoman Watson: I guess I feel a lot like Clark does. I have seen the
property many times and it really is very beautiful when you get up there on
the top arrl you are up by the lake arrl the lake is way below you. Being on
the Board of Adjustments I have trouble with built in variances because you
know you are going to deal with them. As far as the side lot line variance,
those can be dealt with on an individual basis based on the home. 133 foot
width, you are going to have some homes that are going to go 10 feet. There
are going to be very few houses that are going to go 10 feet on each side
where you are going to have a house that is 10 feet long or something so I
think that doesn't have to be as severe as it sounds. I know we usually have
100 feet on one side arrl 10 feet on the other side but it wouldn't be the
first time that varied. You have that one on pioneer Hills or Whatever it is.
Barbara Dacy: Yes, a variance has been granted in pioneer Hills but that was
after the plat was approved. When the plat was submitted, each of those lots
totalled 180 feet in width. From a legal, the applicant referred to, forget
the legal rhetoric and so on, but as a Staff person, I can not advise you to go
against the written ordinances. The Ordinance says that in the rural area
that you have to have 180 foot lot width. Lot 2 is 133. With 100 foot
sideyard on one and 10 on the other, you have 23 feet left for a house arrl
that Lot 2 is the issue in this plat. As I said earlier, in essence, you are
creating an unbuildable lot synonimous if you were to create a 40 foot wide
lot in the urban area that couldn't meet the side setbacks as set in the urban
area. If you feel that the 100 foot setback on one side arrl 10 on the other
deserves change, you should table this item until you can go back and change
the Zoning Ordinance. Otherwise, you are going to be approving a substarrlard
lot and forcing the Board of Adjustment and Appeals at a later date to grant
13
14
City Council Meeting - September 22, 1986
a variance because there is no way that a house can be built in the remaInIng
23 foot area so it is coming down to procedural requirement that you can
address during the subdivision application.
I
Councilwoman Swenson: let me start with this premise, we have documentation
from the Attorney, we all know that we have run into problems when we deviate
from our Ordinance. However, I do agree that there are occassions when this
is an acceptable practice. If we change the Ordinance to eliminte that 180
foot lot, the reason we would be doing that here is in the unique situation
that we have on a lake. I could see how potentially there could be a lot
split in the length of these lots. I don't know where they would put the road
but maybe people don't want that much depth. They wouldn't split them
lengthwise but they could require splitting them lengthwise.
Barbara Dacy: Under which scenario?
Councilwoman Swenson: I'm saying down the road this could happen with the
proposed. If we were to amend the Ordinance to eliminate that, now we are
amending the Ordinance to take in lots that are off the lake and do not have
the uniqueness of this particular property. How can we accomplish this on a
lake where it is not likely to happen without jeopardizing the intent of the
Ordinance in other applicable situations. This is the thing that is bothering
me. If we in fact change the entire ordinance to accommodate one situation,
I'm not sure that this is the right thing to do because with the length times
the width was put there, agreeable so that whether we could this lot split
when one subdivision came through that we would wind up with an acceptable
lots when the sewer and water go through. I don't know how to handle it. I
really don't because I just do not want to water down the ordinances because
we always run into problems when we do this. Agreed, the Ordinance might be
bad but I don't think we can say we're going to turn around and rechange our
Ordinance just to accommodate one situation. I do not think that this is
a prudent thing to do. Now, if somebody can come up with some way that we can
say that this is unique situation and they are not setting precedent, I'm
delighted to listen but personally I can not see how this can be done. I
rather disagree with you David about Mr. Lokkesmoe's opinion. I think you
took part of his letter out of context.
I
David Hansen: I think I stated that I read excerpts out of his letter.
Councilwoman Swenson: Right but however, the way it came you mentioned strict
enforcement. It says a variance is needed from the lot width requirement and
to be approved, the City must determine that, because of hardships, strict
enforcement of the official controls is impractical which is considerably
different then saying as he himself, strict enforcement is impractical. There
is a big difference in the interpretation of that paragraph.
David Hansen: I have had a number of conversations with Mr. Lokkesmoe. He
came out to my property for 3 1/2 hours and each and every member of the
Council or Commission is free to call him and he will give his opinion on it.
He "finds absolutely nothing wrong" with the lots whatsoever.
Councilwoman Swenson: The situation Dave, personal conversations are fine.
I
14
I
I
I
51
City Council Meeting - September 22, 1986
They may satisfy us but what satisfies this particular situation can come back
and haunt future Council. I have had it happen to me because of things that
have been done before. There hasn't been one of us who hasn't sat here and
had to really sweat and lose sleep nights because precedent has been
established which louses up our Ordinance. I'm very happy to comply if
somebody can show me how we can do this without establishing a precedent and
lousing up the Ordinance.
Jerry Carroll: I'm Dave's Attorney and I think what you are saying is that
this really is such a unique situation where the Department of Natural
Resources has said that the lots greatly exceed the dimensional standards of
the Shoreland Ordinance. That is the crux of Mr. Lokkesmoe's letter in that
they don't have any objection to this subdivision the way it is planned by Mr.
Hansen because of the fact that the lots are so tremendously large. I think
as you say, this particular situation your sideyard ordinance doesn't fit it
because you have got long, narrow lots and very obviously if you could say,
alright we would like to say we are going to have three lots here from now and
forever and these would be very large lots. They wouldn't have any problem at
all as far as septic system or space or anything like that. '!hey have the
access to the public street over a private road. They intend to keep it as a
private road. David has his own house there. He has a substantial investment
in it. The only thing he wants to do is create something where someone would
build a house of a comparable character not subdivision into smaller lots. If
you look at the Staff's plan, and I can understarrl the Staff's position, but
if you look at it, you are talking about three lots. '!he third lot would be
divided by the road. That wouldn't be any kind of a lot but what they are
thinking of is again, the future subdivision which is their job to think of
but he is talking about a situation where he doesn't want to have any future
subdivision and he will preclude it by a Covenant in his subdivision plat. He
doesn't want it because he lives there so I think you have a unique situation
that absolutely fits one thing and that is a variance. I know that you hate
variances because somebody will come in later on and say, look you did that
for Hansen, you should do it for me.
Councilwoman Swenson: You better believe it and it's not just on the one,
there are five of them here that we are looking at.
Jerry Carroll: I don't envy your position there but if you say alright, we
did this in a situation where we have three lots. One 2 1/2, one 4 1/2 and
one 6 1/2 acres, that is a little different. I think that could be grounds
for your variance without putting you in a position where you would have to
say that other people with smaller lots are entitled to a variance.
Councilwoman Watson: I'm on the Board of Adjustment and Appeals and not one
person has come in with a variance that didn't think they had a unique
situation.
Councilwoman Swenson: I would like to get a legal opinion on whether or not
something running with the land could in fact prohibit future division of this
property. If we could get a legal opinion that states that if Mr. Hansen will
write in his deeds that this goes with the land, ad infinitum, not just 17
years and subject to change at the end of 17 years because I have lived with
15
52
City Council Meeting - September 22, 1986
those too but ad infinitum clause that none of these three lots would or this
property shall ever be subdivided. If that is legal and binding and if so I
would be willing to make...
I
Barbara Dacy: I think there is too much emphasis on the resubdivision issue.
Yes, it is an item that Staff has to look at but to Staff, in our report,
resubdivision is not the major issue. It is Lot 2. The Zoning Ordinance
requies 100 foot side setbacks on one side and 10 feet on the other. You are
creating an unbuildable lot that is forcing the determination of a future
board to grant a variance. There is no way that you are going to be able to
get a house on that lot with the current setbacks and that is what 11m saying.
If you want to approve the subdivision as presented, then the Zoning Ordinance
has to be changed. We canlt give a setback variance during a subdivision
approval process. I understand that the DNR feels that they are in favor of
the proposed subdivision and so on because of the variance, etc. but the DNR
does not have the 100 foot setback on one side and the 10 foot on the other.
They are looking at it from their particular perspective. The City has a
Zoning Ordinance with those setbacks. If you would like a legal opinion...
Councilman Horn: I can accept that position much better Barb if the
atlernative that you presented didn't require a variance also. I understand
you are talking about the number of variances involved but from our position
you can prove hardship for one variance just as easily or with as much
difficulty as four variances.
Barbara Dacy: The length twice the width issue. (Xl this plan it is fairly I
close. It might be as close as you can come to the twice the width dimension.
The unique circumstance in that case is that you have a very narrow parcel.
With the landlocked parcel issue, it is very clear that the Ordinance is
allowing up to three lots of that particular type of situation. There is no
abiity to conform along that particular street with the existence of that
pond. I understand what you are saying is how can we come up with an
alternative plan that requires two variances and then recommend against
something that does not. Again, we are not creating an unbuildable lot with
the situation and that is the issue is Lot 2. We are creating an unbuildable
lot that can not meet the setbacks.
Jerry Carroll: May I ask why it is unbuildable?
Barbara Dacy: Because you have 100 feet on one side and 10 on the other,
which means that you have 23 feet here to build a house.
Jerry Carroll: That is if you don't have a variance. That is why we are
askin:J for one.
Barbara Dacy: Thatls what 11m saying, that is a variance to the Zoning
Ordinance and not through the subdivision process. You have to change the
Zoning Ordinance first before you can pass this.
Jerry Carroll: Are you sayin:J that you canlt have a variance to the Zoning
Ordinance? That there is no way?
I
16
I
I
I
53
City Council Meeting - September 22, 1986
Barbara Dacy: During this process which is why I am saying if this proposed
subdivision wants to be approved by the Council, they will have to table it,
go back and process a Zoning Ordinance amendment to change the side setbacks.
Jerry Carroll: I don't agree with that.
Barbara Dacy: If you would like a legal opinion as to whether or not that
process is correct, I talked to Roger by phone but if you want to confirm that
in writing, that is fine. If you want to table the issue but that is standard
procedure. If the requirements aren't in the Subdivision Ordinance then they
are in the Zoning Ordinance am we can't grant a variance to the Zoning
Ordinance through a subdivision process.
Councilwoman Swenson: We would really be establishing three substandard lots,
not just one.
Mayor Hamilton: Unless we change the Ordinance.
Barbara Dacy: I also feel compelled to say also that if you do table it and
instruct the Planning Commission to look at the amendment, there is a purpose
for the 100 foot on one side and 10 on the other which is the resubdivision
because in some cases it is important to have especially where water and sewer
are eminent so be aware and the applicant should be aware too, that if the
Council does decide to table to look at the Zoning Ordinance, that is not
necessarily saying that a Zoning Ordinance amendment will be approved.
Councilman Horn: Pat's point would render that moot. If indeed the Covenants
would uphold that, future subdivision is not an issue.
Barbara Dacy: Then in that case, I feel the City Attorney should respond to
that.
Councilwoman Swenson moved, Councilwoman Watson seconded to recommend that
the item be tabled until Staff can receive a legal opinion from the City
Attorney regarding the validity of an ad infinitum clause against
resubdivision and an opinion as to whether or not variances may be granted
to the 180 feet without establ ishing precedence. All voted in favor of
tabling the i tern and motion carried.
Mayor Hamilton: The item has been tabled until we can get clarification on a
couple of legal issues.
Jerry Carroll: May I just ask that when your Staff does refer the matter to
the City Attorney that you mention to him Section 500.20 of the Minnesota
Statutes which allows the creation of restrictions on private property which
will accommodate what you are talking about, the long term restriction.
Mayor Hamilton: That's what we need to know because I guess I certainly
question that in my own mind whether that can go on forever. If David sells
the property or dies or somehow it goes into someone elses hands.
Councilwoman Swenson: It runs with the land.
17
54
City Council Meeting - September 22, 1986
Jerry Carroll: He has irrlicated that that would be his intention. That he
has no problem at all with restricting the use of that property to three
single family residential lots.
I
Mayor Hamilton: My question is that if there is a future property owner, I
wonder legally if he is lXlUrrl by this.
David Hansen: rhis is like the donkey chasing his tail. Staff is again
eluded to the fact that we have heard too much about this resubdivision.
Anybody knows that this 100 foot sideyard setback is for future subdivision.
That is the only reason for it so on one harrl how can you say that we don't want
to hear this resubdivision talk again when these ordinances are SPeCifically
designed for future resubdivision. I've been building for 29 years. There is
no such thing as 100 foot sideyard setback. Never. It is there for one
reason only. Future subdivision. I don't want to resubdivide.
Mayor Hamilton: We realize that. <A1e thing that you need to be clear on is
the City is not asking for anything as far as resubdivision of this property.
We're not asking you to plan it so it can be resubdivided. We just know
through experience arrl through sitting up here and Staff working with other
PeOple that it doesn't matter what they say, and I'm sure you are very serious
about it, as soon as you pass something the next month a guy comes in arrl says
I want to subdivide into smaller lots and we're nailed again. We're looking
at it from our perspective that we don't want to get ourselves in a jam but I
urrlerstand what you are saying.
David Hansen: I understand but remember these are lakeshore lots.
I
Councilwoman Swenson: This is why we are asking for the legal opinion David
and we will take it from there. Let's see what the Attorney comes back with.
Jerry Carroll: Can we submit the format of the restriction that we would
propose on that lot to your Staff and your Attorney?
Mayor Hamilton: Sure, that would be a good idea. I would also mention David,
the one thing I was having problems with and I didn't get a chance to make my
comments myself, is the hardship question. You haven't convinced me that there
is a hardship based on the definition of hardship which we have taken from the
State Statute. A hardship means the property in question can not be put to a
reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by official control. It also
goes on to say that the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique
to his property and not created by a landowner and the variance, if granted,
will not alter the essential character of the locality. Now, it seems to me
the second part of that fits the situation here more than the first part I
don't think he meets, the secorrl part I think you do but based on the
definition of a hardship that we need to use as a guideline, I guess you
haven't convinced me that you have a hardship.
David Hansen: I think the second part of that very definitely is a hardship
in the fact that I want to maintain my property value arrl I'm not going to
maintain my property value with smaller lots which I don't want.
I
18
I
I
I
19
City Council Meeting - September 22, 1986
Councilwoman Swenson and Mayor Hamil ton: We're not asking you for smaller
lots.
Mayor Hamilton: We're not asking for smaller lots at all. The Staff has
already, said that the property can still be split into three lots and I'm sure
that all three can still be ,sold and how,has that created a hardship.: Maybe
you can show us the dollars am cents side by ~littiw it the way you want
and by splitting it the way Staff hassuggested'you are going to10ge
$2,000.00 or something, I don't know, but I'm just saying that maybe' would
show a hardship.
Jerry Carroll: From the dollar and cent standpoint, we would be far better
off taking the Staff's plan am hoping that, what do you have 30 lots in
there, 25 lots, at some future date and selling them off. He really is
looking at a situation where if you talk about the hardship, you have to talk
about it in the context of some degree of reasonableness also. You could say
that anybody who could make any reason use of a piece of property is not
entitled to a variance:but I think in this situation what he is really doing
is saying to you, if I want to take that large piece of property am make
three single lots out of this so forever and ever you aren't going to have to
worry about sul:division of it, I think he is doing a great favor for the City
and it is a hardship for him to say alright, I'm going to protect the value of
my property by creating three large lots on this total area. I think that can
be considered a hardship. I'll grant you dollars and cents don't make a
hardship.
Councilman Horn: I guess my reasoning for that is even the other "reasonable
use" that was described to us requires a variance so in my mim you need
hardship in either case so now it says, is that other really a reasonable use
if it still requires a variance.
Barbara Dacy: That a1~0 begs a question that if ,you, feel that no hardship
exists at all, then maybe the propertyshpu1dn't,be sul:divided.
Councilman Horn: I'm not ,saying that., .I'msaying that to me the definition
of what a r~rdsh+p 'i~'~i~hi~h says there :is .~o" oth~' reasonab1e~se, 'that,' '
constitutes a hardship. What I heardis'~.the other reasonable use requires a
variance so you would have to prove a hardship so is that really a legitimate
other "reasonable use?
Councilwoman Swenson: You are just eliminating the 180 foot lot width
question. That is the main one which is the one that effects the Zoning
Ordinance.
Councilman Horn: But it still requires a variance.
Mayor Hamil ton: I'm sure we have this on the agenda probably for next meeting
however long it takes to get the Attorney's opinion.
19
20
City Council Meeting - September 22, 1986
I
APPROVAL OF ACCOUNTS
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the Accounts
Payables dated September "22; i986 check numbers 024105 through'024226 in the
amount of' $5,575,677.27 and check numbers' 027073 through 027245 in the amount'
of $401,426.34 for a' total amount of $5,977,103.61 with the clarification of
check #027137 in the amount of $507.25' 'to'Kerber' Enferprises. All; votef'in "
favor and motiori;carrieid.:' ::~:', ',.. ,. , .
r "_ ,--,\
.. . ___~ ~ , ; :r':
." [:' ,'. :
CONSIDERATION OF PAVING SUNSET TRAIL.
Barbara Dacy: Attached to your report is a letter from the property owners on
the west side of SUnset Trail. They arranged a staff meeting wherein they
were inquiring about the subdivision requirements for a rural subdivision.
During the review wlth the Mjolnes', Staff pointed out that Staff would
recommend that Sunset Trail be paved or improved to a standard rural section.
I consulted with the City Engineer and the Street Superintendent about
maintenance problems in the past. '!hey cited to me that Sunset Trail has
experienced washouts and other drainage problems. Typically gravel roads in
the rural area, beyond' three homes are required to be improved upon
resubdivision application. The Mjolnes' are here wanting the Council
recommendation as to whether or not they would consider Sunset Trail improved
to the full standard section. They would like some type of indication before
they file application and incur soil testing fees and platting fees and so on.
In summary, Staff's recommendation is that the Council consider improving
Sunset Trail to a standard rural section and the Mjolnes' are here tonight.
I
Alan Mjolnes: I guess our major concern is that we have a great deal of
affection for our neighbors. We have one fellow who has maybe 6-7 acres of
grapes that he plants and he lives in Minneapolis and the other neighbors are
relatively delightful and not overly financially endowed people and we are
concerned that if we urge something like this, obviOuSly what is"going to
happen is either we 'don't do it because' of 'our friendship with them or we hurt..
these PeOple because I can better afford the cost of it then they can so it
would ~ -'-ri:f6e 'for 'us to J:Je able to have' d~velopment of that area. . '!he . "
neighborhood is doing that' already. The 'young: People' are enjoying having
friends and 'so on and it just seems as though it is a right time to do it
eSPecially since the law changes that are currently coming will probably make
it difficult or impossible to do it in the next period of time or the road
will still wash out as it does a few times in the summer and there will just
not be the additive to pay for the cost of the repair and it just seems as
though, for us, I don't think we would be as easily able to put this burden on
our neighbor. I just don't think they can handle it so it makes it difficult
to envision that occuring and it is beautiful land looking down on a creek.
It is very attractive land.
Mayor Hamilton: I think you actually are requesting then that the road be
maintained as a non-paved street, is that correct?
Alan Mjolnes: I would assume for the sake of the neighbors, this is the
concern we have. We probably would end up losing the value of some of both
homes probably because I just can't see our neighbors. The man he sells his
I
20
I
I
I
21
City Council Meeting - September 22, 1986
grapes to the grocery stores am he has an old beat up truck am he couldn't
begin to afford it.
Mayor Hamil ton: What I'm looking for I guess, is what you want to do?
(Xl one ham you are saying that you want the road to be paved am on the other
hand you are saying you know your neighbors can't afford it so you don't think
it ought to be done so we're not sure where you are at.
Alan Mjolnes: In that event I don't expect that we would be able to have" the
thing occur. In our sense, what we originally envisioned, was hoping that it
would not be,necessary to do a major amount to the road other than possibly
improving it somewhat so that it won't do some of the things that it .
occasionally does and stay with the gravel.
Al Klingelhutz: Mr. and Mrs. Mjolnes came am talked to me about this. The
bad thing is the road goes up the middle of his property so we could subdivide
lots off of both sides. What the Mjolnes are concerned of, they have pretty
big hearts, you are putting a blacktop road, half will be assessed to them,
half to the other side and they just feel their present neighbors can't afford
that. If you don't allow the subdivision, the road is going to stay gravel.
When I kim of think about it, the 50 foot easement extems clean up to this
property line and there is a very good possibility that sometime in the future
that road could be continued out. I feel that would probably be the best
time to approve that road. They are thinking about subdividing l5.some acres
into 5 lots which would make an average of 3 acres per lot. I don't believe
any lot would need a variance. We have 13,020 feet of frontage here and you
di vide that by 5, you have well over 180 foot lots. When you look at four more
houses on that road and there is Covenants and Restrictions on the property at
this time. It can be subdivided but the houses have to be above a certain
quality and I'm sure it isn't going to be harmful to the City or the City's
tax base and I think with the additional tax base that could be generated, it
would be helpful to the City plus sometime in the future, the grape farmer
could decide to subdivide his, it would make it much more economical am
feasible for PeOple on both sides of the road.
Councilwoman Swenson:" The other thing that comes to mim is the situation
that we have a little bit further to the south there on that road, Bluff Creek
Road. I don't know anyone of us who hasn't received weekly, monthly phone
calls, and we hadi t on Creekwood too, the dust and awful and when it rains,
half the road gets washed out am we get called because it is a hazard.
Al Klingelhutz: I think Bluff Creek Drive is a considerably different road
than this. This is a dead-em road where Bluff Creek Drive is a through road
and you are taking a lot of traffic other than residents on Bluff Creek and I
believe if you could limit it just to the people who live on Bluff Creek you
wouldn't have one-third the problem you have today. It is just a washboard
and I'm sure that is generated by a lot of trucks going up am down that road
so it would make a big difference.
Mayor Hamilton: Is this a variance then to the existing ordinance, since I
think other subdivisions require that the streest be paved, would this be a
variance in this case?
21
CJ:IC);)
~~
City Council Meeting - September 22, 1986
Barbara Dacy: To allow the drive to remain gravel? No, I would have to look
at the Ordinance before I answer with certainty but it is a standard policy
that the City has that when property is resubdi vide:1 that we always look to a
full improvement. A full improved street. I will have to check the Ordinance
but I believe that it is written in that fashion.
I
Don Ashworth: So therefore it would need a variance process.
Mayor Hamil ton: Or should we look to a fully improve:1 street. It doesn't
;,":.' . '.' " 1 ..{
necessarily mean that the Ordinance says that we must have one.
Councilwoman Swenson: Doesn't it say though that the property must abut a
pub1ica11y improved road?
Barbara Dacy: It just says public street.
Councilwoman Swenson: It is a public road.
Barbara Dacy: I think the clear cut policy is that anything up to three lots,
the Ordinance allows as a private drive. Anything beyond that, it has been
Staff's policy to advise subdividers that a fully improve:1 street would be
required so yes, a variance would be involved.
Councilwoman SWenson: To the policy or the Ordinance?
Mayor Hamil ton: I guess that is something we can ask the Ci ty Attorney but I
don't personally have any problem with that remaining a gravel road with only
five houses on there as long as, in the near future you aren't back here or
the residents living there, when they build their homes, aren't back here like
they have done with Creekwood and some of the other streets saying now we
would like the road pave:1 and we are back to the same situation.
I
Councilwoman Watson: I think at that time there would be enough houses on
there so if it wasassessea, it would be spread out better. .
Mayor Hamilton: '!here are going to be five homes but that is not going to
change anything because half of what would b€ assessed to the Mjo1nes'
property.now and tha't would remain the same and I don't know if there are any
plans for subdividing anything on the eastern side of it. I think we need
clarification on whether that would be a variance request or not having an
improved street and I guess I'm really not sure that would make any
difference.
Barbara Dacy: I think whether you call it a variance or whatever, it is
standard City practice and by the Ordinance, if it is more than three lots,
the City has consistently said that you must install an improved street. Here
we have an existing situation. It is within the Council's perogative to
determine whether or not that is going to continue or not and that is why they
are here tonight. They want to know whether to procee:1 with the sulrlivision
application or what.
I
22
I
I
I
20
d
City Council Meeting - September 22, 1986
Mayor Hamilton: Should the City do a feasible study to determine what the cost
of improving that road would be prior to them asking for a subdivision?
Barbara Dacy: Typically that is done between preliminary plat approval and
final plat approval.
Mayor Hamilton: I know that but I understand what the applicant said and I
appreciate his candor in saying that he doesn't want to have the neighbors
cost and if we don't really know what the cost is going to be.
Don Ashworth: We can prepare an estimate. In fact, we could have it as part
of the next agenda that would include the City Attorney's opinion.
Council'woman Swenson: It might be important to note that we could be talking
either about three 5 acre lots or a number of 2 1/2 acre lots. I think a lot
might depend on whether we are going to have 3 or whether we are going to
have 2 1/2 acres.
Al Klingelhutz: Actually the 15 acres there and they would average about 3
acres per lot. I guess I am going to dispute Barb's statement, a private road
is allowed to have 3 lots on a gravel road but as far as I have read in the
Ordinance, if it is a public road, I don't think that is quite applicable. It
might be City policy to want it blacktopped but I think I can give you several
cases in Chanhassen where they weren't but I'm not going to bring them up. If
the Mjolnes' decided to go to three lots, and I think we're advised that you
could sulxli vide into three lots and have a gravel road, would there be any
objection to that?
Mayor Hamilton: If they went to three lots instead of five?
Al Klingelhutz: ' Yes.
Mayor Hamil ton: N::> .
Al Klingelhutz: '!hey would probably be three 5 acre lots.
Barbara Dacy: Would that include the Mjolnes' house then?
Al Klirigelhutz: Yes.
Barbara Dacy: So there would be two new lots then?
Al Klingelhutz: Two additional lots besides their own.
Mayor Hamilton: I guess we would like to get the Attorney's opinion and an
estimate so we know what we are talking about cost wise.
Al Klingelhutz: You wouldn't say that if they just divided into three that
there wouldn't be any objection of putting it on a gravel road?
Mayor Hamilton: I would say that. Pat, Clark, Carol, you are nodding in
agreement, okay.
23
24
City Council Meeting - September 22, 1986
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilwoman Watson seconded to table consideration of
paving Sunset Trail until the next regularly scheduled meeting to get an
opinion from the City Attorney and a cost estimate of paving Sunset Trail.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
I
Al Klingelhutz: How long before you think you will have that ready?
Don Ashworth: We will have that ready for the October 6th meeting. This will
be simply a ballpark type of a number.
REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE 213 ACRES INTO 11 INDUSTRIAL LOTS, LOCATED NORTH OF THE
PRESS INC:", FORTIER AND ASSOCIATES. - - -
Barbara Dacy: The proposal is located north of the existing Press Building,
adjacent to the railroad tracks. Eden prairie is on the north side of the
railroad tracks and also to the east. As you are aware, your last meeting you
considered proposals for extension of West 184th Street and the plans and
specs for those. The purpose of this subdivision application is to subdivide
the property which is approximately 21 acres into 11 industrial lots. The
Planning Commission recommended approval of the subdivision as submitted
subject to the applicant dedicating the remaining area of West 184th Street as
a dedicated right-of-way on the plat. Secondly, that when each individual lot
comes in for site plan review, that a detailed landscaping plan be submitted in
conjunction with that to identify which trees will be removed and third, which
generated most of the discussion on the Planning Commission meeting was the
establishment of a 413 foot conservation easement along the rear of Lots 2
through 7 adjacent to the railroad. The basis for the requirement for the
conservation easement was to one, prevent buildings to be located right on top
of the rear lot line directly adjacent to the single family area. Although
the railroad does form a barrier in a sense, we are trying to maximize the
distance between the most heavily used property, that being industrial use,
and the least intensive which is single family housing. Secondly, the intent
of the conservation easement is to preserve mature stands of trees which are
quite significant along the rear of those properties. The 413 feet came from
the existing grading, eSPeCially in Lots 4, 5 and 6. The applicant can't be
here tonight so I am going to be acting on behalf of the applicant. The
applicant is objecting to the 413 foot easement. His suggestion was to allow
them the ability to at least grade and flatten out that hill area in that rear
area to within 213 feet, maintaining the existing vegetation but allowing some
type of grading where that could be located in the back of the building.
I
Mayor Hamil ton: Which lots were those again? Could you point them out on the
map.
Barbara Dacy: IDts 4, 5 and 6. There is a bridge here, about a 6 foot bridge
and what they are objecting to is that they don't want to have the buildings
directly adjacent to that bridge line and what they are saying is that they
could just have a 213 extra area to grade in around that to slop:! it down, that
would be their preference. They feel that the 413 foot easement, it would be
difficult to market the lots and restrict the building ability.
Mayor Hamil ton: What was the purpose of the 40 foot easement?
I
24
I
I
I
25
City Council Meeting - September 22, 1986
Barbara Dacy: TO preserve the existing trees along the rear and to provide a
distance setback from industrial buildings. They didn't want, the P-4
District as it sets now, proposed buildings in there could be located right on
top of the railroad. We wanted a good separation between single family homes
to the north.
Mayor Hamilton: It seems like 20 feet would be adequate space to give them
plenty of trees and plants or whatever you need there to have all the
screening you would need. 20 feet of screening could be rather significant.
Barbara Dacy: Right, and that is why the applicant came back am said the
building, we will comply with the 40 foot building setback but if you could
allow us to grade 20 feet in for a parking area to whatever we had to do, that
would be an alternative.
Mayor Hamilton: Especially if we suggest they put fir trees in there, that
would be year round.
Councilwoman Swenson: I think that is a good alternative.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the subdivision
Request #86-16 based on the preliminary plat stamPed "Received August 29,
1986" with the following conditions:
1.
That a sixty foot right-of-way be dedicated to the City along the
east lot line of Lot 7, Block 1.
2.
That a 20 foot conservation easement be executed on Lots 2-7,
Block 1.
3. That when each individual lot comes in for a site plan review, that
the applicant identify on the site plan which trees will be removed
and a plan for plantings of coniferous trees for adequate screening
to the north.
4. That continuous screening be maintained.
All voted in favor am motion carried.
Councilwoman Swenson: Did I misunderstand your recommendation? I thought you
said that we would maintain the 40 feet with the provision that they could
grade into 20 feet of that.
Barbara Dacy: Yes, that is what I said but I was waiting for him to finish
his motion before I clarified it. Was that your intent, a 20 foot building
and parking or was it a 40 foot building conservation easment but allowing 20
foot of intrusion?
Mayor Hamilton: My motion was that a 20 foot easement be executed.
have a question with that?
Did you
25
26
City Council Meeting - September 22, 1986
Councilwoman Swenson: No, as long as it is understocd that there won't be any I
grading or anything beyond that 20 feet.
REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE 1.44 ACRES INTO 3 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, 3840 AND 3860 LONE
CEDAR CIRCLE, ROBERTA BUCHHEIT AND ARNOLD HED. - - - -
Barbara Dacy: What the applicant is proposing to do, you probably recall that
the applicant filed a previous application approximately a year ago to split
her lot into two lots am there were a number of variances involved with that
subdivision and it was ultimately denied. The applicant is reapplying with
the inclusion of the property owner to the west for a three lot split. One
variance is now needed and that being a lot area variance for Lot 2. Total
area of the three lots together is 1.44 acres. Staff recommended approval to
the Planning Commission on the basis that the total area of the three lots
exceeds the lot area requirement of 20,000 square feet per lot. The unique
circumstance involved is that the location of the existing structure to the
west permitted the ability of shifting the lot line to the west to gain the
extra area needed for Lot 2 to make 20,000 square feet. The Planning
Commission felt however that the lot line should be looked at to be moved to
the west. It was noted to them that by shifting that to the west, it would
place Mr. Hed's deck into non-conformance so it would become a non-conforming
structure. They would not be able to expand on it without a variance so the
essence of the Commission's action was to recommem approval subject to the
shifting of the western lot line of Lot 2 10 feet to the west. We asked the
applicant's surveyor to go back am come back with the exact lot area as close I
as they could to find out what the area was so they came back with three
al terna ti ves. I' 11 start with the blue one. It runs down 10 feet to the west
and down to the lakeshore and that does meet the 20,000 square foot lot area.
You are trading off through by creating a non-conforming situation on Mr.
Hed's deck. The second alternative is the red one. You can hardly see it but
maintaining the proposed lot line of Lot 2 am then shifting in a diagonal
fashion to the northwest. That also meets the 20,000 square feet but what you
get is a 57 foot width along the lake of Mr. Hed's property a substamard lot
width by the Shoreland regulations. The final one is the green one which does
shift the lot line to the west am then straight down to the lakeshore about
as much as you are going to push to the west while still maintaining enough
lakeshore for the applicant am that is 18,505.8 square feet so in order to
meet the 20,000 square feet, the blue option represents the only method to do
that but it does work under the deck requirement so it is a trade-off
situation. To have everything conforming, you are trading a lot area variance
for creating a non-conforming structure.
Councilwoman Swenson: How many feet were we short on that 18,000 what?
Barbara Dacy: 18,505.8 As proposed the lot area being 17,648.
Mayor Hamilton: Why was it considered taking the red line there and running
it straight down to the lake. It seems that one lot would be short in square
footage at any rate then you would have only one lot that was not in
conformance. If you took the red line am ran it straight down or angled it
off where the blue part is so Mr. Hed's property wouldn't have to be non-
conforming.
I
26
27
City Council Meeting - September 22, 1986
I Barbara Dacy: You would still be short in the area.
Mayor Hamilton: I agree, you are short on one lot. '!he other lot would meet
footage requirement.
Councilwoman Watson: How does Mr. Hed feel about having his deck being a non-
conforming deck?
I
Mr. Hed: I think we are working with numbers and we have some 60,000 feet and
no matter where you put the lines we aren't going to increase the total amount
of space. I think what we wanted to do with Bobby's property, if possible,
was to, 20,000 square feet in her lot provided about 25 foot setback to the
new lot but her deck the way it is situated, also provides about a 25 foot
side setback from our foundation to the new lot so the easiest way would be if
we could get, I won't use the word variance, exception. '!hat if we could have
an exception of 17,600 square feet for the lot, that would l:e asking for one
exception rather than hassle with three variances. '!hat may be more
palatable. Barb contacted the DNR and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
and in both cases they had no objections. I think that when our properties
were develoPed, we went in and had the County check and we had to have certain
size but the sewer and water has come through and I think that changes the
complexion a little bit at least. Both Kant's and the Buchheit's when they
bought their properties had about 10 foot setbacks on the side and I think it
was the intent at that time, that when sewer and water was in that they would
have properties that would ultimately be available for another lake lot and I
think we are at that point now. I think there is another consideration too,
the marketability. Bobby has her home for sale and the taxes that we are
faced with on lake property are increasing and this does help alleviate and
will bring Bobby's taxes into a more marketable situation and she still has
20,000 square feet so I don't know if that is involved in a hardship or not.
Carol and I plan to have it as a buffer lot with possibly the intent to build
there.
Mayor Hamil ton: Do you have anything to add to that Bobby?
Bobby Buchheit: No, just that the three lots are over 60,000 square feet. I
think they are about 62,000.
Councilwoman Swenson: Is your lot just exactly 20,000 square feet?
Bobby Buchheit: Mine? With this new, yes it would be 20,000 square feet.
I
Councilwoman Watson: I guess in my mind I would just as soon create just one
si tuation rather than all of these. I would rather have Mr. Hed's deck not be
non-conforming and have this lot be slightly smaller. Clark is shaking his
head no but I think if we do that we just have one situation to deal with
rather than having a non-conforming deck. Although decks are not structures
in the strictest sense of the word and if the lot line is actually almost 25
feet from the foundation of the house, infringing on the deck is not like
infringing on the house. I realize that too because a deck is not a structure
like a building is a structure so I changed my own mind.
27
28
City Council Meeting - September 22, 1986
Councilman Horn:
the other way.
more desirable
property.
Just for exactly what Carol said, I would prefer to do it
I think the non-conforming use of an auxiliary structure is
then changing a lot and requiring a variance for that piece of
I
Councilwoman Watson: So if we go over and use the blue line, will we have
three lots all in conformance?
Barbara Dacy: Yes.
Councilwoman Watson: Then I guess I will vote for the blue line.
Barbara Dacy: The deck will be right on the lot line in that case.
Councilwoman Swenson: The adjacent property owner might be very unhappy about
that. You have to give him at least 2 feet so if there is maintenance on the
deck he can walk around it without having to trespass on somebody elses
lot.
Mayor Hamilton: It seems since the City Attorney reviewed this and had no
problem with lots smaller than 20,000 I guess I wouldn't have any problem
granting a variance to 1,500 square feet. That is all we are talking about to
a variance to the lot size.
Councilman Horn: Again, it is a hardship.
I
Mayor Hamil ton: Yes, plus that takes the lot right off from being on the deck
which doesn't make any sense to me. That is why I would prefer to see it
done.
Barbara Dacy: The main criteria that Staff saw is that the overall area
exceed 60,000 square foot lots. If it wasn't for the location of one of the
homes, three conforming lots could be created. I know the Planning Commission
was concerned about a precedent of other lots in that area coming in and they
were concerned about that and wanted to eliminate any questions at all but in
this particular case, this was the hardship or the circumstance that Staff
looked at. I just want to make that clear for the record.
Councilman Horn: I do have a question. I guess I have trouble distinquishing
the hardship difference here. Just this evening we heard another alternative
took it out of the hardship category and here we have another alternative. To
me, what we are asking in terms of a legal question is what is more of a
hardship situation? Creating a non-conforming use or creating a variance
situation. Tb me that is what we are really asking ourselves in terms of the
lot and I don't see the difference in hardship here. Both of them have an
optional use and in fact, in this case, you can argue stronger for it because
you can get to a point where you don't need a variance request. The other
issue that we had you couldn't get into a position where you didn't need a
variance request.
Mayor Hamil ton: Except that the deck that is currently on the home, should
the Hed's sell that home at some time am the PeOple who owned the property of
I
28
I
I
I
29
City Council Meeting - September 22, 1986
the other lot may want to put a fence. Let's say they want to put a fence up
and they want to put it right on the lot line. Now, whoever owns that
property can't get out to paint the one side of the fence or to do anything.
Councilwoman Swenson: If you are putting it on the lot line, they can't go
over on that property am paint it now because they would be trespassing.
Councilman Horn: I understand the practicality of the issue but what I am
talking about is the letter of the law am what we have to do to prove
hardship.
Barbara Dacy: OUr view is that we do not want to create non-conforming
situations at all.
Councilman Horn: You would rather have a variance?
Barbara Dacy: If his house was shifted over there wouldn't be a variance at
all.
Mr. Hed: I guess around Lake Minnewashta where it is sewer and water with 90
feet plus on the lake, 17,600 square feet of space would be a larger lot for
1akeshore than probably 75% of the homeowners on the lake so we are not, as
you know, we are very aware of environmental considerations of the lake. We
do not want to have increased density without the environmental impact. I
think I can assure you with three approximately 100 front foot on the lake,
300 feet on the lake and over 60,000 feet, the plan that was submitted might
be the best alternative.
Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the subdivision #86-3 as shown on the
preliminary plat dated September 3, 1986 to subdivide 1.44 acres into three
single family lots, 3840 and 3860 Lone Cedar Circle, Roberta Buchheit and
Arnold Hed with the following comitions:
1. '!he westerly lot line of Lot 2 be moved 10 feet to the west.
2. Drainage swales or berms shall be provided on Lot 2 to direct runoff
away from existing dwellings.
3. Excess fill should be removed from Lot 2 or located towards Lone
Cedar Lane.
4. Prompt restoration of the disturbed area on Lot 2 shall be completed
wi th seed, mulch or sod.
5. '!he fence located on Lot 2 be removed/relocated onto Lot 3.
There was no second. Motion was denied.
Councilwoman Swenson: I'm confused because I think isn't that the one that
resu1 ts in two variances am we had it down to one where there was only one
variance didn't we?
29
30
City Council Meeting - September 22, 1986
Barbara Dacy: If the Mayor is referring to the blue line, then you are moving
the lot line 10 feet to the west, all lots are 20,000 square feet but the deck
is on the lot line.
I
Mayor Hamilton: I would prefer the red line with the red line going straight
down to the lake.
Barbara Dacy: The red line option is creating a variance at the lake and you
are granting that and that is your intent?
Councilwoman Swenson: That is the one that comes up with l8,000?
Councilman Horn: No, that is 20,000.
Mayor Hamilton: No, I want a different one, I want the red line that goes
straight down to the lake.
Councilwoman Swenson: That gives 17,648 so actually you are giving a variance
request for 2,400 square feet? How much can we get, if Arnie's deck would be
on the line, we set up a 10 foot, how about a 5 foot?
Barbara Dacy: If it is 5 feet, it is going to be between the 17,648 and the
18,505.
Councilman Horn: I can think of two and I'm not sure which one I want to
propose. One would be to obviously take the non-conforming use and not I
require a variance. The second one would be to table this issue to get an
opinion from the City Attorney as to the legality of granting this variance in
this case versus the issue we just looked at. I have trouble granting this
variance in light of our hesitancy to grant a variance in the last division
that we looked at. Tb me, as soon as I go to granting a variance, I have to
be able to prove hardship. It comes down to that issue and in this case I
find the trade-off of a non-conforming use versus a variance to be more
palatable then I do to the other issue where we said hardship couldn't be
proven but the proposal still required a variance that you still had to have a
hardship for and that is why I am really hung up on this thing. The only way
I can comfortably do this, unless the Attorney could show me some precedent
here that would change my mind, would be to go along with the blue
recommendation where we don't need a variance.
Councilman Horn moved, Mayor Hamiton seconded to approve the Sul::rlivision
Request #86-3 for the realignment of the westerly lot line of Lot 2 be moved
10 feet to the west as discussed as the blue option in the Staff presentation
with the following conditions:
1. Drainage swales or berms shall be provided on Lot 2 to direct runoff
away fram existing dwellings.
2.
Excess fill should be removed from Lot 2 or located towards Lone
Cedar Lane.
I
30
I
I
I
31
City Council Meeting - September 22, 1986
3.
Prompt restoration of disturbed area on Lot 2 shall be completed with
seed, mulch or sod.
- 4. The fence located on Lot 2 be removed and relocated onto Lot 3.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
Mayor Ham il ton:
conforming use.
This means that your deck on your house is now a non-
The property line and your deck are the same alignment.
APPROVAL OF CHANHASSEN VISTA 2ND ADDITION GRADING PLAN, McCOMBS-KNUTSON.
- -
Bill Engelhardt: I have my letter stating that I have reviewed the Chan Vista
2nd Addition grading plan and I will just run through the conditions that I am
recorrmend ing along wi th approval:
1. Grading shall take place only in the area designated as phase 1 and
the berm area in phase 2.
2. The trees to be removed shall be marked and the area of removal
checked prior to any clearing and grubbing.
3.
Erosion control barriers be installed at the outlet of the most
easterly storm sewer outlet. That is the one to the top of the page
in phase 1.
4.
All erosion control barriers shall be in place prior to starting
grading.
5. Storm sewer inlets shall be protected from receiving sediment during
construction.
6. Phase 2 Chanhassen vista 2nd Addition grading plan shall be reviewed
prior to commencing grading in that phase. In other words, tonight
you are looking at approving the phase 1 grading of Chanhassen Vista
2nd Addition. My reason for that is that we have Chan vista 1st
Addition underway. This would be Chan Vista 2nd Addition. I don't
want to see the whole area opened up without having some of the
previous areas completed or restored.
7. Restoration of the disturbed areas shall be completed immediately
after grading has been completed.
8. Chanhassen vista 1st Addition and phase 1, 2nd Addition shall be
substantially restored prior to starting any additional grading in
phase 2, Chanhassen Vista 2nd Addition. Again, that relates to not
opening up the whole area and having it all sitting open without
having anything being done with the restoration.
Councilwoman Swenson: Don't we have an easement in there?
M3yor Hamil ton: Yes.
31
32
Councilwoman Swenson: Yes, that is what I'm saying. Where is our sacred land
up here? Is that beyorrl this line here? I'm still trying to establish where
the conservation easement is. Is that to the north along side the pond?
Mayor Hamil ton: The porrl is over here but there is also a swale arrl the creek
runs through here. '!hat is what Pat is wondering about.
Don Ashworth: The creek is not any part of the conservation easement.
Councilwoman Swenson: Do we have any idea how many of these trees are going to
have to be removed?
Bill Engelhardt: ~ we don't. '!hat was the reason for making sure that the
areas they have marked are areas only in cut areas of the roadway where the
road is going to go in the first place and the other areas they have marked
are the house pads where they would have to be cut for construction of the
houses anyhow. '!hat is why I have indicated in my report that I would like
to have those trees marked and reviewed prior to any grading starting so we
can make sure that they aren't over stepping their bounds that they have
shown here.
I
Councilwoman Swenson: Very good.
Councilwoman Watson: Does this fall into the category if these trees are
removed that they have to replaced by sane thing?
Bill Engelhardt: ~, I would say not but in the case of the lots, they are
generally going to have larrlscaping in their front yards and will want to
replace some trees anyhow. '!he thing I was worried about was taking the trees
down the slopes or grading the lots all the way out so it looks like they have
done a pretty good job with restricting the amount of tree removal.
Councilwoman Watson: As long as they leave this alone to the other side.
Jay Johnson: I would like to first comment on part of this they are going to
berm the city protected wetlands during this phase. If we do not also at the
same time build an outlet for the wetlands, we are going to have a tremendous
problem there in the spring because now we are going to have a pond
substantially deeper than the previous wetlands and the outflow will have to
go across, instead of the sides of the two PeOPles yards there, through the
center of their yards so if they are not planning on putting the outlet to the
pond, we don't want to put the darn in before we put the outlet on. I have I
seen no indication of where we will put an outlet in so I am against berming
the porrl this winter in Phase 1. Another thing I would like to discuss is
demolition debris which in phase 1 goes right through the Hansen and
32
I
I
I
tiJl{)
~tJl
City Council Meeting - September 22, 1986
Klingelhutz' old construction shack and I would like to know what is going to
happen to the debris that is there now. Are they going to take that over into
the park easement, our sacred park easement, and pour it down the side of the
hill as they did in the 1st Addition with the debris from the barn? That was
not exactly cool what happened there. I think that needs to be clarified and
I would not want to see this construction debris or as I talked earlier, and
the MPCA has already asked them to provide some site investigation at this
si te. '!he site response unit asked them to sample the soil. It was in a
letter earlier to them and before you start doing construction and removing
stuff from the site, you better know what is there. '!his may not have
happened in the 1st Addition. I did not realize that they were going to
dispose of an old agricultural barn and out buildings by pushing it down into
the conservation easement. I have some worries there about pesticides but
that is a different matter to be taken up under a different forum. Two is my
demoli tion debris. I am really concerned about what is going to hapPen to
that. Right now they only have one disposal site and that is in designated
park land. Both this conservation easement and as granted to the City as park
land. As far as clear-cutting of trees, does the entire shaded area going to
be clear-cut of trees in here? Is that what this is doing? It looks like
they are clear-cutting enough land to completely put in the house pad as shown
on their typical sketch and several of these lots, since we got the street
pushed back further than originally, no longer need to have the slopes
restablized. There is no need to take out the trees in the PeOple's
backyards, eSPeCially at this time. Obviously you have to take out the trees
to put the street in but when you start looking at Section 4 here, there are a
lot of trees that are being removed for house pads. If you look at Lot 7, 5
and 6, you will see some little white areas in there which shows they are not
removing those little groups of trees but then they are removing all the trees
from the backyard or maybe that is where the house pad is going. It looks
like they are going to come in and start clear-cutting at the edge of Section
3 and go all the way to the edge of Section 4. From here all the way over
with a few little exceptions. I think that needs to be defined. I believe
there was a statement in the letter from Bill, which I didn't bring up with
me. '!his paragraph, the shaded areas for the northern lots indicate limits of
tree removal. It appears the trees only removed for street construction and
house pad areas thereby retaining tree cover over a majority of the lot area.
From that, to me, it sounds like we are going to clear-cut all through the
dotted area. I don't think that is quite necessary except in some lots they
are going to do excavation in Lot 4 of Section 4 so obviously when you take
away the dirt you are going to have to take away the trees. '!he other lots in
there might not need it as much. I want the City Council to be very careful
about tree removal. It is a lot cheaper to clear-cut then it is to
individually go in and cut out a building pad area. You can do it a lot
quicker and that is what it looks like they are trying to do here. Erosion
control here is minimal. I didn't have a chance to compare it against what
their previous erosion control plans were. Quickly going through here. On
the steep slopes like in Section 4, Lot 10, that is the northeastern most lot
there, they have erosion control halfway down the lot and then they are doing
tree removal down on the slope there. They are removing all those trees on
that steep slope, you are going to need erosion control down slope from there
so maybe we want to put erosion control across the bottom of the shaded area
on Lots 9 and 10. Another place of concern is the cutting on Lot 4 of Section 4.
33
34
City Council Meeting - September 22, 1986
They are cutting in obviously to make a nice little walkout there. They
are cutting into the side of the hill it looks like at the 958 contour and
taking 4-5 feet of dirt out of there up to about the 962 and there is no
erosion control below that cut area. That is going to be exposed. Likewise,
they are doing cuts in Lots 2 and Lots 3 with no erosion control below where
they are cutting so the erosion control plan here appears to be fairly
minimal. They are doing some cutting in some fairly steep lots. Basically,
the berming in the wetlands, I'll just summarize, is a little premature,
demolition debris, I have some serious questions about, erosion control seems
to be minimal and needs to be improved and we need some definition on this
clear-cutting of the trees. Whether it is clear-cutting or if they are
actually going in there and individually remove trees as necessary and we need
some kind of guarantee, not verbal promises.
I
Bill Engelhardt: On the clear-cutting, I guess the way they have indicated it
here, they are only clearing in the areas where the house pads, they don't
have individual trees marked so you can't just make a little spot which tree
they are going to take out but you will notice that they have the white area
before they hit the dash or shaded area which indicates the white would be the
setback and the house, the shaded area would be where they are going to take
trees for the housepad itself. You are going to take trees no matter what you
do when you build a house. You are going to have to take some trees so I
really think that they have kept it to a minimum and again, that is why I
would like to have them marked so we can tell what is going to done out there
before they start. As far as the erosion control goes, in the cut areas we're
not really as concerned about the erosion control as in the fill areas because
the cut areas you are going down to natural soils. They are not building up
banks or slopes that are going to be eroding. Cut areas you are just taking
the top down and you don't have the erosion and sediment running as much as
you do in the fill areas. I think the developer would be willing to, and he
is here tonight, to put up some more erosion control barriers if it is
necessary but I think he has got about as much as what he needs in the areas
that he has got shown in as fills. Now, if we start having a problem or
something or it looks like it is going to be eroding, we can certainly have
them fUt it up right away. I don't see any problems with that. The outlet
for the pond, my understanding of this is that the pond that they are
constructing or the reason for the berm is to prevent the water from going
into the wetland area. That was my understanding of it and as the water
builds up in this pond, then it would overflow to the south and go into the
drainage swales that would carry it down through the natural drainage ways.
It looks like there is a minor amount of grading that would have to be done to
get the overflow in there and that could be done under this phase. Again, the
pond that you are seeing that is being sized and the berm that you are putting
there is for ul timate development and probably the overflow would not be
needed until your ultimate development would take place but if you want it to
be done at this time, that could be done at this time.
I
Jay Johnson: Are you saying all the grading around the wetlands is to be
done, not just the berm?
I
Bill Engelhardt: No. I'm not. I'm saying just the berm at this time and
when ul timate development takes place, which would be the phase 2 of the 2nd
34
I
I
I
35
City Council Meeting - September 22, 1986
Addition, we would grade in the drainage swale or the overflow and that way
you are letting the pond handle the drainage from the phase 1 of the 2nd
Addition and it looks like there is adequate area there in that pondiI1g' area
that you don't need the additional spillway so you wouldn't be opening up that
area until Phase 2 would come back in for review and approval before they
could start grading.
Jay Johnson: Could you show us the route that the water is going to take as
this pond, now we are calliI1g' it a pond.
Bill Engelhardt: It is going to build up. '!here is nothing I can do about
it. It is going to have you dischargiI1g' your storm sewers into a low area and
my understanding was that the berm was to be created to prevent the runoff
from goiI1g' into the wetland area. That was my understanding. Ultimately, if
this pond reaches such a level that it would then overflow and go down to the
natural drainage courses and what I am saying is that this overflow would not
be constructed until the Phase 2 construction and grading would take place
because I feel that this area would be able to handle the drainage without the
overflow and when the second phase, when the ultimate development takes place
then you can grade this swale in so it could be done any time. It could be
done now, it could be done later. It doesn't make any difference.
Mayor Hamilton: The bermiI1g' on the east side, just directly behind there to
the east are residential homes so the berm was to prevent any overflow from
goiI1g' into the neighborhood.
Bill Engelhardt: Right, and that is what it does do.
Councilwoman Swenson: But if you don't have it in there, then the water is
going to pour in there and it is going to go over the erosion control
barriers.
Don Ashworth: But that will be done with phase 1.
Councilman Horn: The question then became, first of all, what I thought I
heard you say was that this pond can gradually fill up and the berm will keep
it from runniI1g' to the east but it will gradually overflow and go into this
low area that is indicated along the south end. '!hen a little later I thought
what I heard is that the pond is big enough that that won't happen so you
won't have to accommodate any overflow under that natural drainage.
Bill Engelhardt: No, I did say that but I think what you are looking at is a
substantial area that is going to be diked off with this berm and unless you
see some extreme storms, you probably are not goiI1g' to see any overflow so as
an interim measure, I would say not create the overflow at this time.
Councilwoman Watson: So if that pond fills up, the water is goiI1g' to run
through what appears to be Lots 2, 4, 5 in that area and go that way?
Bill Engelhardt: Yes, and that is way it was originally, that is the way it
is planned to go with a swale cut in with the ultimate development. Maybe
they can clarify this for me.
35
36
City Council Meeting - September 22, 1986
David Siegel: Basically our intention was in creating this berm along the I
east lot lines in the 1st phase was to prevent the current flooding of the two
homes on Frontier Trails on Kiowa Circle because every spring this pond does
overflow and it runs down the lot line and then into the streets into Lotus.
So we are going to put this earth berm and then as we did discuss this Bill,
what our intention was as an overflow is to dig a slight ditch over to the
south side with hay bales as check dams and then it would flow, if it did ever
overflow, into the DNR pond in the center.
Councilwanan Watson: So you are going to go across Lots 3 and 4?
David Siegel: Only prior to the construction of the grading of Phase 2. When
phase 2 is graded then the drainage would then run to the north am into this
100 year pond over here in Triple Crown Estates.
Bill Engelhardt: The storm sewer would be completed in the phase 2.
Councilwoman Watson: So this would be a temporary swale?
David Siegel: Right am we don't need to put it in. We are only putting it
in to satisfy the current flooding situation for the neighbors and if the
Council prefers not to have it installed at this time, we just won't put it
in. The only other correction I would like to make, just to clarify
everything, in Lots 11 through 15 in Block 4, we will, to balance the earth
work in phase 1, there will be some fill in on those five lots and we will, as
soon as the grading is done on phase 1, seed am mulch the entire Phase 1 area
and Lots 11 through 15, Block 4.
I
Councilwanan Watson: How big is this pond?
David Siegel: This pond currently exists and it is a City Class III pond or
sanething.
Barbara Dacy: It is about an acre.
Council woman Swenson: Bill I would just like to make one caution here and
that is that we have found much to our chagrin and sadness that "adequate"
erosion control methods have not been enough. We have met with many
disasters. We are still living with it because we have had unusual rain and I
think what may have been considered sufficient in the past is no longer
considered sufficient. I think we have to go to extreme measures to make sure
that these things are not happening. We had a dike down here that I would
have sworn would have kept the Columbia River back am it broke through.
There are no absolutes in anything, this is for sure but I would rather go to
extremes in erosion control rather than think of adequancy. Imagine that you
are going to have an 100 year flood everyday for a week and then try to
protect against it.
Bill Engelhardt: They have provided for two types of erosion control
barriers. One is the engineering fabric up against the stake, which is not as
structurally sound as what you find if you use hay bales with snow fences and
wrought iron fence posts. I think in the areas where they have the steeper
I
36
I
I
I
37
City Council Meeting - September 22, 1986
slopes and more potential problems for erosion, they have indicated the
heavier barrier. Maybe the thing to do would be to use the heavier barrier on
all areas and then hopefully won't have any problems.
Councilwoman Swenson: Absolutely because I am not in favor of taking any
chances at all. The screening I grant you is good if you are going to try to
keep out silt. If you put the posts maybe 2 feet into the ground, as I see is
recommended here, as far as I'm concerned you have this with the screening
with the fencing too so that is how adamant I am about it.
Bill Engelhardt: I guess to go a little bit on in this, with Council approval
as part of the recommendations, I would like the areas of grading to be
modified to show what they are actually grading that would be different from
this plan, that they submit a new plan showing those areas as part of the
condition.
David Siegel: I guess the only thing I would like to point out Pat is that
the erosion controls were designed with the City Engineer and the Watershed
District and on our 1st Phase, they did come up with two types of erosion
controls that were designated by those two governmental bodies and the last
two weeks they haven't been able to work due to all the rain and we haven't
had any problems with soil erosion at all. I think the measures that are
being provided in the 2nd Phase are as adequare as in the 1st Phase and if we
do see that it isn't adequate, we can strengthen them with additional
measures.
Councilwoman Swenson: '!he problem is that all we need is once and we don't
know whether they are going to hold up until they get broken through and as I
say, we have just been through this and I don't know, I can't speak for anyone
else on the Council, but I'm willing to be perfectly unreasonable about this
if necessary to prevent any more damage because we were too squimish about
saying to the develoPer that we have to have this stronger thing. I'm not an
engineer and I can only go by the past experience we have had, a lot of which
has happened perhaps since we may have said this was okay. That is just my
personal opinion. I'm only one person on the Council but that is how I feel
about it.
Mayor Hamilton: Some of the measures that we incorported with the South Lotus
Lake project, which is where we had some difficulties, seemed to have worked
very well and I think at this point we are all quite happy with the success
that we have down there with all the weather we have had so I think we would
like to follow through on that type of erosion control. It is important to
us. Anything else?
Jay Johnson: Demolish debris?
David Siegel: As soon as they are able to grade in, that demolished debris
will be pushed down the hill and put into the disposal site with at least 2 to
3 feet of cover. '!he only reason it was left there was because they ran into
the rain and they haven't been able to work since two weeks ago today.
Mayor Hamiton: Why do you bury that? Why can't that be hauled out?
37
.38
City Council Meeting - September 22, 1986
Don Ashworth: I talked with the City Engineer prior to his leaving. He had
approved the fill as they put it into that side slope. It was an area that we
were having erosion problems with. It was an area, I think the Council can
relate to this, the Tyke Dump area where we had the severe erosion that was
occurring down in that creek area. In instances like that, the best success
we have had is by literally mixing construction materials with earth as it is
put into the washout areas. Exactly the same technique we showed in the
washout area adjacent to the pond. The only other area that was disturbed and
not been anticipated to be, was on the side slope, in working down in that
area they discovered a section area that was just sheer gravel in through that
whole area. Per Bill's instructions, they hauled black dirt am put it over
that entire section so that we would later on be able to plant in that area.
If we had not done that, I don't think that anyone or that the full intent of
what we wanted to see accomplished in that area, ever could have been
accomplished. Again, I did go through that with Mr. Monk prior to his
leaving. I don't know if Bill is totally up to speed on some of those
decisions but they seemed reasonable to me at the time that Bill went through
those with me.
I
Jay Johnson: You said you are going to push it further down the hill to the
disposal site am bury it further down in the plans? Is that what you just
said?
Mayor Hamilton: Can you show us where you are going to push it to.
Jay Johnson: This is not even on these plans. It is on the other section.
I
Don Ashworth: The section we are talking about is over in here. The area to
be filled is about right in here am then where the gravel was was over here.
Jay Johnson: The reason we brought the demolition up was because they have
more demolish to do am we want to know what is going to be the fate of the
Hansen-Klingelhutz property which has all kinds of trash on it that should it
go into a demolish construction debris pile like this, the stuff on this
property should not go over here.
Mayor Hamilton: I thought that was what I was asking but maybe that isn't
what I got an answer to. The construction shack of H & K am stuff.
David Siegel: Ch, that stuff. No, that is being buried on the north side and
Paul can show you where that is.
Jay Johnson: That isn't what you had on your plans.
Councilman Horn: Yes it is.
Mayor Hamilton: As directed by the Engineer. It says it will be buried as
directed by the Engineer.
Helen Vogel: It was my understanding that that did contain some hazardous
waste am they are going to bury that?
I
38
I
I
I
C!)~
iDV
City Council Meeting ~ September 22, 1986
Mayor Hamil ton: I don't think it was proven that there was hazardous waste
there. '!here were some empty paint cans. '!hat was the only thing I ever
heard.
Jay Johnson: '!he MPCA wrote a letter to the the MPCA site response unit
requesting that the area be checked for hazardous material. I don't have that
material with me but the site response unit would be very interested in any
work done in the area before a report is given to them.
Mayor Hamilton: Did you receive such a letter?
David Siegel: We did discuss this in great detail at the final plat approval
and the Council at that time had agreed to allow us until August, 1987 to
remove and bury the debris on the north side.
Jay Johnson: Plus they also directed you to investigate the possibility of
hazardous materials in there and removal of them.
Councilwoman Swenson: My memory was that you were supposed to remove it not
bury it.
David Siegel: '!he empty paint cans and all the cans, they were removed about
a month or 6 weeks ago. Doug Hansen did go back there and he did remove all
the cans.
Councilwoman Watson: So all that is there now is the building itself?
David Siegel: The building, there is concrete blocks, there is broken sheet
rock. It is all like construction debris from people who have remodeled their
homes or tom up their driveways all from the neighbors, or supposedly, from
the neighbors either around the area or from further out, that have decided to
use this as a local dumping ground.
Paul Pearson (McCombs-Knutson & Associates): In comenting, first of all, on
the 1st Addition, there was a disposal site area shown at the bottom of the
hill in which we were to bury the debris. It was correct, the statement, that
we had talked to Bill Monk about this and the understanding was that the
foundation and the building structure itself would be placed down in this
disposal area. Now at present, the way it does exist to date, it is somewhat
spread out from approximately the mid part of the slope down to the bottom of
the hill. The contractor has pushed the material over to the disposal site
but it hasn't been placed down in the bottom part of the hill. '!hat hasn't
been done. As soon as weather permits, this will be pushed down and this
dimension, approximately 2-3 feet of material will be placed over the top of
the debris. As far as the comment about hazardous materials, the structures
were checked before removal to make sure that there wasn't any hazardous
materials contained in the structure. So are there any questions about the
disposal area?
Jay Johnson: Where is the north disposal site?
Paul Pearson: I guess maybe before we go from this plat, I did hear a comment
39
401
City Council Meeting - September 22, 1986
about the poming am maybe a comment about this. Our plan was reviewed by
the Watershed District and the City and actually we are proposing two methods
of removal of our sediment. First of all, there is a silt fence along the
perimeter of our property. Second of all, we do have a safety device built in
that in the bottom of the hill near the DNR pond, we have two silt fences
constructed. We do also have a pond which is proposed. This will not only
act as a sediment pond but to be an ameni ty then to development once it is
completed so we really have in this area three sediment control devices for
our site. CUrrently, this pond is about half constructed. For sediment
removal for this pond to operate properly, it only requires half of the pond
to be excavated so as far as erosion control devices in this area, I would say
that we are very over designed. In the area of the east boundary, there again
we have a silt fence proposed and a sedimentation area also in this area which
are currently constructed. Visual observations from these past rains, erosion
has not bee occurring at the site and leaving the property. Any questions
about the erosion control?
Jay Johnson: He brought up the disposal si te here.
W= haven't seen where the north disposal site is.
The south disposal site.
Mayor Hamilton: We don't want to talk about the south disposal site. That is
all history. That is a process that has been approved and is being used. If
you want to talk about the Klingelhutz building, let's talk about that. That
is what we discussing.
Jay Johnson: Okay, I'm taking other actions on the south disposal site
anyway, that is outside of this. That is why I didn't bring it up earlier.
Where is the north disposal site then?
Paul Pearson: As outlined on our plan with the Phase 1 grading, we were
planning to remove the existing buildings and as David had mentioned, the
foundation materials and debris that had more or less been dumped in, the
majority of it in the west side of the building. The plans are to place this
material down in the tow of the slope in the backyards areas of Lots 11-15 of
Block 4 of the phase 2 construction area. In this area there is approximately
8 feet of fill. They usually have 6-8 feet of fill and again, this material
will be placed on the bottom part of the fill area and then the fill which is
being cut fran the site will be placed over the top of that debris.
Bill Engelhardt: There seems to be quite a few questions and concern about
the disposal of this building. It appears to me that for the minor amount of
cost, I will say minor, I don't know what the exact estimate would be, but it
doesn't look like it is that big of building, that that debris could be hauled
off-si te then the question would be moot as far as where it is going to be
buried. That is a pretty common practice in this typ:= of development to just
haul it off-site.
Councilwoman Watson: I would prefer to see them hauling it.
Mayor Hamilton: I don't recall at any time approving that that material be
buried on this site so I would go along with it's for removal.
40
I
I
I
I
I
I
41
City Council Meeting ~ September 22, 1986
Helen Vogel: You know that we have been to just about every meetin::J in
Chanhassen vista and I agree with you, we have never heard about burying
debris on-site before, it was always to be removed. Never was it mentioned
that it was going to be buried.
Bill Boyt: I would like to talk a little bit about the marsh I guess since
that adjoins my property. I have a concern that if you are goin::J to run this
uphill, which is what you are doing when you go that way right?
Paul Pearson: In order for this pond not to overflow the top of the dike
which is proposed, water would have to overflow another dike or saddle which
would be created in this area for the water then to overflow.
Bill Boyt: Could you tell me how much higher this is then the water?
Paul Pearson: This channel can be dug out. The proposed elevation of this as
shown on the plan is a 954.5. Now that is in a finished creek condition once
these paths have been graded and the storm sewer is in operation. As a
temporary measure, as .Mr. Siegel had mentioned, the temporary swale could be
dug out to this area which would maintain the water pond level that currently
exists in the pond which is about a 950 to 951.
Bill Boyt: So right now you are sayin::J that this is goin::J to 5 feet higher
than the pond?
Paul Pearson: In a finished condition, this would be roughly 4-5 feet above
the existin::J pond elevation. However, again in this construction phase, if
the berm is constructed we can create a swale or a ditch from the pond to the
south which will allow this water to pass then and not built up in the
existing pond area.
Bill Boyt: Well one, if you run it the short way, you are going to have a
tremendous potential erosion because this a heck of a streep grade right here
and you are not going to reach the pond so that means you are going to have to
run it over here to the pond. I don't know if I read topograhical maps very
well but it looks to me like right now that is 6 feet higher than this so you
are proposing to cut a channel out of here that is about 6 feet deep.
Paul Pearson: '!hat is correct at it's deepest point.
Bill Boyt: What are you going to do to keep kids out of that? I just propose
that you are opening yourself up to something that wasn't there before and is
now there and may be it is an attractive nuisance because it is going to
awfully hard for you to control.
Mayor Hamilton: How do they stay out of there now?
Bill Boyt: We're not talking about a 6 foot ditch.
Mayor Hamilton: But there is water in there currently.
41
42
City Council Meeting - September 22, 1986
Councilwoman Swenson: Normally, what we require in our request in all cases
is to have snow fencing put on each side.
I
Bill Boyt: Okay, so that may discourage it. The other problem is if you are
going to raise the water level here, there may be a better way to do this. If
you can put some tyPe of a pipe in am run it over to the City drain right
here where it is running right now where it is my understanding that there is
drain tile under here that was broken by the City somewhere in the past that
stopPed that flow and pushed it up above the ground. Now the other thing
about the marsh is it currently runs at least to that property line so you are
going to fill in the marsh or part of it. Is that right?
Paul Pearson: We are buildiIlg' a dike as shown, that is correct. In comments,
again I think Mr. Siegel also eluded to this, the current proposal was to
create the dike across this area. It is my understandiIlg' from previous
meetings that some complaints have been raised that the water in the spring
time has been goiIlg' through the backyard areas am we have been analysing this
construction design problem. It appeared to us that if a dike were
constructed in this area am create a swale to the south, that this would
alleviate the problem that was currently happening. The dike doesn't have to
be constructed with the Phase 1 construction. As far as our drainage, we are
not increasing the rate of runoff to the Phase 2 area to this pond so we could
up grade this as proposed.
Mayor Hamilton: Or just leave it as is. Would that be a better alternative? I
Would the neighborhood prefer that it just stay that way until that phase gets
umerway?
Bill Boyt: I haven't talked to the Kings and Boutons about this particular
thing. I know that they are not happy about haviIlg' that water run through
there. I don't know if they are going to be happier to have the berm pushed
up in there. I know what we were thinkiIlg' about in the 10Ilg' run was, that as
you indicated, the water would run through here, I call it a storm system,
over here to this catch basin which eliminates this kim of concern about
swales back in here. I am assuming you are going to maintain whatever the
water level is, that is going to set so we aren't goiIlg' to have more water or
less water and when you dig your swale it is going to be the same. You are
going to dig it deep enough so the water level is goiIlg' to be kept what it is
now?
Paul Pearson: Yes. As far as safety measures, as was mentioned, the swale
that would be created on a temporary basis, we wouldn't want a sheer cliff
ditch. It would be something that would have to be safe for children in the
local area am a snow fence would have to be put up. I guess I would
recommend that because of the snowmobilers that aren't familiar with the
area. . .
Mayor Hamilton: It could be left as is and that may be a better choice.
Bill Boyt: For right now, that might be a better choice. We would like
something to be done with this and I think that if we could arrange to get
some kim of a pump out there during these crisis times, we could probably
I
42
I
I
I
43
City Council Meeting - September 22, 1986
save our backyards. That is a whole different issue really. Another question
I have, and maybe it is solved by what you said about they didn't indicate
individual trees am they aren't going to cut all that out, but it looks to me
like what you have drawn in there in terms of what I initially thought you
were cutting, was everything up to the ridge line. I have no idea what kind
of snowfall we are going to have but we have rain just like we had last Fall,
maybe even more of it am this past spring was a disaster in terms of water in
our neighborhood and I would be concerned as I'm sure you are about that
erosion. In this new POD, I really like your comment about 6 inch trees and
how you were going to check to see the fate of 6 inch trees. I would like to
see that happen here am maybe that is what you were talking about.
Indicating the trees that were going to be cut out. As you probably noticed
if you have been back there and looked, there are some great trees in there
that have been around for a long time and I'm sure David is going to try and
hang onto them but maybe if we just kept track.
Councilwoman Swenson: I think Mr. Engelhardt has the pulse of the public as
well as the Council in requiring that these all be marked am on the map in
front of us here, the large trees on lot lines shall be saved as directed by
the Engineer. I think we should say or eliminate that large and just say
trees on the lot line shall be saved by the direction of the City Engineer.
I feel from looking at this that he has the sensitivity of the project at
heart and I was very much impressed when I read this Bill because I can see,
the only thing I was personally worried about was the potential inadequancy of
the erosion control fence going 6 inches in the ground although I know that
this is a standard thing. I saw those things break off like they were
toothpicks so I get a little scared when I see 6 inches in the ground. 12
inches would impress me a li ttle more so my main concern was in the erosion
thing and I think if we can solve that I won't have any problems with it.
Bill Boyt: What is going to happen with the trees that are cut down? I would
like to not see those burned. I don't know what your options are but that is
a lot of burning.
Mayor Hamilton: They apply for a permit which we don't even see really in our
division. If they give them a permit through that office, we don't even see
it so even though we may not like to see them burned either, we don't have any
control over it.
Councilwoman Swenson: I went through that with the place up to the north.
Don Ashworth: With the proximity, I think on this one I think we could have a
little input as to whether they burn these.
Bill Boyt: I would suspect that if they just cut them and left them for a
couple of weeks, there are so many people around here with chainsaws that the
trees would disappear.
Councilman Horn: They don't want that. That is an attractive nuisance.
Bill Engelhardt: The problem with that is that they take the good stuff and
leave the debris so it is better to get rid of the whole thing than to let
43
44
City Council Meeting - September 22, 1986
somebody go in there am let them take it out with a chainsaw.
I
Mayor Hamilton: I guess I will ask you one more question. Do you, again,
would the neighborhood prefer as far as the berming near the poming area.
Should we leave it open for the winter. I mean they can do that. Leave it
just as it is if you want. I think their intent am what they tried to do was
to improve the situation for the neighborhood rather than creating additional
problems am if it appears as though they are creating additional problems,
they can leave it the way it is.
Bill Boyt: I would ask one question. When do you plan to do Phase 2 of this
division?
David Siegel:
in the south.
It is hard to say. It depends on how sales go in the 1st phase
It could be late in 1987 or it might be later. We don't know.
Bill Boyt: Can we get any kind of assistance from the City in looking at this
problem in terms of if we don't put the berm up there, of having a 1 or 2 year
semi-solution. I'm not talking about spending a lot of money. I'm just
talking about can we get some help from somebody in the City to handle that
runoff without having to berm and dig a swale?
Mayor Hamilton: I think that is the solution to the problem because they are
doing it because we requested it as an additional expense to them.
Bill Boyt: At some point I think you are right. I agree with you that when
they do phase 2 and they have got the storm sewer in, putting a berm in there
will put an em to this problem. I'm not so sure I am eager to see that swale
cut even though there is a lot of already potential hazards around that area.
I would suggest that we leave it like it is.
I
Jay Johnson: I agree with Bill in that cutting the swale to me will cause
erosion problems with Lotus Lake. They will have to do a lot of cutting to
get it all the way to the pond and if they do all that, what kind of erosion
controls are they going to be cut to keep sediment out of the porn if it gets
into the creek. That creek already has erosion problems and if we start
increasing the flow in the creek at that point, we are going to have a bigger
problem with Lotus Lake in the spring then what we want and I am against
berming at this time.
Bill Boyt: Excuse me, you said you were running more water in that pond,
isn't that right?
Paul Pearson: No .
Bill Boyt: When you do Phase 1 more water isn't going to run into the lake?
Paul Pearson: It is all north.
Don Ashworth: Maybe if we could leave this item with the City Engineer having I
the right to work with the neighborhood to see if there is an alternative. If
they like it David can go ahead with that alternative. If we can't come
44
-F/
@a
City Council Meeting - September 22, 1986
I
across with an alternative, then it would just be left.
Mayor Hamil ton moved, Councilman Horn seconded for approval of the Chanhassen
vista 2nd Addition grading plan with the following recommendations from the
Acting City Engineer:
l.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
I 7.
8.
'!he trees to be removed shall be marked and the area of removal
checked prior to any clearing and grubbing.
Erosion control barriers shall be installed at the outlet of the most
easterly storm sewer outlet.
All erosion control barriers shall be in place prior to starting
grading.
Storm sewer inlets shall be protected from receiving sediment during
construction.
Phase 2 Chanhassen vista 2nd Addition grading plan shall be reviewed
prior to commencing grading in that phase.
Restoration of the disturbed areas shall be completed immediately
after grading has been completed.
Chanhassen vista 1st Addition and Phase 1, 2nd Addition shall be
substantially restored prior to starting any additional grading in
phase 2, Chanhassen vista 2nd Addition.
Grading in the area designated as phase 1 am the berm area in phase
2 shall be left up to the City Engineer to work with the neighborhood
to see if the neighbors would prefer to see the berm put in or if
not, any alternatives that would be appropriate.
9. The debris be remove:] from the premises am be burie:] someplace other
that on these gounds.
All vote:] in favor am motion carried.
David Siegel: Even the concrete materials and all that? The broken concrete?
Mayor Hamil ton: Personally, I guess I see no reason why it can't be buried.
Concrete doesn1t hurt anything. It stablizes the ground really.
Bill Engelhardt: Concrete is good, clean lamfill.
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, FIRST
READING.
I
Barbara Dacy: When we started out two months ago, the question back to the
Commission was, do we need a PUD am what I would like to list quickly, is the
positivie aspects that the proposed ordinance does and some things that I
think need further refinement as far as the language is concerned.
45
58
City Council Meeting - September 22, 1986
1.
The Commission did determine that a POD is a useful tool for
development in Chanhassen.
2. Another positive benefit of the Ordinance is that it clarifies the
process. Past confusion about what is a preliminary plan, what is a
final plan, what is a preliminary plat, it clarifies that very
clearly.
3. It establishes a public hearing for the sketch plan review or concept
plan review. You get public input initially and to achieve Planning
Commission and Council direction at the outset.
4. It institutes a maintenance of 6 inch trees if they aren't in the way
of building pads or streets.
5. It also gives the Council replacement ability for removed trees.
6. It clarifies minimum lot size, one of the major issues creating the
ordinance amendment. Secondly, it also clarifies the minimum lot
wid th .
7. It identifies specific trade-offs that the City is looking for in a
POD before a trade-off is given.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Ordinance and you have
their action in your Staff Report subject to the elimination of 4, the added
sentence in 7 of Section 14.03 plus the City Attorney's comments. '!he
Attorney's comments were minor. Attachment #1 reflects the revised Ordinance
with the Attorney's comments. As you can tell by the Planning Commission
Minutes, they were quite lengthy. They discussed the Ordinance at length. I
guess the last two pages of the Minutes really clarify what the issue was as
it pertains to 4. In any case, they asked Staff to go back and say, before
you move this to Council take a look at it one more time based on the comments
of that evening. We did that. We carne back and we still feel that 4 of
Section 14.03 should be eliminated. I think Councilman Horn, it kind of goes
back to your comments orig inally at the joint meeting and when we went back
and looked at it in some more detail, we feel that calculating the number of
lots on a 15,000 basis is really a disincentive and as long as 50% of the lots
have to be 15,000 and greater, that is forming a major insurance policy for
the City to dictate what style of development. Before anything can be called
a PUD, the developer is going to identify something in 7 of Section 14.03.
That brings up the second point, at the joint meeting, the Commission and
Council felt that no specific points should be awarded to each of the
individual items. Since the Planning Commission meeting, we went back and
looked at that and upon further thought, Staff feels that that may put you
back right into the same situation that you were with the lot size issue. If
you grant 6% for parkland in one development, then the next developer comes in
and starts a comparing game, you may not be able to justify one instance over
the other. Why put the community and the Council...(A tape break occurred
here) ...coming back under Section 14.03 defining the issues a little more and
assigning points. Staff has suggested some points. Some Council members have
already callErl me this morning and are go ing to propose al terna ti ve ones. OJ.r
46
I
I
I
I
I
I
59
City Council Meeting - September 22, 1986
intent is that a specific percentage should be identified for park land. 2%,
whatever period. Everybody gets 2% if they prove that they are creating that.
The third thing that needs to be clarified is that all of these conditions
really came up out of single family POD's. What needs to be clarified
further, it is kind of done in a vague way now, but what happens if we do have
an all multiple family PUD application. Staff would like to add some
addi tional sections in there to identify the same type of things that we are
looking at to be created in that type of a situation. Finally, it was
mentioned during the public hearing that the City may want to consider
expanding the public hearing radius from 350 feet to 500 feet. As indicated
during the public hearing, that is fine. Some communi ties vary between 350
and 1,000 so that was another suggestion. I did talk to Chairman Conrad about
our further recommendations beyond the Planning Commission meeting because I
specifically wanted him to know that they are different then what was
discussed. He said in order to keep the process going, he said fine go ahead,
he is speaking for the Commission and not wanting us to pull the item off the
agenda. However, it is your option, if you feel that the Commission should
relook at this based on Staff's further investigation, that is an option for
you to send the Ordinance back to the Commission for further review. Secondly,
you could approve it for first reading subject to any language changes that
you would like to make for us to come back for the second and final reading or
third, you can eliminate it or modify it.
Councilman Horn: I think I was one of the people who had trouble with the
point system. I still think general guidelines are fine but I think we are
going to get into a hassle over the points. Obviously, this is one, and we
have heard already that other Council members have other suggestions on what
the points should be and I would submit that every developer is going to have
his own version of what makes more sense and why our point system doesn't
work. I believe in the general guidelines that we should point out but I have
a real difficult time assigning a SPecific point value.
Councilwoman Watson: ..for people who were really directly affected by
development, not just barely picked up the surrounding property owners. I
don't know about that point system. I think if we assign one, everybody is
going to disagree with it and if we don't assign one, everybody is going to
have their own version of what it should be and I guess either way it seems
like we are going to get hung up on the point system. If we leave it open,
the developers are all going to pick the points and I guess I would rather do
it than to have them do it. I don't know exactly what the percentage should be
but I think if anyone is going to decide the percentage for these particular
items I would rather that it be the City then a developer who comes in, and
are understandably more interested in seeing it to their advantage then to
ours.
Mayor Hamilton: Section 14.03, item 1, I don't care for the 12,000 square
feet. I don't know where that came from versus the 11,000 as the new as I go
through here, it is probably the same as the 12,000. 4, I agree with
the 4. I don't know what the right formula would be but I don't think it is
fair to do it the way we have outlined in 4. 5, I would like to have that
say, lot sizes adjacent to existing developments shall approximate in lot size
and lot width.
47
60
City Council Meeting - September 22, 1986
Councilwoman SWenson: Rather then match?
I
Mayor Hamilton: I don't think that is feasible in all cases if they match.
7, I think was just a typo that should be clarified. The next to the last
line, below 13,500 square feet or minimum lot.
Barbara Dacy: That is correct.
Mayor Hamilton: '!he rest, I don't care for the point system. I don't think
that is going to get us into any more trouble then we have already.
Councilwoman Swenson: On the line after the proposed ordinance, (a) to show
the lot sizes on each plat I think is a good idea Barbara. It isn't referred
to in here.
Barbara Dacy: Page 4 we have it in. 2 (A) (2) Identification of each lot
size.. .
Councilwoman Swenson: I was working with both of these issues here. Okay,
when we run into a situation where we have multiple densities and single
family densities, I think it seems that we are going to have to determine that
we can't have a density transfer from a multiple grouping into the single
family grouping so under the first page of the proposed ordinance, 4(a) first
of all, we have the area where the density is transferred must be within the
project area and owned by the proponent. I would like to see that read, the
area from which and to which the density is transferred must be either along
the single family units or within the project single family area owned by, so
we can designate their density transfer is strictly within the single family
units and not from off that area from multiple or something like that. What
we are basically talking about is the elimination of little lots per see
Maybe there is another place to put this but I think somewhere we have to
designate that your density transfer is among the single family lots and not
those lots that incorporate multiples.
I
Barbara Dacy: But you are not going to preclude if in a multiple family PUD
a density transfer situation. All you are saying is that you want the density
transfer to apply...
Councilwoman Swenson: Only to the single family units as opposed to...
Barbara Dacy: And not the entire area.
Councilwoman Swenson: In other words, you can't bring a density transfer from
a multiple area into the single family area.
Barbara Dacy: Okay, I see what you are saying.
Mayor Hamilton: It can work the other way, from the single to the multiple.
Councilwoman Swenson: Which ever. What we are talking about here is strictly I
single family units so we don't wind up with somebody saying, oh gee, what
about all this extra.
48
I
I
I
61
City Council Meeting - September 22, 1986
M3yor Hamil ton: What about c?
Councilwoman Swenson: Well, I checked that out. I think that is alright. It
refers to gross and I was thinking it would be better to make it net density
but we have to have the Comp Plan to work it up and the Comp Plan refers to
that so I guess it was a moot point anyway. Now in Section 4, it is the one
where we are taking out the item 4. It has been recommended that that be
eliminated, 14.03 point 4. Rather than eliminate that all together, I noticed
that it was recommended in the Planning Commission Minutes by citizens as well
as some of the commissioners, and I think this bears thinking about, if we
were to say in excess of say 18,000 or 20,000 square feet we are still
encouraging and we are giving the developer flexibility to increase that but
at the same time we are saying that a 35,000 square foot lot is not going to
give you density transfer of two more lots so we are giving them the benefit
of the flexibility but we are still putting on land. A suggestion. I would
recommend that it 17,000, 18,000 I would definitely say 20,000 would be a cap.
I noticed in 5 underneath that, the second sentence has been deleted. Further
the lot layout shall not concentrate smaller lots in one area of the
development. I'm not entirely sure that that is not a good thing to have in
there.
Barbara Dacy: '!hat was decided at the joint meeting.
Councilwoman Swenson: TO leave it in?
Barbara Dacy: No, to delete it.
Councilwoman Swenson: '!hat's what I'm saying. I'm not so sure that is a good
idea. I suggesting that 4, we leave that in but put it in excess of 20,000 as
opposed to 15,000 which gives the developer the incentive, he can develop to
20,000. He can get that extra 5,000 square feet density transfer but if he
builds a 35,000 lot, he can't have 15,000 square feet so in other words, it is
kind of a compromise.
Councilman Horn: We talked about that at the joint meeting.
Councilwoman Swenson: Well, I'm throwing it back. In 5 underneath that
again on page 3, it says further, lot layout shall not concentrate smaller
lots in one area. I'm not so sure that that should be taken out because do we
want a whole area of 12,000 square foot lots or do we want these 12,000 square
foot lots interspersed so they are not so obvious?
Barbara Dacy: In some situations, I will take Chan Hills as an example, where
you have sites that are bordered on one side by wetlands, another by a lake
and in that case, TH 212 was on the other side, that you are going to have the
perimeter of that development in larger lots. You are required by Wetlands
Ordinance to have 15,000 square feet, you are required by Shoreland Ordinance
to have 20,000 square feet even though it is a PUD adjacent to TH 212 you want
to increase your lot size anyway. '!hat concentrating of smaller lots in one
area, you are providing a transition, a staging into that smaller area. The
difference between 12,000 and 15,000 is obviously 3,000 feet and maybe 5 or 10
feet in the side lot line. It is allowing the developer some flexibility to
49
62
City Council Meeting - September 22, 1986
form some transitions and so on and really you can use it to cluster the small I
lots away from existing developments.
Councilwoman Swenson: Then you are establishing clusters of neighborhoods.
Barbara Dacy: I understand your point that it is nice to intergrate different
lot sizes in and around the development but sometimes you can't always do that
with these other requirements for wetlands and shorelands and major arterials
and so on and that is why we decided at the joint meeting that it may be too
restrictive.
Councilwoman Swenson: Would we have to say shall not which is mandatory and
say that it is preferable that the lot sizes are not concentrated in one area.
This opens the door. If there is a good reason for changing it or keeping
them in one area, this makes it optional so when we look at the plans and it
is obvious like you say, there may be instances where it is. I would go with
eliminating the shall because that is mandatory. I think we would like to
indicate that it would be preferable not to do it but maybe as you say, this
is just a suggestion. To the point system, I think we are going to leave
ourselves wide open to the accusation of being arbitrary and capricious if we
don't establish a SPeCific set of points. Now I have taken the liberty to
take a calculation here that gives us exactly 10 points so that if the entire
10 points is desired, all 10 of these issues would have to be complied with.
They are small, I think that if you have it so that you can take one or two
items and automatically get 8% or 5% or something, this sort of defeats the
purpose. One of the purposes, it seems to me of this POD is to get these
things into the community. In step 7, the preservation and creation of a
usable park and all these little peripheral areas, we are trying to encourage
these. I think by saying for instance, let's take run down, housing variety
we have (1); preservation of natural sites, features and so forth (3);
creation of usable areas for parks or othe public use (3); installation of
public improvements (1); installation of Pedestrian walkways (2); lot design
conducive to solar energy (1); additional landscaping (1). So actually if
somebody comes in here and these are not all that unreasonable, these are
here. Somebody can't say, you gave this character a PUD over here and all he
did was give you some additional park land or all he did was this or that. We
are putting ourselves in the same position that we've been in when we
eliminate these SPeCific criteria. I know it isn't a pleasant thing to do but
we have sat here and been accused or put ourselves in positions where we
haven't got something because we have been concerned with being accused of
being arbitrary and capricious and I think by making this, it is a fair thing,
that everybody has to meet the same standard. The Staff doesn't have to argue
with it, the developer can't argue with it because it is already in here.
Like Barbara said and like you have all said, the difficult thing is
establishing the right number of points which I tried to eliminate by making
them total up to 10 so they can't just take one or two and figure that they
can walk off with it. The last thing that I would recommend, is that I would
like somewhere in here to have a clause stating something to this effect,
that the City retains the right to require additional conditions where it is
deemed in the best interest to the health, welfare and safety of the community
and/or instances for unique neighborhood design. This is without any
additional benefits. This leaves it open for us so that if we see where there
50
I
I
I
I
I
63
City Council Meeting - September 22, 1986
is a unique situation for somethingl that is different than it would be in
other standard cases, we have the option to make these requirements. Whether
it is in signage or street lighting or curbing or heavens only knows what.
Those are my recommendations. I .
Mayor Hamilton: Would you like to say anything back about those?
I
Barbara Dacy: All of those items Jhat you assigned add up to 12. My only
concern though is, that is fine if ~ey add up to 12. Still, with your
proposed point system, you are still encouraging a number of those items to be
included in a PUD. I think we maybe going too far by saying that you have to
have all of these points because there may not be an opportunity. The intent
is you have a variety of things to Ichoose from to prove it is a PUD and the
City is proposing to grant a maximum of 10. How you come up with that is the
developer's problem.
I
Mayor Hamilton: I still don't think the point system will work. I think we
have an ordinance here that I believe pins nearly everything down as much as
you can. You need to leave some room for discretion. I absolutely don't
agree with having a point system. From looking at the Minutes, the Planning
Commission felt that way also.
Councilwoman Swenson: Can we do it this way. When we get an opinion from
Roger as to what our exposure would be to the criticism of being arbitrary and
capricious without them or whether we are on firmer ground with them.
Mayor Hamil ton: As it is, we don't have them now an::] we may have been
accused. I don't know as though we have ever lost a case. I think that each
si tuation has reached a decision on it's own merits an::] there certainly
is a variety of mix of sizes of developments and I think we have lost trying
to decide each one on it's own merits. To expect some developer to come in
here and adding up points I think we are going to be discouraging development
rather then encouraging. Some developer is going to take a look at what you
want in here and laugh you all way out of town.
Councilwoman Swenson: I don't think that is all bad. I hear citizens telling
me that we don't want a lot of mass development and we all know that we have
to have a certain degree of progress and development but I think we have to
have a very definite control of rules or we are going to wind up being another
Eden prairie and I'm sure that all of us have moved out here because we don't
want to be an Eden Prairie we want to be in Chanhassen and I think that I can
see 10 years down the road, if we don't keep Chanhassen as sort of an oasis,
people are going to have to drive 65 miles to get a 15,000 square foot lot and to
get out of the city and I want to leave some place within this metropolitan
area where people can live in the country. If we encourage small lot
developments we are going to lose that and I think that is going to be
desecration and that is where I stand and I don't really care whether anybody
thinks it right or not.
Mayor Hamilton: I don't think we are in the country any longer.
51
~4l.
u....
City Council Meeting - September 22, 1986
Councilman Horn: I think we had some obvious problems with our former
ordinance. I don't think density was the problem with our former ordinance.
I think our density transfer mechanism was the problem with it and what we
allowed it to do and I think we could have closed a few loopholes in that
area and what we allowed for density transfer and achieve the same kind of
thing we are looking for with our densi ty that we have. I think we have some
good guidelines in here to suggest to developers things they can do to get
some smaller lots if they want to over normal density. I think those are
good. I really have trouble with the point system. I think I could get down
and pick these paints apart where they wouldn't make any sense. Let's say
creation of usable areas for park and other public use. What if you don't
want a park. What if you want to take a park dedication fee in lieu of that.
You decide in this place it doesn't fit in with your park plan. He gives you
the feet and you give the points or does he have to have some park land for
you?
I
Councilwoman Swenson: I think this is over and above that.
Councilman Horn: So he should have a park anyway and a park dedication fee
so he can get some points so he can get some smaller lots.
Councilwoman SWenson: This is the incentive to do this, yes.
Councilman Horn: But if that doesn't fit into the park plan, how does that
help anything?
I
Councilwoman Swenson: Well, how I understand, do we not have something in
here Barbara that refers to the coordination with the parkland?
Barbara Dacy: Yes, if parklands or public areas are going to be created, it
is recommended that they match the intent of the Park and Rec Chapter of the
Comp Plan. Now, if it is not in a park deficient area and parkland isn't
necessary, what is being proposed here is that you don't receive a credit.
The only other means of receiving credit are the other items in section 7.
Councilman Horn: So if they're not in a park deficient area, you can't get
those 2 points?
Barbara Dacy: That's right.
Councilman Horn: See, that makes a lot of sense to me.
Barbara Dacy: Now if they did come in, they could come in with something
under other if they came in and proposed a private park to be maintained by
the Homeowners Association. Maybe that would be considered by the City for a
credit. That might be an extenuating circumstance and that would be up to the
Council to decide but the intent here is not to be creating park spaces that
we can't maintain.
Councilman Horn: I guess the issue that we got into about preserving I
Chanhassen and lots to me is not even an issue. What we are trying to do here
is talk about some guidelines that we are establishing. What we get out of
52
I
I
I
65
City Council Meeting - September 22, 1986
this is not even the issue. It is the term inology that we are using here to
try to use as a guideline as I see this ordinance. I don't think it has
anything to do with whether we want large lots or small lots, that's not the
issue in this case. We obviously would prefer large lots but our former
ordinance had the capability to do that.
Councilwoman Swenson: '!hen why was it never enforced? '!hat is why this is
here because we got caught behind the 8 ball with putting in a lot of
developments that were substandard as far as the general policy of the city
was concerned.
Councilman Horn: Because of one portion in there that did not allow proper
densi ty transfer. That is what got us into this mess and I don't disagree
that there were problems there that needed to be fixed and I have no problems
with changing those.
Councilwoman Watson: I like the 12,000 square foot minimum.
Mayor Hamilton: I had to admit that I knew I wouldn't get to first base but
there are a lot of people who don't necessarily like or want to buy large
lots.
Councilwoman Watson: I just don't think by the time you get the lots less
than 12,000 square feet you have anything left anyway.
Councilman Horn: You talk about enforcing that, we haven't always done such a
good job with that even on the lakes.
Mayor Hamilton: I have people stop me on the street and are angry because
their parents can't move back into this town after they have left and now
retired because there is no housing afforable for them, it is pretty hard to
tell them to tell their parents to go out and buy a $200,000.00 house because
there are some of those for sale here.
Councilwoman Swenson: '!here are a lot of used houses for sale. If everybody
is always going to keep buying new houses, who is going to buy the ones that
already here?
Councilwoman Watson: w= do have houses on smaller lots.
Mayor Hamilton: Not very many.
Councilwoman Swenson: Between Hidden Valley, Chaparral and Triple Crown it
seems to me that there are plenty of small lots.
Councilwoman Watson: And Chestnut Ridge where there are 7,500 square feet.
Councilwoman Swenson: Can I just get back for a minute to this point system
and then let's put it to rest. How do you propose to have Staff administer
something like that without some cri teria to go by? ... How much of this do I
have to do in order to get a PUD and what is Staff going to say?
53
66
City Council Meeting - September 22, 1986
Mayor Hamilton: We have a PUD Ordinance am tell them to follow it.
Would we have to have points assigned to something? Outline those items and
put those i terns in there am those are the things that we would like to see
them incorporate into their plan.
I
Councilwoman Swenson: But they can't have a PUD until, what we have done
substantially is to eliminate an automatic PUD. They have to come in am show
us what they are going to give us before they can get the benefit of a POD. I
think this is terribly important am these are the things that we are going to
look at before we say yes, you can have a PUD.
Mayor Hamil ton: So they already know that.
Barbara Dacy: If there are no points listed, then the first stage of the PUD
process is critical. It is the general concept phase am process. The
Council and Commission will have to determine that what is being proposed
satisfies the basic guidelines that you are incorporating into the ordinance
and if you approve that general concept plan, then they will come back with
the preliminary plat am fine tune the details. If the points are there, it
is more clear-cut. OUr job is easier. We say, well you are only going to get
3% for these, these am these items. If the points aren't there, you do have
more flexibility but be aware that you may be called on in the future and that
was our concern in coming back after the Planning Commission review. That is
Staff's feelings.
Mayor Hamilton: 'Ibis is the first reading and we have some time to give it
sane more thought am kick it around sane more before we approve it.
I
Councilman Horn: 'Ibat is my problem too is that there is no variability on
these things. The points system indicates that either you have creative
design or you don't but how creative is it?
Councilwoman Swenson: We took that one out.
Councilman Horn: How about preservation of natural site features?
Barbara Dacy: On p:l.ge 4 and 5 of the Staff Report, that was another comment
is that those terms were too vague. 'Ibat we went back and define them a
little better so they were specific stamards so it was something very easy
that we could translate to the developer and the community as to what we are
looking for.
Mayor Hamilton: It seems if you are going to have points then you almost have
to have trade-offs for your points. If a guy comes in am says I want more
p:l.rks or I'll have more p:l.rks but I'm not going to have as good a design as
the next guy.
Barbara Dacy: If you want to say this is an initial guide and then if you
feel that a certain situation needs more points or less points or whatever,
that is fine but in your future actions it should be made clear as to why.
I
54
I
I
I
~,.,.
I{JUf
City Council Meeting ~ September 22, 1986
Jay Johnson: I have a couple of suggestions that I would like to help you out
and also some mathematics. '!he Planning Commission got all muddled up on the
math and I think there is a real problem when you get into that. First,
establishing a criteria as part of the law, part of the proposal to
establishing points in there, you are chiseling everything in concrete. The
ordinance may need modifications, you would have to go through a whole lot.
My suggestion here on this one point is maybe we should in the ordinance say
the Council will approve what we want to give you points for annually so you
can more easily review. Say, okay we have decided that we don't need any more
parks and not give as much credit or we need sidewalks so let's give them a
little more credit for doing sidewalks and stuff like that. This would be
more easily to read the document this way and also establish points as a
maximum and establish in the first part of like what Barbara was saying, in
the first part when you are reviewing the plans, during the very first concept
stage, at that point justify what you want. If somebody is going to put up a
subdivision right next to the school on the other side of Kerber Blvd., they
aren't going to need parks because they have parks right there so at that
point at the very first meeting with them you say you are in a park excessive
area so you will get no points for park. You maximum for parks will be zero
specific for this site and justify each site. Some site may have something
that is beyond what you, I can't think of anything right now, maybe a wind
power site. Somebody is going to say I'm going to put in a wind generater
because there is a lot of hot air coming out of Johnson's house and I want to
utilize it.
Mayor Hamil ton: I think that is what I was just saying that there should be a
trade-off within the point system.
Jay Johnson: Yes, I think that can be established in the very first meeting
with recommendations from Barb and Park and Rec or whoever, and the City
Engineer. Using percentages like you do saying you can decrease based on
percentages and some people talk about eliminating 4 which says the 15,131313 and
Councilwoman Swenson talked about going to 213,131313 as a cut-off. We won't have
anything above 213,131313. I did a quick little calculation here. What would
happen if you had the cut-off at 213,131313 and you continue to use the average
lot size as your criteria when you are judging this. If a developer came in
and put 25% of his lots at 213,131313, 25% at 15,131313 and 513% at 12,131313, now this
is not sounding like a very desirable neighborhood. Making it three distinct
house sizes. Some over 213,131313 and you have about half of them, a full 513%
exactly at 12,131313. The average lot size would be 14,7513. He does not need
very many points to get to 14,7513 under this system. He only has to drop 2513
square feet. Another way to look at it, if you don't want to look at average
square feet, which I think is a poor thing to look at, you look at the percent
of homes that can be under 15,131313 square feet. In other words, if you give
him one point, allow him 5% of his homes under 15,131313. If you give him the
full 113 points he can have a full 513% under 15,131313. This will mathematically
work out where average lot size mathematically you have a whole lot of
problems where this math professor had problems with it. The Planning
Commission had problems with it. I know Barb will have problems. I've played
some games with it and real quickly, you get half your lots at 12,131313 if you
use the averages.
55
6S
City Council Meeting - September 22, 1986
Mayor Hamilton: Then I think we need to consider density still.
I
Jay Johnson: Density is another one that could work better than average.
Mayor Hamilton: It worked in the past, I see no reason why it shouldn't work
in the future.
Councilwoman Swenson: '!he original idea of the PUD came up, that lot size
thing was used am it was deemed not an acceptable method. Somehow along the
line, anyhow it got pitched out. I tend to agree. '!hat was where my original
perference was to get the basic lots, x number of lots, not the average lot
size.
Jay Johnson: Can you have the demerits in your system where you say we don't
want you to do that am if you do this we will cut you in points?
Councilwoman Swenson: '!hat was deemed to be too restrictive. '!hat was the
argument from the vote from the Planning Commission at that time, as I recall,
correct me if I'm wrong Barbara, was that now we are telling the developer
what he can do. We're not giving him the opportunity to be flexible am
creative and I personally disagree with that.
Councilwoman Watson: We are suppose to let them come to us with a proposal
rather than setting it out so firmly.
I
Jay Johnson: What I look at is cite specific demerits. Specific demerits
would be fill in the wetlams of Chan vista, that would be a very big dEmerit.
Barbara Dacy: If we don't want it, why would we what to even allow them to
even think about it?
Mayor Hamilton: '!hat is the same thing. We don't want it so why give it to
them. You are saying well sure, go ahead am put a park in but we give you
the demerit. I think we have a lot of information here and I think we all
need to go back am consider it some more. This is the first reading am we
want to review it some more.
Bill Boyt: I wonder if this would have helped us with Chan Vista? '!he Chan
vista had an average lot size that was bigger then what you are asking for am
Chan vista didn't make a big part of the neighborgood happy.
Councilman Horn: Yes, but Chan vista would had a much bigger lot average
then the previous proposal that the neighborhood didn't complain about.
Bill Boyt: The neighborhood changed quite a bit during that time. We're not
talking about developing all that property the way they word this out. '!hings
change. If they built that 3-4 years ago, I wouldn't have moved in there. I
don't know what the other people would have done but I'm just saying that we
would have ruled out something a good bit more with this ordinance.
Mayor Hamilton: I think there is one other point that Council needs to
consider am that is, everybody wants to have large lots apparently on the
I
56
I
I
I
tB~
:r;l~'::"':l
'v
City Council Meeting - September 22, 1986
Council am it seems like some of the residents do, maybe the Council needs to
just say that nobody is going to build a home on anything less then 15,000
square foot lot am everyone will just jump for joy. I think that is totally
unrealistic but I think we have to think about it. Maybe that is a
possibility. Maybe it is sanething that we have to consider.
Councilwoman Swenson: I think you are going to find, if you went back on
every development that we had, I think Todd came up with a neat unit that
makes us look at the number of houses and sizes in the subdivisions that we
have had. That is when we were talking about lot sizes as owosed to
averages. You remember, when we first started this and I said the two things
that I thought had gotten us into more trouble then everything else were the
words median and average. I would venture to say that we do not have a
development in this City that has exceeded the gross density in our
Comprehensive Plan and we have lots 11,500 okays to but we have conformed to
the density of the Comprehensive Plan which is why I have contended this is
the thing that gets us into trouble and if we work on lot sizes as opposed to
average, even if we have to do something about the Comp Plan because this
program as it is established 50% of your lots at 15,000 with the average
density of 13,500 is the maximum gross density that we can give according that
is stated in our Camp Plan.
Barbara Dacy: '!here is no other community in the Twin City area, I'll bet
money on it, that has these tyPes of stamards in the PUD Ordinance. You
will be getting, with or without the points, with or without number 7, with 3
with 50% of the lots 15,000 am greater, you are going to be getting the tyPes
of developments and sizes of the lots that I have been hearing from the
Commission and Council. I honestly don't feel that we will get 50% at 15,000
and 50% at 12,000 with the lay of the land and the topography of this
community, I think the ordinance will be encouraging a good mixture.
Jay Johnson: I think the rest of this ordinance besides this mathematical
game etc. is a real good improvements on the ordinance am obviously mostly
you are talking about the mathematics is the hard part of it but I would like
to say that I am very happy with what Barb and Council am Planning Commission
have done on the rest of it. It looks like it has actually increased public
input into the process which is one thing that I am very much always for.
Councilwoman Swenson: In defense of the Council, this one and those that have
sat before, the doors have always been oPen am nobody has ever been told that
they can't cane in and participate. '!he publ ic input has always been there.
Mayor Hamilton: I think we can approve the first reading can't we because the
second reading we can discuss it some more.
Barbara Dacy: Okay, then list the things that you want us to came back on or
work on everything.
Mayor Hamil ton: Well, I think you have heard. I think the whole Council
needs to look at this whole thing again. Is that a problem for you?
57
7ij
City Council Meeting ~ September 22, 1986
Councilwoman Swenson: Ib you remember that chart that Todd made up with the
number of lots? Do you think I could get a copy of that? Maybe everyone on
the Council would like a copy of that. It would give some thought to working
on lots instead of averages.
I
Councilman Horn: My comment when I saw that is that I would like to see that
done to some of the older developments too. It seems 1 ike everything on that
was the new stuff. Look at Chan Estates and look at the first development
over there.
Barbara Dacy: 'Ihe problem is that the real old ones, we don't have the luxury
of the lot sizes irrlicated. We will have to go am pilimeter each lot. Try
to find something that is new enough to have lot sizes indicated.
Councilman Horn moved, Mayor Hamil ton seconded to approve the first reading
of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Planned Unit Development District. All
voted in favor arrl motion carried.
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT FOR GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL, FIRST RFADING.
Don Ashworth: This was prompted again by some of the concerns earlier this
year. It provides a guarantee back to the City to make sure erosion control
is taken care of.
Councilwoman Swenson moved, Councilwoman Watson seconded to adopt the Zoning I
Ordinance Amendment for Grading and Erosion Control, First Reading. All voted
in favor and motion carried.
COUNCIL PRESENTATION:
Councilwoman Swenson: I would like to request the Council to recommend that
the Planning Commission consider an amendment to our Ordinance regarding
fencing. As it stands now, apparently you can have anywhere from a 6-8 foot
fence am there are really no criteria for it. I think maybe if there is no
criteria as to how you can place the fence or anything else and I would like
to see consideration of a maximum height fence.
Mayor Hamiton: Isn't there a maximum height in the ordinance? 8 feet I
think.
Councilwoman Swenson: 'Ihere is but the building code says 6 so we have a
conflict.
Don Ashworth: OVer 8 feet is a Conditional Use Permit and has to come back to
Council. OVer 6 foot requires a building permit. Under 6 feet does not
require a building permit.
Councilwoman Swenson moved, Councilman Horn seconded to recommend that the
Planning Commission consider an amendment to the Ordinance regarding fencing.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
I
58
I
I
I
71
City Council Meeting - September 22, 1986
Councilwoman Swenson: I have never lived in a community where it hasn't been
an accepted practice that the fencing has to have the interior of the fence
facing in. The work side of the fencing, if you will, facing the individual
that is putting up the fence. '!he way it appears to me the way the thing is
set up now, it is slanted so much in the favor of the individual who wants to
put up the fence and adjacent property owner has virtually nothing to say
about it. I think it is incumbant upon us to see that those people, at least
if you are going to put up a fence, you ought to put the outside of the fence
out so not only the public but the people who live next door to you don't have
to look at it.
Councilwoman Swenson stated that she checked on South Lotus lake and it
appeared that the barrier that was out in the water, one of those the silt is
so deep and the water is so high, in one area toward Melby's, the thing is
almost not serving it's purpose and if the water isn't too terribly cold or if
something could be done to shovel that silt away from the bottom so the it
could be a better job of perservation and then perhaps reinforce the section
to the south that apparently fell through a little bit over this last storm.
Don Ashworth stated that they are in the process of digging that out.
Koegler's firm is the one who are the engineers there and they have been in
touch with Bill Engelhardt.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATION:
REVIEW SCOPE OF SERVICES WITH ROGER MACHMEIER.
Barbara Dacy: He submitted a letter basically confirming what I had in the
memo. If you have specific questions.
Mayor Hamilton: I think that clarified our questions. We did have a question
on travel, was that addressed?
Barbara Dacy: I talked to him about that and instead of defining travel time
arrl so on, instead we agreed to look at the number of lots so it is all folded
into one fee.
Mayor Hamilton: In your opinion are the fees reasonable?
Barbara Dacy: From 1 - 25, if we get a 2 or 3 lot split that we feel very
confident on, we may not enlist Mr. Machmeier's services but if it is a 15 or
16 lot subdivision, that is additional density for $1,000.00, that is
excellent. 'IYPically with everything in government, you may get complaints
about the fees arrl so on but you will just have to look at it on a case by
case basis. I think it is well worth the applicant's money and the City's
money for him to be looking at our ordinances because it is very important in
that rural area to make sure that those septic sites are available and
sui table because they are going to be on their own out there without any sewer
or water for a lot of years.
Mayor Hamilton: What about David Hansen's case?
59
72
City Council Meeting - September 22, 1986
Councilwoman Watson: That is what I was wondering too because of those
questionable soils they talked about and how we have to work the septic
systems around homes so they would not be a threat.
I
Barbara Dacy: We did not suggest to Mr. Hansen that we were going to have Mr.
Machmeier look at his plat because we had not at the time of his application,
had his scope of services defined and ultimately approved by the Council.
I'm just explaining why we didn't prior to this time.
Mayor Hamilton: M3.ybe we should do that.
Councilwoman Swenson: Maybe we should hear from Roger first. This would be a
condition of approval for Hansen.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilwoman Watson seconded to approve the scope of
services with Roger Machmeier. All voted in favor and motion carried.
Councilwoman Watson moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to adjourn the meeting.
All voted in favor and motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:50
p.m.
Don Ashworth
City Manager
I
Prepared by Nann Opheim
I
60