1987 02 0922'9
CITY COUNCIL
Hamilton called the meeting to order. The meeting was opened with the
to the Flag.
PRESENT: Councilman Boyt, Councilman Horn, Councilman Geving and
Johnson.
PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Barbara Dacy, Jo Ann Olsen, Gary Warren, Todd
.~rhardt and Lori Sietsena.
OF AGENDA: Councilman Geving moved, Councilman ~orn seconded to
~ agenda as presented with the addition by Mayor Hamilton under
1 Presentations. Ail voted in favor and motion carried.
Ank~DA: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the
following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's
ions:
ae
City Council Minutes dated January 26, 1987.
Planning Cc~mission Minutes dated January 14, 1987.
Park and Recreation Cc~nission Minutes dated January 6, 1987.
Joint City Council/Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated
January 20, 1987.
Co
Approve Phase II Contract for Update of Comprehensive Plan with the
correction on Attachment A, Scope of Services under the paragralah
entitled Work Product, to delete the words "shall consist of legible
hand written copy amd/or".
g. Authorize T~rary f~ployee to Assist with Park ~_~s Survey.
he
Resolution 987-7: Approval of Plans and Specifications for Sewer
Extension to Property at West 78th Street (CR 16) and Powers Blvd.
(CR 17).
i. Renewal of Dumping Permit on Dypwick Property, Great Plains Blvd.
voted in favor and motion carried.
P~SENTATI~:
Brian Pike, who is the Pastor of westside Baptist Church stated that his
church was meetirg in the West Jr. High building right now. They came before
the Council a while ago about purchasing property on TH 41. West Jr. High is
closing down and moving everybody out of there and they were looking at
property to rent and discovered some property in the Chanhassen Lakes Business
Park. As t~ checked with the City Planner they discovered that that' isn't
an accpetable situation as far as the Ordinance goes. Renting space in the
Chanhassen Lakes Business Park is going to be a temporary situation until they
build in the near future, hopefully within the next. year and they were
230
City Council Meeting - February 9, 1987
wondering if it would be possible for them to go into the Business Park. ~ney
will not interrupt any flow of traffic. They are looking at about 3,500
square feet. It's the Murphy Building. Parking is like 26,000 square feet.
They are running about 100 on their Sunday mornings. The church will be there
when the other people are not for the most part except for the Pastor and a
couple of Staff members during the day.
Mayor Hamilton told Mr. Pike that he needed to work with Staff and give them
his proposal to review and it will be put on a future agenda to be considered
by the Council. Don Ashworth stated the Staff could have it back on the
Agenda February 23rd as Mr. Pike stated they wanted to take some action by
March 1, 1987. ~.
CONSIDER ASSESSMENT POLICY, DOWNTOWN PUBLIC IMPROV~ PROJECT.
Mayor Hamilton: This item was continued from our last meeting. We were
considering whether or not of looking at the possibility of assessing the
residential neighborhood to the north of the downtown area as part of the
downtown project. Tnere were several questions asked at that meeting. BRW has
answered all of those. Don, was there anything else you wanted to add?
Don Ringrose: No, I think we tried to respond in writing to the issues. We
did have a map which provides some insight as to the whole issue of multiple
assessments in the residential area and if you would like to get into that I
will be glad to illustrate that.
Mayor Hamilton: Tnat goes along with...
Don Ringrose: It goes along with that evaluation.
Mayor Hamilton: I don't know if we need to see that. I guess your Exhibit
was quite clear here.
Councilman Horn: DO the folks who would not be included, based on this, are
they aware of that? Are the folks who would not be included as a result of
this further study, have they been made aware of that?
Don Ashworth: The responses to questions have not been publically made. I
know there was some discussion by Council as to whether the residential
area would or would not be assessed. Potentially we could take that broader
issue and again, I'm not sure how you want to proceed but Mr. Ringrose is
prepared to walk through each of the individual parcels. Again, people here
have not seen those responses. If we handle the broader issue, maybe we can
handle all of the issues without the necessity of Don going through that.
Mayor Hamilton: I guess it's up to the Council. If everybody feels
comfortable with the information included here and the answers to the
questions, maybe we don't r~d a lengthy presentation. Maybe we're ready to
vote on it or maybe you want to have more discussion.
231
Council Meeting - February 9, 1987
~ilman Boyt: I would like to ask a few questions. One of them, I noticed
there is some information in here about George Shorba sayirg that at 10-5-78
paid an assessment or was assessed $4,525.00. When I looked at BRW's
on previous assessments, I didn't see an assessment in that amount
I'm wondering how am I reading that improperly?
Ringrose: Some of the information which either people brought to Council
~r verbalized about past assessments did not pertain always to storm sewer
~ssments. They probably were assessments for street improvements or other
of public improvements. What we tabulated here is just those
~ents that contain storm sewer. With your permission Mr. Mayor, it
help if we did have a little better understanding of what has taken
We've identified on this diagram all the assessments for storm sewers
we could find in the city records going back to 1967, which is the oldest
one. It was Project 67-2 that impacted most of the people <Who were at the
hearing two weeks ago who raised the issue. ~be 19~7 Project was
in the area inside the red line was assessed for storm sewers and
those lots which are shaded in yellow, those lots were the people who were
two weeks ago to raise issue about it. What we've done for Project 67-2,
as well as all the other projects in the area, 78-1, 68-1B, 75-11, is go
through and identify all of the prior assessments for every lot very carefully
and what we have determined is, as many people indicated, those lots in
Project 67-2 were assessed prior in 1967. The amounts were relatively small
averaging, a lot of them range $125.00 or so and that was for improvements
which included the storm sewer on Chan View, down Great Plains Blvd. and off
to the intersection of the railroad tracks where it discharges into the ditch.
Basically a localized store sewer system and we've acknowledged that in terms
of the assessment proposal that this is essentially a completion of what
would he a partial storm sewer system. There are a number of lots along the
of this area where additional detail analysis would he required if
the Council leaves the residential area in the project. Because of the fact
that even before this proposal came forth, if we go back and look at old
history, old assessment records, there are a number of areas where there are
overlaps in the old projects going back 20 some years so we certainly
~se to look at those very carefully, and sinoe we have a lot of these lots
the periphery who were partially assessed, because the frontyard drains
one direction ~ the backyard drains another and different engineers over the
years have measured those a little differently on several cases and although
the dollar amounts aren't significant, there are not complete consistencies.
In terms of the overview, yes the area was assessed back in 1967.
Councilman Boyt: Would you just help me out by showing me~.the area we're
assessing now on that map?
Don Ringrose: This dark line.
Councilman Boyt: I notice in your statement to us you indicate, or maybe that
was Don on your statement that there was a demonstratable benefit to these
people?
Ringrose: The area within 67-2?
23,
City Council Meeting - February 9, 1987
Councilman Boyt: No, the area that we're proposing to assess.
Don Ringrose: Based on the traditional approach with respect to municipal
storm sewer drains, these properties will drain to the system as currently
proposed and on that basis there is a benefit consistent with other projects
that the City is undertaking, it basically is the second part of where there
is a storm sewer system. In this case, the ultimate outlet system. The
storm sewer system that is in place for which they have ~n assessed already
was in effect the local system. For example, if we were not to undertake this
improvement as proposed and bring them out to the south, ultimately to the
final storm water, more then likely at some point in the future, the system
that they currently discharge from will be extended in sort of an improved
fashion and it probably would be subject to assessment then.
Councilman Boyt: Are you saying that their current system{i, doesn't handle the
storm water difficulties that they're having?
Don Ringrose: That's correct. There are flooding problems in the area of
Great Plains Blvd. and this general vicinity here and also, it isn't currently
a problem but as it further develops, we anticipate that as the water drains
to the south, improvements would be made. We have not examined those
particular areas because they are beyond the scope of our boundaries.
Councilman Boyt: It's my understanding that they're still going to have some
problems with storm water after we do this. Is that correct?
Don Ringrose: There are some localized issues, which some of the residents
raised with respect to flooding on Chan View or flooding in the back of the
lots. These areas right here for example are very, very flat. The areas
behind the lots, either they weren't graded property or the homes were built
many years ago or whether changes have taken place over the years as a result
of water and ponds in the backyards. One of the things that were suggested to
the Council was the possibility of extending the storm sewer on Chan View from
Laredo. There would be storm sewer constructed here as per the current
proposal. We could extend storm sewer 1/2 block to the east and provide a
connection at the rearyard point here. At that point, in discussion with the
Staff, we felt that the extension of that up into these areas would be
something that would be best handled by City Staff as a maintenance thing but
with our contractor we would make the improvement to this point. Similarly,
there was some discussion and or~ of the issues raised was the lack of
drainage at the intersection right here. In examining the in-place system, we
note that while there are catch basins on Chan View, there ~re no catch basins
on the cross st'.,~et. Simply by the addition of one catch basin on the west
side of the cross street, we could intersect that water so it would not drain
across the intersection causing icy conditions and so forth. As indicated in
our report, these two minor local improvements could be added to this to
resolve some of those problems.
Councilman Boyt: You mentioned in your report that there are two properties,
it looks like it would be inappropriate to assess the Kerber Property and the
Hanson Property, I think it's on your 3rd page. Am I reading that correctly?
Council Meeting - February 9, 1987
~ilman Geving: You're reading it incorrectly?
Boyt: It would be appropriate to assess those.
Ringrose: Right. The little diagram in the back illustrates that better
this diagram. With respect to the Kerber property, the majority of it is
tributary to the west to Great Plains Blvd. ar~ it would therefore flow into
new storm sewer system. The easterly portions indicated on the diagram,
not be contributing to the system and the assessment therefore should be
on the actual tributary. The Hanus property, as indicated, is tributary
the drainage that flows east along the tracks ar~ therefore should not be
included.
Boyt: Should not be included. It seems to me when I read in the
of your next page, improvements downstream do not appear necessary as a
of this project. I found some difficulty I guess understanding what
was related to. ..
Ringrose: ~nis diagram which is in your packet, a lot of question on unit
5, will drain to the street and then in the new storm sewer system it will be
y to the storm water pond. As a result of the construction of the
water pond, one of the primary purposes, the existing in-place
facility really have. If we were not constructing the pond and we
pipes in the ditches to take the flow of water instantaneously, the
facilities would not be adequate.
~ilman Boyt: I think we touched on this earlier last month but have you
'ured out, if we assessed these properties at the full cost of the
improvements there necessitating the residential properties, how much would
be?
Ringrose: The total area involved in residential is arour~t $30,000.~0 to
~ilman Boyt: Is that about $5~0.00 a property?
Ringrose: On the average lot, it's about 3 1/2 cents a square foot.
Ashworth: The question though was how much was the original assessment.
It was 14 cents per square foot which was reduced to 7 and them to 3 1/2 so it
have been four times higher than what it currently is.
Boyt: Don, you're saying that these homeowners could have ~
~ssessed at 14 ~ts per square foot which would be four bimes what's down
:re now? ~3
Ringrose: The formula on which you assess the storm sewer, you try to be
with your current city policies which based the policy basically
50% of the cost of the pipe system. In this case, when we add the
development of the pond and the acquisition or ev~ without the acquisition,
about doubles the cost so first we subtract off the pond, we take about
50% and then if we half tl~ half, we're down to 25% and indeed, it's actually
City Council Meeting - February 9, 1987
less than that because the rate that was assessed on the residential area is
one-half the rate assessed to the commercial or industrial area so it's a net
rate of 3 1/2 cents per square foot. If we had applied the full cost and we
hadn't made any adjustment for residential versus...
Councilman Boyt: Do I have the right impression that the commercial area will
have this as part of their tax increment so this will be paid off with their
taxes basically? This storm water and sanitary sewer thing, doesn't that get
lumped into the tax increment package we're looking at?
Don Ashworth: They're all special assessments back to the individual parcels
so people like Mr. Burdick or any of the others would have that assessment
against their property and they would be required to pay that assessment. It
would be twice the rate that you have for residential so it is 7 cents. If
you're referring to the special assessment reduction program through the
Housing and Redevelopment Authority, these properties would be eligible for
that to the extent that they carry off new construction. 9roperties such as
Mr. Burdick's would not receive any form of reduction. Tnose are basically
open lands. There is no new construction which has occurred since they
distributed this form.
Councilman Boyt: We're saying then that the commercial area, by adding new
construction could basically reap some tax benefit fr~m this.
Don Ashworth: ~nat ' s correct.
Councilman Boyt: And the residential area, very unlikely to add new
construction and therefore wouldn't be...
Don Ashworth: The State wouldn't allow it.
Councilman Boyt: Wouldn't allow that anyway so we sort of balance that out by
charging the residential people 3 1/2 cents per square foot. Is that kind of
what we' re talking about here?
Don Ashworth: There is a reduction in the residential. The question becomes
one of, as there are certain reductions that are occurring for the commercial
properties, those people can carry out construction. Should there not
similarly be reductions for the residential. In other words, basically
deleting the residential areas and that's a question that Council has to
grapple with.
Councilman Boyt: Do we take the residential areas out of the assessment base
is our question tonight as I understand it. It seems to me that based on
inflation, looking at what they were assessed in 1967, is about comparable
with what we're proposing to assess them tonight. A figure about 2 1/2 to 3
times.
Councilman Horn: The key issue, as I saw it in our presentation this evening
was the fact that the difference between the previous assessment role and
other typical assessments that we've had in the City is the fact that the
previous assessments only picked up the local collection system rather than
235
Council Meeting - February 9, 1987
collection system. I think that's the key difference in why there
two assessments versus one. This could have all ~ done at one time and
it would have probably been assessed at that point. That is a key issue.
Hamilton: Downstream, to me seems to be the factor here. We're doing
lore work downstream where we haven't done that previously and that's really
the benefit is going to come iD. Do the property owners in this area
from the downstream improvements? I.'m not sure that they're not the
ones who benefit from it ar~ just because we want to do some downstream
improvements doesn't necessarily mean that the people 'just north of the
project should be willing to pay for it.
~ilman Geving: I'm prepared to speak at length on this subject and I am.
I'm quite prepared to do that but I think you've all heard my objections to
project as it is being proposed to be assessed against the 90 homeowners
in the residential area ar~ I will move quickly for a motion to remove all of
homeowners north of the proposed project areas and hounded by Laredo Drive
th~ west, Great Plains Blvd. hemes on the east and 76th Street on the
To remo~e these homes from the residential district as an assessment
for the downtown project. That is my motion. ~.
Hamilton seconded the motion.
~ilman Johnson: I didn't ~ anything in here on Barr engineering report
which I had written a memo on last week and I was ready to make a very similar
'.ion last week and wasn't able. I think what you're motion, going to Great
Plains?
Councilman Geving: My motion will cover the 90 proposed homes in the
~sessment area which includes all of the homes on the east side of Great
Blvd. and I want to say this, since you gave me the opportunity, that
this is only part of the whole project. We will have other things to discuss
concerning the commercial end of this project as it effects the renters, Mr.
ite and Mr. Burdick and others who are in the downtown project area. We can
liscuss that separately because that was another whole issue by itself I
believe.
Councilman Johnson: Right and that's not on the agenda for tonight either.
The point I made in my memo I gave out two weeks ago was that Bart Ergineering
provided some of the data to BRW on what was required for storm sewers from
their study that they're doing for the City which is due out in February.
Part of that study, according to Bart, is that they improve sediment pondings
be included on this system in the future and by making this connection now the
City will actually save money in that it will be only an incremental increase
to this ponding versus a larger increase. Gary, did you have a chance to
check with Bart on this to see if my data to them was correct or weren't you
able to get a hold of them? ~
Gary Warren: I wasn't able to talk to Bob and I tried to talk to Garret and
we've ~ swapping messages today.
23G
City Council Meeting - February 9, 1987
Councilman Johnson: Well, anyway in effect, for me, after seeing that making
the connection to this new system for these citizens, in effect will save the
City money overall so I can not see how I can support assessing anybody when
we're saving the City money.
Don Ashworth: Just a point of clarification. I wasn't quite sure I followed
the boundaries.
Councilman Geving: Tne boundaries will be as proposed in this memorandum, the
one that was sent out as an information sheet to the homeowners and it is the
property owners effected. All the 90 property owners south of 76th Street,
north of 78th Street, bounded on the west by Laredo and on the east by Great
Plains Blvd..
Don Ashworth: I think we're following the same line but the City Attorney's
office has stated that it should apply to all similarly zoned properties. In
other words, what you're saying is all residential.
;.
Councilman Geving: Ail residential is how I worded the mo~ion.
Councilman Boyt: Dale, as I heard the presentation here, there are some
improvements going into the residential area?
Councilman Geving: Yes, but you must remember the comments that were made by
Mr. Ringrose included maintenance only type operations that City Staff could
accomplish themselves.
Councilman Boyt: Wasn't there the establishment of a catch basin?
Don Ringrose: What we were proposing to construct, as illustrated in the one
diagram...
Councilman Geving: I would say we shouldn't do those unless the citizens are
willing to pay for tbsm.
Councilman Johnson: That should be brought up as a separate issue.
Councilman Boyt: That's part of your motion?
Councilman Geving: No, my motion still stands. What I'm saying is that those
project improvements shouldn't be conducted unless somebody is willing to pay
for them and they're not included in my motion.
Councilman Horn: Point of clarificatioD~ Were they included in the
feasibility study? ,
Don Ringrose: .~o. We're suggesting these in reponse to comments that were
raised at the hearing. They were not part of the feasibility study.
Councilman Horn: So the original feasibility could stand as such without
completing the whole...
2'37
Council Meeting - February 9, 1987
Ringrose: That's correct.
Horn: One other question I had was, if I read this thing properly
it says that typically in most other assessment policies, they are assessed
downstream and local assessment issues so we're makingexception in this
I think it's important when we make exceptions to clearly spell out the
ation as to why we're doing that because it can set precedence that
and I would like s(xmaone to point this out for me.
Ashworth: If the Council moves ahead in this direction, what I would
est is a policy statement. The City of Chanhassen has always used Federal
monies to the amount available to help reduce multiple storm sewer
Where there are those monies, the City will use those. If the City
other sources of funding, specifically tax increment funding, then that '
would be used to cover residential type of assessmen~ As I see it,
would be your policy stat~am.~nt.
Horn: So if there are other areas that were to drain to tax
increment district, the residential folks would not be asses, sed in those areas
Ashworth: That's correct.
Johnson: I believe that's happened in the past too with the Chan
, that has ~_n done before.
Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded for a general policy
that the residential neighborhood be deleted fr~m the proposed
ent roll as prepared by BRW and that the minor storm sewer extension as
in BRW's Supplemental Report ~2 dated February 5, 1987 also be
included in the proposed Downtown Public Improvement Project. All voted in
and motion carried.
lman Boyt: It would seem to me to make economic sense to put that catch
· in now if we're going to do it.
Hamilton: I suspect that we'll still do as many of the improvements
that we can and they will not be assessed. A lot of these improvements
be done in-house and will be a part of hbe project.
YARD VAPJ3tNCE REQUEST, LOTS 452-467, CARVER BEACH, KEITHCOLLVER.
ilman Geving stated that this item was tabled at the Board of Adjustments
Appeals Hearing held just prior to the City Council meeting. The item was
until Wednesday, February llth at 4:3~ p.m. at which time the members
the Board would meet on the site with the applicant and make their
~ne applicant will stake out the property so they:can see exactly
is proposed to be done.
City Council Meeting ' February 9, 1987
Mayor Hamilton stated that someone should go through a vacation process of
getting rid of Nymph Road. Councilman Johnson stated that he would like to
make that motion tonight to instruct Staff to start the vacation process of
Nymph Road. He stated that after visiting it, the road starts nowhere and
goes nowhere, it has no use. It's a paper road. Mayor Hamilton stated that
the applicant was asked to start the vacation process but he was relunctant to
do so because of the time involved. Councilman Boyt stated that Keith Collver
indicated that he was not in favor of having that road vacated. Mr. Collver
might change his mind depending on what happens on Wednesday evening but there
is some property that needs some access. Gary Warren stated that if Nymph
Road was constructed that would be the access to the property and the property
would he landlocked if vacation occurred. ~nere was no second to the motion.
ESTABLISHMENT OF 1987 LIQUOR LICENSE FEES.
Resolution #87-8: Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Geving seconded to follow
the fee schedule recommended by Staff which remains the same as the previous
year. All voted in favor and motion carried.
PRELIMINARY PLAT }rEQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE 13.5 ACRES INTO 2 LOTS, 6640 GALPIN
BLVD., SAM MANCINO. :.
Jo Ann Olsen: Tne property is located on Galpin Blvd. just south of the Urban
Service Area. It does not have any sewer and water and is now limited with
the one unit per 10 acre density. ~ne applicant has petitioned to split up
a 13.5 acre parcel into a 9.5 acre parcel and a 4 acre parcel. The Planning
Commission approved the subdivision with a 3 to 2 split. Two of the
Commissioners did not agree with the application because the 4 acre parcel
only has 162 feet of street frontage. The reason for the angle of the lot
line is the applicant wanted to make it so Lot 1 could not be further
subdivided when it could still be subdivided into 2 1/2 acres. Again, that
can not happen now. It can not be further resubdivided until it gets sewer
and water. Staff is recommending approval on the condition that Lot 2 of
Block 1 must be combined with the legal description of the Mancino property
upon filing of the plat and any additional access onto Galpin Blvd. must
receive a permit from Carver County.
Councilman Horn: If 180 feet w~re put on Galpin, would that make it 5 acres?
Jo Ann Olsen: The Mancinos wanted to maintain street access and they couldn't
get the 180 feet and still maintain a street access. I have not calculated
out whether it would be 5 acres if they moved it down to 180 feet. Again,
that is moot because even if it was 5 acres, it couldn't be resubdivided at
this time.
Councilman Horn: Tne prime objective is to not be able to resubdivide it?
Jo Ann Olsen: When they originally came in, yes.
Councilman Boyt: Back in the Zoning Ordinance, with that 180 foot
requirsment, can you give me that intent of that?
10
Council Meeting - February 9, 1987
239
Ann Olsen: The intent of the 180 feet, were it allowed to be split into
:wo 90 feet. In the urban section, the street frontage is 90 feet. That was
allow it to be split into 90 foot lots.
lman Boyt: As it stands now, this can't be split anyway?
Ann Olsen: Not until sewer and water comes in.
Boyt: That's going to be quite a ways down the road I would think.
Ann Olsen: It's right on the edge but it will be the year 2000.
Hamilton: It's on the edge but it will probaby be 2000 unless there is
swap that takes place and that isn't too likely.
lman Boyt: The question that I would have Tom is I would think our
would be to not get ourselves into a position where we had to look at a
for two 81 foot lots sometime instead of a 90 foot frontage.
y, if we could get that down as our intent, I'm comfor~le with the
feet.
Hamilton: I would think if sewer and water went in there, all they
have to do is replat it to get the 180 feet. It's ~st another fee for
to pay if they're going to subdivide it.
:ilman Boyt: They would have to buy the land back but our intent would be
to be looking at a variance down the road to get two 80 foot...
Hamilton: Right.
Geving: I had a question, I don't know what our status of our
of the MUSA line is to include Crestview and 65th Street. It
.y wasn't designed to pick up this property, is that true?
Ann Olsen: Right.
Geving: And it is quite far from their property, is that also
Ann Olsen: Crestview?
Geving: I know it's just a little ways but when we made that
request, it was never considered.
Ann Olsen: No. Until the year 2000, it will not be extended at least
:il then.
Gevin~: I was looking at Gary Warren's comments regarding the
control measures and wonderir~ to myself if his comment, if buildin~
undertaken' at some future date, erosion control mea~res would be
due to the st~ grade. If that would be included as a condition
11
City Council Meeting - February 9, 1987
for approval but possibly if that were ever to happen, we would look at it
anyway and make that decision.
Councilman Johnson: I'm more or less in agreement with the two dissenting
votes on the Planning Commission that I do not see a hardship here. Which
Ordinance is in effect as of today? The old one is in effect as of today so
what we've living with are four conditions which all four must be proven in
order for us to grant this variance without being arbitrary. The first one, I
don't think this has been met. There are some special circumstances or
conditions effecting the land, building or use referred to in the application
for the variance. I see that the applicant wants something but there is not
any special condition of the land that requires this to have .it. Right there,
by our own rules, the Ordinance by which we can grant the variance, we can not
grant the variance because we think it's a good thing to do. ~ney have to
meet the requirements of our rules. Is the variance necessary for the
preservation or enjoyment of substantial property rights? This is out of our
Ordinance what I'm reading.
Councilman Geving: Are w~ looking for a variance?
Councilman Johnson: A variance would have to be had with this with 162 feet.
To make a split fou need the variance. We would have to approve a variance at
this time.
Jo Ann Olsen: Along with the proposed subdivision.
Councilman Johnson: Along with approval of the subdivision we're approving a
variance and the first two of our four conditions for the approval of a
variance are not met in my opinion.
Councilman Boyt: Jay, I think if we look back at the intent of the 180 feet
and see that the reason that's in there is so we can have a potentially
subdividable lot and the intention is not to have this be a subdividable lot.
I think we stay within the intent of the Ordinance whether it's 162 or 180.
Councilman Johnson: That happens to be condition four of granting a variance.
However, we haven't met condition one or two of granting a variance. I
believe we meet condition three and four. I believe the hardship that he is
trying to show are self caused. I don't want to continue to set a precedence
that we're going to allow 162 foot lots now then next week it's 160 and so on
because the owner of the lot wants it. We can not be arbitrary. We have our
rules that we're following.
Mayor Hamilton: I think this is really to our benefit to have 162 feet so it
can't be subdivided. You make it 180 feet and it can be subdivided.
Councilman Johnson: It still can't be subdivided because you don't have, not
until the year 2000 and then in the year 2001 the MUSA li~e comes down, they
come in and ask for a variance and then they have precreated hardship and they
can prove the five points.
Mayor Hamilton: If you put 180 feet you probably c~me up with 5 acres...
12
241
Council Meeting - February 9, 1987
~ilman Johnson: You need 1~ acres to subdivide with ou~ n~w ordinance
will be effective as soon as it's published.
Hamilton: You're going by the old Ordinance and the old Ordinance is
:ill in effect. The new Ordinance is not in effect.
~ilman Johnson: Okay, the~ I'll agree with you that it could be further
,ided with a variance if the MUSA line is extended while this Ordinance
in effect.
;ilman Boyt: We went by the date for application to subdivide that down
to 2 1/2.
:ilman Johnson: That's right, January 15th.
Ann Olsen: The Ordinance will be published before they could come through
an application.
lman Boyt: So we're looking at a four acre lot that's going to be a
four acre lot for a long time.
Councilman Johnson: Even if they moved this 180, they could do it without
going to 5 acres. It does not necessitate them going to 5 acres adding 18
feet with a little good surveying. We might get to 4 1/2 acres. I can't see
how 18 feet is going to add a full acre to this lot. You~on't have to move
the whole line. My lot has five property lines on it too. I believe the
applicant has something to say. :.
Jim Wilson: Our feeling is that the property on the western bour~]ary will
move farther north, it would create a hardship in trying to market the house
with four acres because the property line would be placed right in the back of
the tennis court. Then we have problems. There is also a large built
structure, a fire place that it could go right through. We did a lot of
research in trying to figure out an amicable way to draw this to prevent
any more subdividing.
Councilman Boyt: It's my understanding that this is fine, it's 18g feet
there. We're looking at this.
Jim Wilson: I know but basically the way to do that would be to move the
southern border closer and right up into that tennis court. That's the way
you would have to do it.
Councilman Johnson: You don't necessarily have to have that property line a
straight line. You could take in at 18~ feet going due west until you
interesect with the existing line which would add maybe 1/4 of an acre.
Sam Mancino: When we tried to do this, we were kind of chasing a moving
target of Zoning Ordinances. We were trying to prevent subdivision while
the 2 1/2 acre rule was in effect, We hired Schoell and Madsen who was very
familiar with your Ordinances to find us the best way to meet all the criteria
of the existing Ordinance and also the anticipated 1~ acre Ordinance. In the
13
-242
City Council Meet~.ng - February 9, 1987
process they did almost everything right but they didn't quite come up with
the 180 foot rule because I'm not sure that they were aware of that at the
time. That's probably their problem but to go back in now at this point, I
feel is a bit of hardship because I think we've been in good faith trying to
make this thing work for 'a lot of months now. Working around the 10 acre
Ordinance that was going to be put into effect. We didn't know when. It had
been on the docket for a number of months and that's how we're at this point
now. To go back and unravel this, we probably have to resurvey it and replat
it but we also have to get the Attorneys involved in drafting new language
about the roadway easements and the maintenance contract for the road and
things like that. The intent is very consistent with what you're trying to
do, is to slow down the runaway growth of 2 1/2 acre subdivisions.
Don Ashworth: The interpreting basis for a variance, I'm hearing Councilman
Johnson's concern about it, typically a variance would be approved. Let's
assume an individual had a severe slope, either inclining or declining, that
would be a basis for approval of a variance because it's a condition beyond
his control. As I see this application, the physical feature is the tennis
court. Tne other things that he's referring to create physical features in
exactly the same way that a slope might or other basis that prove a variance
so he very easily could be meeting test number one and two. Tnat's an
interpretation of Council to make but that's how Staff looked at it.
Councilman Johnson: Only if there is a requirement that ~e lot line must be
straight and can not be a joint in the lot line. If you can have a two part
lot line, then he does not have to move his tennis court. All he has to move
is a small portion of that lot line which is what Planning Commission was
saying. We have to be concerned about the future. We have to maintain our
consistency. Under the new Ordinance that will be coming in when it's
published, there aren't just four things you have to do but five and you would
even be worse off trying to approve this under the new Ordinance. I do not
believe that there is going to be a very large cost. I've ~--cn associated
with surveying and the surveying cost to do this are only going to be a few
hundred dollars to redo the couple points on this survey. I recently surveyed
11 acres with a topographic survey and it ran about $500.00.
Jim Wilson: I take exception to that. ~nis survey cost over $4,000.00 and
legal fees were in excess of $1,000.00. I don't know what's involved to go
back and I don't know if the thing will even continue to fly if we can't
consunxnate. This is the point where we' re at.
Councilman Geving: Will you show us where the new road is coming through from
the Stellar property onto 78th? That's a concern that we have.
Jim Wilson: That's south of this property by about 400 feet.
Councilman Geving: Okay, so we're in good shape.
Councilman Geving moved,. Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the preliminary
plat ~86-28 as shown on the plat dated December 30, 1986 with the following
conditions:
14
2'43
Council Meeting - February 9, 1987
1. Lot 2, Block 1 must be combined with the legal de.scription of the
Mancino property upon filing of the final plat.
2. Any additional access onto Galpin Boulevard must receive a permit
fr~ Carver County.
voted in favor except Councilman Johnson who opposed. The motion carried.
PLAT REQ~T TO SUBDMDE 15 ACRES INTO 5 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS,
CORNER OF LYMAN BLVD. AND SUNSET TRAIL, ALAN MJOLSNES.
Ann Olsen: The property is located just north of Lyman Blvd. on Sunset
1. It was brought before the Council late in 1986. When they met with
about the subdivision, Staff had recommended that they would have to
improve the street to a rural section which includes paving. The applicants
not want to have that high amount of money assessed back to the other
owners so they went before the Council and the Council agreed that it
not have to be improved to a rural sectioru The Planning Commission
the application and unanimously recommended approval with certain
Improvements to Sunset Trail. ~nose improvements would include widening it to
30 foot gravel roadway and providing a 60 foot wide radius at the northern
of Sunset Trail for emergency vehicle access. The property is proposed
be split into 5 single family lots. It meets all of the area and frontage
The soil borings were evaluated by the consultant ar~ they met
ill the tests. They will most likely have to have mound systems on all sites.
only concern would be Lot 5 where the mour~s would ha~e to be located on a
or less slope but there is enough area to put both mound sites and a home
3ite. Again, Planning Commission recommended approval witl~], th~ following
:
1. All lots must be serviced by Sunset Trail.
Dedication of a five (5) foot street drainage and utility easement
along the easterly property line of the plat to expand the right-of-
way width to 60 feet.
.
Approval of a final grading and drainage plan for Lot 2 at time of
building permit application.
0
Locate the building and treatment systems on Lot 2 out of the
drainage way.
.
Widening to 30 feet those portions of Sunset Trail which are less
than 30 feet in width and improvement of the turnaround at the north
end of Sunset Trail to the 60 foot radius.
.
Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated ar~ labeled as
necessary along lot lines.
Johnson: This is the kind of subdivision that is good. Thel~re
asking for any variances. One thing on here, item nu~ 2, we want to
15
244
City Council Meeting - February 9, 1987
take a 50 foot right-of-way, add 5 feet to it and end up with a 60 foot
right-of-way so right now why don't we change this to 55 and when the next
side is done we add another 5 at that time and we make the whole 60. Does
that make sense?
Councilman Geving: No.
Councilman Johnson: That doesn't make sense to you?
Jo Ann Olsen: I think we would like it in there so it becomes a right-of-way.
Right now all we can get is t_hat additional 5 feet. We could go even as far
ask for additional 10 feet.
Councilman Johnson: I'm not for taking 10 feet from one side. I think we
need 5 feet from both sides but I don't like it sounding too ridiculous that 5
plus 50 is 60. I do believe the intent from the document is that we're
looking for 60 feet and we'll go after the additional 5 in the future. That's
my only comnent on the whole thing.
Councilman Geving: To counter your comments there Jay, you always have to
look at each project and set it in as a specific thing. You have to deal with
what you have in front of you, not what may happen to the east of this
project. We're dealing here with an applicant who is asking for approval for
5 lots. If he wants the 5 lots, he'll give us the 10 feet that we need to get
the 60 foot road right-of-way and I think that's how you have to deal with
each project. You look at the project in front of you, not what may come
years from now. The only comment I have is how this migh~'"look when we put
the cul-de-sac at the end of Lots 4 and 5 here. Do you have feel for that
Gary, how that might work in? I'm trying to visualize how that cul-de-sac
might look.
Gary Warren: Enough room presently exists for the turn around it just needs
to be shaped a little bit and I think it would come but the westerly edge of
the roadway would probably stay consistent and the cul-de-sac would flare off
from there. In looking at the field there, there was room pretty easily for
accomplishing that.
Councilman Geving: So you can take care of Lots 5 and 4 at the same time?
Gary Warren: Right.
Councilman Geving: I have a question on Lot 5. I indicated to myself that
Lot 5 appears to be a problem in terms of the mottling of the soil for the
mound septic system. Could you comment on that Gary?
Jo Ann Olsen: The fact that there is mottling throughout and because each lot
would have to have a mound system. ~ne problem on Lot 5 is that a mound
system can't be located on slopes higher than 12% but there is adequate area
for two mound system sites on Lot 5. You just have to be careful. The place
that the house has to be is on more of a slope area.
16
245
:ity Council ~ting - February 9, 1987
:ilman Geving: The reason I brought it up is because I didn't see Lot 5
in the conditions. I saw Lot 2 but I would lika to include Lot 5
a special consideration because I can see, if you've already found that
could be a problem with LOt 5, you ought to highlight, that. I believe
I agree with all of the Staff recommendations 1, 2 and '3 in the middle of
paragraph on page 3 of any exceptions. I have no other comments except to
that I believe this will be a very nice subdivision. The la~d is all very
ligb, I'm familiar with it off of Lyman Blvd. and I think it will be a nice
'.ion si re.
Hamilton: There are specific comments from Mr. Machmeier about LOt 5.
those could be one of the conditions.
Boyt: I agree with Dale that it certainly looks like a nice
I have a concern in if we look at the public hearing notes on
8 it talks about the street superintendent telling us that the City is
~lways having to improve the existing road. You turn in there a couple more
and you have Don Corbin saying I'll tell you what, meaning the Fire
, they couldn't get in there in the springtime. The~ we have A1
elhutz in the middle who says it's the CitlWs responsibility to make
improvements or at least maintain it. I'm a little disappointed that we
lidn't have them pave this road. I think it's going to come to that one of
days soor~ Given that that decision has ~ made, I would want it to
our intent .that if we have to do an unusual amount of maintenance on this
~oad, that we'll assess that back or have an assessment hearing back to those
I ddn't think it's fair to ask the City to maintain a road that
more expensive than a norms__] road.
Klingelhutz: I guess I'll have to disagree with you Mr~ Boyt. This is a
ic road and th~ thing that's ~ happening on that road, it's not the
fault. There is a 5{] foot right-of-way there now. There's no
litches along the road ar~ that's the reason that the road has a lot of
with washing gravel off. Water comes down the hill and it comes down
the gravel and it washes the gravel off. A public road is supposed to be
so that police and fire protection and school buses can drive on it
~t all times. You approved the subdivision on another lot ar~ that abuts on a
ic road. It happens that that road is blacktopped. It was not paid for
the local residents that had that subdivision made. If this happened to be
county road that's improved, it was paid for by the County taxpayers. This
oad has ~_n. a public road for many years with a 50 foot right-of-way.
a 100 foot cul-de-sac on the end that has been accepted by the city of
as a city street. The turnaround now is too small for a fire truck
turn around but whose fault is it?
Boyt: Al, I agree with what you're saying about the City's
to a p~blic road and to maintain it. I think we had an opportunity
to get this road paved and I think it's unrealistic to expect the City,
the City is basically going with the wisbes of the developer here in not
it, to come in then and repair it if it has more than normal wear.
Klingelhutz: But the Ordinance says you can subdivide 2 1/2 acre lots with
.80 foot frontage abutting on a ~ublic street. It doesn't say anything that
17
City Council Meeting - February 9, 1987
the developer or the person who subdivides the lot has to o~mprove that street
because it's already a public street. They are willing to give 5 feet of
roadway there, of their land but what it's going to do to the lots is make two
of those lots less than 2 1/2 acres. Then they'll need a variance for those
two lots, right? Because they aren't going to be 2 1/2 acres.
Councilman Johnson: Al, in our drawings here, is the 5 feet in the drawings?
A1 Klingelhutz: No, the 5 feet isn't in the drawings right now I don't think.
Gary Warren: Staff was looking at taking the additional 5 foot as an easement
and not as a right-of-way so they would not lose the acreage and would not
need variances on those lots.
Councilman Boyt: How does that put us in shape then when the road is paved
scmeday? Will w~ still need that land then?
Gary Warren: It is our easement. We still own it so we haven't given
anything away in that regard.
Councilman Boyt: And a 28 or 32 foot wide road is easily going to fit in that
50 foot way that we don't have easement on but we own, is that right?
Gary Warren: We would be able to shape the drainage areas within that
easement area.
A1 Klingelhutz: On both sides?
Gary Warren: We would take it on both sides, right.
Councilman Johnson: Can we take aneasement on the east side at this time?
Can we go to those property owners and request an easement?
Don Ashworth: You can but you have no leverage in terms of getting it.
They're not going to give an easement.
Councilman Johnson: The purpose of the easement would be to put the ditches
alongside the road so we can maintain the road properly.
Mayor Hamilton: But they may not care if the road's there. ~ney may be
developing in the other direction.
Councilman Johnson: What can we do to improve this road by putting ditches
along there or anything, will that help? By making a crown in the road versus
a flat road, things like this.
Gary Warren: I think a gravel road in general is a maintenance headache but
we can improve some of the section out there in the areas where we have the
majority of the erosion occurring to try and improve it but it's still going
to be a maintenance problem.
18
247
Council Meeting - February 9, 1987
~ilman Johnson: I think we look in the future, not necessarily at this
at doing a feasibility study for paving this road and doing like we
id, last year the Council approve for I believe Crestview that the
cost-~ for so many years be removed from the assessments and that
be saving the City money so as to decrease the assessment to the people
you do a feasibility study and look at it and get comments from people
are in there. I do agree that it probably r._~s to be paved in the
· Whether it has-to be done as far as this one, I'm not convinced.
Hamilton: When we looked at this previously, when the Mjolsnes' asked
it not be paved because, if I remember correctly, some folks that live
there could not afford to pay the assessment because they have a large
of property that they would be assessed heavily for that portion. The
was made to leave it unpaved at the present time· I suspect when the
changes hands, then it will be paved.
Klingelhutz: There are three property owners to the east side· Two 2 1/2
tracts and the other one owns the rest of it.
~ilman Johnson: We would be doing another Bernie Kerber type of deal
we're forcing him to subdivide by giving a big assessment against him
it won't be nearly as big as what Bernie had.
~ilman Boyt: What you're telling me A1 is that this is already a public
it's already requiring high maintenance ar~ if anything this might
the maintenance cost by upgrading the road some?
Klingelhutz: It will reduce it an awful lot but I don't know if this
should have to pay the total cost of improving it because it is
llready a public road and I think because of the fact that it wasn't
lintained properly in the past, it shouldn't be thrown at the developer to
· it back. .-
Hamilton: Then maybe before we pass it we should consider paving it and
can have that assessnent too. You want your cake and eat it too.
Klingelhutz: What was the cost of the feasibility study on this to upgrade
it?
~ilman Geving: $38,000.~.
Klingelhutz: ~nat was for paving it but on the gravel part of it.
Ann Olsen: It came to about $8,000.0~ to $1~,000.0~. ~ it was talked
having the City doing the work it lowered to $6,~0.~.
lman Johnson: That would go to both sides.
lman Boyt: It looks like a deal until you start repairing it.
~ilman Johnson: Does that $6,~0~.0~ include improving on the ditch?
24F
City Council Meeting - February 9, 1987
Gary Warren: Ditch sections would be upgraded, right.
A1 Klingelhutz: That would give it a 30 foot roadway surface that you haven't
got now.
Gary Warren: It actually would give you a 24 foot width rural travel surface
and we're compromising on putting 3 foot on each side for the drainage ditches
so that's where we came up with the 30 feet.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve Subdivision Request
~86-22 as shown on the preliminary plat dated December 17, 1986 with the
following conditions:
1. All lots must be serviced by Sunset Trail.
.
Dedication of a five (5) foot street drainage and utility easement
along the easterly property line of the plat to expend the right-of-
way width to 60 feet.
.
Approval of a final grading and drainage plan for Lot 2 at time of
building permit application.
.
Locate the building and treatment systems on Lot 2 out of the
drainage way.
.
Widening to 30 feet those portions of Sunset Trail which are less
than 30 feet in width and improvement of the turnaround at the north
end of Sunsetn Trail to the 60 foot radius.
.
Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated{.,and labeled as
necessary along lot lines.
8
Specifically look at LOt 5 per Mr. Machmeier's comments regarding
location of the mound syst~n sites and the house site.
Ail voted in favor and motion carried.
CONSIDER EXTENDING APPROVAL DEADLINE FOR THE PETERSON/JEURISSEN/LAURENT
SUBDIVISION.
Mayor Hamilton stated that this item was looked at some time ago because of
the problem with the designation of the TH 212 right-of-way and the problem
with subdividing the property when they don't know where the road is going to
go.
Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve, at the time the
new Zoning Ordinance goes into effect, the approval deadline for the
Peterson/Jeurissen/Laurent Subdivision to January 1, 1988. All voted in favor
and motion carried.
20
249
Council ~ting - February 9, 1987
EXTENSION REQUEST, EAST 6 ACRES OF WEST vIr.rAGE HEIGHTS, WILLIAM
AND CHARLES JAMES.
Warren: %his map is in the Council packets but I thought I would
it a little bit. We received a petition from Mr. Jacobso~ who has a
Agreement from the James Oompany for 6 acres up on the northeast
here off Kerber Blvd.. The plans and specificatio~s, which were
earlier this evening are for the trunk sewer which I've shown in blue
-.
which will be constructed this spring. The question is how to service
sanitary sewer the 6 acres up here which Mr. Jacobson is calling the West
[e Heights area. In order to properly phrase that, we ~alked briefly
Mr. Jacobson, who is here this evening, and he further talked to the
les Company about internal sewers ar~ such but since the internal platting
)f the area is uncertain at this time, the preference is to run the sewer
around the perimeter down TH 5 and off Kerber Blvd. to service this
There are some advantages to the City. ~nis is considered a lateral
since it would benefit that property specifically. There are some
to us as far as potentially upgrading Kerber with curb and gutter
at this time is part of the secti(~ that is not and as development
we like to do that. The action before you is to authorize the
~sibility study to properly evaluate the servicing of sewers for that area.
· will be constructed this spring with the Powers and Kerber Blvd.
· that were approved at our last meeting.
~ilman Boyt: You mentioned on the last page of the whole thing, public
will be held and notice will be sent to those effected. Is there
effected? Our notice range is fairly short.
Hamilton: You've got the James Company and Burdick~ There will only be
3 or 4 people.
~87-9: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to authorize
of a feasibility study for the costs ams assessments involved in
lateral sanitary sewer service to the East 6 Acre~F of West Village
for William Jacobsc~ and Charles James. All voted in favor and motion
PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS.
Mayor Hamilton stated that according to the Ordi~ that be interviewed
applicants and would make nominations. Mayor Hamilton stated that they had no
applicants apply until a notice was run in the Chamber Post. Mayor Hamilton
stated that all of the applicants were very well qualified but one of his
jot concerns was geographic location of the people on the Commission to get
as many geographical areas of the City represented as possible. He felt the
he was nominating were bringing sc~e very good backgrounds to the Park
Recreation Cc~nission.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to nominate Gloria Corpian,
Larry Schroers, Carol Watson, Ed Hasek and Mike Lync~h to the Park and
Recreation Commission. All voted in favor except Councilman Boyt who
abstained and motion carried.
21
25C
City Council Meeting - February 9, 1987
Councilman Geving: I wanted to discuss the differences between the nominating
procedures and I don't know where we pick up on this and correct this. It
appears like Don has indicated to us that we have an inconsistency here in the
Park and Rec appointment process and we ought to clean that up somehow. I
don't know if we do that at the codification?
Don Ashworth: I t/~ink tomorrow night we'll be looking at that.
Councilman Geving: Okay, just so we clean that up so the 0nly thing that
won't be done, outside of all the others will be the HRA?
DOn Ashworth: Or try and revert all of the others to conform to the HRA.
Councilman Geving: No, I don't think we want to do that.
Councilman Boyt: I would like to ask that in the future we be able to
interview the candidates. I think any procedure that I'm familiar with in
which people are nominated, the body that gives approval has an opportunity to
talk to those people and I would like you to consider doing that. At least
your choices. I'm not saying we have to talk to all the applicants but the
people you are recommending.
Mayor Hamilton: The Council hasn't done that in the past. ~ne Commissions
do that. Historically the way we've done it is the Commissions will interview
the people and make a recommendation to the Council.
Councilman Boyt: Over the last year the Commissions have interviewed and then
the Council has interviewed and then you've made a decision.
Councilman Geving: I don't believe we've done that.
Councilman Boyt: I can speak from first hand experience.
Councilman Geving: The two guys from the Planning Commission.
Councilman Boyt: You also interviewed for the Park.
CONSENT AGENDA:
d.
AMENDMENT__TO REGULATIONS FOR INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEMS,
FINAL READING:
1. ORDINANCE 10-B
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING FEES.
JO Ann Olsen: Another minor change. We had another letter from Roger
Machmeier about the landscaping. He was concerned with allowing trees near
the mound system because heavy equipment could ruin the whole system so
what we did was rearrange it in (Q) on Page 6. Previously we had where you
could use deciduous and evergreen trees and we gave a minimum height. Now
we're eliminating to only shrubs set back 5 feet from the mound and having a
22
251
City Council ~ting - February 9, 1987
maximum height of 5 feet because Mr. Machmeier want the mounds to be shaded.
Any deciduous or evergreen trees, with heavy equipment shall not be permitted
within 10 feet of the toe of the dike, that's how he describes that.
Councilman Horn moved, Councilman G~vir~3 secor~ed to approve Amendments to
Regulations for Individual Sewage Treatment Systems, Final Reading with
the inclusions rec(~m~ended by Staff:
1. Ordinance 10-B
2. Resolution Establishing Fees.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
e. OPEI~ATIONAL PROCfDURES FOR SOUTH LOTUS LAKE BOAT ACCESS.
Councilman Horn: On Page 3, Item l(e), one of the discussions that ca~e up in
our codification discussion was allowirg pets in the park. I'm wondering
until we resolve that if we shouldn't leave that off of the sign. That's a
thirg that can very easily be changed at some point.
Councilman Boyt: We don't allow pets in any of our parks at this point.
Councilman Horn: At this point right. We discussed that at the codification
that that may be changed.
Mayor Hamilton: I still have a question on Page 2, right in the middle of the
page, the paragraph that starts out with "It is suggested that all access
users be required to park in the car/trailer stalls...". We talked about cars
coming in with 2, 4 or 8 canoes or a boat or anything on top of the car ar~ I
I didn't see that addressed.
Lori Sietsema: The answer to that is the State will not allow us to require
parking in our parking lot. If you launch a boat, you can not be made to park
in the parking lot. The reason for that is, we can not restrict access in any
way but we can limit the number of car/trailer spaces and when that's filled
then we close that off so we don't have parking problems.'~' If you start taking
up your spots whe~ there isn't an act~,~l car there, that's .limiting access so
the State will not allow us to do that.
Mayor Hamilton: But there would be a car there if they had a boat on top of
their car and put their boat in the water. I see no difference in that then
if you bring the boat in on a trailer.
Lori Seitsema: I thought you were talking about the 6 canoes.
Mayor Hamilton: The canoes ar~ boats. We're talking, about the same thing.
can put a rowboat or a motorized boat on top of you car, it's a one person
Sietsema: The deal with that would be that it would be hard for the
County Sheriff's Department to determine, once the boat is off the car,
23
City Council Meeting - February 9, 1987
when there isn't an attendant on duty, if he's parked in the car/trailer
parking spot, he doesn' t know that there was a boat on top.
Mayor Hamilton: I think there is a rack that attachs to the car.
Lori Sietsema: From an endorsement standpoint, with a canoe there isn't. You
have the little spongy things and you throw them in your trunk or the canoe
and off you go, so from an enforcement standpoint it would only cause
confusion. It would not make us consistent.
..
Councilman Horn: Are we saying then that you can't park your car in one of
those car/trailer spots unless you have a trailer behind it?
Lori Sietsema: Right.
Councilman Horn: In other words, if you want to park there you would go home
and pick up your trailer whether you have a boat or not.
Councilman Boyt: I'm pretty convinced that the DNR will not allow us to
restrict the number of boats going through that access. We can restrict the
number of people who can park there and we got them to agree that once it's
filled, we can close it but we can not restrict the number of boats that are
launched. If they want to launch and drive off someplace they can do that.
Mayor Hamilton: Sure, especially in the spring when everybody is putting their
boats in.
Councilman Horn moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the Operational
Procedures for South Lotus Lake Boat Access with the exception of the sign
until codification is complete. All voted in favor and motion carried.
f. APPROVAL OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM BUDGET.
Councilman Horn: My only reason for bringing this up wa%~I couldn't support
the budget the way it's listed with the comments that I had before and I
didn't want to vote no on the whole consent agenda so I wa~ted to treat this
separately. Again, I don't believe we should be spending money on areas that
people can't park next to so I disapprove of any expenditures for parkland
next to no parking signs.
Mayor Hamilton: Specifically?
Councilman Horn: Greenwood Shores. I believe I had a comment on one other
one o
Lori Sietsema: Carver Beach. The replacement of the tire swing.
Councilman Horn: I believe that was taken care of in the last meeting.
Lori Sietsema: It's going back to the Park and Recreation Commission for a
formal motion from the~ to be brought back here to allow parking there.
24
253.
City Council Meeting - February 9, 1987
Horn: Okay, let's make this motion read then that we will include
this capital improvement program to include every improvement to a park that
is adjacent to open public parking and if that changes then they can throw
this back in there.
Geving: Have they met ar~ talked about that?
5ori Sietsena: T~norrow night·
Mayor Hamilton: I had one on Carver Beach. You've got a bollard and chain to
obstruct the old access and I don't think that's going to be adequate. I wish
you would look at putting a berm three foot high wi.th some trees on it.
I think that is the only way we're going to keep people i~em using it. If you
a chain and boll,rd there, it's going to be gone· It's going to be knocked
and taken away and they're going to use it. The only way is to put dirt
sand where they are not going to go out and shovel it away and they won't
able to drive over it. Make a nice benn out of it.
Geving: All you have to do is look at KennI~s parking lot to see
happened ther~ These guys will come in with 4-wheelers and the~ll
that chain and bollard and they'll steal it.
Hamilton: Some guy with a winch will just hook up to it and pull it
off.
Sietsema: Okay, so should I leave the same amount and put something to
· ·
Hamilton: I think $25~.~8 would he more than adequate to put a berm of
in there.
Horn: Just cross off 'gx)llard and chain to" and just leave
old access".
987-18: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to amend
1987 budget to include the Park ar~ Recreation Commission Capital
Program Budget in the total amount of $88,588.88 with the
'.ion that the monies allocated for the Gre~w~ Shores and Carver Beach
be contingent upon public parking being provided adjacent to the parks.
voted in favor and motion carried.
PRESENTATIONS:
TH 212, ElS FUNDING, C(X~ILMAN HORN:
:ilman Horn: Barb and I attended a meeting last Wednesday to decide on
we would fund the ElS study. It turns out that the primary cities
will be Chanhassen, Eden Prairie and Chaska. Also there will be help
two counties, Hennepin and Carver. I wasn't terribly pleased with the
that were worked out. It looks like it will be split equally between
three cities and if you take it at face value one would think that Eden
would be in a much better position to Contribute a greater share to
25
City Council Meeting - February 9, 1987
that but on the other har~, if you look at it from an access situation, they
really don't have the problem, we have the problem so looking at it from that
perspective, I somehow justified it in my mind to use the equal shares. I
believe that number that it came down to was $30,000.00 for our portion to
fund the total $300,000.00. There will also be a contributing monies put in
by MnDot. Do they pick up one-third or half?
Barbara Dacy: MnDot and Met Council are looking at either a 40% or 50%
scenario of the $300,000.00. ~ney are working on that right now.
Councilman Horn: Eden Prairie is still having a tough ti~e going along with
cities putting their money to do things like this as we have all gone through
in the past. I think we've broken the water with the Lake Ann Interceptor and
also the TH 7 Study so that's the project. It looks like we'll need
$30,000.00 to get the EIS Study going. The other thing, this will be a
permanent EIS. We don't have to worry about a time lapse so it will be money
that will be spent and the only thing that would make it impractical would be
if the highway never goes in. For that to happen there would have to be more
roads in this area.
Mayor Hamilton: I'm a little skeptical. After 30 years of nothing happening,
I just can't believe it's all of a sudden going to start happening just
because we do the EIS Study. It's like chucking money down a rat hole. I
would rather take the $30,000.00 and somehow lobby to get TH 5 upgraded and
get that project accomplished rather than screw around with TH 212. I know
the area needs it but I just have a hard time spending money on something that
I deep down feel is never going to happen.
Councilman Geving: I think we have to hang in there though with the TH 212
Committee process. We have to stay with Chaska and Eden Prairie and continue
to meet with them. I think what Clark's doing and Barb and the rest of the
people who have been on this, we just have to hang in there. I was on it 10
years ago and I can tell you, we're not any closer now then we were then. We
did some things that we did agree on the north alignment and we did even draw
some lines on the map to more or less put the alignment within 1,000 feet of
where we thought it would be but even at that time we talked about the EIS and
this is the first time that I saw a figure that would be apportioned back to
the cities. I was always under the impression that this 3Nas a MnDot proposal
and they would pick up the entire cost of this kind of thing so I was a little
surprised that we're going to participate in the cost of this. Tne very first
time that I saw anything on the cities participating in the funding of the
EIS. It seems like the cities are the only ones that are really pushing this
thing. If it wasn't for the fact that we're involved and keeping the fires
lit, it probably would have gone away some time ago.
Mayor Hamilton: Sure, because Met Council doesn't want the southwest area to
grow.
Councilman Geving: Tnis is kind of a related item but my concern is what to do
about the development that is springing up all along this proposed corridor.
My feeling is that we've got to continue to let these people come in and
develop their land because we don't know if TH 212 will ever exist and I think
26
255
City Council Meeting - February 9, 1987
that's the only position ~ can take. That's a concern more than anything.
Dacy: We just had a meeting with the Met Council representative last
week regarding the revolving right-of-way acquisition fur~ that has ~
y referred to as the Shriver Bill. The City can apply for loan monies
to purchase lar~ that is within the TH 212 right-of-way and that will be
reimbursed through MnDot's acquisition of the lamS. That's where the
revolving fund comes from and the whole key in that whole process is that the
have to establish an official map. (~haska has reached the point where
they have Council approval of the TH 212 alignment. Chanhasse~ is beginning
process. Some of you may have had calls from a number of people that we
a meeting last month and s~ne more meetings about the proposed corridor.
Prairie is starting that process also. If we get the official map
ished, there is a means to acquire property and encourage to go around
it such as the Peterson case.
Hamilton: We can't even acquire the right-of-way for TH 5, it's going
to be worse trying to acquiring property for TH 212.
Dacy: That's a good point. Like Clark pointed out, the cities are
increasingly having to become more and more involved in these types of
ects because MnDot is constrained by State dollars and so on. Motor
excise taxes are being transferred into other general fur~s in the
budgets so the transportation issue is an issue for the State.
Horn: Do you recall what Shakopee contributed to the EIS in their
area?
Dacy: No, I have a copy of their plan but I don't recall what the
it was.
Johnson: It was a considerable amount of money because I remember
too. It was more than the $30,0~0.00.
lman Horn: It seems that all of the road construction that has been
in the last few years, someone has gone in and put up the EIS funds
than MnDot. That seems to be the trend of the future. Unfortunately
taxing ratios don't change.
lman Boyt: Are you talking about, when you hold these public hearings
information sessions, you're talking about what routes?
Dacy: The northern Lake Riley alternative has b~n considered... We
receive detailed accounts from MnDot two weeks ago so we had a meeting
all the effected landowners along that corridor to alert them.
lman Boyt: What happened to. the proposed rou~e along the railway?
Dacy: Along south of Lake Riley? From what I understand, there were
number of environmental issues regarding that route. A number of the
in that meeting brought up that same issue and since that time I'm
into the background. That seems to be the primary reasoru I believe
27
City Council Meeting - February 9, 1987
that also a number of acquisition problems along that corridor which posed
problems so that's been a common question. At the next meeting I'll have more
details. Maybe sc~e of you recall better.
Councilman Horn: I recall one instance saying that they would put it right
through some of the large plot areas of the City of Chanhassen. It's a hobby
farm area and there is quite a bit of property that this would go through and
it was considered a high amenity area. I know some of the people in the north
part of Riley use that argument against that side also. That same argument is
true for the south side.
Councilman Boyt: Have you dealt with the idea that there is already a
railroad through there? How a four lane would impact on that? I would think
that the railroad, you've already got a major divider. I~might be less
..
disruptive.
Councilman Horn: Dale, were you on the Council when that decision was made?
Councilman Geving: Yes, I was and it was so along ago I don't recall the
various reasons but it seemed like the acquisition problem was more severe at
that time on the south side of Lake Riley and we had more problems trying to
get it sited there. However, as I look back on what has happened on the. north
side, we've had some substantial development on the north side of Lake Riley
too with the Tom Klingelhutz development on 84th Street. The development that
Mr. Currey is putting in there and whatever A1 Klingelhutz does with his back
40 but I think that's Currey's property also. I think that will be expensive
property to acquire at this time so the whole thing has changed a lot since
the original siting process took place. I can't tell you whether or not I
would vote for either. Go south and put my chips, like Tom says, on TH 5 and
go for it.
Mayor Hamilton: I think there are some economic considerations too if I
remember correctly because we thought the closer we could get TH 212 to
downtown Chanhassen, have that intersection come into Chanhassen,
economincally it would be of value to the community. That was one of the
considerations I'm sure that I recall..~more the northern route. We said, if
we go south of Riley, it's so far away, the chances of people getting off and
coming into Chanhassen were very slim.
Councilman Geving: I think that was the major consideration down there.
Councilman Johnson: Unfortunately, TH 101 is not much of'a road. We're going
to have to do some work on TH 101 to make that a decent route into towru TH
101 is another issue to be brought up eventually too.
Mayor Hamilton: As that area develops down there, the Cray property, that
will all be changed but those were some of the issues. Tne whole thing has to
be looked at differently. Review it all again and decide if we want it.
Councilman Geving: I think you're right. I think we would have to really
look at that all over again and maybe redefine our decision.
28
257
City Oouncil Meeting - February 9, 1987
Barbara Dacy: Then this is the time that we have to do it. This year, by
establishing an official map, the EIS takes 3 years and then there is a 2 year
period for right-of-way acquisition and design so if things are. approved this
year the earliest we're talking about would be 1994.
Councilman Horn: I can tell you this too, if MnDot heard this discussion it
would key. their argument that the Cities can't agree on where to put the
corridor and that's why we haven't done anything. The Coalition is doing a
lot to put that rumor down because we feel that that is all it is. I think
the record will bear out that it hasn't ~_n a hold-up on the cities part
except waiting for ~%Dot to do scmet/~ing.
Councilman Geving: On the east end, our decision was pretty much conditioned
upon where ~den Prairie was going to put their road and since we were in the
of this project, Chaska also was going to be dividing up their area and
deciding where they would like to have it come out. I think that forced us
pretty much to the. north side of Lake Riley with this consideratioD, It was
primarily ~den Prairie's extension of their road system, :south of Mitchell
Lake that forced us to consider the north side but that's not locked in
concrete. '
Councilman Boyt: I would to see a schedule of that'discussion.
Mayor Hamilton: Can you put that on a meeting?
Councilman Horn: We will have that shortly.
Mayor Hamilton: .Why don't you work up what the Coalition reviewed so we can
arrange a mucting so w~ can review it prior to Mr. Burdick.
Councilman Johnson: ...we really need it as the City of Chanhasse~ and whether
we should be actively pursuing TH 212 or actively pursuing TH 5.
Mayor Hamilton: There are a lot of subjects. -I~ sure there are a lot of
people living in the community right now who don't realize that this thing has
~n developing for 30 years so the~ve missed out on a lot of progress on
this whole thing in what's been planned. It's 3~ years worth of planning
really and just because someone makes a comment doesn't put it down the drain
but we also want to hear from them as to what their feelings are.
Councilman Johnson: I think we can decide the where now ar~ when we can work
on.
b. ESTABLISHING~RD SYST~, COUNCI~HORN.
Councilman Horn: The rationale for your recommer~atio~ to the Park and Rec
Commission is the same line of reasoning that I have in suggesting that we
adopt the ward system for the city. I think the current make-up of the
Council reflects the fact that we don't have any representation outside of the
downtown area. We all live within a 3 block area and I think it's time that
a committee be put together to study the form of government that we should
29
City Council Meeting - February 9, 1987
have in Chanhassen in the future. I think since we may be coming up to a
referendum this Fall on the Community Center we can also come up with a
referendum item for people to decide which form of government they like. As
such, I would recommend that we form a government committee to study that item
for us and make a recommendation. If we should need a referendum on this
item.
Mayor Hamilton: How would you suggest figuring that co~nit~?
Councilman Horn: I think there should be representation obviously from each
of the Wards in the City.
Mayor Hamilton: You just want an at-large committee? People who are
interested?
Councilman Horn: I don't think it's necessary to leave out anyone, possibly
yourselves if you're effected by it.
'r
Councilman Boyt: I see this in a developing City as being a quagmire problem.
One, if you're going to have a ward system, you're going to have to do
something to take into account population density. We are changing that
monthly. If you set this thing off the census, it's going to be out-of-date
within two years, by the time you have the census data it will no longer
reflect your population density. I think there is a time when the ward system
makes a lot of sense. I think what we have makes a lot of sense right now
given where we're at and I would argue that because right now, anybody that
wants to run for City Council or Mayor is free to do that. All they have to
do is go out and generate the votes to get elected. I think what we have right
now is that all of us need to be concerned about every voter in this community
and when you go to a ward system ar~ let's suppose Dale represents the part of
the community that was in here tonight. Effectively, the other three of us
can't be reached by those voters and I think they lose a lot of leverage there
so I think combined with the idea that we're changing so quickly, that a ward
system just wouldn't reflect the population very well and the idea that I
think it's a good policy to have each of us accountable to all the voters in
this co~nunity. I would be opposed to the study.
Councilman Horn: You wouldn't even want to see a study on it?
Councilman Boyt: I don't see the point. It's not that the idea isn't good.
I think we're going to end up there. I think that a study is going to raise a
lot of issues and a lot of confusion and we end up with a ward system just too
soon so why stir up discussion on an issue when the alternative is we're not
ready for it. I don't think we are.
Councilman Horn: I think that's one opinion. I think that's what the voters
will tell us. I think it should be the voters decision on that, not ours.
Councilman Boyt: I think you're going to have a hard time explaining that to
everybody and I think part of why we're here is to make some sense out of
what's going on. Explain to me how the ward system makes sense given our
change in population?
30
259
Council Meeting - February 9, 1987
:ilman Horn: I don't believe that it would have that great of an effect.
of all, the major portio~ of the population is not shifting the wards
much unless you know something about the demographics that make it
I think our wards have ~_n put in place for sometime ar~ based on
numbers that I looked at on the wards, they w~re not all that dissimilar.
lman Geving: My personal opinion is that as an at-large representation,
represent the entire community of Chanhassen. I think we're doing that
y now ar~ my personal feelings, looking at the people who have
on the Council in the past, we have had representation from Greenwood
We have had a lot of representation frown the north er~ of our
Mr. John Neveaux was a candidate and councilman for 8 years on the
Before him we had other representation from the northern side of the
We've had representation from the south side of the community,
of TH 5 with Mr. Klingelhutz and others. Pat Swensoo. T~e current
probably gives you that impression Clark that we are only reflective
our downtown atmosphere and people that we r._~ to talk to but that's not
true. There were plenty of candidates in the last election. There
candidates from all areas of the city. They all b_~ an equal right to
[e and get elected. It just so happened that some peop!.e worked hard and we
up with the current make-up. I guess at this time I would be opposed to
ward system in the City of Chanhassen and to continue that just for a
I would not like to see this go to a referendum vote by the
I think it's premature. We're doing a good job. We're doing our
job of representing the people and I don't believe the ward system would
ire us any bit of representation or representatives from some of the other
We have two new council members. They will be on the council for the
four years. I don't know what the amt~itions of the other council members
but certainly I think that we do have a good make-up at tf~ present time
I'm not in favor of changing the present at-large sysbsm.
~ilman Johnson: I basically reflect both Bill and Dale's comments. I'm
totally opposed to forming a committee to study the actions. However, we
a lot on our docket with TH 212 and TH 5 ar~ all the development going
I think this is the wrong time for it. We've got a lot to do. We've got
lot of challenges ahead of us ar~ my personal feelings, I~ against it at
time. I think in 10 years when we get larger. There are no towns that I
through various documents, looking at various towns, they had both at-
and ward candidates so that brings us up to a 7 person council or 8
9 person council ar~ you start getting to be a large council when you
four ward, two at-large and the mayor, 7 person council. I don't think it
be practical. I~ not totally against the study except I think the time
be better spent elsewhere for our volunteers in the City on the various
.issions and things we've got. We've got lots to do in the very near
Right now I would say let's spend, out time elsewhere rather than
studying the ward system. I think in the future we do need to look at it but
I think I'm agreeing with Bill and Dale on this one.
Hamilton: Ihn not opposed to having a study to have the University take
look at it. It depends on what the results might say. If they say we might
it, we might need it. If they say we shouldn't, we shouldn't. A similar
thing as we have on the contract for having our own police. We didn't
31
City Council Meeting - February 9, 1987
know what the outcome was going to be so we formed a group and we looked at
it. They said we should take the contract and we take the contract. ~nere
were people who thought we should have our own department and once ~ facts
were seen, they agreed so I don't have any problem with forming a committee
that will take a look at it. We never have looked at it. Maybe we don't need
something like that.
Don Ashworth: The City did take a look at it in 1976, basically recommending
the forum that you have. It could be studied if that is the decision of the
Council. I've heard most of the pros and cons this evening so it sounds like
the points brought back from the committee will probably be those same pros
and cons and you'll probably be faced with the same decision as to choosing
which of those pros and cons you're going with.
Councilman Horn: What is the expense and exposure to make a referendum item?
Don Ashworth: Are you making the assumption that there is going to be a
referendum already? Very minimal. ~ne ballot already has to be printed. The
election judges already have to be paid for. $20.00 to $30.00 additional
publication costs. ~
Councilman Boyt: I think that we have plenty of hot issues in front of us, as
Jay has mentioned. This community center issue is going to take a lot of
time. I for one, if we go with this and it goes to a referendum, I'm going to
get out and campaign for my particular perspective of this so I don't want to
be going in two different directions at one time. I think it's the wrong time
for this and if there is a motion on this, I think it should be defeated.
Councilman Horn: I always have trouble with trying to presume what the people
might want. I had the same problem when the legislature decided not to make a
referendum issue out of the lottery. I don't like government telling me how I
should think. I want them to hear my views on things and to presuppose and
prejudge that would take very little effort and give the people the right to
voice their opinion on something when there are really no reasons not to, that
I can see that make economic sense, I think is a real problem.
Councilman Horn moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to form a committee to study a
ward system of government for the City of Chanhassen. Councilman Horn and
Mayor Hamilton voted in favor, Councilman Geving, Councilman Boyt and
Councilman Johnson voted against and the motion failed.
Mayor Hamilton stated he wanted to bring the Council up to date on the idea of
a a retreat weekend for the Council to get to know each other a little better
especially since there are two new members on the Council. Don Ashworth and
Todd Gerhardt would also be present. Tney have found a person to be a
facilitator and a place to hold the retreat. The weeken~.~f March 21st and
March 22nd were the dates decided running from Saturday morning until Sunday
noon. The site of the retreat was suggested at Riverwood 'in Monticello. Don
Ashworth stated that a Council/Staff retreat could be something done at some
future date but as a first time doing this kind of thing, it would be better
to have just the Council to meet for a worksession. ~aere will be no
32
City (buncil Meeting - February 9, 1987
decisions made. Todd Gerhardt stated that the facilitator for the meeting was
Dr. Barrett from Mankato State, Director of Urban Regional Studies for Mankato
State and they would meet with him and set up an agenda.
Mayor Hamilton asked what the status on the Community Center Task Force was.
Todd Gerhardt stated that the City has received 5 to 6 applications. Lori
Sietsema stated that the Park and Rec Commission has not yet met and ~ able
to appoint anybody. They meet tomorrow night and will decide then.
Councilman Boyt asked how many people were going to be on the committee.
Mayor Hamilton stated that they wanted a good cross representation from across
the community. Councilman Boyt stated that the Task Force could probably be
broken into a subcommittee arrangement to make better progress. Don
Ashworth stated it would be on the agenda February 23rd.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: REVIEW 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION GOALS, ASST.
CITY PLANNER.
Jo Ann Olsen stated that the Planning Commission wanted to know if the City
Council had any direction for the Planning Commission for items to pursue
during the coming year.
Councilman Johnson wanted to see TH 212 and TH 1~1 studied further.
Councilman Geving wanted to see planning for expansion of Industrial Parks.
Do we go west? What do we do with the North Lake Susan area? Is that an HRA
issue more than it is Planning Commission? Don Ashworth stated it was
Planning Commission. Councilman Geving wanted to know what the City was going
to do when the current Industrial Park is filled up.
Mayor Hamilton wanted to know what the Planning Commission m~nt by regular
articles and publications. Jo Ann Olsen stated that the Planning Commission
wanted the public to be re.ore aware of the issues before they reach City
Council. Mayor Hamilton suggested that t~ write articles to be included in
The Post.
Councilman Boyt wanted to ask Staff to prepare a News Release indicating that
the City of Chanhassen has absolutely nothirg in our water. It's something
the City has done a very good job of is providing quality drinking water and
not every conmunity around here can make that claim.
Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to adjourn the meeting. All
voted in favor and motion carried. The meetirg was adjourned at 9:50 p.m..
Sutmit~ by Don ~rth
Pre~mred by Nann Opheim
33