1987 04 20CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MmRTI~
APRIL 20, 1987
Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order. ~ne meeting was opened with the
Pledge to the Flag.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Councilman Boyt, Councilman Horn, Councilman Geving and
Councilman Johnson
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Gary Warren, Barbara Dacy, Jo Ann Olsen and Todd
Gerhardt
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: councilman Boyt moved, councilman Johnson seconded to
approve the agenda with the following charges and additions: Mayor Hamilton
stated that item 4 had been approved by the Board of Appeals and Adjustments
but Councilman Boyt wanted to discuss the item further so it was moved to
after item 12 on the agenda; Councilman Geving wanted a report from the City
Engineer on the potential for a sprinkling ban for the City. All voted in
favor of the agenda as amended and motion carried.
CONSENT AGk~DA: Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve
the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's
recommendations:
a. Site Plan Review, Redmond Building Expansion, 18930 West 78th Street.
b. Trappers Pass Plat Addition: Final Plat Approval
d. Approval of Change Order Bequeat, Business Park 5th Addition.
e.
City Council Minutes dated April 6, 1987 as amended by Councilman
Boyt on page 171 his comment at the bottom of the page should read,
"I just wanted to emphasize that...and I don't know that it would be
in line with..."; page 177 at the bottom of the page, second line a
typing error '%3oing"; and on page 193 at the bottom of ~ page on
the second line it should read, '~e mentions that he bought his
property...".
Planning Omm~ission Minutes dated April 8, 1987
Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated April 7, 1987
All voted in favor and motion carried.
Consent Agenda item l(c) was moved on the agenda to be included with itsm 6.
VISITORS PRESENTATION:
Arthur Owens: I own the property that you passed a resolution a couple weeks
ago to have a quick take order condemning for th~ water tower. What I would
like to do is to have the order rescinded and that we have a public hearing on
that. There are people who would like to talk about that. Especially as
property owners we would like to be able to talk against it. Since there has
~n no public hearing on it and since it does take a charge in the zoning, I
think that's only right that there should be a public hearing on it.
198
City Council Meeting - April 20, 1987
Mayor Hamilton: All I can comment on is that that item is in the courts and I
think you know Art you have every opportunity to make any comments you want at
that level and that item would be decided by people who are going to look at
all sides of that issue. It's actually pass the Council's har~s at this
point. It is in the Court's system as you know.
Arthur Owens: I think that it seems to me that the Council is more responsive
to the people in the area than the Courts would necessarily be and since there
was no public hearing on it, I think that the Council acted in error to move
to condemn to quick take on this. It really surprises me that we were not
even notified of the fact that the Council was going to vote on it that night.
I understand it was published in the paper but how many of us as citizens look
at the paper at every Council agenda.
Mayor Hamilton: Weren't you notified?
Arthur Owens: No sir, we were not notified.
Don Ashworth: I know of no personal notice that went out but it should be
recalled by the Council that the whole water system study has occurred over
the past year and a half and has appeared on numerous agendas since that
time and of course, Mr. Owens was notified and did provide a Right of Entry
and was given various documents through that whole process. I would have
guessed that if there would have been a problem through that timeframe that he
might have approached us. City Council could consider this request. It
could go on for May 4th or it could go on for April 27th.
Mayor Hamilton: I think what we need to do is consider Mr. Owens' request and
ask our legal counsel what our options are and ask for their advice at this
point so we will take your request under advisement. We'll talk to our legal
counsel and see what they suggest we do.
Arthur Owens: Just a reminder that we were in Court on this and your legal
counsel decided that because we had representation that they would rather have
another time on it. It's unfortunate, we were ready to go ahead but they
refused to go ahead on it so an agreement with the Court that we would bring
it back to the Council to have it responded to here before the Court would
take it. With the quick take, the council has to make a decision and they
have to bring it back before I think June 4th.
Councilman Geving: Are you saying Art that there is a possibility that we can
negotiate this before June 4th and resolve it?
Arthur owens: I think it easily could be resolved before June 4th ar~ pick
another site. ~nere's no question about that.
Mayor Hamilton: I think what we need to do, as stated, is talk to our legal
counsel and we'll see what they suggest and depending on what they advise, put
it on the agenda to have a public hearing. A public hearing would not be
here, it would be at the Planning Com%~ission.
1 '99
City Council Meeting - April 20, 1987
Arthur Owens: But the Council has a right to rescind the resolution on that
quick take.
Mayor Hamilton: That's not something we'll do this evening but we'll consider
your request and discuss that with our Attorneys and see what they say.
PUBLIC HEARING:
BLUFF C~"K DRIVE STREET AND DRAINAGE IMamS.
Public Present:
Albert Dorweiler
Kent Carlson
Glen Takkunen
Roman ~
Nick Waritz
1565 Bluff Creek Drive
Bloomington
1291 Bluff Creek Drive
1271 Bluff Creek Drive
Bill Engelhardt: My name is Bill Engelhardt with Engelhardt and Associates.
We're working on the feasibility study for the improvements to Bluff Creek
Drive area. This is a map of Bluff Creek Drive. The blue line indicates the
proposed assessment area. The green line indicates the area for improvement
as an urban section and the red line is the improvement as a rural street
section. The impetus for this study was Council's request and a petition
submitted by various property owners over tt~ past 7 or 8 years. There was a
study done back in 1980 reviewing the costs in the upgrading of Bluff Creek
Drive and at that time the costs were fairly prohibitive. The assessments to
the adjoining properties seemed a little bit high and the road was left as is.
Right now, the existing condition is gravel roadway 22 feet wide ar~ it has
steep slopes from about the railroad track to the Hesse Farms Road with poor
drainage on both sides of the road. It is experiencing erosioru Most of the
erosion problems were in the lower section of the road. We were looking at
putting in the urban sectioru The feasibility study that was originally done
looked at installing curb and gutter in the green area along the storm sewer.
We reviewed that design arz] looked at the possibility of putting in what we
call ditch check or storm sewer within the ditch area to reduce the cost of
the project. After looking at detailed cost analysis of that kind of
construction, we found that with that type of construction you would be
creating slopes or extending our slopes out into adjoining properties and it
would be almost physically impossible to construct a road, especially where we
have adjoining properties so we went back to tt~ original proposal done back
in 1980 and came up with the updated costs for improving the roadway again as
an urban section in this area and a rural section in this area. The urban
section would be designed with a 28 foot street from back of curb to back of
curb. The rural secti(x~ would be designed with a 24 foot bituminous matte, 6
foot sholders on each side of the bituminous ar~ a ditch section. In review
of the design criteria for this project, we looked at keeping it as a low
density collector but with a 9 ton design. The 9 ton design is basically
required because of the type of roadway it is.. It's classified as a Municipal
State Aid. As such, it qualifies for State funding for help in financing the
construction. So we looked at the design of it as being a 9 ton roadway with
less than 150 heavy vehicles per day and a granular equivalency of between 19
and 17.5. As part of the State Aid requirement we are required to build it to
200
City Council Meeting - April 20, 1987
a 9 ton design. In all discussions we've had, we're looking at the low
density collector and again it would be 28 feet wide and two lanes. The low
density collector for the design has low to moderate speeds in the range of 35
to 40 mph and the projected average daily traffic or number of cars per day is
about 200 to 3,000 ADT. In 1985 there was a traffic study done for the volume
of traffic and they found that on the upper end of the roadway we're looking
at 660 ADT and at the lower end where it connects into ~{ 212, 750 ADT.
Projections over a 10 year period or for a factor of 2 which would put this at
1320 and this at 1500, average dailiy traffic which falls within the range of
the low density collector. To give you an idea of what type of street section
we're looking at, this would be the rural street section which is 24 feet of
pavement, 6 foot shoulders and a ditch to carry the drainage. In the area
where we have tight construction constraints due to existing houses and steep
slopes, installing curb and gutter 28 feet wide. Bituminous thickness would
be 3 1/2 inches with 10 inches of classified gravel as a support base and a
B618 curb and gutter. Financing for this project can be handled in two ways.
One through assessments to benefitting properties and the other would be
through the use of assessments and a combination of the State Aid Funds
because again, it is a Municipal State Aid Road. We looked at a couple of
alternates for assessment procedures. One, because it would be a public
improvement project, we have to assess 20% of the full cost. Then we looked
at kind of a mid-point range of 32% being assessed and if we would assess all
of the costs that would be associated with just a bituminous overlay over the
road to upgrade it to city standards, it would be 43% of the cost. We are
recommending utilizing the 20% assessment method whereby out of the total
project cost of $535,000.00, $107,000.00 roughly would be assessed and State
Aid Funds would pay the $428,000.00. The City on an annual basis receives
approximately $215,000.00 per year. With that $215,000.00 we would utilize
1987's allotment from the State Aid to cover the $428,000.00 worth of State
Aid costs and then in 1988 utilize $213,000.00 and in 1988 the City would then
have a balance of probably $1,700.00 remaining in State Aid Funds which would
be designated towards other projects. All indications are that the State Aid
Funds for Chanhassen will be in the range of $215,000.00. That will fluctuate
somewhat due to the r~c~s of the City but it should be pretty close to that.
As far as a bonding period of tt~ project, this type of project utilizes a
bonding period of 5 to 15 years. We recommend utilizing a 10 year bond issue
and that's something that the City's financial consultant could address but
typically that's pretty much where we're at with the costs. In review, the
total project cost for upgrading Bluff Creek Drive to an urban and rural
section, controlling the drainage is $535,282.00. We are recommending that
20% of that cost be assessed to the benefitted property owners. That means
that $107,000.00 roughly would be assessed to the benefitted property owners
and MSA funds or Municipal State Aid funds would utilize $428,000.00. As far
as assessments go, we broke it down on a unit basis. We considered each unit
within the Bluff Creek area or within the blue area be considered one unit.
The areas that are not platted we considered being one unit per each 10 acres
to conform with the City's current Zoning Ordinance. We have a total of 66
assessment units and based on that breakdown, assessing 20% of the cost, the
asessment per unit will be $1,622.00. That's pretty much the crux of the
feasibility study. Again, this is an update of the 1980 feasibility study
where we did reexamine the costs and because of the nature of the State Aid
Funds now available to the City, more of the project could be paid for with
-201
City Council N-~ting - April 20, 1987
State Aid fur~s and less of the assessments spread to benefitting properties.
I would be happy to answer any questions you might have.
Albert Dorweiler: I live along Bluff Creek and I was wondering about this
$535,000.00, if there could be a max on that? What if it goes way over? If
there is a max then we should have a right to know about if it's going over.
You know what I'm saying?
Mayor Hamilton: What happens is, when plans and specifications are completed
then bids are let and if the bids come in way over what has ~ projected by
our engineers, we do not have to do the project. We can let it go for another
peri(x] of time if that's what the Council desires.
Albert Dorweiler: How is the feasibility study done? What the feasibility
study by taking some of the road down?
Mayor Hamilton: Tae feasibility study is done and I guess Bill can answer it
better but you take the total construction of the road from start to finish
and all phases of it and that's how you determine your cost based on todaI~s
costs, right?
Bill Engelhardt: Right. We looked at the volume of dirt that would have to
be moved to reshape the road and realign it in areas to meet State Aid
criteria. When I say realign it, it's not a major realignment. It's
straightening out some of the curves a little bit. Checking the grades. Some
of the grades are at about a 9-10% and we would reduce those to 8%. Soil
corrections in the lower end were taken into account ar~ then the cost for the
gravel base material is computed. The bituminous material and the curb and
gutter and storm sewer and all those costs came together ar~ on top of that
you add the engineering fees, the administrative fees and legal fees and
bonding fees and that's how you arrive at the $535,000.00.
Albert Dorweiler: I don't quite understand what you're saying. 10 acres or
each is platted out in 10 acres. It seems like that would be very unfair to
me. 10 acres, if you are going to go by that, I've got the less acreage of
anybody, I think that would be very unfair to me.
Bill E~gelhardt: The maximum, if you look at this piece of property right
here for example ar~ say that within this ares there are 25 acres of land, I
don't know exactly how many there are but the maximum number of assessments
units that this parcel of land could sustain would be one unit ar~ that's
based on the 10 acres that would be servicable to Bluff Creek Drive or would
benefit from Bluff Creek Drive. The current zoning ordinance for the city
says that for every 10 acres that you have, you're allowed one dwelling so
that's why it's broken down on a 10 acre criteria. Let's say that you had 5
acres, then that wouldn't qualify, not from the way I understand it, wouldn't
qualify for a building site and therefore wouldn't be assessed.
Albert Dorweiler: I'm saying that the less acreage that you've got, the more
I think you're being taken advantage of. That's my feelings. You have 66
deals right ar~ how many acres are you figuring on?
202
City Council Meeting - April 20~ 1987
Bill Engelhardt: Each one of the existing platted lots is counted as one
residential unit.
Albert Dorwei ler: Yes, for 10 acres.
Bill Engelhardt: Tney vary in size. They are existing platted lots so they
are one residential unit. (k~ unplatted property where you don't have a
breakdown, you don't know how it's going to be broken down, the maximum you
could have for 10 acres is one unit so it's been counted as the maximum of
one unit. Tnat's all you would see on that 10 acres is one unit.
Gary Warren: Bill is only using the 1 per 10 criteria for the area that has
not developed and he's counting all of the actual units, such as your property
that already exists as a given so this is only to get an idea of the unplatted
area. We're not really try to spread the assessment based on acreage per lot,
it's actually per user so you represent one user likewise a 1 per 10
subdivision would one user so it's just a handle to get on the unplatted land.
Albert Dorweiler: Say the road does go through, how would you assess that as
far as years or time period?
Gary Warren: Bill is recommending a 10 year period.
Bill Engelhardt: And the assessment would be $1,622.00 spread over a 10 year
period.
Mayor Hamilton: Plus interest. Is it 10% interest?
Bill Engelhardt: Whatever the bond is sold at.
Ken Carlson: I live in Bloomington. I am the owner of one of the Hesse Farm
lots. I just have two questions at this time. How did you make the
determination between urban versus rural?
Bill Engelhardt: This section of roadway that we're going to be constructing
the urban section in has very tight construction constraints. Existing
properties with large trees, houses, fences. Fences, we can always move those
but physical obstructions where it is very difficult to do the construction
without cutting the slope of the roadway. If this is your roadway, if you
went with a ditch section, you would have to cut way back into the property in
order to get the proper slopes to meet the design criteria to get State Aid.
In this area it's physically very difficult to do that. We would be up in the
existing residential property's yards and that type of thing and we felt that
in order to eliminate that type of construction, an urban section would be
required. The other thing is that we have very steep slopes for some distance
in here which is very difficult to maintain the grade on. This way, the
drainage would come onto the roadway and be collected in storm sewer catch
basins and be conveyed by pipe down to the discharge point. If we were going
to utilize ditch sections in through here, the cost difference between urban
and the ditch sections were very minor plus the physical damage that we would
be doing to adjoining properties, pretty much told us that the urban section
should go in.
203
2i.ty Council Meeting - April 20, 1987
Kent Carlson: So you don't anticipate having to take much of the property on
~ither side for the urban?
Bill Engelhardt: That's right.
Kent Carlson: Because you're considering it an urban street. How about the
rural?
Bill Engelhardt: ~he rural section up in this area is pretty much constructed
to the rural section right now. It would be a matter of shaping some of those
ditches. T~ere aren't major cuts or major amounts of dirt that would have to
be moved up in this area. We can accomodate the ditch section within the 66
foot right-of-way up in this area. Plus we don't have the steep grades and
the erosion problems that w~ have dow~ in this area.
Kent Carlson: So you don't anticipate having to take any property UP above
.=ither?
Bill Engelhardt: No.
Gle~ Takkunen: I just want to support this proposal and commend the Council
for finally coming forth with this. I think it's a very fair proposal and
something that w~ need to do now because if we don't, we'll be hack here.
Public: We walked in late, what is the 66 foot?
Bill Engelhardt: Tne 66 feet is the right-of-way widtl~ It's not the road
widtl~ The road that we're planning to construct within that 66 feet is 28
feet wide on the lower section from the Hesse Farm RDad down to TH 212 and
from the Hesse Farm Road north to CR 14, the blacktop surface would be 24 feet
wide. The 66 is the amount of right-of-way that the City owns for putting the
roadway within that area.
Public: Our house is 33 feet off the road.
Bill Engelhardt: We don't anticipate taking your house.
RDman Roos: Just a couple of general questions. I think most of the
homeowners along Bluff Creek Road, probaby their prime concern besides the
upgrading of Bluff Creek which has been long in making and we're all happy
about that is the accessibility of Bluff Creek Road and the spcc~ ar~ what
have you UP that road. I don't know if it's germain to issue at this point in
time but I would like to somewhat address that issue at-this point in time as
to how we can somewhat control the amount of traffic with s~ for the
traffic coming from Shakopee and the racetrack and what have you on that road.
The traffic count, as Bill knows, there are different times they have taken
that traffic count where the road count was donw considerably ar~ then during
the racetrack season as well as the festival that they had out there, the
traffic count goes up quite heavily as an access into Chanhasse~ bypassing the
normal routes. I'm wondering if there is somehow we could take a look at that
issue also because I think it's very germain to use that road.
204
City Council Meeting - April 20, 1987
Nick Waritz: I guess I would like to second Glen Takkunen's and Roman's
comments that it's a long time coming. One thing that I've heard which may be
an engineering type of consideration, I'm not an engineer and I don't know how
much you folks know about it but my understanding is that the railroad tracks
are under consideration for abandonment so maybe you want to take that
crossing down there and just straighten out that curve into consideration. I
realize they just put in new signaling which was expensive but if they are
going to abandoned it anyhow, maybe it can be straighten to be safer.
Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to close public hearing.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
Councilman Johnson: I have no questions.
Councilman Geving: I just want to ask Bill, when we did the original
feasibility study on this project back in 1980, it seems to me that the
project was costed out at about $260,000.00. Did that include the rural
section at that time? The section north of Hesse Farm to CR 147 Do you
recall what the specifications called for? The reason I'm asking this is that
there is a substantial difference in money between now and the original
project that we turned down because it was too expensive for the homeowners.
Bill Engelhardt: I think that the rural section in the upper end was included
in the study. If I recall, there were a number of different types of sections
that could go in and I think the $262,000.00 was the minimum section that
could go in to accommodate City design standards but then when you got into
utilizing State Aid funds and having to bring the road up to grade in order to
utilize your State Aid funds, I believe the project was around $400,000.00 and
some thousand at that point.
Councilman Horn: The one question I have is how secure is the MSA funding
these days? I know that current government is taking a look at quite a few
different ways to make up what they perceive to be a shortfall in the State
Budget. They are finding many creative ways of taking money out of the
transportation and putting it into other things. Is there any possibility
that this would go away?
Don Ashworth: I don't think that you'll see an elimination of those dollars.
There maybe a flattening of them or a holding of the line but there won't be
an elimination. It's too important of a role for all cities in the state of
Minnesota for the legislature to consider removal of that revenue source.
Councilman Horn: When you say flattening, do you mean reducing the amount?
Don Ashworth: You could see some minor cutbacks, 5% or 10% range. I doubt
you would even see that. It could be 0%. That might be more of a possibility.
Councilman Horn: The only other question I have is do we have any other areas
where we've used the unit assessment for an urban section highway?
Bill Engelhardt: Typically, say on a typical residential subdivision, you
generally see it spread on a unit basis but I think that this may be a hybrid
2O5
City Council Meeting -April 2~, 1987
and the other ones might have been on a per front foot. In this case you have
a very difficult time assessing on a front foot basis because your benefitted
properties extend back from the road. It's not right on the properties you
find like in the case of Lake Lucy Road where t~ had 5 to 6 acres that could
be subdivided in units that would have access directly onto the road so that's
kind of the difference this project and some of the others that we've seen.
Councilman Horn: Is that true in the whole urban section or just in the rural
section?
Bill Engelhardt: That's true through the whole road. You do have on the
upper reaches some of the unplatted property but up in this area you have
unplatted property and you have some down here but if you were to spread this
on a front foot basis, you would have a hard time sustaining the benefitting
to that piece of property but a unit basis it does have the benefit because
you are only hitting them for one unit the same you would for any other
property along the route. It's a way of making the assessment more equitable
for all property owners in the area.
Gary Warren: Even in our front footage assessments, especially on major State
Aid roads that go through and especially if it's in advance of a development,
those front footage assessments do get spread per lot per se so it does end up
being a unit asses~nent in the long run.
Don Ashworth: Creekwood, if you remember was another one where we had a
problem with other users on the roadway and that one did go through as a unit
basis as well as to insure a disbursion of the assessments to the greatest
extent possible.
Councilman Horn: My only concern ~s the question that Mr. Dorw~iler raised.
Councilman Boyt: I think it's an excellent project and I~ glad that we're
doing it. My concern is that we take all of our MSA fur~ing for the next 2
years and put it into this project. I recognize that this project benefits
the community and I'm willing to do that, I just see us taking a risk here
that something else is going to c~ne along that ~ some of that State
funding and we're not going to have it. That wouldn't keep me from voting for
it but it makes we wary and I would like to see us at some point maybe develop
a longer picture. I know that this has been on here for quite a while.
Mayor Hamilton: Prior to your being on the Council we did develop a longer
re and we prioritized the streets that ~ed to be paved in the
unity and actually Bluff Creek Road was number 3 on the list. Since that
time we have done or are in the process of doing Lake Lucy Boad. We've also
done Lake Drive East and now we're doing Bluff Creek so we had funds that had
built up over a period of time and at the time that we prioritized them, we
figured that we had the money to use on all three of them so this was the year
to do Bluff Creek. After this one is done, then we're going to have to build
up our fur~]s again ar~ look at some other ones so we did plan ahead ar~] we
were knowing full w~ll that ~ would be using up all our fur~s at this point.
Councilman Boyt: Good.
206
City Council Meeting - April 20, 1987
Mayor Hamilton: I have no comments. I'm just pleased that we're going to
move ahead with the project and I hope that all residents in Bluff Creek and
the Hesse Farm area are happy with it and will enjoy a nice street.
Resolution #87-30: Councilman Gevingmoved, Councilman Horn seconded to
proceed with the project and authorize the preparation of plans and
specifications for Bluff Creek Drive street and drainage improvements. All
voted in favor and motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
STREET VACATION OF HILL STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY ADJACENT TO LOT 2, BLOCK 1, SOUTH
LOTUS LAKE ADDITIONANDBLOCK 2, SUNSET VIEWADDITION, CITY OF CHANHASSEN.
Rick Powers, 31 Hill Street: I was just wondering about the 15 foot easement.
Is that 15 feet total or 15 feet on each side?
Barbara Dacy: The entire 33 foot right-of-way will come under your ownership.
Because it was platted as one subdivision, you will gain title to that entire
33 feet. However, the City has just retained a utility easement over that
water line so if there is a rupture or s~mething we can gain access for
maintenance. Tflat just gives us a right to access your property. You will
have title to the 33 feet.
Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to close public hearing.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
Resolution #87-31: Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to
vacate the 33 foot right-of-way on Hill Street adjacent to Lot 2, Block 1
South Lotus Lake Addition and Block 2, Sunset View Addition. All voted in
favor and motion carried.
AI~kRD OF BIDS: PUBLIC SAFETY VEHICLE.
Don Ashworth: We did take quotations on vehicles and we're not really
recommending that you pick any one of these. Any one of these vehicles could
be gone. What we're looking to is just the general idea. If you have
comments on one of the vehicles we would surely try to get that one but again,
from the time you write up a report such as this to the time that you get back
to a dealership, there is a good potential that that particular vehicle might
be gone.
Councilman Horn: My only concern is that your recommendation would rule out
any of the new ones.
Don Ashworth: Tnat's correct.
Councilman Horn: So are you saying you don't w~nt a new one?
Don Ashworth: I think that we've done very well with vehicles that basically
have 10,000 to 20,000 miles on them. Tnis is a vehicle that will sec low
10
2O7
City Council Meeting -April 20, 1987
mileage over the course of it's life and I would hope that we would have some
flexibility with the Council in terms of if we absolutely can not find
something, that we might go to $11,000.00 or something like that but I'm
confident that w~ can come in at arour~ the $10,000.00 figure.
Mayor Hamilton: Just to make one comment, I see that we have V-6's and V/8's
and there are some V-4's in the back on used ones. I know Celebrity makes a
V-4 that se~ms to get up and go pretty good.
Don Ashworth: we did not spec out engine size at all. We were looking to
color, to try and match the one public safety vehicle we had and then the
general category because as this will be potentially a patrol vehicle, going
into a mid-size vehicle seemed reasonable.
Mayor Hamilton: The only reason I mentioned a V-4 is because the difference
in price between a V-4 and a V-6 is about $800.00 and that would cut it down
quite a bit too. Jim vonLorenz is here from the Public Safety Commissio~ Do
you have any comment you wanted to make at all about the car? The size of the
car?
Jim vonLorenz: The mid-size one was the option that we had.
Mayor Hamilton: Like a V-6 you mean? T~at type of vehicle?
Jim vonLorenz: Yes.
Councilman Horn: We didn't mention on the National ones which one. I assume
you can get either one?
Don Ashworth: I'm not sure Clark. Again, engine size was not a criteria in
obtaining the quotes that we have. Jim did take down the information that he
received that showed the engine size but we did not limit a person in giving a
bid based on engine size.
Mayor Hamilton: I guess a rental car from anybody, they tend to get beat
pretty bad.
Councilman Geving: I think it's important for this particular vehicle that it
be a mid-size and if we buy an 1986, that it be a V-6.
Councilman Boyt: My one concern is that we seem to be binding ourselves into
color. Color is probaby the easiest thing to change on a car. I'm
comfortable with it. I would like to see you go out and get the best car you
can get. If you think you can do it for $10,000.00, great. Let's get it
done.
Mayor Hamilton: Do you want to have a range in there so we can go to
$11,000.0~?
Councilman Boyt: Actually I would prefer to see some kind of a range given.
11
208
City Council Meeting - April 20, 1987
Resolution #87-32: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to
authorize the City Manager and the Public Safety Director to purchase a Public
Safety vehicle in the V-6 range, a mid-size car and that they maintain a
$10,000.00 to $12,000.00 budget. All voted in favor and motion carried.
WETLAND SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST, ROBERT PIERCE, LOT 1, BLOCK 1, PIPER RIDGE.
Mayor Hamilton: This was also discussed by the Board of A~justments and
Appeals. Because of so many comments that were made and because of the nature
of the topography of the area, we felt that it would be best if the entire
Council had an opportunity to comment on this particular item. The applicant
Robert Pierce is here. He's in the front row. We'll get his comments in a
few minutes.
Jo Ann Olsen: ~ property is located in the Piper Ridge subdivision, Lot 1,
Block 1. The City Council approved this subdivision and at the time of the
subdivision, Lot 1 was included. Lots 1, 2 and 3 all have a wetland within
them and the Zoning Ordinance requires a 75 foot setback from this wetland.
As part of the preliminary plat approval, the City approved wetland variances
to the Wetland Ordinance for Lots 2 and 3. They did not include a variance
for Lot 1. They wanted to review that case specifically when it came with a
building plan. The proposal is for a single family residence to be located
right on the edge of the drainage and utility easement which is also the edge
of the wetland. Therefore they require a variance to the 75 foot structure
setback. They are meeting the front setback of 30 feet from the street
frontage. Staff recommended providing a variance to the 30 foot setback to
allow the home to be located farther from the wetland itself so it be
protected if the house is constructed. One alternative situates it over the
corner. One alternative just moves it straight forward and the third
alternative is another location for it. All of these alternatives locate the
house 20 feet away from Piper Ridge Lane rather than the required 30 feet.
Staff has gotten a r~ly from the City Attorney which stated that with the
approval of the subdivision the lot was officially approved as a building lot
and without a variance the lot would not be a buildable lot therefore it could
be considered a taking. Should the variance be approved, Staff is
recommending the following conditions:
.
Tne home shall be granted a 10 foot variance to the frontyard
setback. It shall be located 20 feet from the frontyard lot line.
.
The entire drainage and utility easement area on LOt 1 shall be
protected with appropriate erosion control.
.
No construction activity or any alteration to the existing conditions
shall be permitted within the drainage and utility easement.
As far as the Board of Adjustments, they just discussed it and passed it on to
the Council to make comment.
Mayor Hamilton: I know we have several residents here who would like to
comment on this issue and I think perhaps we should have this input for the
12
209
City Council Meeting - April 20, 1987
rest of the Council's benefit first before making our comments. Anyone here
frc~ the public wishir~3 to speak o~ this item, I would appreciate it if you
would come up to the microphone and state your name and address and give us
Ralph Hegman: I live at 6361 Minnewmshta Woods Drive which is north of the
proposed site. When this first was proposed and before it was accepted, there
was a lot of discussion about wheat that lot w-as buildable. It seemed to me
that there was a reservation that nothing would be built there until you were
satisfied that there wouldn't be a problem with it. What we have is a problem
with the drainage which fills up and overflows the road. When that happens,
I'm sure that that dwelling is going to have water in the basement. That's my
big objection.
Doug Roper: I live at 2751 Sandpiper Lane which is just north and east of
that lot. I am right north of tt~ wetland. All I can tell you as a residents
is if you go out there and walk up that cul-de-sac and look at it,
aesthetically it's unimaginmhle what a house is goir~3 to look like there.. It
won't beautify the area at all and secondly, it's going to be very difficult
for me to imagine how that's not going to envirommentally effect that wetland
area. I don't care what it looks like on paper, all you have to do is walk
out there and look at it and you'll see.
Paul Ringwald: I live at 6351 Minnewashta Woods Drive and I just feel that
the site is not a good location for a house and that's all my coement is.
Kay Hegman: I would like to comment on the fact that the Environmental
Commission a few years ago they passed the Ordinance that would protect the
wetlands and they worked very hard on that. I have forgotten the members
names but I did have a list of ths~ before and Carol Watson also mentioned
that we were encroaching on the wetlands. By giving variances here and
variances there, this was a low that Chanhassem was proud of and we're the
only area that has this to safeguard them and I would hate to see one more
wetlands destroyed.
Mayor Hamilton: Any more comments? Now I would like Bob Pierce to give us
his comments and why a h~me should be built there and perhaps disspell some of
the other ccememts.
Bob Pierce: Tnis is basically what the house plans would look like. We
talked about the possibility of cutting the size back and that would change
the heights of the roof somewhat if we make them a little less steep but the
house is certainly an assest of equal or greater than the houses in tt~ area.
From the standpoint of property valuations, I think it can do nothing but add.
Also, inbetw~ here I ran back out there just to verify the elevations again
and if we look at the map that the City has on the overhead, if we look at the
elevations in tt~ middle of the wetlar~ts, c~me to the edge of the wetlarm]s ar~
you look at the topo map and the elevations of the steps up, and I was just
out there, if you look, it's at least 6 to 7 feet in the point to the curve on
the road above the elevation there. Also, the low point on Piper Ridge where
they existing storm sewer,...especially from the City's way of doing it, your
floor elevation, without disturbing the wetlands one bit, can be above the
13
210
City Council Meeting - April 20, 1987
hard surface road there and my way of thinking, it would be next to impossible
for it ever to flood. I could see it backing up to that but once it could
spill over the road, at that point, if we have that kind of a rain, it's
almost impossible for me to believe that it can fill up. It has to escape and
go into the marsh on the other side. Also, the variances have been granted on
the other two lots. I wouldn't doubt that the Hegman's residence if it were
being built now, would probably have to be granted the same variance from the
wetlands. That would have to be up to the City but they are quite close to it
too and I think their house is done very nicely and I ~on't think it has a
negative impact on the wetlands. I built most of the homes on the end. There
was one house the developer walked away from and I went in and finished it.
think I've been responsible in doing my work. I'm willing to work with the
City in any way I can to make a better development there. I believe it's
going to be very attractive. I think it's going to be an asset. I've also
talked to people I've built for and most of the people already owned the lots
in there except for a couple I had not been able to contact and they are very
much in favor that the house can go in. The corner can be cleaned up, sodded,
landscaped, etc..
Mayor Hamilton: Tne drawing that it shows of the home here, is there going to
be an elevation up to the garage? Going up from the street, is it a straight
shot in?
Bob Pierce: Maybe you can explain what you mean. I'm not following your
drift.
Mayor Hamilton: When you're on the street, is there a grade elevation change
from street level to the garage floor level?
Bob Pierce: Yes.
Mayor Hamilton: How much?
Bob Pierce: 3 feet up? It depends where you set it on the corner there. If
you pull it to the one side it's going to have a slope up. If you pull it
closer to the corner, it's probably going to be pretty close to 1 foot to 16
to 18 inches. That also would vary on how high you put your basement and how
many blocks you go.
Mayor Hamilton: I guess I have to make the same comment I did earlier Bob and
that is, it would seem to me that for this type of lot, something other than a
rambler, if you're going to build a house there, would be the more appropriate
style to put on that lot. Where you're going up rather than long and you have
a problem fitting it on the lot and it would seem that a higher home would fit
on better.
BOb Pierce: I think your frontyard setback in a two-story or a rambler, and
that's really the question we're fighting with here, is really going to be
basically the same. In a rambler you might be able to shorten your width down
but you still have the wetlands to contend with and anything we do with the
wetlands, the City has a lot of control. If we start to do anything to the
wetlands, I'm very aware of the fact that they can come out and shut the whole
14
211
2ity Council Meeting - April 20, 1987
project down very rapidly and then we can discuss it later. I do not want to
~et into that type of situatior~ I will protect the erosion control fences
there if the City feels there ~s to be further erosion control to protect
those. Another fence or whatever, I'm willing to cc~ply with that.
buncilman Boyt: As I understand it, these are not particularly aimed at you
tr. Pierce but as I understand what the City Attorney is telling us, given the
2ouncil's earlier action, this is a buildable lot so really all we're
discussing is where is the best place to put it. From what I gather from the
buncil Minutes back in February of 1985 was there was a real concern about
that was going to be built on there and would the basement be dry. I gather
~at's the other issue we're looking at. I appreciate your bringing in the
~me construction to see that. I would like to think Mrs. Hegman that we
wouldn't approve this lot as a buildable lot today but we're stuck with it so
I think what you're doing, coming in with a house that is comparable or
]reater value and that you are going to do everything you can to do to protect
the marsh then I gather we're getting as good a deal as we can get and I
appreciate your willingness to work with the City.
Councilman Geving: I guess I never have ~ in favor of this particular
project ar~ more specifically this particular lot but it was passed by the
Council over my objections and I could never see building on this particular
lot because of the wetland. I want to read to you Mr. Pierce that the intent
of the Wetland Ordinance is what's messing up this whole project for you
tonight and you're asking us for a variance to the 75 foot setback from the
structure to the wetland and I have not yet determined just exactly how big a
variance w~'re talking about. Can Staff tell me? Without moving the house.
Jo Ann Olsen: 75 feet.
Councilman Geving: A total of 75 feet so the whole variance is 75 feet. I
don't think we've ever granted 100% of any variance that I%n aware of. Now,
if we move that 10 feet toward the street, you've got 20 feet to work with and
it gives you an extra 10 feet in back of the house. I know what's in back of
that house, it's a swamp. It's really a wetlar,~s. That's what was there.
It's ~ there for years and that's what we've tried to protect. Now there
is a big mound of dirt there that I'm trying to protect at the present time
because if we had any rain at all, that would be down in the middle of that
and if this Council decides to grant this variance to you tonight, I want to
make sure that not one teaspoon on that dirt .gets into the wetland. I don't
know about the size of your home. I agree with the comments that came up
earlier. Again, if this is granted to you, I think th~ house style that you
are trying to build is very inappropriate. You are trying to build a walkout
basement and what are you going to walk out to? You are going to have 10 feet
which is about the distance between myself and Ms. Dacy before you put your
foot in the wetland. It's not much of a back-yard and this is why I've always
opposed this particular lot because I think it's best left to be as a wetland.
My comments are basically that. I'm opposed to this particular lot. If it
gets approved, then I want to ~ that it's the very best possible
construction that happens there and that you don't violate any of our
Ordinances. I would like to get a comment from our City fkx3ineer. I asked
that be make a trip to the site today and provide us with a report of an
15
212
City Council Meeting - April 20, 1987
enginer's view of this particular lot. Would you do that Gary?
Gary Warren: I haven't had the benefit of the actual proposed plan as far as
the building is concerned. I guess what I relate to is some of the earlier
records as far as the engineering and hydraulic aspects of the lot and in that
regard the wetland is to serve as a pass through and the road elevation is at
956. It is designed that way so we do have an overflow condition for
protection so from a hydraulic standpoint if the building is proposed at the
957 elevation and up I guess I don't have a problem with that. FHA requires 4
feet above the 953 elevation up there. That's somewhat how we came up with
the 957 in the record. From encroachment on wetlands and as you've eluded to,
just the liveability of the site, I guess we all have our own personal
preference on how much backyard we like but I think we are compromising quite
a bit our standards as far as the site is concerned. Again, not from an
engineering or hydraulic standpoint but just from what we're trying to force
into a pretty tight situation.
Councilman Geving: The elevation of the Class B wetland is 952. The most
that we have to work with is 957, that's 5 feet. Is this going to be a house
with a wet basement? Can we work with the 5 feet that he's proposing.
Remember that 5 feet is way out at the corner lot line. It's a gradual slope
there so where he's going to build his house pad on the northeast or northwest
corner, we're still talking 954 in my view.
Gary Warren: The basis for the 953, I guess all I can elude to is the record
from February here where we said 953 is the most common water elevation out
there. The road, which is the overflow control on that wetland. The wetland
is not to serve as a detention basin. On the other side of the road is where
we have our retention basis so this is basically serving as a pass through.
The water, if it can't fit through the pipe or if the culvert is plugged, the
water would overflow which brings in the street elevation which is 956 so if
you say there is some net loss there, maybe you back up to a 957 and that with
a control elevation really is a 957. If he is above 957, then I think from
what I can see, we should be able to rely on that he should have a dry
basement.
Councilman Geving: So you think he can put footings down and build a level
coarse basement and still have a dry basement?
Gary Warren: With the assumption that nothing would be below the 957 and
again I haven't seen this plan.
Councilman Geving: This is the first time I've heard the 957 as being a base
and I'm glad that you are providing that because that could be the standard
which we would set if the building is put on this particular lot. Thank you
for your comments Gary.
Bob Pierce: I might add also, if I felt that there was going to be a wet
basement, then there would be an option to eliminate the walkout and to go
with a simple crawlspace. You could do several options. I personally believe
that it's going to work very well on it. With the elevation of the road there
and the elevation of the basement above it, I just don't see why I would have
16
213
City Council Meeting - April 20, 1987
any more problems with water in that basement than with any other basement in
that area.
Councilman Geving: What are you going to do with that mound of dirt that is
sitting out there? What are you going to do with all that dirt?
Bob Pierce: It's going to slope into the frontyard. If you want to look at
the topo, it drops off at quite a s~ rate from the road. Wh~ you bring up
your foundation, you're going to have to fill in the front and you're going to
have to slope off the sides down and that's what the dirt is intended to do.
If it wasn't there I would have to haul it in ar~ I took it from Mr. Levina's
property so he wouldn't have to haul it away.
Councilman Geving: The point I'm trying to make to you is that I don't want
it to get into the Class B wetlands.
Councilman Johnson: I'm very concerned on that pile of dirt there too. What
type of silt fencing do w~ have there? Is that Type I or Type II?
Gary Warren: Type I. It's ~ there for a while.
Councilman Johnson: So we're looking to upgrade that as part of this?
Gary Warren: Having walked the site myself out there, the silt fence does not
go the full extent of the wetlar~ for one thing so there would definitely have
to he some improvements made to the erosion control.
Councilman Johnson: Do you know what the Ordinary High Water Mark is for this
wetland?
Gary Warren: All that I have on record is the 953 comment there and the fact
that the wetland is not supposed to be a detention basin, it's a pass through.
Councilman Johnson: A pass through and also it's to filter some pollutants so
there is a value to it. Our Ordinance requires that the lowest floor
elevation to be at least 3 feet above the Ordinary High Water Mark. If that
Ordinary High Water Mark is above the 954, the 957 and right now we're not
looking to give a variance to that part of the Ordinance at all so we ~ to
determine what the Ordinance High Water Mark is as a part of a motion in case
that is above 954. If that comes out as 955, then the basement can't be any
lower than 958. Simple mathematics so we'll be looking at that. Do you have
any preference of the three alternatives that were given? I have my personal
preference. Are they all three acceptable to you?
Bob Pierce: I talked to Jo Ann last week to see what the City, what their
proposals were and I mentioned to her at that time that I was flexible and
that if ~ be we could reduce the size of house by a few feet. I guess I
threw it in your lap. I wanted to discuss it with you. If you felt that you
had some problems here, I was willing to adjust to those problems and that's
where I 'm at.
Councilman Johnson: Is part of what we're doing here tonight selecting which
17
214
City Council Meeting - April 20, 1987
alternative? Right now just looking at it, I would like to hear Staff's
opinion on which alternative they like the best and I'll even tell you my
first. I like Alternative 92 out of the three alternatives. Alternative 91,
being on the curve puts the garage in the driveway at the curve and I have
problems with somebody coming around that curve fast and not being able to see
as well because the house is sticking there. You don't have that problem with
Alternative 92 or Alternative 93. Alternative 92 is the best for traffic flow
and also gets it the furthest away fr~m the wetlands.
Jo Ann Olsen: Staff's preference is to get the house as far away from the
wetlands as possible and Alternate 91 gets it farthest away but it doesn't
have it parallel with the road. Just as far as it can get away. If these are
the only three alternates, we can w~rk with the developer to situate it.
Councilman Johnson: I do agree with Bill's original comments. I don't think
that the subdivision with this lot in it would get passed today.
Mayor Hamilton: That's speculation.
Councilman Johnson: I speculated it wouldn't and I'm really concerned on
this wetlands to protect that. In fact I even talked about protecting the
storm sewers that are existing there that the City Engineer will be contacting
them about. That' s about it.
Councilman Boyt: Do we have any alternative to approving this lot as
buildable? I don't think we do. Unless we want to buy it.
Mayor Hamilton: I think at the time the Council considered this, there was a
great deal of thought and consideration given to the wetland and to the whole
development, not just to this particular lot. To the drainage problems of the
entire area and I know that you weren't part of it at that time but there is a
drainage problem in that entire area. Tne entire Council went out and walked
the whole project and walked through the whole area. We talked to the
neighbors and it is a difficult area to develop and there are some drainage
problems. One of our primary concerns was that this wetland would not be
disturbed. Also, I was the one that made the motion to approve the
preliminary plat and in the approval one of the conditions was that the
Council maintains the option of reviewing a structure to be built on Lot 1 and
that compliance with drainage and street improvements recommendations as noted
in the City Engineer's memorandum of February 1, 1985, City Council Minutes
dated December 17, 1984, would be adhered to and I don't have that good a
memory to know what that memorandum said but I would certainly want to make
that one of the conditions that that still is adhered to. Bob, I believe that
I think you are a good builder and you will do a good job but I guess I
shouldn't second guess you but I guess I would like to see some alternative
home designs for this particular lot. I'm not saying it can't be built on,
but I think it seems to me that there might be some alternatives and seeing
how we did maintain the right to review structures to be built on here, if the
rest of the Council would feel more comfortable looking at what is going to be
built on here, I think that is s~mething that we are going to w-ant to see.
18
215
City Council Meeting - April 20, 1987
Bob Pierce: I guess I don't understand. If it was a 26 foot deep, two story,
you would feel more canfor~le with it?
Mayor Hamilton: It would seem to me that if it was a split entry arrangement
you're not going to be going into the grour~ that far and the concerns about
the water would be...
Bob Pierce: The split entry, I don't feel if you try to build a split entry,
you're going to be compounding your problem a little bit because a split entry
would only eliminate maybe some blocks in the front. Anyway short of building
up your backyard, if you are worried about th~ walkout, you're still going to
have a problem. Tme walkout is the way to go because that means you leave the
side to the wetlands basically intact. You start to build it up then you have
to figure out how you're going to build your drainage down into it. I think
you would just compound a problem by doing something like that. I've walked
over that site hundreds of times and if you start to do that, the whole idea
of the walkout is a natural. You just don't have to touch it. I would think
that would be a priority and to change that would really start to build
expense. I think it would be a secor~ best idea to be very honest.
Councilman Horn: Did I hear someone say that the street elevation in front of
the driveway is 956?
Gary Warren: That was in the February 4th Minutes, Bill Monk's cam~nts.
Councilman Horn: That would be the street elevatio~ in front of the house,
956?
Gary Warren: That's the overall elevation.
Councilman Horn: Also I believe I heard sc~neone say tha~ the Ordinary High
Water Mark was 952?
Mayor Hamilton: 953 I think. They don't know for sure what the 0f59{ is.
Gary Warren: I wouldn't call it an Ordinary High Water Mark. It's not
cix~pletely defined as that. Again, it was a cc~ment directed to 953.
Councilman Horn: So we're saying that the basement elevatiix~ is 957, 4 feet
above it?
Gary Warren: That was following the FHA standards that would be 4 feet above
that water mark.
Councilman Horn: Okay, it would appear to me then that the garage floor would
be 8 feet above that which would put it at 963 so that says I have to go from
963 to 956 in the course of this driveway which is 7 feet and I don't see how
that adds up.
Bob Pierce: The overflow place that we're talking about would be right here.
That is the low. As you follow
19
216
%~. : -.
City Council Meeting - April 20, 1987
Councilman Horn: Are these existing elevations or proposed elevations?
Bob Pierce: Existing elevations is where the road is at now. I believe that
you said 956.
Gary Warren: I pulled that out of the record. He was talking about if the
culvert was plugged for whatever reason that the water would then go over the
roadway and the roadway supposedly was at 956. That's where that came from.
Councilman Horn: That's where the simple math isn't adding up. To get to the
957 basement level, basically as I read this plan, the garage is 8 feet higher
level than the basement floor.
Bob Pierce: That garage can be adjusted up or down as much as 1 or 2 feet but
if you look, the elevation that you have to deal with is what is the elevation
at this point on the road?
Councilman Horn: The driveway I believe is what we're talking about.
Bob Pierce: I guess we don't even know at this point. You've been given
several options but if the driveway comes in here or here in this area, this
is the elevatio~ What I'm saying is from this point to this point is a good
solid 6 feet for the existing elevation.
Councilman Horn: Going down.
Bob Pierce: From here to here. This stays virtually, as you can see this
contour, it is virtually unchanged right through here but every one of these
is jumping up a foot so you can see it is coming up rather rapidly and as you
dig into here, this area here, is basically going to be untouched. All the
grading will be taken care of, will be off to the side. This area will be low
in front to the road so it will need to be filled so this will be all
feathered in and sodded.
Councilman Horn: My concern here is that we have a plan that looks feasible,
all the numbers match but it doesn't appear to me that we have that and I
can't see us approving a plat that doesn't make sense. The numbers don't add
up. If this garage can be adjusted up or down several feet, maybe even 5 feet
is too much. I want to make sure that this is a feasible plan for this lot.
I don't know how you would move that floor level down too much without making
it look funny on this plan.
Bob Pierce: I don't think t_hat it would look funny. I don't think you are
adding up, if you have a 6 foot, maybe a 7 foot rise from the hard surface to
the hard surface and you place your footings or your top of block let's say 1
foot above that, that's your 8 foot basement right there because you do have
that rise. That road comes in off of Sandpiper. It climbs up gradually and
to combs around and it drops down. I was just out there. I went out to have
a bubble level that you can shoot. If you stand down there, it is well over
my head. I'm saying 6 or 7 feet and that's being conservative with the drop
that you have in that lot before you get to the existing erosion control
fence.
2~
217
City Council Meeting -April 20, 1987
Councilman Boyt: I would like to try to capture the spirit of what's going on
here. I think what I sense the Council is saying is that this lot is going to
be built on but we want it to be built on with a house that matches the
neighborhood and will have a dry basement or dry whatever floor the bottom
floor is and work with given the contours of the lamt. I would like to send
Mr. Pieroe out of here very shortly with that as tt~ directive. TO come back
to us with that saying basically that this is a buildable lot. That there
will be a home that will go in there given the 20 foot variance provided it
does do those three things.
Bob Pierce: If the City is considering the 20 foot setback on the front, if
we come in with a two story house getting away from the wetlands, I feel a
rambler is a much better plan. All of a sudden you put up 18 feet plus a
roof, sucking it 20 feet to the road and I think the major concern here is the
wetlands. I think if I brought and built a two story there, I think everyone
that would be concerned at the end of the project would wish that it was a
rambler again.
Councilman Boyt: Mr. Pierce, do you think it would work to see if your house
design would be compatible with tt~ neighborhood? Would you be willing to
bring it to the neighbors and say does this fit our neighborhood?
Bob Pierce: The house that we're planning there, which neighborhood are you
talking about?
Councilman Boyt: I'm talking about the one where you are going to put the
house. You are saying that a two story house wouldn't fit the neighborhood.
It wouldn't fit that close.
Bob Pierce: I guess if it's intent to put it off another month.
Councilman Boyt: That's not my intent at all.
Bob Pierce: The neighbors that I have talked to in the Piper Ridge
develola~ent are very happy and I think all but on Lot 5, at this point does
not have a house and might be selling his lot. On Lot 4, the people there I
have not talked to and on Lot 9 are ti~ ones that have not ~_n contacted but
all the others are very happy about the situatioru The ones that are not as
happy are the ones that are not in ~t develolm~nt.
Councilman Boyt: Ail I'm trying to say is I think the Council has three major
concerns. I don't think we're here to design houses but I think we are here
to say that we want it to match those concerns and to be compatible with the
neighborhood. Does that capture it?
Mayor Hamilton: Yes, I think so and we're not going to debate it anymore but
is that in tb~ form of a motion to approve tt~ variance that was requested? I
guess I see the motion should be to approve a variance to maintain the 3 feet
above the (~WM, to select the alternative and I think everybody is saying
alternative 92 seemed to be the most reasonable choice.
-Councilman Boyt: The one that does the least damage to the wetland.
21
218
City Council Meeting - April 20, 1987
Councilman Geving: Keep it as far back as possible.
Mayor Hamilton: Right. ~hat other point? Did I miss anything?
Councilman Geving: I want that minimum elevation to be identified in the
motion. The bassment elevation sould be identified specifically.
Mayor Hamilton: The basement elevation has to be either 3 feet or 4 feet
above the OH~qM.
Gary Wmrren: 4 feet if it's FHA.
Councilman Boyt: I think our Ordinanom is 3 feet.
Mayor Hamilton: So he has to be either 3 or 4 feet above the OHWM for the
basement floor.
Councilman Boyt: I think the third point Tom was maintaining the contours. I
think that was sort of speaking to Clark's point of let's maintain the flow of
the land here as much as possible.
Councilman Geving: I have one more question. You mentioned you could shorten
the width of the house two feet from 28 to 26. I think that's an alternative
that we might want to consider.
Bob Pierce: I put that out for consideration.
Councilman Geving: That would bring it back another 2 feet further back from
the wetlands and that's what I'm after. I want to get it as far back from the
wetlands as possible and I would like to throw t_hat out for consideration to
authorize 26 foot width home. I kind of like the style personally. I have
nothing wrong with what you are presenting here Bob. I am only interested in
the elevation. I'm interested in keeping it away from the wetland if we can
make it 26 foot. I'm not trying to shorten you up but I'm trying to get you
away from the wetland. I don't have any other questions.
Councilman Boyt: Dale, what we give up in square footage in the house, is
that really a gain to the marsh by cutting it from 28 to 26?
Councilman Geving: I think so. Otherwise, you might want to give another 2
foot variance.
Councilman Johnson: Would the length of the house increase?
Councilman Geving: No. The developer brought this issue to us as an option
and I think we're accepting that.
Councilman Boyt: Do you feel that you can build basically the plan that you
want to build on a 26 foot wide house versus a 28 foot wide house?
BOb Pierce: I brought that up because I feel I can. The interior floor space
22
219
2ityCouncil Meeting -April 20, 1987
is going to be changed, how the rooms lay out, but I don't have a problem with
that.
~ouncilman Horn: My only concern with that is I would like to get a feeling
fr~n the residents. This obviously will have some effect on the value of
the house. If they feel that's a reasonable tradeoff to get 2 more feet away
from the wetland.
Ralph Hegman: Is there a limit on the amount of money that can be invested in
the house or where are we on that issue?
Bob Pierce: I think if you look at the plan that it's a nice looking plan.
Ralph Hegman: What are we? $120,0~0 to $13~,000.0~?
Bob Pierce: You're probably looking at approximately $120,~0~.~0 to
$14~,0~.00. $12~,~0~.~ depending on how they finish it. That particular
home, if you would like to take a look at it, happens to be my house that I'm
in the process of building right now and I think if you would like to take a
drive by, it certainly would not detract from anyone's value.
Ralph Hegman: Is this something that the Council can put a minimun amount on?
Mayor Hamilton: No.
Councilman Geving: We have no control over that.
Councilman Horn: We can only control the distance he can build from certain
areas.
Councilman (~eving: I think what Clark was trying to say there Ralph is that
if we limit it to 26 feet, would it devalue the home accordingly. Reduce the
value of the homes in relation to your own homes in the area. Do you have any
coem~nt on that?
Ralph Hegman: I can't think of anything right at the n, a~nt.
Doug Roper: I would just like to say that the Council is trying to rectify a
mistake and you all seem to admit or most of you up there, that you made a
mistake in making this lot buildable. If that's true, the~ what is the
possibility of the Council rectifying your mistake by requiring an alternative
that would eliminate that lot from being buildable?
Mayor Hamilton: Tne only alternative I know of would be for the City to buy
the lot or for the a resident such as yourself to come forward ar~ purchase
the lot. That' s the only remedy.
Doug Boper: How feasible is that?
Mayor Hamilton: It's not. Maybe it is for you to buy it but it's not
feasible for the City to buy it.
23
226
City Council Meeting ' April 20~ 1987
Doug Roper: Why is that?
Mayor Hamilton: Should we assess the area then to purchase the lot? I guess
that would be the question. Where do we find the money to do that?
Doug Roper: How big an area?
Mayor Hamilton: I don't know. I'm not going to get into that but that would
be the only way we could purchase it.
Doug Roper: Well, I think that should he explored. You admit you made a
mistake, I think you should explore ways of rectifying your mistake.
Councilman Johnson moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the variance to
allow Rober Pierce to build a single family home within the wetland setback on
Lot 1, Block 1, Piper Ridge with the following conditions:
le
The home shall be granted a 10 foot variance to the front yard
setback and shall be located 20 feet from the front yard lot line.
.
The entire drainage and utility easement area on Lot 1 shall be
immediately protected with appropriate erosion control as approved by
the City Engineer.
.
No construction activity or any alteration to the existing conditions
shall be permitted within the drainage and utility easement.
.
Deter.mine the Ordinary High Water Mark and maintain the lowest floor
level' 3 feet above the Ordinary High Water Mark and at a minimum
elevation of 957.
.
.
Maintain natural contours as much as feasible.
Alternative 92 is the best alternative for plac~uent on the site.
7. Tne home be 26 feet in width.
Ail voted in favor except Councilman Geving and motion carried.
Councilman Horn: Just for the record, I believe that the record shows that
the only opposition to the previous motion was Councilwoman Watson.
PHEASANT HILL 4TH ADDITION, TOM KLINGELHUTZ:
A. WOOD DUCK LANE STREET CONNECTION.
B. FINAL PLAT APPROVAL.
CONSENT AGENDA ITEM C. APPROVAL OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS.
Barbara Dacy: The first item that's on the agenda is the street connection
issue for Wood Duck Lane from the development to Yosemite Avenue. I,
unfortunately have to start out my staff report with an apology. Included in
24
221
City Council Meeting -April 20, 1987
the ~ouncil's packet was a letter that I sent to the neighboring homeowners in
the area regarding the (buncil meetir~ tonight. If you read the letter you
could infer that the applicant, Mr. Klingelhutz, is proposing the connection
to Yosemite Avenue. That is not true. Mr. Klir~elhutz has never proposed a
connection of Wood Duck Lane to Yosemite Avenue. ThiS item is being brought
in front of the ~ouncil as a request from City Staff to clarify the original
motion that was made in 1984 so I apologize to the developer. This is a City
Staff initiated item for consideration. There are a number of reasen why we
made this decision to have it on the age~da tonight and the first one was that
in reviewing the Minutes, there seemed to be a lot of discussion about the
traffic issues. People aloft3 Yosemite and people along 63rd Street. Since
that time, the subdivision is building up. Traffic patterns are occurring.
Lake Lucy Road has now changed it's alignment and it is now currently being
improved and as the Council recalls it is not a cul-de-sac or will be in the
process of being a cul-de-sac and Wood Duck Lane connection. During the
Council's discussion, there was also debate as to whether or not there should
be a decision made on the connection or if we should wait and see and consider
it whe~ the final phase of the 4th Addition of the Pheasant Hills Subdivision
comes through. In any case, the motion that was reflected in the Minutes
appeared to have said that Wood Duck Lane should be created as a cul-de-sac at
that time so again, Staff is asking for clarification and also asking the
Council to look at the possibility of extending Wood Duck Lane to Yosemite
Avenue. What I would like to go through is some of the existing conditions
about the connection. Where the eastern boundary of the property right now
abuts Mr. Lyon's property on the east. The old Keenan farm which is not owned
by Mr. and Mrs. Nye on the north, The ownership of the parcel is kind of a
handle leg type of situation that extends to the east and Mr. Klingelhutz has
ownership of 16 1/2 feet over to Yosemite Avenue. The Stoddard Addition'
subdivision in the southwest corner of 63rd Street and Yosemit~ was approved
approximately 2 years ago. It created 4 lots. T~ southwestern lot of that,
there was a platting restriction filed saying that lot is not buildable until
utilities and street access is brought to it. As part of that plat, there was
16 1/2 foot easement reserved as a part of the Stoddard Addition. In that
area, for extension to occur, a standard 28 foot width urban street within 33
feet of an easement will be very difficult. There probably will be an
additional easement necessary from the Nye property. In summary, the
disadvantages to the connection is that there is going to be easement
acquisition from adjacent property owners and I know they are here tonight and
I know some are in opposition of the extension. The advantages that Staff has
looked at for the connection was that we have received calls from people on
63rd Street about the amount of traffic that is going into the development.
If you look at the area map from the south and east, Yosemite Avenue to 63rd
Street is the primary access into the subdivision whereas on the west side,
there is Galpin Blvd., Pheasant Drive ar~ now Lake Lucy Road. T~ Wood Duck
Lane connection would help disburse the traffic from the east and south. It
wouldn't necessarily remove traffic but it would help disburse it better.
Another advantage that we saw was that it would provide street access to the
two landlock parcels. That being Mr. Ryan's property and Lot 4 of the
Stoddard Addition. Finally, we looked at the cul-de-sac length. I have noted
in my report and measured the distance from Lake Lucy Road to ~ em right
here and that is approximately 1,700 feet. It could take another
interpretation from Ringneck Drive to the end of the cul-de-sac is about 1,050
25
222
CitY Council Meeting - April 20, 1987
feet. I prepared the report in the sense that it would act for access for
these properties and I chose the longer interpretation but it is following
that they do have access out the Ringneck Drive and Pheasant Drive as well.
Clarification on how the extension would occur. Who would be assessed? Who
would receive benefit and so on? That, as you are all aware, would be
conducted through a feasibility study. If the Counci would choose to make the
connection, such a feasibility study would have to be authorize to look at how
those issues are going to be addressed. Some homeowners like Mr. DeSantis
already have frontage onto Yosemite. Tnere could be a question there as to
whether or not he is eligible for assessment, etc. so at that point, as far
as the street connection issue, that concludes Staff's report.
Mayor Hamilton: At this time, I would like to ask if there is anyone here
from the public who would wish to make comment. If you do, please come up to
the microphone, state your name and address and give us your comments please.
Harry DeSantis: I live on Yosemite. I got a petition here with 35 names on
it and I think the deal that you had approximately 2 1/2 years ago says that
it would stop back there at Wood Duck. Now all of a sudden you turn around
and change it and then you are going to come down to who is going to take
advantage of about three homes. That's about all you could build in there and
you're going to have to go back in there about two blocks to get a street from
Mr. Klingelhutz' road out to Yosemite Avenue. Then out there you got a safety
condition. If somebody is coming down Yosemite Avenue and if you're just
coming up over the hill and right there, you're going to have a dangerous
intersection. So I think everybody on Yosemite is very unhappy and I know
Mark here, he has a lot of problems on Yosemite Avenue where cars land in his
yard. A couple times in the last few years. Outside down and almost in his
house so it is a dangerous situation to put a street there. I was wondering
who is going to pay for this street.
Mayor Hamilton: It hasn't been determined yet. It's something that we would
have to look at to see if benefitting properties would be assessed or just how
it would be done.
Harry DeSantis: That's about it. There are a few folks out here who would
like to speak on it themselves so I won't take too much of your time.
Mayor Hamilton: Harry, your petition is all people who are opposed to the
extension of Wood Duck Lane back to Yosemite.
Councilman Horn: How many households are represented in this petition?
Harry DeSantis: Everybody on Yosemite Avenue and there are 3 or 4 in each
family on some of them. ~ney're all voters anyway.
Mayor Hamilton: We were just wondering how many families. We don't have a
house count of how many homes are there.
Harry DeSantis: I could get that. You've got everybody who owns property
more or less is on there.
26
223
City Council Meeting - April 20, 1987
Charlie Hebert: I live at 6485 Yosemite Avenue. I would just like to state
my feelings about the extensioD. I don't want it. I would just you to state
your reasons. Beally, for what purpose, why does the City want that road?
You already mentioned that you do have access out of this new develolanent down
to Lake Lucy and Lake Lucy now is going to 'become a major road. I walk the
area all the time. I know there is access. We don't need the access. In
terms of emergency response, police, fire, ambulance to this new development,
there is plenty of acces. We don't need another access. It would really
detract from our existing neighborhood. I would be looking out a road
bisecting Harry's house ar~ Twottles who live right next to hi~ There would
be a road right inbetween two houses that has never ~n there and it's a
little unsettling for me. I don't want to look down a road. I~ expecting a
kid here shortly and he's going to be growing up with more traffic in front of
the street than I care for already and now there will just be another
additional street. I know the neighbors across the street have children and
they don't want a street literally in the side of their yard. The safety
considerations. The visual impact is negative and I just want to maintain the
existing character of my neighborhood. We like it the way it is. We don't
want a road going inbetween our neighbors houses.
Mark Erlanson: I live at 6510 Yosemite. lb the one, the cars already come
racing down Apple Road that turns into Yosemite and they flip over and end up
either in my driveway, my frontyard, the sideyard. It's just to the south of
where this proposal is. The road goes from blacktop to gravel and my house is
after it started in the gravel. I love it but we don't need any more traffic
going down there. Unless you guys want to help me fix up my yard the next
time the cars flip over. We don't need it paved. I love it the way it is but
we don't ~ that much more traffic either with all the paved accesses that
already there.
Mike Schmidt: I live on Yosemite also and I think there is plenty enough
traffic on the road now the way it is ar~ we don't need another access on that
road.
Jim vonLorenz: 6371 Yosemite Avenue. I would like to address some other
concerns. I think safety has ~ brought up. The spccds. The problems
we've had on that road. I've been on there for 17 years on a dirt road up to
what we have now. The road is taking a beating. Any more be~_ vy duty trucks
driving in there, it's going to deteriorate even worse. It's already becoming
cracked and the surface is being eroded away. -If Mr. Klingelhutz runs his
heavy trucks in there another couple years trying to build on that next
addition, that road is going to deteriorate down to nothing. Also, we like to
walk and jog through that area. Yosemite has very little of any shoulders on
it in many areas and we have to step off the road and it's almost straight
down in many cases to get clear of the traffic that's already on there. I can
address Harrlfs problems there. Also the fact, I~ right at the "T" of
Yosemite and 63rd. It's going to double the traffic coming by my place. As I
sit in my yard and I watch the traffic c(~ning down 63rd to make the turn onto
Yosemite, I would say only 2 out of 5 cars stop at the traffic stop sign there
ar~ you are going to have the same problem up there on Wood Duck Lane.
Besides, Harry has his trees there to keep the dust away from his yard and
it's going to be a blind intersection with no street lights. I think it's a
27
224
City Council Meeting - April 20, 1987
very dangerous situation that could be developed. I called one night when
that car took out the telephone pole just down beyond Harry there and the
deputy said he was doing close to 60 mph so it's a serious concern. With
headlights coming off those intersections, without the trees there to protect
you, you get headlights in your house at all hours of the night. As is on
63rd now, cars miss that intersection. I hear the screeching of tires and
they put it in reverse, back up and go back up 63rd. These are all serious
concerns that I think we all are looking at and hope the Council will give it
their consideration.
Mr. Twaddle: I live on 6430 right on the corner and I would just like to say
I'm against it. I feel one of the reasons we moved in there, I know from the
people who have already been there for a while, might not have liked it when
we moved in either, but the location and everything is really pretty back
there and with another road. I know Tom has a cul-de-sac back there and he
wants to kc~cp it and I know the people on 63rd might object to it because of
the traffic. They might want to get rid of a few more cars but a cul-de-sac
insures 3, 4 or 5 houses ar~ for that many to build one more road, I just
don't think it's worth it.
Tom Nye: As you can see, I'm somewhat affected as 1,000 feet of my property
borders the entire 4th Addition and Tom Klingelhutz has talked to me about
this at one point. He said it was his plan on deadending it there and I guess
if the City has a good reason to put a street through there, which seems to be
their intention, whatever they think is the best. However, I would also like
to at some point in time be told how, they are going to have to get a little
strip of land from me I think to do it and I would just like to be kept
abreast of your plans on it. If that's what you want to do.
Councilman Johnson: As I've said in the past, I'm concerned about long cul-
de-sacs. Not from convenience of the neighbors but from public safety aspects
of having a cul-de-sac blocked during an emergency. How long is this cul-de-
sac, Ringneck?
Councilman Horn: 1,000 feet.
Councilman Johnson: I've heard time and time again that people would prefer
to live on a long cul-de-sac like this but at that point when an emergency
happens and something happens where they have to escape, we don't have a
Williams Pipeline coming through here or anything but that's my only concern
for wanting to put it through. I do agree with most of the people on Yosemite
as far as it's not an ideal place to put a street out onto Yosemite. I
haven't heard anybody from 63rd Street. I was expecting somebody from 63rd
Street to be here.
Emma St. John: 1621 63rd Street and the reason was for having the traffic
come off of 63rd Street and I think it has pointed out something to you from
the comments that were made that there is a traffic hazard on 63rd coming onto
Yosemite and that is the most concern.
Councilman Johnson: You are concerned about the traffic on 63rd?
28
225'
City ~ou~cil ~ting - April 20, 1987
~nna St. John: On 63rd.
Councilman Johnson: Ar~ this connection does what for you or to you?
Emma St. John: It would take sc~e of the traffic off of 63rd but I don't know
how the speeding on the 63rd, which has been brought up is a problem over
there too.
Cour~ilman Johnson: So what we're trying to do is relieve 63rd Street for the
property owners there. Unfortunately that has the effect of increasing some
traffic on Yosemite south of 63rd. People coming from the north. The people
coming from the south, I~ trying to see if I have this understood right? No.
Clark is shaking his head.
Barbara Dacy: If you use 63rd or if you use th~ Wood Duck Lane connection,
you are going to have to use Yosemite one way or tt~ other. Again, it would
disburse traffic. It would eve~ out the traffic possibly between 63rd and
Wood Duck Land. The Wood Duck Lane connection would provide access into the
4th Addition and probably an area to the west. It's sort of split in there
depending on people's travel patterns ar~ so on.
Councilman Johnson: Do we have any traffic engineers who have looked at this
and have made the best guesstimate of what all the traffic patterns are now
and what they would change to be if this connection was made and if it's not?
Barbara Dacy: Th~ way we approached it is, the final plat application came in
and in reviewing the case we felt that this was an issue that deserved special
Council attention so we prepared an aDslysis albeit greek. We did not take
on-site counts as you did on the Frontier Trail because Lake Lucy Road is
under construction and everything is in disruption as to travel patterns. So
to answer your question, no because we felt it was an item that we wanted
clarification from the Council oru If there was strong feeling about
retaining the cul-de-sac, then that additional study obviously would not be
warranted.
Councilman Johnson: Right now we don't really know what the full benefits or
the full detriment is because we haven't done the total study.
Barbara Dacy: No. We have not done a traffic study.
Councilman Johnson: We would be looking to do a feasibility study that would
have that part on it so our action tonight would not delay Tom on his
subdivisio~ He may still get it approved, I can't say what will happen, but
this will not affect, we would go ahead with the cul-de-sac for design right
now ar~ if we decide to go ahead with the feasibility study, what happens to
this cul-de-sac?
Barbara Dacy: I think in discussing that with the developer, he can't start
on the initial phase of the 4th AdditioD, As they proceed east however, the
timing is going to be critical. But in talking with the applicant, he can
start.
29
226
City Council Meeting - April 20, 1987
Gary Warren: Tne most important part right now would be the watermain that is
forced through to Yosemite but that would be in the existing easement that is
already there.
Councilman Johnson: That has to be done anyway.
Gary Warren: Right.
Harry DeSantis: What about the watermain? Where is it going to go?
Gary Warren: The watermain is coming from the west along Wood Duck and go
through the existing easement to the east.
Harry DeSantis: Down the cartway?
Gary Warren: Right.
Harry DeSantis: We were the ones who paid and put all that water in there, how
can he hook onto our water now?.
Councilman Johnson: It will actually make your water better.
Harry DeSantis: You think so?
Councilman Johnson: I won't say better in taste but distribution wise it will
improve our water system.
Tom Klingelhutz: We do pay for your line per unit charge. Each time we take
out a permit we pay the City $650.00 for water so it is being paid for each
time we take a permit out.
Harry DeSantis: Nobody has been out there but 63rd is half dirt and Yosemite
is half dirt. We don't need more traffic on that road. We're living in dirt
now.
Russ Stoddard: Who pays for that water? It isn't affecting anybody besides
the developer if they put water from Yosemite through that road.
Mayor Hamilton: ~ne developer pays for it.
Councilman Geving: Just a comment or two, I'm curious where this whole issue
of extending Wood Duck Trail to Yosemite came from. I generally try to
respond to people's requests to do something and I feel in this particular
case that we really haven't made a case for extending it other than the fact
that we did receive a petition here with about 13 names on it to push it
through to Yosemite. At the same time, I've got another petition with
approximately three times that number that are in disfavor of it. Now the
petition for the people who are in favor of extending Wood Duck Lane to
Yosemite all live on 63rd Street and I believe what they're thinking is that
it will relieve the traffic on 63rd. I'm not so sure that's really true. I'm
really am not sure that that will happen because the traffic that I see, at
least from my sketch, would indicated that those people are going to travel
30
227
~ity Oouncil ~ting - April 20, 1987
;3rd anyway and they are still going to travel 63rd and pick up Yosemite and
o south so I suspect that there isn't a real strong case, at least from my
Tiewpoint, that it's going to reduce the traffic on 63rd. Again, I'm kind of
abe opinion that we don't have all the information we ~ in terms of who is
]oing to benefit if we do extend this. How is it going to be done? How is
the assessment going to be accomplished? How are we going to acquire the
land to pursue that road because obviously we're not going to get it easily
from the people who are here. So I think it's kind of an initiative that at
this present time is best left the way it is. We've cul-de-saced it. We did
it when th~ original plat came in. It seemed to be a reasonable thing to do
m~d until we get a majority of the people in the area there that really desire
and are willing to pay for the assessments of putting in that road, I
y can't see us doing that. I'm sensitive usually to people's wishes
I think all the Council members are and in this case, the majority of the
are telling me that they don't ~ the road extended. ~hat it's
~ter off left just as it is. Until we build up that area and until we get
idea of what the traffic patterns are going to be. I don't know if that
1,70~ foot cul-de-sac is such a bad thing. There are several ways out of
there and I'm not convinced that we have all the information at this time to
a decision to exter~t that road. That's the extent of my comnent.
Horn: First of all, I believe the Minutes that I read said that
that was not a permanent cul-de-sac at the end of Wood Duck ~ As I
interpretted the Minutes, that was left for something that would be decided at
a later point. As a matter of fact, there were several people on the Council
,at that time that thought it should not be a cul-de-sac because of the
problems that cul-de-sacs can bring. When people see a finished cul-de-sac
they tend to feel that it is permanent so it's not clear to me that it was
ever decided that that would be a permanent cul-de-sac at that point. That
this was something that was left for later decision. Also, it appears to me
in looking through here that it's quite obvious that any traffic that went
on Wood Duck Lane would be coming off from 63rd Street. It also appears to me
that since you only have one way into this develolm~ent which is Pheasant
Drive, which comes off CR 117, I don't believe whether Wood Duck Lane is there
or not, it's going to make any difference to anybody coming in on Pheasant
Drive which means that all that will happen is people who come in Pheasant
Drive will have the option of going on Wood Duck Lar~ or 63rd Street. So if
you assume that is the same amount of traffic that goes through there,
Yosemite is going to see the same amount of traffic whether we put this road
in or not. ~he only difference is that the people between 63rd and Wood Duck
will see less traffic because some of it will go Wood Duck ar~ head south.
Some of it will go 63rd ~ head north. None of those cars will go past the
folks between_ those two and it seems to me that the real losers in this whole
thing, with the exception of the DeSantis property, are the people who in
future will be building along Wood Duck Lane. They are the real losers in
this whole thing because they are going to have traffic going in front of
their homes now that they didn't have before so from their viewpoint, they are
going to be the big losers in this. People on 63rd will gain, as I see it.
The people north of 63rd on Yosemite, won't see any change. The people south
won't see any change. The people in the middle will see a slight improvement
ar~ the real losers are going to be Wood Duck Lane. I have some concerns
about how this would go through here too and how it would match into Yosemite
31
228
City Council Meeting - April 20, 1987
but to me that's the bigger issue other than traffic. I think most of the
losers haven't bought a house yet in Chanhassen.
Councilman Boyt: I think we have to go into this realizing that Lake Lucy
Road stops prior to getting into Wood Duck Lane. Everybody who is out here
from the neighborhood agrees with that?
Garry Warren: It connects to Wood Duck Lane.
Councilman Boyt: Okay, so then Clark, I guess there are two ways in there.
Mayor Hamilton: There are three ways actually. You can get in and off of CR
117, that Pheasant Drive. You can get in off of Lake Lucy Road onto Wood Duck
Lane. You can get in off of 63rd onto Ringneck so there are three entrances.
Councilman Boyt: So let me try this again, is it fair to say that with three
entrances that that is residential traffic or is that shortcutting traffic?
What kind of traffic do you find going through your neighborhood? Does
anybody know? Residential traffic for the most part?
Barbara Dacy: Yes.
Councilman Boyt: Is there a reason why anybody would take that road if they
weren't living there?
T~m Klingelhutz: No. It's basically residential traffic.
Councilman Boyt: As it's developed, that's what we're looking at so we're
looking at how does residential traffic flow through the neighborhood. I
think that is one issue. Then what I'm hearing from the people who have
spoken is an overwhelming concern that Yosemite is not a safe road. Is that
right? What we're talking about is really the distance then between 63rd and
what will be Wood Duck Lane as it comes out onto Yosemite. I didn't hear
anybody tell me how, since this is residential traffic that's going to impact
the traffic flow on Yosemite and I would be interested in our engineer or
anyone for that matter could tell me what the impact is going to be on
Yosemite of putting one more entrance there.
Tom Nye: You're going to put 25 houses back in there, you are bound to get
more traffic cutting through there. I agree with you that my land is 200 to
300 feet there along Yosemite, between 63rd and the proposed street. There
are no homes there at all. It's not going to impact anybody. The only people
that are concerned are the new homes built up toward the DeSantis residence
and up in that area a couple three homes but I think when you're bringing the
traffic off of Apple Road, up Yosemite to turn into Wood Duck, you're going to
have an increased flow and you just can't get away from that.
Councilman Boyt: There is going to be increased flow down something when you
build 25 more h~mes.
Tom Nye: It's much easier to come through Excelsiore, take a right on Apple
Road to come up the hill. It's been happening. We've been watching. It's
32
229
City Council ~ting - April 20, 1987
increasing and we're watching it right now.
Councilman Boyt: I think what you're telling me is you are acceptable to
having more traffic come in along Pheasant Drive off of CR 117 and run through
the residential neighborhood.
Tom Nye: Or Lake Lucy Road.
Councilman Boyt: But you're not acceptable to having that traffic come in
fr~m Yosemite.
Tom Nye: I think it's quite a narrow strip. I tried to point that out to the
Council before.
Councilman Boyt: I went out and drove this and Jay said he was out there and
I suspect maybe some of the other Council members went out to take a look at
this o~ a first hand basis and Yosemite isn't an inviting place to walk. I
agree with that.
Tom Nye: That's true but we still do love to walk in the neighborhood and a
lot of us do.
Councilman Boyt: Right. Now, I know first hand the trauma of living on a
cul-de-sac that is put through. I find it absolutely amazing that Mr. Geving
would tell me that he could live with a 1,000 foot cul-de-sac or a 1,700 foot
cul-de-sac when it's just ~ a matter of a few months since the Fire
Department lined the hack wall and said that that was ridiculous and the
Council at that point voted 5-0 to put the cul-de-sac through.
Councilman Geving: I won't respond to that.
Councilman Boyt: When I look hack to 1983 or 1985 or 1984, a few years and
look at this, I agree with Mr. Horn that it was never intended that Wood Duck
Lane stop where that 4th Addition stops. I see the issue as one of dealing
with residential traffic and a difficult situatior~ I agree with you that
putting more traffic on Yosemite is dangerous. I don't see how you are going
to put less traffic on Yosemite no matter what you do here. When we add 25
more houses here, we are going to add more traffic someplace and some of that
traffic is going to be on Yosemite. I don't see an alternative that says it
won't be on Yosemite and I think we do have a concern and I agreed several
months ago, we had a concern with how do we get emergency vehicles into a
1,00~ foot cul-de-sac that doesn't have a backdoor ar~ those 25 homes or
whatever that are going to be built in there, are not going to be happy if
they come back in here two years frem now to try to extend that road ~ and
they are not going to he as safe if we don't. Did you say 22? Okay, 22.
Mayor Hamilton: I think pretty near everything has ~ said that I could
possibly say. The only thing that I would like to add to it is Yosemite is of
course a very unsafe street and I could see a connection going in there once
Yosemite is paved. There has been some requests by some of the citizens
living there to pave Yosemite and we don't have the funds at the present time.
We spent a lot of our MSA funds tonight on Hesse Farm Road so when we are back
33
280
City Council Meeting - Apri 20, 1987
in a position where we have some funds to spend, I know Yosemite is going to
be one of our high priority roads to look at to pave. It would seem to me
that that would be the time to look at making the connection although I think
Bill has a very good point when he says, if you do that, if you put it off for
a period of 2 to 3 years, the people who are living on Wood Duck Lane and the
other cul-de-sacs in that vicinity are then perhaps not going to want the
connection to go through because the traffic may increase through their
neighborhood. At the same time, everybody wants growth ar~ you like to add to
your tax base to decrease everybody's individual tax burden but nobody wants
the traffic. Nobody wants to have a neighbor but it seems if we're going to
have development, we also have to have neighbors and we have to have traffic
and somehow we have to live with it so it's a difficult issue and I honestly
don't recall what decision was made when this thing was discussed in 1984 but
I would have to suspect that we did not intend for this road to end
permanently in the cul-de-sac at Wood Duck Lane. Tnat it was the intent of
the Council at that time to have it go through to Yosemite. Again, it would
seem to me that the time to put it through would be when Yosemite is improved.
When it's paved and put some curb and gutters in there and you can do the job
right. Those are my only ccmnents.
Councilman Johnson: Has our Fire Department commented on this? I know our
new public safety director is pretty fresh. Has this been brought before the
Public Safety (kma~ission?
Barbara Dacy: No it has not.
Councilman Boytmoved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to table the Wood DuckLane
street connection until a proper traffic study report and the Public Safety
Director has had a chance to review it. All voted in favor of tabling the
motion and motion carried.
PHEASANT HILL 4TH ADDITION: FINAL PLAT APPROVAL.
Barbara Dacy: Basically we're recommending approval of the final plat even in
dispite of your action on the previous item. We have noted that the area
betwc~n the cul-de-sac and Yosemite, will still be reserved as public right-
of-way to provide access for t_he utilities that will be going across there and
would provide a limited amount of right-of-way for street access for the other
parcels in that area so we are recommending approval subject to our standard
conditions of sutanitting the financial security and execution of the
development contract.
Councilman Boyt: Block 1, Lot 2, it' s under 11,700 square feet.
Mayor Hamilton: It's 11,392 according to the plat.
Councilman Boyt: And I think 11,700 square feet, I'm trying to recall the
former Ordinance.
Barbara Dacy: Tne application was processed under the Planned Unit
Development Ordinance whichhas since then been revised but at that time
there was not an established minimun standard. There are lot sizes elsewhere
34
231
City Oouncil Meeting -April 20, 1987
in the development that are below the 11,700. 11,700 came from another part
of our Subdivision Ordinance at that time. It was loosely used as a reference
point but what you see there has been approved by the Planning Commission and
Council and in fact, they did drop a lot of those in this particular addition
so there is no conflict there at this point.
Councilman Johnson: Is Outlot A, is that a future connection to another
subdivision?
Barbara Dacy: To the south yes.
Councilman Johnson: I'm glad to see that.
Tom Klingelhutz: We don't own the property to the south but left a place for
a road but our plan is based on that road.
Councilman Johnson: Barbara, is that property to the south, is that all urger
one ownership all the way down to Lake Lucy or do you know?
Tom Klingelhutz: Yes, it belongs to a may by the name of Currico. We didn't
bother to tell Mr. Palmer who lives in the house right off Lake Lucy Road but
that's not inside the sewer line.
Councilman Johnson: So we're not looking to having a fourth interest coming
through his new subdivision in the very near future at all?
Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the final plat for
Pheasant Hill 4th Addition subject to submission of the appropriate financial
securities and execution of the development contract and that Takoma Trail
street name be changed. All voted in favor and motion carried.
CONSENT AG_.FaDA: PHEASANT HILL 4TH ADDITION, PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS.
Councilman Johnson: Actually ! had a page and a quarter which our City
Engineer helped me go through and answered most of my questions. I was out
there looking at this. I wanted it to be noted that grading has already ~
started in there. That earth movers are going. Silt fences are up but not up
properly and not the type that we're looking for. I don't like see developers
start before we have...
Mayor Hamilton: ~%ere might be a reason for that.
Councilman Johnson: I would like to know if there was a reason for that. I
know it was put a stop to about a week ago by our City Engineer. We've got
several wetlands right there that I'm very concerned for. The one on Mr.
Nye's property and the one to the south of you. We've got to get very serious
with these silt fences. There is a dump site existing. I finally found the
Chanhassen dump site. I've been very proud of this towru In 6 years I have
not four~ a dump site in this town but unfortunately have finally found one on
what I believe is approximately the area of Block 1, Lots 5 and 6. There is
some old refrigerator, a couple stoves, a couple clothes washers, mattresses,
box springs, destruction debris and I want to add a condition for the approval
35
City Council Meeting - April 20, 1987
that the material be removed there, such as the washer and stoves. The
concrete blocks and stuff make good fill. I don't want washing machines and
this stuff to end up buried in people's yards.
T~m Klingelhutz: It was not me that put them there.
Councilman Johnson: You own it now. You bought it right along with the
property unfortunately. Gary actually answered most of my concerns.
Mayor Hamilton: At this time I would like to ask Tom to respond to the
questions that you raised.
Tom Klingelhutz: You were there Saturday I heard. You also talked to Mr.
Schumo who lives on Pheasant Circle. We were moving dirt on their property
and also we dug down along the swamp to find out how much bad dirt is there.
When we had it dug out, we filled it with clay. We didn't move very much
dirt. I have put the silt fence up some time ago because I was concerned
about dirt washing in there from last year's construction. I know it's not
what you really want but it was something and I certainly will make it better.
I's real concerned about the lowlands myself. Very much so.
Mayor Hamilton:. What about the question about the refrigerators and things on
the property.
Tom Klingelhutz: They were there when I bought the property and some of them
have trees that are 4 inches in diameter growing right up through them. I
certainly can take them out of there and have them hauled away.
Tom Nye: There is some question about the inability of water to pass through
my property and make it's way onto Lake Lucy. Tnere used to be a drain tile
that drains into his property that has subsequently been dammed up and a lot
of it is sitting in there now. It has nowhere to go. With no rainfall at
all, you can see it hasn't moved. It will never be dry in there. There are
two ponds that you dynamited I don't know how long ago and those will always
be there but now it has spread all out and it has no way to make it's way to
Lake Lucy and Lake Ann. JUst something I wanted to point. It's going to fill
up pretty bad in there and it will affect the back lots of his property at
some point in time.
Mayor Hamilton: Are you familiar with that T~m?
Gary Warren: I was out to visit Tom's site earlier and also have ~-~_n talking
with Tom Klingelhutz about it. Tne old drain tile scenario I guess is one
that is hard to put specific facts on but as Tom admits, the property maybe
it's higher now than what it was as far as water ponding but it always has
been wet to a certain degree. We have a storm sewer that is on the property
line as a result of the 2nd and 3rd Addition improvements out there that I
haven't had a chance to get back to Tom about but in talking with Tom
Klingelhutz, he's agreeable to allowing drain tile to be tapped into that
outlet there. We wouldn't drain that pond completely, which I don't think you
want but it would provide a high water outlet for Tom so we hope to work with
the two Tc~s to try to make that work out.
36
233
Cit, y Council ~ting - April 2~ ~ 1987
Tom Klingelhutz: If there doesn't get fixed there is going to be a potential
problem. If we had a hard rain, he would probably lose about half his
property.
Mayor Hamilton: So you are agreeable to work out the problem?
T~m Klingelhutz: Yes. There's no problem.
Mayor Hamilton: Is that alright with you T~m?
Tom Nye: Right. It's ~ dry so I haven't had a problem but if we do get
some rain, it's going to be a problem for not only me but for him and his
development.
Mayor Hamilton: But you agree to work with Tom Klingelhutz to resolve the
problem?
Tom Nye: Absolutely.
Councilman Johnson: On your back property line where you put your new fence,
is that your property line?
T~m Nye: No. It's in.
Councilman Johnson: It's in a little ways because the water right now, as of
Saturday, was beyond that fence.
Tc~ Nye: I waded through the water to put the fence up.
Councilman Johnson: I think your disposal site on the south side is already
filled. The area marked as disposal site seems to be pretty darn full right
now with the little bit of movirg you've already done. I think we've got it
pretty well. I talked to Gary about silt fencing on the north side to make
sure that we protect Mr. Nye's pond. I'm sad that we're going to lose as many
trees on this one as we are.
Tom Klingelhutz: We're going to try to keep every tree we can. We're not
going to site grade entirely back to the lots. The sites we have, as we build
houses and try to preserve as much as we can out there on the house sites.
Councilman Johnson: So you will individually grade the lots to the pads?
Tc~ Klingelhutz: We will individually grade them as the houses are sold.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the plans and
specifications for Pheasant Hill 4th Addition. Ail voted in favor and motion
carried.
WEST VILLAGE HEIGHTS, 1/2 MILE NORTH OF WEST 78TH STREET, BILL ~ON:
A. SUBDIVISION OF 24.1 ACRES INTO 3 LOTS OF MULTIPLE FAMILY.
37
234
City Council Meeting - April 20~ 1987
Barbara Dacy: Tne first item is in regards to the subdivision of what is the
northerly part of the James property that is zoned to R-12, high density.
This is the subject lot and what is being done is the easterly half ot hat is
being split into two lots reserving the larger lot to the west. Originally
the applicant had filed a street petition request to go from Kerber Blvd. over
to Powers Blvd. but because we didn't know how the lot to the west was going
to take shape by development lines, we recommended instead tha tthe applicant
withdraw the application and that we reserve an easement for future
acquisition purposes. So at that time, when it went to the Planning
Commission, the plat was not in that format but between Planning Commission
and Councilmthe plat has been revised to show the proposed easement along the
lot line. Also, they will adjust the location of the utility easement to over
the water and sewer lines that are going to be serving this edge of the
property. Another issue regarding the subdivision is that some of you may
recall that the property immediately to the north is the Saddlebrook
development and that the southeasterly corner was rezoned to R-12 consistent
to the subject parcel zoning. The westerly lot line of the two lots of this
request approximately falls around in this area. What we wanted to do was
preserve some type of secondary access for the development of this parcel so
there is another condition in the subdivision approval that when the site plan
for th westerly lot comes in that we look for some kind of street connection
into the parcel into the north. What the recommendation on the subdivision
is, is found on page 5 of your proposed council action.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve Subdivision #87-
15, preliminary and final plat to create three parcels as shown on the
preliminary plat stamped "Received April 15, 1987' and the final plat stamped
"Received April 15, 1987" and subject to the following conditions:
.
Site Plan development for Lot 1 shall reserve area for a connecting
driveway for the development to the north.
2. The proposed street name must be approved by the Fire Department.
.
Watermain on West Village Road shall be sized for future looping and
connection to the Powers Boulevard watermain and stubbed at the west
property line of Lots 1 and 2.
.
The proposed fire hydrant on West Village Road shall be moved
approximately 100 feet to the east.
.
The applicant shall construct West Village Road as a private roadway
at this time for access to the property.
6. Curb and gutter will be required along the west edge of Kerber Blvd.
o
The applicant shall modify the site drainage plan consistent with the
conclusions of the feasibility study when it is completed and provide
drainage calculations which support the drainage design.
.
Building permits will not be issued for construction until award of
the construction contract for sanitary sewer.
38
235
City Council Meeting - April 28~ 19B7
All utility improvements shall conform to City standards for urban
construction.
Applicant shall su]mmit a satisfactory grading and erosion control
plan.
11.
Building permits will not be issued for construction until award of
the construction contract for sanitary sewer.
12.
All utility improvements shall'conform to City standards for urban
construction.
13.
Applicant shall su]m~it a satisfactory grading ar~ erosion control
plan.
14.
Applicant shall enter into'a Development Agreement with the City and
provide necessary financial sureties as a part of this agreement for
completion of the improv~m~ents.
15.
Submittal of an acceptable final drainage plan for review by the
City, Watershed District and DNR and compliance with all applicable
conditions.
16.
Final plat approval shall be withheld until award of the sanitary
sewer construction contract (File 987-1).
All voted in favor and motion carried.
B. SITE PLAN REVIle7 FOR 64 T(INNH(3MES.
Barbara Dacy: This plan that is on your monitor now is the plan that was
sulmmitted to the Planning Commission ar~ was also included in your packet. 32
townhomes on the northerly lot and 32 townhomes on the south. The main
concern from the Planning Commission was the design ar~ location of the guest
parking and the types of vegetation in and around that so they had the
applicant go back and look at that issue. The other plan that you have in
your packet proposes the following. One, the private drive that would go on
the lot line entering the site, a turn arour~ would be provided in that and he
also combined that with proposed parking area so in that consideration he will
serve two functions, Also you note in a checkerboard pattern, six spaces on
each of those lots so for guest parking there would not be a blockage of
individual homeowner units right in front of tt~ garages. There are other
spaces available for guest parking. That was the major Planning Commission
concern and I won't elaborate on anymore on the Staff Report. I think
everything else is addressed. I will just answer questions.
Councilman Boyt: I would like maybe just a quick synopsis of the problem of
the City maintaining the driveway and the advantages of having it being a
private drive. I understand there are some but I~ not exactly clear on what
those are.
39
City Council Meeting - April 20, 1987
Barbara Dacy: Our original thought was, when the applicant submitted a
petition to improve this as a public street, our major concern was that it was
a short distance and we didn't know how the lot to the west of this was going
to develop. We originally recommended to reserve it as right-of-way.
However, when we reserve a right-of-way the City Attorney says we have to
maintain that land so if we just have the driveway over the right-of-way, we
would be responsible for maintaining that driveway. That really wasn't our
intent. We came back and reserved an easement instead so that we would in the
future have th~ ability to improve it to a public street once we get a full
picture of what we have to the west.
Councilman Boyt: I understand Barbara that another point here was that if we
decide not to use that as an extension for some reason, if it was a public
drive we would be obligated to it forever basically. If it's a private drive
and we decided not to use it to extend, that's not a concern.
Barbara Dacy: Tne multiple family portion of this lot could develop in the
extension of this private drive, yes. When the development plan for Lot 1
comes in, that could be an issue in front of the Council. Whether or not we
should undertake a public improvement project to construct a public street
from Kerber to Powers. At this time we couldn't make that recommendation to
Council so we just reserved an easement.
Councilman Boyt: And it gives us an option is what you're saying. In this
50 foot right-of-way, does that include the land for the off-street trail that
the Park and Rec group asked for?
Barbara Dacy: Yes.
Councilman Boyt: I noticed that, I believe it was in Gary's report where he
asked that the trees be moved away from the sewer main. I don't see that in
one of your conditions of approval.
Barbara Dacy: What we did in the plat approval is that he did show his 25
foot easement along the east lot so that was included for the watermain and so
on. It should have been in the site plan, I guesss it wasn't.
Councilman Boyt: So do you want that added?
Barbara Dacy: Sure.
Councilman Boyt: I want to say thank you for the tot lots. It happens to be
something I like to see. I think you're going to have a need for it and I'm
glad you're thinking that way too. Could you tell me what the square
footage is of the townhomes? I didn't see that in the figures.
Bill Jacobson: The 2 bedroom townhouse, basically the unit that has it's own
entrance and the living space is 1,000 square feet. The 3 bedroom townhouse
is 1,150 square feet and the 2 bedroom apartments are also 1,000 square feet.
Councilman Boyt: What's the difference between a townhcm~e and an apartment?
40
237
Council Meeting - April 20, 1987
Jacobson: An apartment is all on one floor. I think we have a total of
8 of those in the whole 64 units. The reasc~ for that is, we have to provide
minimum number of handicapped units so we put a handicapped unit on one
floor and then w~ put a unit similar to that on the second floor.
;ilman Boyt: ~hese are designed to be rental units?
Jacobson: Yes.
Councilman Boyt: ~ne parking. I know that was an issue for me when I
listened to it at the Planning Commission meeting and at that point there were
2 parking spaces provided per townhome and something about the garage
relationship. There was one in the garage and one outside the garage so
you've gone fr~m having 3 exterior parking places to having 4?
Bill Jacobson: What we have done, we have one garage space and one open space
dedicated for each apartment unit. In other words, it's like if you have a
typical comtemporary hume, we have the garage face the street and then you
sometimes park the second car or park a car in front of the garage. ~nat's
what we do here. Then we have an addition] numbe~ of spaces which are for
visitors. At this time we have, I believe 13 spaces for each half of the
project or a total of 26 actually shown and we have ro(~m to add more if there
is a ~ for it.
Councilman Boyt: How many townhomes do we have here? 64? Ar~ you are
providing 26 parking spots that are undedicated.
Bill Jacobson: ~hat's right.
Councilman Boyt: I gather that you are actually exceeding our Ordinance in
the number of parking spaces you are providing?
Bill Jacobson: ~nat's true.
Councilman Boyt: Okay, thank you.
Councilman Horn: I didn't see on my plan where these proposed, additional
parking places were.
Barbara Dacy: That's part of them and the other six are in this checkerboard
pattern here. It's serving a dual purpose. It can serve for guest parking
and a turn around too.
Councilman Horn: So if a guy has seven people over, he uses up the total
extra spaces on this side?
Barbara Dacy: Right. A~ain, it was discussed at length at the Planning
Commission meeting. Trying to gauge guest parking in this type of development
is always very difficult. Most ordinances are set up on a basis of two spaces
per unit. It's highly unlikely that all the units at all the time are going
to have guests over but then again there are going to he times when there is
going to be overlapping. I think the applicant has made the best ar~ most
41
238
City Council Meeting - April 20; 1987
7 school age children in the project and probably 10 to 12 preschool to
babies.
Councilman Geving: The reason for my question was several fold. I was
thinking of the impact on our city services for police, fire protection,
parkland, utilization of the totlots and so forth. A comment that I did have
though was you mentioned density and I guess this is the first time that I've
seen net and gross grouped together in one figure. Could you explain that
Barbara?
Barbara Dacy: Yes, net and gross, the difference being, what you've been
seeing so far are single family subdivisions and a net density calculation is
a calculation where you take the land area minus the streets and park areas
and then divide the number of units into that. In this case, we have no
public streets or park area so t_hat's why the gross and net is the same.
Councilman Geving: The issue that I had written and it came up before is the
visitor parking. I still don't know if we've resolved that very well. At
least not to my satisfaction. Is there any way that we could gain more
visitor parking? Even if it's off of the immediate site. There could be some
people that might come over to one of these people's homes and stay several
days. Not just an overnighter or not just for the afternoon. I've seen
rental areas where there is a provision for half a dozen parking spots
somewhere where they are just available as an overflow. The problem with an
area like this, most people today have like two cars. If you have any
visitors at all you will use them up.
Barbara Dacy: As I said earlier, I think the applicant has made the best
attempt to accommodate all areas without creating a congested feeling to the
parking area.
Councilman Geving: I'm not satisfied with that Barbara. Could I ask you,
have you thought about this as a potential enhancement to the project that you
could provide for an overflow parking area of half a dozen vehicles?
Bill Jacobson: I don't know how you cc~e up with a half dozen?
Councilman Geving: I'm just picking out a figure.
Bill Jacobson: I'm trying to do these according to what the needs are that
we've seen elsewhere in similar projects. I can easily in each lot add 10
addition spaces but what happens is I end up with, instead of a nicely
landscaped parking lot, you see a sea of asphalt and I don't think anybody
wants to see that.
Barbara Dacy: He's also at the threshhold of the maximum lot impervious
surface.
Councilman Geving: The 70%?
Barbara Dacy: In a multiple family district it's 35%. He meets the Ordinance
requirements for parking and he's right at the 35%.
42
239
~it.y Council ~ting - April 20, 1987
Councilman (~eving: I guess it's just an additional a~enity.
Bill Jacobson: If we find we are short, there is an easy way to add
additional spaces without worrying t/~ parking lot. You know what parking
bays are?
Councilman Geving: Yes.
Bill Jacobson: On the entrance driveway in from Ksrber, we could make some
parking hays along o~ both sides.
Councilman ~eving: If it's tastefully done and you landscape it well, it
could look pretty good. I don't have any other questions. I like the project
and I want to see us do it.
Councilman Boyt: If you look at the extension of the bituminous driveway, I
would think you have an excellent opportunity to add parking spots. If I was
com~eiving it, it might be nice to have some sort of tiled effect like you
have in a few other places in your parking lot so you would break that up a
little bit but you could add another 10 spots just by extending that 20 feet.
I would think that would be sort of getting out in front of ~ problem. You
could ex~end that another 30 feet and you would have another 8 spots to the
west o
Councilman Geving: It would be a temporary solution that might be very good.
Councilman Boyt: If you put in something that sort of breaks up the surface
area like you did with this tile up on your other parking area, I think it
might look nice ar~ it might, by creating that extra area, assure us that
we're not going to have a parking problem.
Bill Jacobson: We actually could do a regular parking lot with a driveway
down the middle with parking on two sides. Just extending the space 30 feet I
don't think that would do it though because we have to have access to the
parking to these stalls.
Councilman (~eving: I think you've got a better idea personally because I think
eventually that road is going to go through. It makes a lot of sense that
some Council in the future is going to put that through and eliminate those
parking spaces.
Bill Jacobson: I like the parking hay idea a lot. I've served on some
committees on the Minneapolis Park Board looking at parkways for Minneapolis
and at first people in the City and the neighborhoods weren't real happy with
the idea of parking hays but it worked out real well. In fact, I wasn't a
proponent of it. I reviewed some proposals but the parking hays will work out
very well and t~ give a nice intimate feeling. It isn't the feeling of a 50
foot strip of asphalt ru~ning down the middle but a nicely modulated area.
Mayor Hamilton: The thing that caught my eye in going through this report is,
on our site design the total impervious surface ratio does not exccc~ the
maximum allowed in the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant has exceeded the
43
240
City Council Meeting - April 20, 1987
requirements for the parking spaces. The applicant's landscaping plan exceeds
the requirements in the Ordinance. I felt really good that the applicant
seemed to be doing the best job he could and in many cases exceeded our
Ordinance requirements. That's something that we don't often have the
pleasure of seeing. Usually they are pushing us right to the limit rather
than exceeding what the requirements that are set forth in the Ordinance so I
thought it was rather refreshing to see a developer who was more than willing
to go a step beyond.
Councilman Johnson: One thing, you don't have an update on your landscaping
plan. With the new parking, that eliminates quite a few trees. By my quick
count you're eliminating 4 sugar maples and 6 to 8 bushes for the new parking
if the parking is going in those four checkered areas and at the end of the
road where you have the signs.
Bill Jacobson: We're not actually taking out the shurbery. We're moving it
back in.
Councilman Johnson: You're going to slide it back in betwL=en the garages?
Bill Jacobson: Where we have the shurbery at this time located out here,
you'll notice this bay, the parking runs from here to here. In this case we
simply put the shurbery back here so it's still there and can still be seen.
The intention is to still retain the feeling and sense of greenery.
Councilman Johnson: The totlot out front could use s~me plantings around it.
It's kind of bare out there next to Kerber Drive.
Bill Jacobson: No, that is being done and I am working on a landscaping plan
but I can't complete it until I get another piece of information. Let me tell
you what that is. I have ~n working with the Watershed District on their
requirements and this came up since the Planning Commission meeting. They
have a requirement for us to have some water retention area and I thought with
the storm sewer going in we wouldn't have to go through the Watershed
District. It turns out we do have to and we're going to have to provide water
retention. In fact they are telling us that if we start this project before
the storm sewer is in, actually in place arz] working, then we have to have it
designed as if there wasn't a storm sewer in. So what we're doing is
providing some decorative water retention areas here and here in a shape
approximating this and I have to get some information from Jim Hill
Engineering. They are working on that now regarding the volume of water that
area retains. When I get that, I will set up the final shape of this and then
be landscaping around it and incorporate with that would be landscaping around
that totlot. I already am showing spruce around the totlot here. I'm going
to have that merge into this area. These are intended to look a little bit
like, I expect them to be a white crushed rock or white gravel and to have
something of the look of a sandtrap on a golf course. Very molded appearance.
Curvature appearance with boulders in it and some other landscaping around it
but I can't c~mplete that until I learn exactly what we have to have.
Councilman Johnson: That just brought up a thought to me. We're talking the
ponding downtown, ponding out at the entrance, the Chanhassen ponding look is
44
241
',ity Council Meeting - April 20, 1987
loing to become important. It sour~s like you're doing a good job here.
~id visit your apartments over in Jonatharu My first impressic~ was a little
:ramped and the vegetations, there was not the variety I would like to see.
it reminded me a little of the army, dress right dress. The trees are lined
lp and stuff. What I'm trying to say is break it up more natural. I think
~u're doing it. I would like to see more than one kind of bush. You've only
ot one kind of bush indicated here.
fill Jacobson: I expect to be adding more· I'm trying to meet the minimum
For now ar~ hope to get more·
2ouncilman Johnson: I appreciate your going beyond the minimum and it looks
ke we're going to be seeing more and better in the future and I agree with
totlots. Hopefully we can prevent the kids from the totlot on the side
Kerber. I don't like to get the kids towards the busy streets.
11 Jacobson: That's why the fir trees around there and probably some · To keep the~ fr~n running out in the street.
Johnson: Is your Waconia facility near a grade school?
Jacobson: No it's not. It's on the south side of town.
Johnson: The demographics here might be different because of your
for having a grade school right next door. That's really about all I
here.
Councilman Boyt: Gary, do we have standards for soundproofing between common
walls?
Gary Warren: I don't think so.
Councilman Boyt: Mr. Jacobson, do you have sour~proofing between common
walls?
Bill Jacobson: We had a problem in Waconia that there have been some weak
spots and I%m trying to correct that this time around. There are a couple of
tenants over there who have complained that they can hear sounds on the other
side. Basically, the walls exceed the State Code by a fairly good margin but
we've got to take care of the detail of that and be sure that thelfre sealed
all the way up. Like all the way through the floor structure so we don't have
any possibility of sound leaks.
Mayor Hamilton moved, councilman Geving seconded to approve Site Plan ~87-2
as shown on the site plan stamped "Received April 6, 198T' and the lar~scaping
plan stamped "Received March 4, 1987" and subject to the following conditions:
l·
The fence height for the trash enclosure exceed the height of the
trash disperser by one foot.
2. A sign permit must be filed for installation of the proposed sign.
45
242
City Council Meeting - April 20, 1987
4,
5,
All bituminous parking areas shall be lined with concrete curbing.
Compliance with all plat conditions.
That trees are not planted over the sewer line.
Ail voted in favor and motion carried.
C. AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR SEWER AND WATER
IMPROWF~NT$.
Gary Warren: I think Council is pretty familiar with this. We received a
feasibility study for this improvement at the April 6th meeting and separated
it from the curb and gutter improvements which were a little bit more
controversial perhaps. Since that time we have received a petition from the
effected property owners, James, Jacobson and Burdick, waiving their right to
a public hearing and read the special assessments so we are looking for
Council authorization to proceed with preparation of plans and specifications
and a building permit is being recommended.
Resolution 987-33: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to
authorize preparation of plans and specifications for sewer and water
improvements for West Village Heights. All voted in favor and motion carried.
NORTH LOTUS LAKE SUBDIVISION, SOUTHEAST CORNER OF PLEASANT VIEW ROAD, HERB
BLOOMBERG:
A. SUBDIVISION OF 5 ACRES INTO 12 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS.
Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the Subdivision
987-17 as shown on the preliminary plat dated March 4, 1987 with the following
conditions:
1. ~ne proposed cul-de-sac, Fox Hollow Drive, shall be renamed.
,
The applicant shall provide a driveway easement for Lot 11 over Lot
12 to the existing Fox Hollow cul-de-sac.
e
The applicant shall provide an easement over the drainage swale at
the 918 foot contour for Lots 6, 7 and 8 and an easement up to the
100 year high water level for the drainage basin on Lots 8, 11 and
12.
,
~ne private drive on Lot 6 must be at least 100 feet from the
existing driveway to the east.
5,
Coordinate the construction of the storm sewer between Lots 11 and 12
to coincide with the availability of the receptor storm sewer
proposed for the park.
46
243
2ity Council Meeting - April 20, 1987
6. All utility and street improvements shall conform to City standards
for urban construction.
7. Su~nittal of a satisfactory grading and erosion control plan.
8. Enter into a Developer's Agreement with the City.
9. Sul~ittal of an acceptable drainage plan to the Watershed District.
1~. A 2~ foot trail easement shall be provided along the northerly ar~
westerly boundary of the site.
All voted in favor at, motion carried.
B. PETITION FOR SEWER, 9~%TERAND STBRRT IMPRGVI~Mlg~TS.
_~i~ry Warren: Basically, we received a petition from Bloomberg Companies. We
are coordinating the improvements here with our North Lotus Lake improvements
as far as watermain and coordinated roadway and also the storm drainage so
there are some benefits to us to coordinate that efforts as part of our park
improvement project and we are looking to take seine away as a public
improvement project.
Councilman Geving: F~w many dollars have we authorized this year for Chapter
429 public improvement?
Don Ashworth: In excess of 6 million.
Mayor Hamilton: For 19877
Councilman Geving: Have w~ had that ~uch this year?
Don Ashworth: The biggest one is your downtown public improvement.
Councilman Geving: I really meant excluding the downtown. At one time we set
a cap for residential development in terms of a million dollars a year as a
ballpark figure as I remember.
Don Ashworth: 2 to 3 million and we went for a number of years where we
really had very little.
Councilman Geving: You see no problem with this Don?
Don Ashworth: No. The Council is continuously getting more projects. I
think we may ~ to look at that policy in the future but-so far this year I
do not see a problem with it.
Councilman Johnson: It's recommended that the firm of William B~ Engelhardt
and Associates be designated as the enginaer for this project. However, be is
also the engineer for the developer of this project. I think that seems to be
a conflict of interest there. Working for both the City and the affected
47
244
City Council Meeting - April 20, 1987
developer on the same project. I think we need to go out and look at bids on
this. I don't think we can hand it to Bill on this one. In other words, I
have a conflict of interest problem there.
Don Ashworth: We're proposing that he does the public improvement project
portion.
Councilman Johnson: He is the developer's engineer on this project. He's
been representing the developer at the meetings so far.
Gary Warren: I think that's probably why he is the choice because he's
familiar with the improvements that are proposed. He still has to design
them to City standards and the City Engineer's satisfaction. Tne design is
complex.
Mayor Hamilton: It's something that the Council is going to review so if
there is anything that's in there that doesn't look right, we're going to see
it.
Councilman Geving: Not only that, this is a feasibility study.
Councilman Johnson: Well, I'm bringing this up. I don't know what
liabilities are involved here. Maybe it's something our City Attorney should
be asked.
Councilman Geving: I think each of us kind of caught him and we recognized
that when it came through that he was representing Bloomberg.
Don Ashworth: Tney had a previous engineer that did the previous plotting and
there were significant problems associated with how are we going to get the
waterline through. I know that I met with Bloomberg Companies in looking at a
reconfiguration of that plat. We actually sent Engelhardt to them to
straighten out some of the previous problems so yes, their name ends up on
this document here but I don't consider that Engelhardt and Associates is
really the engineer for Bloomberg Companies.
Clayton Johnson: Well DOn, they are. Engelhardt is our engineer in this. I
think the reason t_hat he is probably the best one to do the feasibility study
is we relied on Bill working with the park consulting engineer to come up with
a plan that's acceptable to everybody. We got so many parties involved here.
We've got the Park Commission and Bill has been the guy that has kind of put
this whole thing together.
DOn Ashworth: But did we not send Bill to you?
Clayton Johnson: Yes, you sent Bill to us to coordinate the plans.
Don Ashworth: He ended up at that point being hired.
Councilman Johnson: He did a lot of work on the park there too I believe.
Clayton Johnson: He's not the consulting engineer on the park.
48
245
City Council Meeting - April 20, 1987
Councilman Johnson: No, but he was involved with that road access thing.
Councilman Geving: No, VanDoren, Hazard and Stallings is.
Mayor Hamilton: I think the point has ~ made so I don't know that we r~
to debate it.
Councilman Boyt: What conceivable gain could their he to his engir~ring firm
for taking on this work?
Councilman Johnson: 0oe thing, I think he can do it most economically of
anybody because he already has enough prior knowledge.
Councilman Boyt: I'm just saying if there is a conflict it would tend to
indicate that some~ has a gain to make ar~ if you've found a gain then I
think it's an issue we ~ to pursue and if there isn't any logical gain.
Does anybody have an idea of a gain?
Mayor Hamilton: No. Since Council again reviews the study, I see no way that
he could. Any other questions? If not, a motion is in order.
Resolution ~B7-34: Councilman ~eving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to
authorize preparation of the feasibility report for the North Lotus Lake
Subdivision for sewer, water and street improvements and that William R.
Engelhardt and Associates be designated as the engineers for tt~ project. All
voted in favor and motion carried.
REVIEW HERMAN FIk~D ACCESS PLAN AND AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF A FEASIBILITY
STUDY.
Mayor Hamilton: We have a partial feasibility study in front of us. I was
happy to see some additional alternatives suggested. There seemed to be some
good ones.
Councilman Geving: This wasn't really a feasibility study was it?
Mayor Hamilton: No. It's similar to a feasibility study but a few things
need to be added but certainly it's a lot better than what I've seen in the
past.
Councilman Horn: Didn't we ask about this possibility of going around and
looking at the sites and we were told we couldn't go down there.
Mayor Hamilton: T~e property owner wasn't willing to sell his property at
that time. Mark, did you have anything you wanted to go over with or clarify
in the report?
Mark Koegler: At your discretion Mr. Mayor. I would be glad to give you a
quick sumuary if you felt it was needed or just answer questions.
Mayor Hamilton: Probably just answer questions would be adequate.
49
246
City Council Meeting - April 20, 1987
Councilman Boyt: I would like to say that I like the pro and con layout. It
made it real clear and easy to follow and given the options, I support the
Park and Rec Cc~mission's reco~m~z~dation for Forest Avenue.
Councilman Horn: I go along with the recommendation.
Councilman Geving: I'll go with it. I like what I see here.
Councilman Johnson: First of all, 1887 that was platted?
Mark Koegler: Right.
Councilman Johnson: Okay. The other thing is I have a whole problem with
procedure tonight in that none of the neighbors were informed with what's
going on here. We're adopting this. The effected landowners have not been
infozmed.
Mayor Hamilton: We're not adopting anything. We're only authorizing the
preparation of a feasibility study.
Councilman Johnson: But we are saying that we're chosing Forest Avenue.
Mayor Hamilton: Ail we're doing is saying that we want to go ahead and
authorize the preparation of a feasibility study.
Councilman Johnson: What will it consider? Ail three options?
Mayor Hamilton: Sure. It will be a similar study to this with the options
included, as I perceive it and with additional info~mation.
Don Ashworth: I see the Council's action as one of this is the preferred
alignment based on what it is you've seen. You're going to move into a
feasibility study stage that will identify the cost. Tne owners in that area
will be apprised of the previous study but they will also want to know what is
this think likely to cost us and that's where we would narrow into this
specific alternative.
Councilman Johnson: Is the feasibility study of all three options, two
options or what?
Councilman Geving: A feasibility study has to cover all options.
Councilman Johnson: So we're going with all three options. I would like to
say that I want transportation information. I talked to several of the
neighbors. I see several of the neighbors have shown up tonight. I stopped
and talked to a couple neighbors on Saturday when I was out looking and that's
how they found out about it. Therefore, I think some of the concerns are
transportation and the amount of traffic going in and out and past their
houses isn't addressed and these transportation safety issues need to be
addressed in the next feasibility study.
Mayor Hamilton: What were you planning on putting in the feasibility study?
50
247
2ity Council Meeting - April 20, 1987
Mark Koegler: Let me give you a two second overview if I may. As was stated,
~s if your meeting hasn't ~ concise enough tonight, I won't stand here and
tell you this is a feasibility study that isn't a feasibility study. It was
~n access study which is probably more the correct title. Maybe perhaps none
)f us had the foresight when we went into this thing to realize that some of
the proposed improvements could be constructed in a manner with portions of
those costs could be assessable. That is what we would have to look at in
:levating this access study to a full feasibility study. We may have a
~imilar situation over on this TH 41 alternative. We may ~ot, depending on
~evelopment potential of the rear portions of that property so specifically
for the Forest Avenue connection and the State Highway 41, what we would be
looking at is the cost aspects ar~ how those costs might be assessed and what
land development might be used. The Oriole Lane aspect one is a little bit
more clear cut. We're dealing with public right-of-way there that is
preserved and I think that issue has been addressed previously so essentially
that's what we're looking at. There are three alternatives that we're looking
at right now and I would be glad to provide you with copies if you like?
C~y Warren: Mark, the Forest Avenue alternate that was in the feasibility,
did you include, I think you said it was a $19,~MM.~0 alternate or there
abouts, did that include the cost of extendir~ Forest Avenue to the access
road?
Mark Koegler: It did not. It assumed utilizing this right-of-way which was
tted in 1887 and we need so~e verification to make sure the ~, to the
t of our ability, is but a driveway. That included only a park service
road itu It did not include a fully improved public street throughout this
segment so it was a 20 foot wide crushed rock, dust control surface road for
mark access.
~ouncilman Johnson: All the way from the e~d...
Mark Koegler: From where the pavement teminates now all the way into the
~ark.
k)uncilman Johnson: ~kay. So that's the cost right now and if we get a
developer come in or if we can assess it, we will make it a good asphalt curb
and gutter road down and then w~ have the shorter length.
Mark Koegler: We would have to look a minimum City street standards for this
segment under that kind of scenario. But I can bring that back as
alternatives. It could either go in as shown here or as an improved public
street for this portion and then a park drive for this portion so those are
the options that we would bring back in full.
Councilman Johnson: Will your feasibility study be addressing transportation?
Trips per day? I found out one thing that I don't think the neighbors knew,
the ball park that will be in there is not a regulation size that is planned
to be in there so it won't be used with any Little Leagues or softball leagues
or anything like that. It's just a make-up ball park so we're not going to
have an organized group coming in there. Also, I~m looking at ~ effects of,
do we ~ 16 parking spots if we're not having any Little League. It seems
51
248
City Council Meeting - April 20, 1987
to be an awful lot of parking spots for this little park if there isn't an
organized Little League or something in there.
Mark Koegler: I can only address that saying the number of parking stalls was
set by the Park Commission. We did the plan for this park approximately three
years ago and I think that is a correct place to start in describing. The
park is one that is designed to be unique to Chanhassen's park system. It's
really a creative play type of environment. It's not a heavily intensive park
and you are absolutely right, the ballfield that's shown here is shown just
for casual pick-up type of games that kids would get involved in. It's not
designed to be accesible nor used for league purposes. Then the balance of
the site really is taking advantage of the amenities. ~he wetland area. Some
of the lowland areas in here. It creates a walkway system with a series of
adventure type play apparatus for kids. The Park Commission could, at your
discretion, relook at the number but that number had been set as being
desired.
Mayor Hamilton: It's going to be an extremely nice park and passive play area
with the walking trails and that type of thing and I would think that 16 cars
is not too many to have in there.
Pat Huttner: I live at 6340 Forest Circle. I have a couple questions. One
is on process. It seems to me the residents seem to come in a little bit
late. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm misinformed but we're always notified by
word of mouth or by chance. It's not like we're notified as this process goes
on. Only when it raises the hair on our necks. Who's going to pay for it.
Safety. Transportation. Those are issues I would like to have the Council
address. Also, some type of full report as to those costs be sent to the
residents that live in that area so we can proceed and reduce the conflicts
that might arise. Many times we are misinformed and that's why the conflicts
arise and people start talking about rumors that don't even exist. The first
thing my wife called me today and said there is going to be a park and I said
I was aware of that but what are you talking about. They are going to put a
full blown road through and I'm saying, wait a minute here. Basically, people
get misinformed. The other thing I would ask is, a couple things, is there
going to be any concessions or any type of vending down there?
Mayor Hamilton: No. Absolutely not.
Pat Huttner: Tne other thing, a proposal or suggestion is that they put a
hockey rink down there.
Mayor Hamilton: No. Absolutely not.
Pat Huttner: Why.
Mayor Hamilton: Cross country skiing and those types of activities.
Councilman Geving: I think it's just for outdoor pleasure. It's for hiking,
walking, looking at the trees, t_he foliage.
Pat Huttner: Who is it for that was what I was wondering?
52
249
City Council Meeting - April 20, 1987
Councilman Geving: The citizens of Chanhassen.
Pat Huttner: Don't they already have the Regional Park right next door that
has that?
Councilman Geving: I don't think so.
Pat Huttner: They don't have the Regional Park access?
Councilman Geving: I think this kind of park isn't going to be anything like
you' ve ~ in Chanhassen.
Pat Huttner: Okay, just up front then, I want to make myself on the record
that Ibm opposed to any type of upgrade for Forest Avenue at this point and
we'll work from there. ~nank you.
Councilman Boyt: I think the kind of issues you're raising are really the
kind of issues the Park and Rec Commission would want to hear from you because
they really lay out the park. You should get involved with them about what
your interests are and how you want to see these things brought in play. If
not in this park, then in another park in your area that's being developed.
pat Huttner: Could you answer my question on process. Is it normal procedure
for a councilman to walk through and ask? When does Park and Rec tell you
about this?
Mayor Hamilton: No it's not normal process for a councilperson to walk
through and start telling you about it. The Council, some time ago had
requested that we review the possible access places for this park. ~nere had
~ some proposed and there was some question about ~ so we asked
VanDoren, Hazard and Stallings relook at the issue to see if we couldn't come
up with some alternative selections for access to the park. This park has
been planned for a lot of years and it's always been discouraging to some of
us that we haven't had access to it sooner than this time. Part of the
process I think is, you may understand is when you do a feasibility study it
outlines your alternatives and some of the possibilities of actually doing the
project and it also outlines the cost. That's when the public gets involved.
Tonight is just a review of some possible alternatives. It doesn't talk about
Bob Rousiman: I live at 632~ Forest Circle right at the end of Forest Avenue.
I do appreciate Jay stopping by ar~ giving me some informatiom. I guess at
this time I would just want to be on record as saying .I do have some concerns
about the amount of traffic. There are a lot of young children in the area.
That street is very busy with bicycles and young kids. Especially around
Forest Avenue and on Forest Circle, it's really a blind turn with all the
bushes and there is some potential for accidents there.
Mayor Hamilton: It's not going to be like a racetrack going by there. It's
going to be a pretty passive area. No matter how the access is finally gained
to that park, with only 16 parking places, I don't think you're going to see a
lot of traffic no matter where it comes in. It's not going to be a Lake Ann
53
250
City Council Meeting - April 20, 1987
in the summertime for instance where you have 300 cars on the 4th of July.
It's just not going to happen that way.
Councilman Geving: The average person I don't think will even know that it's
there other than you people who live in the area. It's not going to get a lot
of traffic. I think what you have to do is get close to the Park and Rec like
Bill was mentioning. Has this ~cnpresented yet Mark? It has ~ presented
to Park and Rec so it's to us tonight to take the next step to an actual
feasibility study.
Councilman Johnson: I believe that the neighbors were involved three years
ago from the feedback I've gotten from several people. The Reeds on the
Oriole side and folks on Oriole are saying Forest is where it's going to be.
Mayor Hamilton: I've walked through the park with other council members and
we stopped and talked to residents along the way when we were trying to figure
out years ago how the heck to gain access to it and everybody keeps coming up
with suggestions and we still haven't found a good one yet.
Councilman Johnson: I would like to see if we could the Park and Rec to
review the Master Plan and get citizen comments from, like you say it's been 3
years since it's been looked at and it's probably been worked on over a number
of years before that 3 years. I don't know exactly when it started. It's
been a while, we need to get the issues of the nearby neighbors and see what
has developed in the area, what is needed in the area.
Mayor Hamilton: They can hold a public hearing once the feasibility study is
done to review the feasibility study to review the feasibility study and have
a public hearing and take public conxnent at the Park and Rec Co~mission.
Pat Huttner: Is there a normal time period when residents are notified of a
public hearing? Is there a minim~ amount of time or policy?
Mayor Hamilton: Yes, we do have policies dealing with that and we try to
notify everybody and give them a maximum amount of time so everyone has an
opportunity to either be here or write. When we hold a public hearing you can
either come and comment or the public record is held open for a period of time
after t_he public hearing so you can write to the City if you were unable to
attend the meeting. So everybody within the area will be notified well in
advance of the public hearings.
Pat Huttner: I guess the second reason is you remember about a year ago the
same residents vehemently opposed the corner project and basically you are
saying now that eventually that apparently is going to be developed somewhat.
I'm not sure if that's still tabled. Are you aware of that?
Mayor Hamilton: Tnere's nothing active. It may be active in Todd's mind or
on his drawing board but as far as I know there is nothing coming to us on it.
Councilman Johnson moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to authorize the preparation
for a MSA 429 public improvement feasibility study and that the study
addresses the safety, traffic, noise, and environmental issues of Herman Field
54
2ity Council Meeting - April 20, 1987
Fark. Also, that the Park and Recreation Commission to solicit neighborhood
input into the Herman Field Park and review Mater Plaru All voted in favor
motion carried.
.%PPROVAL OF AO2(X3NTS: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to
approve the Account Payables dated April 20, 1987 for check number 030694
through 030743 in the amount of $833,667.80; check ~s 028009 through
~28219 in the amount of $438,715.49 for a total number of 171 checks written
.n the total amount of $1,272,383.29. All voted in favor and motion carried.
[XYJS]CI L PRESENTATION:
buncilman Johnson stated he was concerned about tree hole mosquitoes and the
humber of holes in trees that ~ to be filled at Lake Ann Park. Mayor
Hamilton stated that Pat Swenson has been very active for many years about
tree hole mosquitoes and she organized information for public awareness.
~ouncilman Johnson said that he was concerned with the city parks. Councilman
Boyt stated that if the Boy Scouts are willing to do the work ar~ the City has
the materials, all the ingredients are there to do the job except for somebody
to spearhead it and Councilman Johnson volunteered to take charge of the
project.
Councilman Geving stated he was also concerned about Councilman Johnson's memo
regarding barbwire around the school yard. Councilman Gaving stated that
maybe a solution to removing barbwire fence, whenever a developer comes in to
develop property like Kerber's property and Chan Vista, that should be part of
the action to clean up the fence lines. Councilman Boyt stated the barbwire
fence in the schoolyard isn't going to be developed so it wouldn't have gotten
noticed if Councilman Johnson hadn't turned it up.
Mayor Hamilton stated that Councilman Boyt wanted some information on the
sideyard setback variance request by Barb Allison that was passed by the Board
of Adjustment and Appeals. Tb~ neighbors were here at the hearing. They
presented how they were going to put the addition on. They are going to enter
the garage right off of the street, kind of straight on. Not frem an angle
like they had been doing and they will put gutters all around the garage to
make sure that the water runs out to the street. That will be inspect~
either by Gary, Jo Ann or George to make sure that the gutters do indeed
transport the water from the roof to the street ar~ the neighbor was satisfied
with that because he had the same problem on his garage and that was all that
the neighbor was concerned about. That it wouldn't just run down and into his
yard so that was the only complaint from any neighbor and the variance was
granted.
Councilman Boyt: I have a couple concerns. One, in reading our variance
ordinance, it struck me that anything would qualify for a variance. It went
down the list of those 5 questions. Was it a self created hardship? No it
wasn't because the building has ~ there_ Well, somebody built that
building there right so in essence they created the situation by building it
55
252
City Council Meeting - April 20, 1987
as a one car garage and now we're turning it around and saying you can make it
a two car garage. When I looked at that variance, it said to me that if
anyone came in here and wanted to build a garage and it went into their 10
foot, I don't know how we would turn them down.
Barbara Dacy: I think it's a different situation because in this area and in
Carver Beach and the Red Cedar Point area over on Lake Minnewashta, those
plats were platted in the 20's and 30's during the timeframe when garages
were built right on top of the road. Staff is also faced with another
Ordinance requirement that you have to have a two car garage also so in those
situations where you have existing conditions that were built prior to the
existence of any zoning ordinance, we looked at that as...
Councilman Boyt: I can see why we wouldn't want to say you have to tear your
garage down, it no longer meets the Ordinance. On the other hand, are we
saying then that everybody who is currently has a variance can therefore
expand on that?
Barbara Dacy: No. Everybody still has to go through this process.
Councilman Boyt: But how can we turn thsm down?
Councilman Geving: It was a non-conforming garage to begin with. We're
trying to make the best situation out of a poor situation and that is that
there was an existing shed next to it. We forced the shed to be removed by
this action. We provide thehomeowner with the potential of making his
property that much nicer by adding another stall to his garage. It removes
some of the debris that is now sitting outside that one small garage and puts
it inside and there won't be a single neighbor in your neighborhood that would
object to that kind of improv~nent.
Mayor Hamilton: He did several things along with that to improve the
property. Tear down an old retaining wall. Built an addition on the garage.
Rebuilt the retaining wall. Improved the entrance to the garage. Ran the
water in a different direction. Had it stayed the same as it was, the water
still was going to run into the neighbor's yard. Now that doesn't do that
anymore so it really improved the situation.
Councilman Boyt: I'm glad that we got those. In reading the background on
that it indicated that the appeals board previously had said if you tear the
structure down we will approve it.
Councilman Geving: No. Not automatically. ~nat's just one of the
conditions.
Councilman Boyt: And I gather that stayed in as a condition in your approval?
Councilman Geving: You bet. As I found out, the shed was already torn down.
Councilman Boyt: He's a jump ahead of us. I guess my concern is, and I
remember that somewhere in the last few months we've been fairly careful to
try to protect this interpretation of what we grant a variance for and when I
56
253
City Council Meeting -April 20, 1987
see this, I guess I'm looking for where's our consistency? What's unique to
this so we can in fact rule out the situations that don't make sense?
Councilman (~eving: I think the situation is one of geography. We mentioned
Red Cedar Point, Carver Beach area for examples. Nearly in every case,
anything you do to those properties is going to be a big improvement so if yoU
add a garage, build a new garage or expand it, it's definitely something for
that area.
Councilman Boyt: What I would like to see us do is, what you're telling me or
what I'm hearing anyway is that if we improve the home value or we improve the
value of the property and the nieghborhood, then that's sufficient reason to
grant a variance.
Councilman (~eving: It helps but it's not sufficient reason.
Councilman Boyt: I don't think you can look at each variance case by case
because as soon as we do that we have conflicts and we're in a very weak
position to defend a case by case anall~sis.
Councilman (~eving: Here's a case tonight, the Rosen's who have a home
directly adjacent to this particular lot did exactly what these people are
doing tonight. They built a garage am] they tore down an old shed that had
been there for 40 years and the Rosen's had some water problems ar~ we
diverted it to the street. They came in tonight and once they found out we
were taking care of the water problem, they were more than happy to see their
neighbor upgrade his property. I think the neighborhood is the key. If you
have a lot of people who were opposed, if the residents were opposed to a
particular variance to be granted because it doesn't fit the neighborhood,
that' s one thing.
Barbara Dacy: Councilman Boyt, from Staff's standpoint we would like to
stress the fact that the topography ar~ the Zoning Ordinance and the
conditi~ that were beyond the applicant's control 60 years ago are the
deciding the factor. We can call those out to you. We have had requests where
side setbacks could be met but in this case we felt that those conditions
didn't exist and we would be imposing a hardship.
Mayor Hamilton: Bill, is it you don't like to grant variances or you don't
think there should be variances? I'm just curious what your position is.
Councilman Boyt: I think there is a very good reason to have the ability to
grant a variance and that is we want to be realistic. What I'm concerned
about Tom is I don't want to get into a position where a variance that doesn't
make sense can't be prevented because we have poked so many holes in this
thing in the past and I want to have some assurance that we're not doing that
to ourselves and that's why I brought it up.
Mayor Hamilton: I agree with you. It's one of those things that you have to
use good judgment when you're looking at each one and you have to be
reason_~ble but I do think that we have looked at many of them and not allowed
them simply because they just didn't fit into the area. People were creating
57
254
City Council Meeting - April 20, 1987
a hardship on themselves. I don't sit on that Board all the time. I did
today and often times we turn them down. We say sorry, you created your own
hardship or it just doesn't fit into the neighborhood or it's just not reason
enough or whathever you've done just isn't reason enough.
Councilman Johnson: Bill's taking up my fight that I fought a while back on
hardship and on this case, I think the existing building was not self created
but I agree with Bill. I want to really watch out for precedences.
The CityEngineer talked about the possibility of the City imposing a
sprinkling ban for the City on a voluntary basis because of the shortage of
rainfall.
Councilman Johnson moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to adjourn the meeting. All
voted in favor and motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 p.m..
Sutznitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
58