1987 11 02177
CHANHASSEN CITY ~IL
REGUIAR ME. ETING
~R 2, 1987
Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order. The meeting was opened with
the Pledge to the Flag.
MEMBERS PRESENT: CouncilEmn Boyt, Councilman Horn and Councilman Geving
Mf~B~ ABSENT: Councilman Johnson
STAFF PRESf~T: Gary Warren, Barbara Dacy, Jo Ann Olsen, Ix)ri Sietsema,
Larry Brown, Todd Gerhardt and Jim Chaffee
APPROVAL ~F Ac. WAIl%: Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Geving seconded to
approve the agenda as presented with the following additions: 'Councilman
Boyt wanted to discuss litter at Chan Vista, the Frontier Trail barricade
ar~ a proactive enforcement of city ordinances; Councilman Horn wanted to
give a update on the Met Council meeting he attended and also a reminder on
the House Transportation meetirg; and Councilman Gevirg wanted to discuss
postal addresses and public information. All voted in favor of the agenda
as amended and motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to
approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's
recc~me~dations:
b. Final Plat Approval, King Addition, Karen King.
e. Ordinance Authorizing Non-Licensed Personnel to Issue Citations.
ge
City Council Minutes dated October 19, 1987
Planning Ccm~nission Minutes dated October 14, 1987
Public Safety Go~nission Minutes dated October 22, 1987
he
Downtown Construction Project, Specialty Construction Items,
Reject Bids Received.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA: (a) Eight Acre Woods, Robert S(xm~rs:
1. Final Plat A~proval
2'.' Plans and S~ecifications, Phase 1
3. Develo'~ment Contract, Phase 1
Councilman Boyt: I'd really like to look at (a) (2) and (a) (3). As I
recall Eight Acre Woods is located right in the heart of an area where
there are other residents already existing. I would like to see us change,
under (a) (2.6) where it talks about working hours 7:~ a.m. to 6:0~ p~n.,
I'd like to ~ us include Saturdays on that. I know we've had this
discussica7 previously. I think when we're in a residential area we should
City Council Meeting - November 2, 1987
try to protect people's weekends. That's the only change that I propose.
Mayor Hamilton: Personally I'd not be in favor of that. You're saying no
work allowed on Saturdays?
Councilman Boyt: Right. No work on Saturdays, Sundays and holidays with
the understanding that in an emergency situation of course there's some
flexibility there but I think as a rule of thumb they shouldn't be working
in a residential area on weekends.
Mayor Hamilton: I guess I disagree. It's a temporary situation. ~ney
want to get the work done and a lot of times builders have to do what they
can depending upon the weather, especially this time of year. ~ney've got
to be working Saturdays. Some areas I know builders are working Sundays
just to try and get things buttoned up before it gets cold. I think they
need to do that. They should be allowed to work on Saturdays.
Councilman Horn: I agree.
Councilman Geving: I would agree with that statement.
Councilman Boyt: Well, that takes care of that. Let's move onto a(3)
then. ~ first point on (a)(3) would be trails which were, that was item
15. The developer here in Eight Acre Woods is giving some easements to the
City but is building no trails. I feel that to be consistent with other
developments we need to take the trail fee and not waive it so I'd like to
see 15 changed. I think where we've had only easements given in the past
we have asked for the entire trail fee.
Mayor Hamilton: They have a 20 foot wide easement along Chaska Road, what
additional trails would you want?
Councilman Boyt: No, I'm not asking for more land. I'm simply saying that
in the past when we have received easements, we have not waived trail fees
because we're not actually acquiring any property. We have waived trail
fees when they have been willing to build the trails and I think to be
consistent we need to not waive these trail fees.
Councilman Horn: What was the recommendation from Park and Rec?
Lori Sietsema: Park and Recreation Commission recommended to waive the
fees but that recommendation went through before the joint meeting when I
outlined how these easements and dedications worked and what should be
given credit and what shouldn't.
Councilman Horn: So we've changed the rules and now we're going to apply
the new rules to a previous development?
Lori Sietsema: I don't know that the rules were really outlined to begin
with.
City Council Meeting - November 2, 1987
Councilman Horn: Obviously they weren't when this development went
thro~h o
Gary Warren: The development contract was written around those
recommendations but it is correct that people who are coming through now,
that ~ are requiring builders...
Councilman Horn: I have a real problem with changing the rules in the
middle at this zero hour. I think we do way too much of that. Developers
go through and we set up a set of criteria and it comes down to the last
minute after they've committed everything and suddenly we've changed the
rules and I have a real problem with that. I have no problem going into a
development with guidelines set up but not changing things at the last
minute.
Mayor Hamilton: I agree with that. I certainly agree with your comment
that we do far too much of that. We seem to kind of charge horses
midstream all too often and all we're doing is creating a lot of difficulty
for the developers and builders and it creates problens for us too.
Councilman Boyt: I would agree with you that we certainly want to be
consistent with a developer but I think the other thing we're saying to
them is that we want to be consistent from developer to developer. In this
particular case, the Park amd R~c Board had not worked out a consistent
approach between developers and since then they have. Since we've not
approved this as of yet and we have approved other developments in the last
few sessions where we have stayed with this idea that we won't grant a fee
waiver unles we receive built trails. I think it's important to do that. Let
me introduce my other point and we can vote on it and see if it goes up or
dowru The other one is, I think in light of what we've talked about with some
other developments, we need to add a section in here where they have daily
clean-u~ That was Item 10 and in a recent discussion I think rightly so we
indicated an interest in having all blowable material picked up daily.
don't see that idea covered in this development contract and I think it should
be.
Councilman Geving: Doesn't it say the developer shall daily clean streets
and the general area? How else would you want to word it?
Councilman Boyt: I would want to include that it says clean all dirt and
debris that has resulted, I'd like to be sure that they understand that
they can't have litter blowing arour~] on the develo~nt.
Gary Warren: This is a medification based on the previous discussioru I
did add the words daily and general area to clarify based on I guess my
best interpretation from our discussion.
Councilman Boyt: So you feel that this gives you the lattitude to go to
a developer and have him pick up the blowable items? Okay, I~ comfortable
with that if you are.
City Council Meeting - November 2, 1987
Gary Warren: A point of information, the trail fees for the plat come to
$2,073.00 roughly.
Councilman Boyt: $138.00 a lot?
Gary Warren: PJ. ght.
Councilman Boyt: Well I would move that we accept item 3, the development
contract modified so that the trail fees were not waived.
Mayor Hamilton: Is there a second? If not, the motion fails for lack of a
second o
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the following
consent agenda item pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations:
(a) Eight Acre bloods, Robert Scorner: 1. Final Plat Approval
2. Plans and Specifications, Phase 1
3. Develo~ent Contract, Phase 1
All voted in favor except Councilman Boyt who opposed and motion carried.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: There were no visitor presentations at this
meeting.
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT REIMBURSEMENT, KATHY SCH~IARTZ, 790 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD.
Mayor Hamilton: Kathy isn't here yet. I guess we've discussed this at
length before. I'm not sure that she needs to be here. This is kind of
Don's item. Does anybody have any conm~ents they want to make?
Councilman Geving: The only comment I would like to make is I think Don
did a very excellent job in recapping the number of instances that I'm
aware of where a request for reimbursements have happened and I
particularly want you to refer to the second page. The last four lines of
the first paragraph. I do not know of an instance where this reimbursement
has occurred where it has not been solely an issue of reimbursement of an
amount paid by that owner back to that same owner. And that's basically a
very true statement. I think Don then captured a lot of what we now know
as fact in this particular case and tried to be very fair in pointing out
the pros and cons of whether or not a legitimate reimbursement is due Mrs.
Schwartz. I think he did an excellent job of putting this to the pen and
in cases like this I would like to see DOn retain these kinds of memos for
future reference because these are kind of landmark decisions in a sense.
These will come back again and again but I think he was very fair in
bringing up all the pros and cons and stating it the best way they can that
he sees no way that the reimbursement in this particular case would be a
fair situation. I totally agree with him. I think going back to 1976 and
finding 1980 with a recertification of these areas for assessments and then
the reassessment of these sewer and water assessments, I think he's
181
City Oouncil Meeting - November 2, 1987
adequately stated just exactly what happened here and I think Mr. Soderberg
at some future time certainly will have an opportunity if he so chooses to
develop another lot ar~ the assessments have ~ paid. So I agree with
the comments that Don made here and I think we can, as I said, he did a
very good job.
Councilman Horn: I think it's unfortunate that the facts have to unfold as
you go and you don't have them all upfront but that was certainly the case
here.
Mayor Hamilton: It still seems, I just can't -__~ to sort all this out.
It seems like the city has charged four sewer charges. There are only
three allowed and I don't think we're in the business of making a profit
off of charging excess sewer units when in fact thelfre not used ar~ may
never be. It ~cms somewhere along, the line there should be a refund made
to somebody. It's not clear to me that we know who that somebody ought to
be yet is the problem. That's rather unfortunate I guess. Personally I
think there's a reimbursenent due scu~=place but I 'm not sure where.
Councilman Boyt: I thought Dale's discussion in our last meeting was right
on the point when he said we've already paid for this. It's not like we
have this money and we've accumulated it someplace and now we're not giving
it out. This is a bill that was assessed to people so it would be covered
completely and what we're really doing when we grant this money back to
someone is we're deciding to charge everyone else for that sewer and I
don't think that's fair either. We are in a dilemma as was pointed out the
last time. It appears that we have precedent that guides us.
Councilman Coving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to deny the request for
the special assessment reimbursement to Kathy Schwartz at 790 Pleasant View
Road and the basis for that denial is the memorandum from Don Ashworth
dated November 2, 1987. All voted in favor and motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING: CERTIFICATION OF DELI~ UTILITY A(IX)UNTS.
Mayor Hamilton: We reviewed these a few weeks ago. We have thre people
who currently wanted to present something to us. Jeremy Cone, Marty
Jacobson and Bruce Carlson. Are any of those people here this evening?
Councilman Geving: I think the only problem here is we had a problem with
publication of this and the people had a chance to state their opinions.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to close public hearing.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
Resolution 987-115: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded for
certification of delinquent utility accounts. All voted in favor and
motion carried.
182
City Council Meeting - November 2, 1987
PUBLIC HEARING: VACATION OF PEACEFUL LANE, ART OWENS.
Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to close public hearing.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
Resolution 987-116: Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to
approve the vacation of Peaceful Lane right-of-way 351 feet south of 'the
Peaceful Lane and Pleasant View Road intersection. All voted in favor and
motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING: VACATION OF A DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT ON LOTS 1, 3,
4 AND 5, BLOCK 1, PHEASANT HILL THIRD ADDITION, DAVID HUGHES.--
!
David Hughes: I just Would like the Council to entertain this as it comes
before them. As you recall, at the time that this plat was approved I
raised this issue to the Council ar~ they suggested that this be resolved
in private which we ha~e proceed to do and this is a result of that
reccmxnendation.
Councilman Geving move~.", Councilman Horn seconded to close public hearing.
All voted in favor and:motion carried.
Mayor Hamilton: I did:: talk to Tom Klingelhutz today and he said he finds
that this needs to he done and he wants to get it finished.
Gary Warren: I should'probablypoint out so everybody understands that we
are vacating the drainage easement which we can do. We don't need it for
drainage. However, the utilityeasement is not being vacated. It services
Mr. Hughes' house so Iidon't think he'll have a problem with that.
Mayor Hamilton: We truly don't ~cd the place for drainage?
Gary Warren: No, the Crainage easily sheds from that area and it's no
problem. We're getting it back to the west with the replatting actually.
We're not losing anything per se.
Resolution 987-117: Co.]uncilman Horn moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to
approve the %acation a ',6 foot drainage easement on Lots 1, 3, 4 and 5,
Block 1, Pheasant Hill i~nird Addition. All voted in favor and motion
carried. :
·
·
LAKE RILEY MEADOWS, LOCATED NORTH OF PIONEER TRAIL APPROXIMATELY 1/2 MILE
EAST OF TH 101, RICHARD VOGEL:
:
A, SUBDIVISION OF :42 ACRES INTO 12 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS.
B. WETLAND ALTERATiION PERMIT FOR A HOLDING POND AND DEVELOPMENT WITHIN
200 FEET OF A CiASS B WETLAND.
183
City Oouncil _~cting - November 2, 1987
Jo Ann Olsen: I'll just run through the subdivision real quick ar~ then
the wetland alteration permit. The big issue tonight is the street
connection. The property is located south of Lake Riley, north of Pioneer
Trail. They are proposing to subdivide it into 12 single family lots. The
property also has a wetland approximately in this location, a Class B
wetland so they will also require a wetland alteration permit for the
construction of the street and for construction within 20~ feet of it. The
proposal is in the rural which is not served by sewer ar~ water. ~ney do have
two acceptable septic sites on each lot. The lots all meet the 2 1/2 acre
requirement. The only lots, Lots 5 and 9 do not meet the 180 feet at the lot
setback so they would require lot width varianes. They do have at least 200
feet of building area. Staff is supporting the lot width variance. As far as
the wetland, it is a Class B~ It is a low quality wetland. They are
proposing constructing a ponding area which will be constructed to Fish and
Wildlife standards. Dr. Rockwell has reviewed this site and approved what
they are proposing. They will require a Corps of Engir~crs permit to fill the
wetland and they have initiated that and the Corps of Engineers have no great
concerns. As far as the street connection, I'll just give y~u a background.
This proposal was submitted last year, approximately a year ago. At that time
staff looked at ultimately the Gagne property which is just to the west. ~he
cul-de-sacs are approximately in the same location. We at that time
determined that a connection was not feasible because of the vegetation and
the steep slopes. Therefore, when the Lake Riley Woods subdivision went
through we did not recommend that they provide an easement for future
connection and then also along with this subdivision we did not again
recommenda an easement for future connection. The Planning fbmmission
approved the preliminary plat and wetlar~ alteration permit but they felt that
a connection should be made and they requested staff to go back and look at it
closer. This time the engineering department looked at it in detail and found
that a street could actually take place. It will be approximately an 8% grade
and it will be extensive grading but Larry can go through that in more detail.
What would happen is that it would go through Lot 4 and Lot 4 would eventually
be lost. Lot 5 would remain. On the Gagne property Larry has a transparency
of approximately two lots here and a cul-de-sac a~d we would have to obtain an
easement fr~m those t~ property owners.
Larry Brown: I think Jo Ann covered it quite well. Here are the two
subdivisions The property line runnirg down the center. As Jo Ann
mentioned, there would be extensive grading adjoining the two cul-de-sacs. As
she also pointed out, the proposed road that I ran a check on would eliminate
the buildability of Lot 4 but would not affect Lot 5 of the Lake Riley Meadows
plat. As far as street grades go, Lake Riley Woods has proposed ar~ in fact
has already constructed an 8% street grade. Lake Riley Meadows could in fact
match that 8% grade at the end of their cul-de-sac. That pretty much takes
care of it.
Councilman Geving: ~at's the distance bet~=en those tw~ cul-de-sacs?
Larry Brown: The distance betw~mn those t~ cul-de-sacs is about 350 feet.
Mayor Hamilton: Why do you think it's necessary to connect the t~?
City Council Meeting - Nov~r 2, 1987
Larry Brown: The connection of those two cul-delsacs would allow access for
emergency vehicles and snowplowing. It's obviously an issue of having a cul-
de-sac frc~ Lake Riley Meadows of over 1,300 feet long.
Mayor Hamilton: It seems like another case of where we're trying to change
courses in the middle of the stream again. To me I don't think it makes a
whole lot of sense. I see no advantage to connecting the two rural
subdivisions. It just doesn't make sense to me. Richard, do you have any
cc~ments you want to make?
Richard Vogel: Just that I'm disappointed that it came at this time, what
they're proposing now. The realtor that will be selling the lots in our
property, or most of them anyway, has a letter of intent for interest in Lots
1 and 4. Outside of the lakeshore lots, 4 has as much interest as any of
them.
Councilman Geving: What is the value that you place on Lot 4 that you would
be losing if we made the decision to connect the two cul-de-sacs?
Approximately.
Richard Vogel: I suspose around $35,000 to $40,000.00. There has been no
price set.
Councilman Horn: I think another key issue there, rather than in relative
terms of dollars is the percentage of loss. You're not talking 100 lots here.
You're talking 12 lots. You pull one lot away from that and that's 8% of your
total develolmnent.
Councilman Boyt: If I'm sensing what you're saying correctly, I guess I'm
going to be in the minority on this issue. I think we basically, when Lake
Riley Woods was approved there was a discussion about can we connect this. I
felt that the sense was that we wanted to connect it to the proposed or future
development that would happen off on what is now Lake Riley Meadows. We
received some information that hasn't born out. In fact, it's been reversed.
I think it's time for us to reverse our decision. The Planning Commission
felt very strongly that we should not create a 1,400 foot long cul-de-sac that
we don't have to create and this is one where it certainly is difficult to go
back and fix an earlier mistake but I think it's important to not build 1,400
foot cul-de-sacs in this town. So I would support putting the road through. I
think the issue of whether or not Lot 4 is buildable is one that needs to be
wrestled with a bit given putting it through. I don't think we've
autc~atically lost that myself.
Councilman Horn: I think there's the other issue too. Have we talked to the
developer of the Gagne property? Would they be willing to do that?
Jo Ann Olsen: It's under single ownership now for those two lots so you would
have to deal with those individual owners. I haven't contacted tkem as to
which way.
Councilman Horn: Who would have to do that? The City would have to pay for
the easement so we'd have an additional expense to us also of who knows how
185
City Council Meeting - November 2~ 1987
much? Maybe an additional
Councilman Boyt: We're talking about a small portion of those two lots. I
don't know what the evaluation would be. I would suspect that since those
people felt they were buying lots on the end of a cul-de-sac they are not
going to be any happier than I w~uld be to see the City charge that.
Councilman Geving: I think that we are causing undue hardship for Mr. Vogel
in this case in the loss of a pretty valuable lot. We are charging the rules
of the game urger which he applied for this subdivision and I don't believe
that it would be proper for us now to go hack and try ar~ purchase easements
for the right-of-way to cover a mistake that possibly was made previously with
the Gagne property. We never know wh~ we lay out a subdivision, as Mr. Gagne
did earlier ar~ then Mr. Vogel followed it up with his, that these were all
goirg to mesh beautifully into some kir~ of road patterru We can't predict
that a~d because we can't predict it and we can't force the issue, in my mind
I always have a tendency to leave the individual subidivisions stand by
themselves as a unit. By doing that, we avoid these kinds of -problems that
we're trying to go back to new owners of property. They just bought this
property from Mr. Gagne and now we're going to ask that they give up some of
that property for an easement. Ih sure they're not going to be easy to deal
with. At whatever price it is, it's too much ar~ I don't believe the City
should be paying for that kind of mistake. Let Mr. Gagne's development
pr~ as it was planned. Let Mr. Vogel's subdivision proceed as it was
planned and don't try to mix the two of them and I think we'll be better Off
in the long run and we won't complicate the issue by trying to bring two
subdivisions together to make a road pattern that probably is going to be very
expensive for everybody concerned. We've got a very steep grade here. We've
got 8% which far exceeds our 7% limitatiom I just think that we're trying to
create a problem so we can correct it a~d I~ much in favor of leaving the
plan just the way it is and. not try to connect that cul-de-sac with Mr.
Gagne ' s.
Mayor Hamilton: I agree with you Dale. I think we did make a mistake perhaps
and making another one isn't going to. correct the first one so it's one of
those cases where two mistakes doesn't make the first mistake right. I think
we ought to just leave the subdivision as planned and put the cul-de-sac in
and not connect them. I~ sure that will make the people in Lake Riley Woods
·
happy and it will be fair to the Vogels also.
Councilman Horn: I have a question of Staff. Do we have different criteria
for cul-de-sac length on these rural develoizsents than urban develoiz~ents?
Barbara Dacy: The ordinance states that it's dependent on the development
density as a rough guide.
Councilman Horn: In the rural?
Barbara Dacy: In the urban area. More the 5~0 to 1,2~ would be applicable.
In Pio~r Hills we have cul-de-sac ler~ths up to 2,~ because the lot width
in the rural area in obviously twice that in the urban area.
City Council Meeting - November 2, 1987
Councilman Horn: That's my point~ I think we need to look at density ~nat
uses the road. It isn't so much the length of a cul-deLsac~ it's how many
people are using a cul-de-sac. Here we have 12.
Mayor Hamilton: Also, I think we had Wally Otto's subd~.vision ~.n here last
week and how long was that cul-de-sac?
Jo Ann Olsen: 2,800 feet.
Mayor Hamilton: 2,800 feet and nobody seemed to have a problem with that and
although it wasn't specifically a cul-de-sac and it may be connected to the
south someday and come back and make a loop back to Galpin, it could be years
and years and years, who knows when Merle might develop his property.
Councilman Boyt: We did specifically have a problem with that cul-de-sac so
we required a statement in the deed that it wasn't a cul-de-sac.
Mayor Hamilton: Look at what it is. Does the road go through? It doesn't go
through now and it may not go through for the next 30 years. You don't know
what's going to happen to that.
Councilman Boyt: I don't know what's going to happen to it but I know our
intention is to put it through and ~ said that very clearly.
Mayor Hamilton: Well, it's not anything that we can do. It's up to the
person who owns the land and if he doesn't choose to develop it, we have
created a 2,800 foot long cul-de-sac or dead end street, call it whatever you
like. That's my only point.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the preliminary
plat for Lake Riley Meadows dated August 28, 1987 with the following
cond i tions:
1. Approval of lot width variances for Lots 5 and 9, Block 1.
0
Submission of covenants restricting the resubdivision of Lots 5 and
9, Block 1.
.
All approved soil absorption sites must be staked, roped off and
approved by the City Engineer prior to final plat approval.
.
Approval of the wetland alteration permit and compliance with all of
the Wetland Alteration Permit conditions.
.
Provision of a 10 foot roadway easement on both the north and south
side of Pioneer Trail.
.
Provision of a 10 foot trail easement on the north side of Pioneer
Trail.
7. The applicant must receive an access permit from Carver County.
10
187
City Oouncil Meeting - November 2, 1987
8. The applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the City
and shall provide the necessary financial sureties as part of this
agreement for c~letion of the improvements.
9. The applicant shall obtain permits from the Water~ District, DNR
and Office of the Carver County Engineer and shall comply with all
their conditions of approval.
10. All improvements shall conform to City standards for rural
construction.
11. The road profile shall contain a 0.5% grade for a minimum distance of
50 feet prior to the intersection of CSAH 14.
12. The driveways of Lots 1, 2, 3, and 11 shall have adequate sight
distance for a 25 mph design spccd according to the standards of the
Minnesota Department of Transportation.
13. No private accesses onto Pioneer Trail shall be allowed.
14. ~dditional erosion control (hay bales and snow fence) shall be placed
as per Attachment 2.
15. Each lot shall be required to sub, it a Grading ar~ Erosion Control
Plan as part of the building permit application.
16. Wood fiver blankets or equivalent shall be used on all slopes greater
than 3:1.
17. Drainage shall be directed away from the houe pad of Lot 4. A
revised plan shall be s,,b~itted for approval by the City Engineer.
All voted in favor except councilman Boyt who opposed and motion carried.
Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the Wetland
Alteration Permit 987-12 for the construction of a holding pond and for the
filling of a portion of the Class B wetland for the construction of a street
with the following conditions:
.
Tn, holding pond be designed to the six specifications from the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service:
a.
The basin will have free form (no even-sided) shape to increase
shoreline length and provide isolated areas for feeding ar~
resting birds.
b.
The basin will have shallow embankments with slopes of 10:1 to
20:1 for at least 30% of the shoreline to encourage growth of
e~nergent vegetation as refuge and food for wildlife.
11
City Council Meeting - Novenber 2, 1987
Ce
The basin will have uneven, rolling bottom contour for variable
water depth to (a) provide foraging areas for species of
wildlife feeding in shallow water (0.5 to 3.0 feet) and ~b)
encourage growth of emergent vegetation in areas of shallow
water and thereby increase interspersion of open water with
energent vegetation.
d.
Tne basin will have a layer of topsoil (much from an existing
wetland being filled) on bottom of basin to provide a suitable
substrate for aquatic vegetation.
Se
The basin will have water level control (culverts, riser pipe,
etc.) to minimize disturbances of wildlife using the w~tland.
f.
The basin will have fringe of shrubs on upland surrounding the
basin to minimize disturbances of wildlife using the w~tland.
.
The applicant shall receive a permit from the U.S. Corps of Engineers
prior to any filling of the Class B wetland.
e
All septic systems shall maintain a 150 foot setback from the
proposed wetlar~] boundary as shown on Page 1 of the preliminary plat
and all structures must meet the 75 foot setback.
e
No alteration of the wetland will be permitted other than for the
construction of the pond.
5. The wetland shall always be preserved in its natural state.
Ail voted in favor and motion carried.
LAKE SUSAN HILLS WEST: PUD AGREEMENT.
Councilman Boyt: On Phase 1, I want to clarify that I understand what Phase
1 is of this develolament. I stand in favor of the second addition of the PUD
Agre~me_nt referred to as the 2nd draft, October 27, 1987.
Councilman Geving: Was there any particular reason Bill why you liked the
second version?
councilman Boyt: Well, there is. The first reason is because I think as part
of the negotiation that went into this, the developer really took a very
positive stand in my eyes in regard to creating a lot of green space in these
high density areas. More green space than be was required to. I felt that
was one of the key elements in my decision to approve this PUD and that's
addressed more strongly in the second draft. The other point is related very
much to the first one. To get that green space, the developer has agreed to
provide underground parking for the multiple dwellings. I was very impressed
when he indicated a willingness to do that and that also is addressed in the
second draft and not in the first.
12
189
City Gouncil Meeting - November 2, 1987
~ouncilman Gevirg: I guess that's why I wanted you to state that. In the
second draft there is the underground parking for the multiple dwellings.
think this is the first time we've ever asked that this be included in a
development contract. I don't know of it ever being included in any other
time. We've asked for enclosed parking but not underground parkir~3 and I
guess from what the developer is saying or someone is saying here, maybe it's
staff, they are indicating that it is approximately $2,~.~ to $2,5~.~ per
unit more for the underground parking. That is a lot of money for us to ask
the developer to come up witl~ I don't know what Mr. Patton's opinion is on
this or statement is on this but I have not heard this before.
Don Patton: I think what our statement was is that we were providing one
underground. Non~nlly you have tw~ and Bill are you saying tw~ underground?
Councilman Boyt: No, I~n not. You're only required to provide one enclosed
parking space and you're providing that underground.
Councilman Geving: Are you willing to do that Mr. Patton?
Don Patton: Yes. That's in the R-12 that you're talking about? When you get
into the R-8's, obviously that can not be. Normally youh~e got one garage in
and one space outside.
Councilman Geving: It says for multiple dwellings shall be underground. Is
that a proper term? Maybe this should be defined. It says all e~closed
parking required by the City Zoning ordinance for multiple dwellings shall be
underground. There should be a reference here to the high density R-12 and
not just multiple d~mllings so that has to be clarified. Don't you agree?
Barbara Dacy: ~nat would be Outlot A. That would only apply to Outlot A.
Councilman Geving: Yes, but that should be more clarified here. If Don 'is
willing to provide that, I have no other conments.
Mayor Hamilton: Don could you possibly tell us, if you know, if you provided
underground parking and it's goir~3 to cost you $2,~ to $2,5~.~ per unit,
what does that do to the monthly rent of that unit?
Don Patton: I don't guess I've got a number but we are talking to a builder
and that really is the kind of unit he's looking at.
Mayor Hamilton: But if you were looking at charging $50~.0~ per month rent on
a unit without undergrour~ parking, you're going to put underground parking,
them what is, do you have any idea what you might increase the rent?
Don Patton: I wish I could give you a figure on that. I could get it for
you.
Mayor Hamilton: I think that's important because all along in this whole
process of trying to get this PUD established, we talked about this area as
being the area where we wanted to have higber density and more affordable
housing for the people who are going to be hopefully workirg in our industrial
13
City Council Meeting - November 2, 1987
area ar~ within the city and we needed to have some affordable housing for
them which we don't have currently. We continue to do things to drive the
cost up for the project which consequently, in the way I look at it, that
interprets to higher rents. Are we taking away affordable rents? Are we
getting to the point...
Don Patton: ~hat's a good question. Everytime the Council and staff has
asked for more things, there's no free lunches. You're driving somebody out
of affordable housing.
Mayor Hamilton: I think everybody was so terribly concerned when this whole
process started that this area had to be zoned R-12 and R-8 and the zoning
could not change because this was the place where we wanted to have affordable
housing. Where we wanted to have lower income housing if you will and I think
suddenly we're finding that that's not going to be the case anymore so I just
want to make sure that everybody is clear on that. Suddenly we've created
something that's not what we had in mind in the first place because I don't
think you're going to find real affordable housing in there when you start
putting underground parking. It will be very expensive. We're talking about
an amenity that usually only your higher rent apartment buildings or condos or
such have. I just wanted to bring that up. Any other con~ents?
Councilman Horn: That brings up an interesting point. We always tend to try
to equate value with size and it just doesn't work. To be consistent with the
whole development, I am not in favor of having the developers provide
underground parking for one space per unit. Let's get back to where we talked
about when we first started this whole process. Get back to affordable
housing. Talking about the people we wanted to have living here. I think
we're telling them w~ don't want th~m to live there an~ore.
Councilman Boyt: I don't think we're saying that at all. I think that we
have demonstrated repeatedly over the last year is a willingness to have
affordable housing in Chanhassen. I feel that this development represents a
high concentration of future citizens of our city and they deserve a high
quality development. If the developer says he is interested and willing to
commit to building underground parking, to putting in good parks, to having
amenities for the people that are going to live in there, I think the City
Council should encourage him to do that.
Mayor Hamilton: There's no question about that. We can encourage him to
fence around the whole place too and put a dome over it and then it just
drives the cost up more is all I'm saying. The more you add to it, the higher
the cost go, the more people you cut out at the bottom. You've changed your
total market. You don't have the same people currently looking to live in
this subdivision as we started out wit~ It's not the same group of people
because we've raised the price.
Councilman Geving: Tom, I'd like to ask staff where this came from? Where
did this underground parking, it's the first time I've seen it?
Jo Ann Olsen: From a recommendation from the Council.
14
191
City (~ouncil Meeting - November 2, 1987
Councilman Geving: From the Council? Which Council? Or was it a council
me~oer?
Councilman Boyt: We recommended it. I recommended it and I can tell you that
if you'd like the PUD to pass tonight, undergrou~ parking is s~methirg the
developer said he was more than willing to do. I think it improves the
development as I see it. I know we have a disagrccment about what this
development should be aimed at. I think it should be aimed at creating the
best quality opportunity for the people who live there. This means more grc~n_
space to those people who are living there. The developer is willing to 'do it
at no cost to the City.
Mayor Hamilton: Of course but who's going to live there? Can't you see that
you're not going to have these low rents as we've talked about having? You're
going to have a different mix of people living there. It's not the same type
of thing the PUD, I believe, was designed to try to have higher densities and
lower cost housing. You have, with your blackmailing the rest of the Council,
managed to drive the cost up ~n this whole thing. Having a trail every place
you turn around and doing everything else out there, and I don't think it's
right. I just don't think you're being reasohable Bill. I really don't.
Councilman Geving: Let's discuss this for a minute Mr. Mayor. We've already
passed the PUD, is that correct? What is the action tonight?
Jo Ann Olsen: The action tonight is the PUD Agrccm~t. The preliminary plat
has already been approved. The final plat has not yet ~ approved and along
with that the final rezoning.
Councilman Geving: And the Council action requires how many votes?
Jo Ann Olsen: Four-fifths.
Councilman Geving: Four-fifths on this action?
Mayor Hamilton: For the PtD A~re~ent?
Jo Ann Olsen: No, not for the PUD Agreement. For tonight that's not four-
fifths.
Councilman Geving: We've already done the PUD.
Mayor Hamilton: The PUD is already approved, is that correct?
Barbara Dacy: The ordinance says that upon approval of the final plat hhat's
when the PUD is finally approved. You have approved the preliminary plat.
Mayor Hamilton: We don't have the final tonight either?
Jo Ann Olsen: We' re waiting for the EAW.
Mayor Hamilton: You have to wait until what, tonight until the comments are
complete?
15
City Council Meeting - Nov~m%ber 2, 1987
Councilman Horn: We were just trying to rough out what that would cost in
additional rent. I'm not sure that this is reasonable but you assume that you
recoup your investment 5 years in rental charges if you were adding-$33.00 a
month in rent. You might know if that's a reasonable thing to expect Don.
Mayor Hamilton: I would think it's going to have to be more than that.
You've got the cost of your money to do it in the first place. I don't know
what all is included in that $2,000.00 to $2,500.00 but, that's just added
cost. Does that include the cost of your money and I don't know what else
that includes?
CounciLman Horn: I'd say this w~uld be a minimum.
Councilman Geving: I'd like to ask the staff why they're recommending the
first draft over the second draft.
Jo Ann Olsen: We felt that requiring underground parking would raise the cost
of the housing and we also felt that with the condition that we're proposing
for the density, the maximum density of the multiple family, it's more
reasonable than setting... Along with the PUD Concent Plan Agreement, they
are having a higher density than is typically approved with the quality...
We're just not exactly sure what the amount of curbing that will require.
Councilman Geving: Could you tell us again the differences, real quick,
between the first draft and the second draft except for the underground
parking. Gould you just list those for us?
Jo Ann Olsen: The only other difference is on, I believe it's page 4 of the
draft is on 6(D) on the top of page 4, there are the words, unless otherwise
agreed by the parties. That's the only difference between the two drafts and
that has been added to make it clear that those impervious surfaces can be
negotiable once the site plan comes in. Then the other change that staff
added at the last minute, in addition to the two drafts was to accept instead
of the maximum impervious surface of 40% for density of 12 units or more and
35% for multiple areas up to 12 units.
Councilman Geving: Where is that stated in the first draft?
Jo Ann Olsen: That's not in the draft. ~nat's just in the cover m~o.
Councilman Geving: Should it be in the first draft?
Jo Ann Olsen: If you approve it, we would put it in the draft.
Councilman Boyt: Where did you get those percentages?
Jo Ann Olsen: We looked it up in the zoning ordinance.
Councilman Boyt: So you're proposing a 5% greater surface coverage than our
existing ordinance allows?
16
193
City Gouncil _~'cting - November 2, 1987
Jo Ann Olsen: Right but that's for 12 units per acre and they will be having
up to 17 units per acre.
Don Patton: I did forward some changes in this. I want to make sure we're
talking the sam~ There were s~me mistakes in there and I wanted to make
sure. I wanted to be sure that those are corrected before we make a motion on
this. First of all the developer agrccment has got to be the right people
which it wasn' t in the draft. That is the correct name and do you have that?
Don Patton: The other thing that ~s to be changed is o~ page 4, item
We talked about $150.00 per single family unit, not $450.00. $500.00 on
multiple, $150.00 on single family. It's in the Minutes.
Councilman Boyt: I guess I'd need to see that in the Minutes Don.
Councilman Horn: Does staff agree that's in the Minutes?
Jo Ann Olsen: I think he is correct. He also, on the first RSF zoning
distrtict changed to PUD zoning and we will keep it as RSF because those are
the requirements that we will show.
Don Patton: I don't have any problems with that. Gn Page 2 there's just some
typographical errors. It's 22.6 should have been 23.6. C, the 23.6 and 221,
those are right off the PUD COncept Plan. The other item in 4 that I had
requetsed and I suggest for adoption is the 65% rather than 50% which we
talked about two weeks ago. On the top of page 3, I really don't see why we
~ all the wording in Phase 1, Phase 2. I suggest the wording say that the
5 foot sidewalk be along all street and I think the trails pretty well spells
it out. We don't ~ Phase 1, Phase 2 in there. I think those were the
items. Tree notices were also wrong on Page 7. Then on Page 8, Jim and
Barbara Curry have to have a signature box on it that they have reviewed it
and also a notary for the Curry signature. I have provided the legal
description for the staff for Exhibit A and of course concept drawings also.
Mayor Hamilton: Jo Ann, going back to page 2, 23.6 that was in fact a typo?
Jo Ann Olsen: Right.
Mayor Hamilton: (1kay, then how about in the next sentence, 2017 Don would
like to put in 221. Is that a typo also?
Jo Ann Olsen: Right.
Councilman Horn: Are there any of the additions or corrections that you
disagree with?
Jo Ann Olsen: Urger 4 with the 50%, Lori had prepared some numbers to show
yDu the profit.
17
194,
City Council Meeting - November 2~ 1987
Councilman Geving: I think we should do what the Mayor's doing. GO through
this one page at a time.
Mayor Hamilton: That was the next item was the 50% versus 65% and Lori has
prepared...
Jo Ann Olsen: A presentation for that.
Councilman Geving: I don' t think it' s necessary.
Lori Sietsema: Basically I was just going to justify where I really need 50%
of the park dedication fees.
Councilman Geving: It's not necessary. I don't think it's necessary.
Mayor Hamilton: Okay, page 3. The verbage in the phases and why we need the
phases and the Powers Blvd. portion. Can you go through that whole thing?
Jo Ann Olsen: Just real quickly, we wanted to point it out in phases because
the Park and Recreation Commission wanted to be sure that the trails were
developed as needed. That's why we want to with the Phase 1 it specifies
which trails will be as a part of that phase. It just adds clarification for
us to point out that we do the trails at this time. -In our memo we pointed
out that the second paragraph should actually be under Phase 1. That was
pointed out in the cover msmo.
Mayor Hamilton: So there isn't a phase 2, or the Phase 2 would be the 8 foot.
Jo Ann Olsen: And the 5 foot and the other 5 foot.
Mayor Hamilton: But you're saying Phase 1 and Phase 2?
Don Patton: We've got 11 phases in the thing. That's the reason, I think
we're trying to get too specific in this thing. This is a concept document
which talks about where the trails are going to be and there's a park plan
with the City which they hired a consultant to do and all we're doing is
trying to implement that. I think that it's completely incorrect the way it's
written.
Councilman Boyt: I think we could clear this up very easily by following
Don's suggestion that trails and sidewalks will be constructed as streets are
built.
Don Patton: And as the thing is platted. That's how it's going to be built.
Mayor Hamilton: Yes, I don't see any need for phases.
Leave the other verbage in there.
Cross out phases.
Don Patton: Take out the words Phase 1 and Phase 2 and all the second line
there, then it reads correct. If you take out the words Phase 1 and Phase 2
and that whole second thing that says 5 foot sidewalks because that's
repetition, I think the fourth paragraph on the sidewalks. 5 foot sidewalks,
18
195
City Council Meeting - November 2, 1987
off-street trail sidewalks alorg one side of all internal streets except cul-
de-sacs. That's what the Council is saying.
Mayor Hamilton: Okay, so you're suggestirg that the fourth paragraph be
included or excluded?
DOn Patton: Included.
Mayor Hamilton: That's the o~ly one that should be included?
Don Patton: Yes, because all the second one says is the same thirg that the
fourth one says.
Mayor Hamilton: Does the Council have a problen with that?
Mayor Hamilton: Going over to Page 4, iteu e.
Lori Sietsema: Mr. Mayor, I think the Park and Becreation Commission would
like somewhere in there that they would ~ both sides of Powers if it was
d~--~d necessary for the final phase.
Mayor Hamilton: Final lahase, what final phase? What final phase are you
talking about?
Lori Sietsema: Whatever the final phase is, if he's got 11 phases. The
recommendation along Powers was an 8 foot trail along one side but they felt
that it may very well be necessary to have a trail on both sides of Powers and
the developer agreed all along that t~ would put in that second side if the
City thought that it was necessary before the development of this whole thing
was finished. Before everybody got up and walked away.
Councilman Boyt: Let' s find out what Don' s recollection is.
Mayor Hamilton: Is that what you...
Don Patton: The thing that we said was we could commit the east side of what
is in Your Comprehensive Plan right?
Lori Sietsema: Right.
Don Patton: And that's what the motion was.
Lori Sietse~a: And they stated...
Don Patton: We can go on forever and keep adding things. That's the way the
Park Department works around here°
Mayor Hamilton: Apparently the way everybody is working I guess. Keep piling
it on.
19
City Council Meeting - November 2, 1987
Lori Sietsema: I'm not adding anything new Mr. Mayor. I can get you the
Minutes from that and it's been in every single staff report that's been given-
to you that the developer has agreed at the very first meeting of the Park and
Recreation Commission meeting, that they would put in a second trail along
Powers if the City thought that it was necessary.
Mayor Hamilton: Do we have a trail on both sides of any street in the City
now?
Lori Sietsema: No.
Mayor Hamilton: Okay. How does the Council want to handle that?
Councilman Geving: I'm satisfied with the way it is.
Mayor Hamilton: Back to page 4, item E. The developer shall provide $500.00
of landscaping per multiple family unit and $150.00 for single family unit.
Is the $150.00 correct? You checked that and it's correct right?
Councilman Horn: What about item 7 on Page 4? Are we talking 4 years or 5
years from the date of the agreement?
Don Patton: We don't have a problem with that. It's got to longer than 2 and
and it's got to be less than 10. That was more of whatever, the Council felt.
Mayor Hamilton: If he wants an additional year, it doesn't matter. If it
doesn't matter to you, is 5 better? Are you more comfortable with that?
Don Patton: I think so. We worked very hard to get this concept and not to
have to get an extension.
Gary Warren: Development contracts, which obviously along with this State
Statute requires a minimum of 2 years. The City Attorney has opted for us to
be consistent at 2 years, i'ne PUD having a little bit more flexibility I
guess of 4 but the decision shouldn't be taken too lightly. We don't want to
get too far out because it does give them a complete lock on coming in in the
future as far as changes in enviromnental issues.
Mayor Hamilton: It's also a large subdivision.
Councilman Gaving: I think the Council can make this decision. This is a
call on the biggest development we've ever faced in the City and I think that
w~ need whatever time the developer is recommending. I would go with 5.
Mayor Hamilton: Yes, I'll go with 5. Page 5, there were no questions. Page
6, no questions. Page 7, there was a change of address in item 15, notices.
Change to 7600 Parklawn Avenue, Edina, MN 55435 is correct. That can be
changed. Then on Page 8 we need to change to the correct name again of the
development and it's Partners, James Curry and Barbara Curry need to be added
as signators and again change Argus, scratch that and add Lake Susan Hills.
DOn Patton: And a space for the notary for the Currys.
20
City Council Meeting - November 2, 1987
Mayor Hamilton: Now anyone else have anymore questions about anythirg in
here? Back to the first page of this draft, Jo Ann you mentioned that the PUD
zoning needs to r~ain and say RSF zonirg. Is that correct?
Jo Ann Olsen: Right. The reason for that is when the single family comes in,
we still use that zoning as the setback.
Mayor Hamilton: Even though it is a PUD it's referred to as a RSF district?
Barbara Dacy: It's just saying that the uses, the standards for setbacks and
so on and requirements are from the RSF district and will be applied to the
single family lots.
Mayor Hamilton: Now we need to de~ide which draft Council like to adopt.
Whether it's one or two. I~n going to move for approval of PUD Agreement,
take staff's recommendation and we adopt the first draft as amended this
Councilman Boyt: You r~ to know that in following up with Don, who my
understar~ing is has followed up with our Attorney, this can not be passed
without a four-fifths vote.
Mayor Hamilton: So you're still going to blackmail the rest of the Council?
Councilman Boyt: That's your term, that's not mine. I think that all of us
here have firmly dug our feet in the grour~ when we think the issue is
important and I think that's appropriate. This happens to be one where I
think that the largest development in this city ~s to come in with the
highest quality standards that are reasonable so yes I will vote against this.
Mayor Hamilton: Perhaps we should go hack and add some more things the~ to
jack the price up some more so that you can eliminate anybody from living here
who may have wanted to work in the community. Maybe that would be
appropriate.
Councilman Boyt: Well Tom, I think we've asked for trails. I think trails
are very reasonable in a development of this size. We've asked for parklands,
all those have added to the cost. The developer has said he would like to put
underground parking ar~ we've talked about a potential figure of $33.M~ per
month to give these people more gr~----n space hasically. I don't think that's
holding somebody at r~. I think that's saying to them we want a c~ml ity
development and yes it will price some people out of the market ar~ I'm
c~mfor~le with you putting that responsibility on my shoulders.
Mayor Hamilton: I think you're being terribly inconsistent when in the first
place you wanted to hold the developer up to conform absolutely to the letter
of the PUD ordinance to do everything that was in there and I think it was
probably you c~mment early on in this thing that said you did not want to
change the zoning to downgrade the zoning at all because this was the area
that we had selected many years ago, prior to your being here, that would be
an area for high density, lower income housing. The developer at that time
21
City Council Meeting - November 2, 1987
wanted to change the zoning to downzone it. To change that a little bit which
probably would have done many of the things that he's ended up doing now ar~
you were not in favor of that because this had to be our high density area for
the lower income people that we want to have in our community. What we've
effectively done is taken that, we've disregarded that completely. We aren't
allowing those people to move into this area because it's going to be too
expensive because of all the amenities that have been added.
Barbara Dacy: I think the Council is discussing a procedural issue also.
Staff direction, or at least the direction that we took from the October 5th
meeting on the agreement only was that the Council approved the Agreement
subject to including the five conditions that are on the first page of the
cover memo. We went back and prepared the agreement with those five things.
Staff came back with two recommendations on the first two items of Council
approval. I don't know your conversations with Mr. Ashworth or whatever, but
we're discussing the PUD Agreement right now and the way the ordinance reads
is for the final plat approval is the last time that the PUD is actually
decided upon as to whether or not it's going to be approved or not. So from a
procedural point of view, according to the October 5th Minutes, Council has in
fact approved the Agreement subject to resolution of the five conditions.
Jo Ann Olsen: Subject to staff review is how it was stated. What we did was
review the two options, the two drafts and came back with our rec(xmmm~ations.
Councilman Horn: Are you saying then that we don't need a four-fifths vote to
pick the choice, the options that staff is recozxnending?
Barbara Dacy: Mr. Boyt said that he talked to Don Ashworth and this is my
interpretation at this point on the Agreement. I don't know what you talked
about.
Councilman Boyt: We probably need to clarify that. I certainly don't want to
misstate what Don's intentions were in conveying that to me. Given a few
Minutes I can show you that we covered exactly what the percentages would be
in those areas. I don't see that in your five points. I can tell you for a
fact that you've got point 5 wrong.
Barbara Dacy: The impervious surface ratios were presented in one of the
drafts.
Councilman Boyt: In one of the drafts. Okay, but Ihn saying to you that the
intention was, and it's clearly stated in the Minutes, that those
percentages were maximum percentages of coverage and that's not what you
reflected in the first draft.
Barbara Dacy: That's because it's a staff recommendation. I wasn't meaning
to say that that was what the Council approved. What you see in the second
draft is the direction from the Council. Staff merely came back with
recommendations on the impervious surface ratios and the parking. You're not
presupposing Council' s actions.
Councilman Boyt: So which one of these have we already passed?
22
199'
City Oouncil Meeting - November 2, 1987
Jo Ann Olsen: It says that it was approved subject to staff review.
Barbara Dacy: We reviewed it and we raised two issues that you're deciding
tonight. You can either vote for the ur~erground parking and agree to those
specific percentages or change those.
Mayor Hamilton: And that should be a straight majority vote I presume?
Barbara Dacy: Yes.
Councilman Boyt: I can tell you that if you c~e the intent that was
clearly stated two weeks ago, that you have to have a four-fifths vote. That
would be absolutely crazy to say that something that was passed by a four-
fifths vote could be amended by a majority. It doesn't work that way.
Mayor Hamilton: I don't think we're changing the intent. }iow are we doing
that?
Councilman Boyt: You're clmanging the intent because you're providing
flexibility in the covered surface which was not intendecL You're charr3ing
the intent when you talk about the park trails only being on the loops to the
parks. That was not the intention at all and' it wasn't stated that way. Now
I know a lot of things fly around here but before I made the motion to pass
that I stated specifically I want these percentages covered. I want
underground parking covered. I want the trails on all those roads other than
Barbara Dacy: I think that the trail item you did include in that statement
about what Mr. Patton just got done discussing. The first five points on the'
cover page were summary items. The Minutes are attached. We tried to prepare
the agrc~nent as best wa could from Council direction.
Councilman Boyt: I think Mr. Patton wants to get this thing in the groutS.
I'd sure like him to get it into the ground. It's not going to go into the
ground with a three-fifths vote ........
Mayor Hamilton: I don't know that and I don't think you know either.
Barbara Dacy: Let me point out one more thing. The ordinance is not specific
as to PUD agreements. It is specific to final plat and the zoning. Four-
fifths vote is required for the final plat ar~ the rezoning action to the PUD.
Again, that is my interpretation at this time ar~ I can't address what Mr.
Ashworth has stated previously.
Councilman Boyt: Barbara, when you say a four-fifths vote is required for the
final PUD.
Barbara Dacy: The final plat and the second and final reading of the rezoning
action to Planned Unit DeveloIm~nt.
Mayor Hamilton: Let me ask Don, how would you prefer to proceed? Do you want
to put undergrour~] parking and say the beck with it? You'll just raise the
23
City Council Meeting - Nov~nber 2, 1987
price so you can get on with it or would you be willing to fight a bit?
Don Patton: The people we've talked to communicated they probably would put
underground parking in. It's going to raise the price but that gets to be an
objective of the City. It probably won't develop as fast because everybody
living in $500,000.00 houses can't afford it. People can't afford a $900.00
rent because they can't afford it. That's something that you as staff and
City Council and Planning Commission put on the citizens of the community you
live in. Tnat's your own conscience.
Mayor Hamiiton: What I'm saying to Don is, Mr. Boyt has opted that he will
not vote in favor of not having underground parking and I don't believe I'd
vote in favor of having it so we're kind of at a stalmate and I'd like to have
this resolved. I don't know if you want to move ahead. I don't believe that
we need a four-fifths vote but I'd like to get that clarification on that and
that's going to delay it. I know you want to move ahead.
Don Patton: It's warm today but it's getting cold and it's going to get a lot
colder. We are trying to get this thing in the ground. Is there some
compromise wording. Rather than butting heads on something, if you could come
up with some cc~promise wording that can be looked at.
Mayor Hamilton: Unfortunately on this one I don't think there is.
Councilman Boyt: I'll do this, we stick with the percentages as stated and he
can provide any parking that meets our ordinance, parking
is just one way of getting at that percentage. Maybe there are other ways of
getting at that percentage.
Councilman Horn: So in effect we use provision two but eliminate the
requirement for underground parking.
Councilman Boyt: I'll accept that.
Mayor Hamilton: I'll amend my motion then to reflect that c(mment.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to adopt the second draft of
the PUD Agreement for Lake Susan Hills West as recommended by staff without
the requirement for underground parking as amended by the City Council. All
voted in favor and motion carried.
Councilman Boyt: I don't know what I'm voting on. You said you amended your
motion.
Mayor Hamilton: I said I moved to approve the PUD Agreement as was suggested
by Staff, number one. The suggestion was made that we approve number two
without the parking requirements. ~hat was my motion.
Councilman Boyt: Yes, I do vote with that.
24
201
City Council Meeting - Nov~nber 2, 1987
LAKE SUSAN HILLS WEST: PRELIMINARY REVI~ OF ~S ON THE EAW.
Mayor Hamilton: I have only one comment and that is, you see the comment in
here that the County is concerned about widening CR 17 south of TH 5 to four
lane because of the additional traffic. Are they all blind? Can't they look
north of TH 5? There's more traffic up there right now that's going to be
south of it. I think that's the dumbest comment I've ever heard. What's the
sense of doing that? They're talking about widening it four lanes now. There
isn't going to be enough traffic down there. Why don't they widened it from
TH 5 north to TH 5. That's ridiculous.
Councilman Boyt: I do have one question on this. The water purity comment
made by the Met Council. How do w~ stand on that?
Don Patton: I have a meeting with Met Council's staff tomorrow at 1:~ and
we'll have an answer on that. I haven't talked to them, Barbara could you
address that to the Council? Is it a serious issue or not? I got the
impression that it wasn't. It wasn't a serious issue but they still had some
reservations.
Barbara Dacy: It is a serious issue in both the Cites eyes and the Met
Council's eyes from the standpoint, it has, as we discussed earlier, the issue
of the downstream water quality effects on Lake Riley because this development
will discharge to Lake Susan and then it carries on through the chain of
lakes. As the Council recalls from the Hidden Valley subdivision and the
Saddlebrook Subdivision and the Chan Hills subdivision, Met Council conducted
a chain of lakes study and similar comments were made on those subdivisions.
Through those review periods, the EAW review periods, the developer and Met
Council staff met. Some corrections for adjustments were made in the drainage
plan in Chanhassen Hills. Some pond sizes were increased ~ some specific
recommendations were implemented from the Met Council so staff has always
consistently recomm~ed that their comments be reviewed in a serious manner
because this city is concerned about the downstream impacts onto Lake Riley as
much as a regional agency is. We have in the past ~ able to resolve it
bet~en developer and the staff and we ~ that occurring in this also.
Don Patton: It's an issue but I don't see, if we were breaking open 3~0 acres
at once, yes but w~'re breaking open 24 acres.
Jo Ann Olsen: This is the one time that Met Council has specified that they
would recommend an EIS study done.
Councilman Horn: This is only during construction that they're concerned?
Councilman Boyt: It's p~-~,anently.
Councilman Horn: I'm getting ahead of myself a little bit but it's really
interesting that they made this c(~nment in light of what Chaiman Keefe stated
at the meeting last Friday saying that they found that the biggest contributor
to lake pollution was farm runoffs. Now to come back and be concerned about
it when w~ have a develolz~ent there seens to be a little bit contradictory.
25
City Council Meeting - Nove~r 2, 1987
Barbara Dacy: Tne concern was the volume of water going into the lake. Maybe
not necessarily the substance.
Councilman Horn: Quantity versus substance?
Mayor Hamilton: We do not need to act on this as I understand until all the
cca~nents, or we can't act on it until all the co~ents have been received.
Councilman Boyt: I think now is probably a good time to stress that the City
has taken great pains to protect Lake Susan and related areas from erosion
during the construction of this program. As we said earlier, any increase of
water flow into that chain increases some problems with water bodies. We can
decide never to develop it. Never let farm animals go on it and maybe hold
our own but we aren't going to do that.
LAKE SUSAN HILLS WEST: DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT, PHASE 1.
Mayor Hamilton: Do councilmembers have any questions?
Councilman Geving: It's a typical contract Gary? Nothing unusual?
Gary Warren: Yes. It incorporates conditions of approval. ~nis is correctly
made out to Argus Development who is the developer of the Phase 1 and I guess
if I would point out anything in particular on it, right or wrong, whether we
agree with the County or not, we did make a comment in here, a very general
statement, item 20 on page 5 about the potential for future expansion of CR 17
and the County's interest in working with the developer or whatever. Again,
the timing is probably way off and I don't see an impact to hold up anything
right now. Otherwise, we'll be looking when we get the plans and specs as far
as potential for trunk sizing of sanitary sewer. We are bumping up against
our MUSA area here but I think we have to have our eyes open to see if we want
to extend the sanitary sewer further to the outer reaches at some time and
this is our shot if we wanted to upsize for a trunk sewer but we'll be looking
at that as part of the next issue of the plans and specifications.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve and authorize
for execution contingent upon receipt of the finnancial security the
Development Contract, Phase 1 for Lake Susan Hills West. All voted in favor
and motion carried.
GRADING, DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN, PHASE 1.
Mayor Hamilton: Again it seems to be clear. Everything seems to be spelled
out.
Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the Lake Susan
Hills West Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan, Phase 1 dated October
20, 1987 with the following conditions:
City Council Meeting - November 2, 1987
26
203
City Council Meeting - November 21 1987
The developer shall enter into a development contract with the city
and provide the necessary financial sureties to guarantee the proper
installation of these public improvements (Agenda Item %7C).
2. A floating siltation barrier shall be installed as per At~nt %3.
o
Ail erosion control measures shall be in place prior to the
initiation of any grading and once in place shall remain in place
throughout the duration of constriction. The developer is required
to review erosion control ar~ make the necessary repairs prior to the
onset of spring runoff. Ail erosion control measures shall remain
intact until an established vegetative cover has ~ produced, at
which time removal shall be the responsibility of the developer.
The developer shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the
Watershed District permit.
5o
Ail detention ponds and drainage swales shall be constructed and
operational, which includes all pertinent storm sewer systems to have
the ponds functional prior to any other construction of the project.
0
The applicant shall obtain an access permit for County Road 17 from
the office of the Carver County fNgirz=r and shall comply with all
cor~]itions of said permit.
0
Wood fiber blanket or equivalent shall be used to stabilize all
slopes greater than 3:1.
Working hours shall be between the hours of 7:~ a.m. and 6:0~ p.m.
with no work allowed on Sundays and holidays.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
Don Patton: I have one other item that's come up as a part of the title
insurance and it's more of a formality than anything but approval by an
appropriate municipal officer and such split, we've got 3~ acres here and
we're taking a first plat and of course the first plat will take care of it
but we r.~ some letter I think from you or the City Manager authorizing that
the split is authorized. Again, I've got the wording here and the Title
Insurance policy but it is something that we r~ to do ar~ we'd like that
authorization from either you or the City Manager to do that.
Mayor Hamilton: Give that to Barbara or C~ry ar~ they'll take care of that
for you.
Gary Warren: The difficulties are the plat must be filed right? The plats
must be filed so in order to be able to start so we'd be making an agrccment
basically that the plat, we're locking ourselves into approval of the plat I
guess o
Mayor Hamilton: I guess I don't see any reason why' that wouldn't be the case.
27
Jo Ann Olsen: I spoke with the Attorney, Roger Knutson this afternoon~ He
reminded me that if it's more than 20 acres and has street frontage, we don't
need to sign off on it. It's a transfer of deed or something like that.
Don Patton: It's a transfer of title.
Jo Ann Olsen: Tnen we really don't have to. His only concern was on the
eastern border, if actually that first phase doesn't have street frontage but
does that title also include the road?
Don Patton: Yes.
Councilman Horn: Should we let this be a staff problem for them to work out?
Gary Warren: Yes, I'd feel more comfortable working it out with Roger.
CONSIDER CARVER BEACH ROAD CONN]DCTION.
Gary Warren: To give you an overview here on the handouts and staff report.
We're all pretty familiar with here when we looked at the Shadowmere
developmetn and as a part of the Comp Plan. Again, trying to alleviate some
of the roads that have poor access. It was pointed out that the southern end
of Carver Beach Road should be looked at an appropriate for land development
or ultimate secondary access. The City has a lift station here that we
service on a daily basis obviously another access is nice to have also. With
the Shadowmere development in here a condition of approval of that was that
the Outlot A as it was shown on the plat, which basically is the connection
area which I've got here enlarged, Outlot A would be looked at properly to
determine the feasibility of making that connection from a city's standard
standpoint and we have done that. Bill Engelhardt of Engelhardt and
Associates has prepared the attached plan that was in the report to look at.
Basically what we've concluded is that on the southern end here where it
connects into Big Horn Drive, we've got very steep grades, 22% to 24% and we
have a 40 foot easement here that was provided and an existing 20 foot here
which is a part of the Shadowmere development which is even a little bit less
than our City standards 50 feet area. The connection would be made at city
standards which is a 7% grade would really require some pretty extensive
impact to the area. Starting at Big Horn Drive we'd be having to cut down the
existing fill but then when we get down to the area near the creek and that,
the southern end of existing Carver Beach Road, we'd be looking at almost 15
feet of fill when we extended out and tapered off at 3:1 we're almost looking
at 84 feet to do that so it's really some significant impacts to the area.
From that standpoint, the provision was in the approval for at least putting
in a trail to the area as part of the City's trail plan and I guess the
conclusion of the report, which I support is that I would say from a full city
connection standpoint, that the impacts to the area will be hard to justify.
I wouldn't recommend doing it as a city street. However, we have a few other
areas where we have tried to give us some other alternatives short of a full
roadway such as up in northern Carver Beach area here before we put in
drainageways and paved them but we don't encourage them as regular usage
areas. In this case I think we can strike a compromise in putting in the
28
205
City Oouncil Meeting - November 2, 1987
trail and doing some modest improvement to the grading and slope on the
southern end here but that we would pave an 8 foot wide trail which is good to
use in an emergency standpoint but we don't rely on it for normal use. So as
it relates specifically to the issue of making a connection from the city
roadway standpoint, staff is recommending that it would not be feasible to do
that. However, we are encouraging Oouncil to look at it as an emergency
access alternative.
Councilman Horn: Would that be similar to the area of Carver Beach where we
have what we call it a drainageway instead of a road?
t'~ry Warren: Right. ~hat's the one that I copied. We've assinged it as a
drainageway. We don't plow it in the winter ar~ it's very treacherous from
that standpoint but I would say it would be very similar to that. We do have
the access if we need it to get a motorized vehicle in there. If Council
would support that approach, then we should get the developer and have him
deed over tl~ Outlot A, which in either case even from a trail standpoint, we
should consider that.
Mayor Hamilton: That would go across our retention pond down there or the
dike that kind of holds that back. Wouldn't we ~ to do a lot of work in
there to improve that or strengthen it or scmlething?
Gary Warren: With the amount of fill in there, we~ be doing some culvert
work and a lot of that because that's the biggest impact. That's with a 15
foot road so we'd be basically building another dike. There are some proprty
owners here too which may s~me c~ments.
Jeff Kleiner, 655 Carver Beach Boad: It's the second to the last house on the
right hand side. For emergency vehicles, if you're not plowing in there in
the winter, what's the sense of having it come through? During the summer
it's 30 seconds more to drive around. That guy from Hilloway isn't here but
he stated in the last meeting that we were at, he also mentioned that he
didn't want to put the road down through because of the impact and that creek
washout. You were talking about putting, I don't know what the technical term
is for the waste, the lift station so the alarm goes off instead of having a
truck there all the time which is still showing up there at least once a week
just to check the pump station.
Mayor Hamilton: Yes, they check the~ out daily.
Councilman Geving: So your position Jeff is that you're not in favor of
putting in this?
Jeff Kleiner: I wouldn't like to have it. As being there at the deader~
there, there's enough people drivirg through there. There's probably 50 kids
in a two block area that are playing out in the streets and that. Right now
know Frontier Trail is blocked off. ~ put dirt right out in the middle of
the road so they don't come on through.
Mayor Hamilton: That's going to be opened up so.
29
206
City Council Meeting - November 2, 1987
Jeff Kleiner: But I would really not like to see it ar~t especially in the
winter if it's that steep a grade, somebody is going to come through there and
end up in the creek or down in the lake.
Councilman Geving: I think staff was directed to go back and determine the
feasibility of putting that road through. They did exactly as we requested.
We have an opinion of Engelhardt and Associates and of course our own City
Engineer and I believe that they came up with the best alternative. If there
is a ~ for a secondary access to Carver Beach we could do it this way, if
we need to put a bituminous strip or whatever it is, and we'd have the access
but not the full blown road that would possibly have been constructed and the
only other thing we need to do is accept that Outlot A and extend the street
to Shado~mere. So I think the staff did their job on this and I'm satisified.
Councilman Horn: I guess after driving on that connection of Carver Beach, I
have trouble with this being an emergency access just as Mr. Kleiner stated.
For a large part of the winter that thing is going to be unuseable and I'm
wondering what the purpose is of putting it in there if it's only going to be
used for part of the time. What dictates that our emergencies are only going
to be in the summer?
Gary Warren: I think we should deemphasize the emergency aspect. We're
looking at it, it's a trail and the connection is not feasible from city
standards to be made. However, I guess as a secondary thought is that
granted, snowplowing being a factor and that, it would serve as a potential
access if you just could not get in any other way. There would be a paved
surface there that is a trail but it's wide enough to take a vehicle down if
we had to. A 4 wheet drive or something with a snowplow on it. But the key
point is that we're saying the connection isn't feasible but the trail is.
Councilman Horn: My position would be if we maintained it I'd go along with
it but if we didn't maintain I'd just as soon leave it out.
Councilman Boyt: This sounds like a pretty good idea. I think there is going
to need to be a trail up through there. Whether it's 8 feet wide or 4 feet
wide or whatever we have a trail in the Carver Beach roadside. We have a
trail through Chan Vista over to the pond and so it would seem natural to have
some way of connecting them. I agree with Clark that it certainly limits it's
emergency access capabilities. I'm concerned having watched people drive over
the city barricade at the end of Frontier Trail, that people are going to
drive over any kind of a harrier at the end of this 8 foot
wide bituminous strip. I agree with Mr. Kleiner that kids are something to be
watched for in this area but I will go with the majority of the Council on
this. It's certainly an area of concern but it's much better than putting in
15 feet of fill and opening it up as a full road.
Joyce Hegstrom: I live at 630 Carver Beach Road and I'm in favor of a full
road going through. I really am because emergency vehicles such as a fire or
ambulance, by the time it goes down Nez Perce...into Carver Beach Road, I'm
really in a dangerous position to live where it's not really feasible to get
emergency vehicles to me.
3~
2.07
City Council Meeting - November 2, 1987
Mayor Hamilton: I just think the grades are so steep it isn't feasible to do
it and adding 15 feet of fill on the dike that's already there I don't think
is even a feasible thing to do so to use it as an access to our lift station I
think is alright. Other than that I don't see any need to improve it.
Councilman Geving: Is it a no motion item other than to dedicate that Outlot
A to the City for trail and roadway purposes? We'd have to do that anyway
wouldn ' t w~?
Gary Warren: I think the question that was left from the approval process,
the plat which the City would decide whether we want the connection or not and
also whether we wanted the outlot or not so I think it would be appropriate
for the Council to accept the feasibility and it's recommendation is no
connection but that ~ do ~mt the outlot to be dedicated for trail purposes.
Councilman ~=ving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to accept the feasibility
study presented by Engelhardt and Associates to accept Outlot A for the
extension of Carver Beach Road excluding the connection to Big Horn Drive.
All voted in favor a~d motion carried.
Councilman Horn: Can I clarify what you're saying? You don't want the
connection made?
Councilman Geving: No, my motion says that I do not want the connection made
to Big Horn Drive but I do want the Outlot A to extend Carver Beach Road to
Shado~mere.
Councilman Horn: With the trail as they're proposing?
Counci~ Geving: No trail.
CGMPREHf~SIVE PLAN UPDATE DISCUSSION.
!
Barbara Dacy: Staff posed this question to the Planning Commission and they
discussed it thoroughly as is evidenced by the verbatim minutes and have not
requested council direction. The question which staff presented was in the
process of updating the Comprehensive Plan, if the Plan should include
corridor studies for TH 5, TH 101, existing TH 169, TH 212, the proposed TH
212 as they traverse through the rural areas ar~ propose some potential land
uses that would occur when urban services become available. There were two
points of view. One point of view was in favor of this idea from the
standpoint that there should be some type of general guideline as to what
should occur in the area, when urban services are obtained. The opposite
point of view taken by some of the Planning Oommission members was that since
the planning horizon for the docum~t is the year 20~B ar~ since the MUSA is
not expected to be expanded until that time, that some members of the'
Commission felt that it should best deal with the planning issues contained
within the MUSA and outside the MUSA remain agricultural. So that is the
question that the ~ission is posing to the Council for direction.
31
City Council Meeting - November 2, 1987
Councilman Boyt: Being consistent with my memo, I'd say that I think what we
would be proposing, if we do put this into the Comprehensive Plan, would be a
guess. I don't know that it helps us much. We're certainly not going to
rezone it right now. I don't think we are anyway, so I would think that there
would be no point in proposing zoning that's going to happen 18 years from now
or 12 years from now.
Councilman Horn: I think the MUSA line creates an artificial boundary for us
that we can't hide behind. What that really says is that we do all of our
wonderful planning up to a certain point and then we just forget about the
rest of it and I don't agree with that. I~ really going ahead again into
what I was going to give under council presentations. ~ne other point that
Chairman Keefe made is we move the MUSA line everyday. That MUSA line is not
a fixed line. The Chairman of the Met Council, he made that statement. I
think for us to assume that that's a fixed point that we don't have to plan
beyond is burying our heads in the sand.
Councilman Geving: I have no comment.
Mayor Hamilton: I really agree with Clark and I guess I'm looking at the
article that Bill had put in here and somebody pointed out in the article that
the I've got mine snydrome now shut the door is kind of prevalent in a lot of
people's minds and I couldn't agree more. I think it's a really unfortunate
thing. You get into a position like this and people say I've got what I want
and I don't want anybody else here and shut the door and keep anybody else
out. I think you need to continue to do planning. It's foolish to just slam
that door and not allow anybody else to even be considered coming in when you
could have some very good businesses that could very effectively be put into
your community in a well planned manner so I think we need to continue
planning outside the MUSA and we should do the corridor studies. You need to
know if we'd like to include corridor studies in the Comprehensive Plan or
not, is that correct?
Barbara Dacy: That' s correct.
Councilman Geving: I would say that we should. It's all part of the whole
study within Chanhassen. They are the main links so I think we have to
include the corridor studies.
Councilman Boyt: I would like to ask what kind of precision are you
suggesting that we have with this?
Councilman Geving: Who knows where TH 212 is even going to be placed. We
have drawn a line on the map. It's as precise as anybody is going to know.
Councilman Horn: What type of precision do we have on the Comp Plan within
the MUSA line?
Barbara Dacy: I don't know if you want to call it precision but the existing
land use map is based on, or I should say everything evolves around land
32
City Oouncil Meeting - Novenber 2, 1987
projections and population' projections ar~ sewer capacity and so on so there
are some fixed things that the existing MUSA is addressing or dealing with.
What staff would present is, as to the corridor studies, would be similar to
that that's included in your packet near the end. This is the type of
discussion on the TH 101 corridor within the MUSA that we would include on
these other corridors. Also, probably a little bit more detailed than the
analysis that Mark Koegler did for the TH 5 analysis in relation to the Garden
Center planning report. So it's looking at generalized land uses, basic
assunptions, basic policies of growth.
Councilman Boyt: One other quick questioru Can you give me some sort of
projection about the cost of doing this corridor study?
Barbara Dacy: We have a contract with Mr. Koegler to do the update of the
Comprehensive Plan. Those monies are coming from the Community Develolanent
Block Grant fund. I am sure that his services will exc~ the amount that was
originally contracted for but we have included that in the upcoming 1988
budget. So as far as costs, it is covered in our budget for 1988.
Councilman Boyt: So you don't know, is what you're saying?
Barbara Dacy: What I'm saying is that Mark is under contract to complete the
study and we will insure that be does that within the budget that we have
established for 1988.
Councilman Geving: I think this kind of gives you an idea of the precision.
It's not very precise but it's a corridor. It gives you an idea of where the
corridor might be for TH 101 for example. That's the best we can do at this
time.
Councilman Horn: TH 101 is the least precise of any of the highways that'
we're talking about. We know where TH 212 will go. We know where TH 5 will
go.
Councilman Boyt: They're talking about changing the routing on south TH 101,
south of TH 5 and what I saw on TH 5 was we had business here, residential
here, high density there and I guess to he useful, we're really saying yes
that makes sense to us. With what we know now that's how we'd. zone it. I
think that's fairly serious and it does involve some money. ThiS is not going
to be something that he can just toss out onto a piece of paper.
Councilman Geving: No, but he has to do it. I think to leave it out would
seriously negligent on our part.
Councilman Horn: We're going to do the plan at some point. Do you want to do'
it with today's dollars or 1990's dollars?
Councilman Boyt: Well, I don't feel very strongly. I'd be happy to support
you on it.
33
219
City Council Meeting - November 2, 1987
Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to include corridor studies
for TH 5, TH 101, TH 212 and TH 169 in the Comprehensive Plan update. All
voted in favor and motion carried.
APRPOVAL OF WORK REQUEST FOR UNDERGROUND ELECTRICAL LINES IN THE DOWNTOWN,
NORTHERN STATES POWER.
Mayor Hamilton: During the past several months we've had many discussions
with NSP to try to reach a position that they would help us to finance this
project. We started out in a position where they just said you're going to
have to pay for it all. Neither Don or I would give up and we kept talking to
them more and more and got into some kind of heated discussions at times. We
just kept going up the line. Each meeting we'd have, we tended to get the
same answer that they wouldn't do anything so we said, alright we want to talk
to the next guy up the line. We kept going until finally Chmiel said why
don't you just go right to the president. He said he'll make the decision
for you. So that was our next person to see and finally the next level down
said well, we can work out something here. We gave them all kinds of ideas of
how they could approach it and I think they took our ideas and tried to
incorporate them into some new ideas that they, or actually some old ideas
that they had used previously and they came up with a plan that you see here
that works out very well for us. We felt it was a very good compromise and
we're happy with what NSP was willing to do for us. I think they're happy
with it too. Tney realize that they're going to get a lot of new business out
of Chanhassen and that's certainly going to pay for the increased cost of
their putting up. Actually, believe it or not, they have kind of started up a
new division in their company now that's going to just help communities and
try to solve these types of problems as they come along. Tney didn't have
that previously so we're a first again.
Councilman Boyt: It's a good piece of work.
Councilman Geving: I'm confused on one thing though Tom. Who's knowledgable
about this page here of charts? Could you define for me where this
underground will go? Could you describe the boundaries within the whole
project area?
Mayor Hamilton: It's just going to be, if I remember Gary, just right down
the main street. Starting at Great Plains Blvd. and goes underground and I'm
trying to remember where it stopped.
Barbara Dacy: It looks like it picks up the apartments on Kerber Blvd..
Councilman (~ving: I'd like to know where the boundaries on this and I'd like
to kind of get an idea of where there is not going to be overhead transmission
lines, no poles.
Mayor Hamilton: There won't be any downtown specifically.
Gary Warren: Basically the downtown from Great Plains west to Powers Blvd..
34
211
City Council Meeting - November 2~ 1987
Councilman Geving: And how far north and south?
Gary Warren: Just the immediate area north and south up to Chan View...
Councilman Geving: Would you say frc~ 79th to 77th street?
Mayor Hamilton: I don't think it's going to ~ss 79th or 77th.
Gary Warren: We're taking the poles down like by Filly~s and through that
area but not south of the railroad tracks.
Councilman Geving: Okay, so it's basically just the main street?
Mayor Hamilton: Right.
Councilman Geving: ~hen are they going to put the~ in?
Gary Warren: It's going on.
Councilman Geving: We haven't approved it yet.
Gary Warren: On good faith.
Mayor Hamilton: There's no reason we shouldn't. We're saving so much money
doing it.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the underground
electrical lines improvements by NSP for the downtown area. All voted in
favor and motion carried.
PROPOSED SUBDIVISION NORTH OF KOEHNEN CIRCLE IN SHOREWOOD, JOHN SAYER,
APPLICANT.
Mayor Hamilton: Does anyone have any questions on this one?
Councilman Geving: I don't have any problem.
Barbara Dacy: ~hich option?
Councilman Geving: I really don't care because 2 and 3 to me sound alike. I
don't see any difference between 2 and 3.
Barbara Dacy: The difference between 2 and 3 is 3 is very definitive in
saying we will service one lot and one lot only. No additional resuhdivision
shall occur with Chanhassen utility services. Option 2 is a little more open
ended in that it leaves that issue unresolved until there is a resubdivision.
Councilman Geving: I think I'll change my statement. I think 3 is the best
option for you to take as a participate at tomorrow nights meeting in
Shorewood as the City Council's decision here. It's a strong position and
it's definitive. I'll restate my statement ar~ say that 3 is really the best.
35
City Council Meeting - November 2, 1987
Gary Warren: Just a question. I haven't gotten all the details. There are
a number of areas where the City of Chanhassen's sewer system, sanitary sewer,
flows into Shorewood. Does Shorewood seem to be in agreement that like our we
don't want your sewer and it's still reasonable?
Barbara Dacy: I don't understar~ your question.
Gary Warren: We have a number of areas where Shorewood says we aren't going
to accept your sewage. The whole northern stage of the city flows into
Shorewood. Here, if I'm saying this right, we're saying we would not allow
any sewage to come fr~n the subdivision right?
Barbara Dacy: No, that would only be upon resubdivision. We are saying the
one connection would be allowed. However, if additional resubdivision would
occur, it would not come from Chanhassen.
Councilman Geving: But we do have areas where we provide water to Shorewood.
We bill Shorewood residents.
Gary Warren: It goes back and forth on the city lines and I think you want to
have a cooperative relationship with your border cities.
Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the consideration
of the proposed subdivision for John Sayer north of Koehnen Circle in
Shorewood using Option 3 in the City Planner's memo dated October 29, 1987 and
that the City Planner will advise the Shorewood City Council of this decision.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
CEMETARY EXPANSION, COUNCILMAN GEVING.
Councilman Geving: As part of our condition with the Hartung/Otto subdivision
it was suggested that Don and I meet at the cemetary and review some of the
plans that we might have and we had a tour scheduled for last Saturday
morning. Bill and myself, Jay, Don and our reporter Mary Durban were there on
the site. I guess the key to this whole thing is that we're talking about a 2
acre expansion of the existing cemetary. I'm looking at the bottom line here
is basically is the fact that this 2 acres would and should pretty well take
us well into the year 2000 and beyond at a very reasonable price. The price
of buying that Lot 1 at $45,000.00 is unreasonable in my mind and at this time
I couldn't support that but the natural movement along the road on Galpin
Blvd. and backwards approximately, on the right side at least, by the cemetary
another 150 feet and then approximately 200 and some feet along the road is I
think a very good amenity. If we don't pick up this particular piece of
property at this time, it's gone. We would have to look for another site in
Chanhassen at some other time. I look at it this way. Tne people of
Chanhassen are a relatively young population. We have not had more than 3 or
4 burials at Chanhassen cemetary for a number of years but that's
understandable. We're a young population and we also have not really marketed
this. We have not gone out of our way to make it available other than to let
people know it's a city cemetary. I think this will change that. This
expansion will c/mange that in the sense that we would go in there and use it
36
City fbuncil Meeting - November 2, 1987
as a city park. We would make it a very nice looking area as an entrance to
this development even, Timberwood. There would be no headstones in this
particular development. It would be flat markers so that it would not give
the appearance of anything other than maybe a park and let the Park and Rec
maintain it as such. So the proposal is to buy the 2 acres at $30,000.00 or
to look at another proposal which we also did and that was to look at Outlot C
and I think here is where we really have to discuss this further. Bill and
Jay, they really took their hiking boots and went down into the wetland area
to look at this Outlot C and it's not my view as much as the rest of the group
but I will give my opinion on this since we walked through this whole area.
My opinion personally is that Outlot C has a buildable site on it. We asked
Don to come up with a number of questions and to get answers for tonight's
meeting. It's unfortunate he's not here to' provide those. Do you know Todd
if he researched the 4 or 5 items?
Jo Ann Olsen: H~ gave them to me this morning so I haven't been able to
answer them all. Bill Engelhardt and myself and Elizabeth Rockwell are going
to go out to the site again. I think I'm also going to have either Roger
Machmeier or Jim Anderson. The only way that Outlot C would be buildable is
if you reduce the setback requirement from the wetlar~ from 150 feet to who
knows what. There will have to be two septic sites on there. I don't know if
there's enough room even with the reduction in the setback. What is shown on
the final plat is a drainage easement is the actual boundary of the wetland
with the vegetation and the soils. Then you have to take the 150 foot setback
from that drainage easement. We will go out there. The thing that staff is
still trying to maintain is that that ~=tland not develop.
Oouncilman Geving: Now the other question that we asked Don, it looked like
to us, now I don't know what the status of Lots 3, 4 and 5, but all of those
lots are larger than 2 1/2 acres. We felt that if we could charge the
boundaries of those lot lines, we could shift the lot line over on Outlot C to
the point where we could pick enough frontage up to create a buildable site
there. That was one of the questions that w~ asked Don to research.
Jo Ann Olsen: Again, we have to look at that closely. I don't know, I think
it might end up with one of the lots being under 2 1/2 acres. Plus, that
might impact some of the, you have to k~-----~ shifting those lot lines for other
septic sites. We can work on it, we just have to bring it from the end..~nd
try to maintain that 2 1/2 acres.
Councilman Geving: And that's why my comment is based upon the fact that I
believe it's a buildable site personally ar~ I would move that we would
approve it but only with the understanding that it also meet all the other
sewer requirements. That' s a foregone conclusion.
Councilman Boyt: I think what we're saying is, we're certainly interested in
working with the developer on this. One of the issues that we raised was that
we couldn't tell what you were actually counting as wetland. There's an area
in there that definitely has wetland type grasses but it has ~ farmed to
the extent of where it's doubtful that it would ever be wetland again.
37
City Council Meeting - November 2, 1987
Jo Ann Olsen: I think what was taken, was the wetland vegetation and also
they took the elevation because it's not necessarily the vegetation there as
the soil also.
Councilman Boyt: I think that's what you'd be looking at if you went back out
was defining the wetland location.
Jo Ann Olsen: Yes, that' s what we' ve been doing twice.
Councilman Boyt: And the problem then Jo Ann, as the lot star~s now, is the
setback. Could we find even one drainage field in there? Is that what
we said?
Jo Ann Olsen: Not with that setback.
Councilman Boyt: If we gerrymandered those lines between Lot 5 and Outlot C,
does that open up possibilities for us? I know you said it has ramifications
with other lots.
Jo Ann Olsen: I think there is some area on what used to be Lot 6. I just
don' t know if there' s enough area with that frontage.
Councilman Boyt: I think for us or for me anyway, the issue is can we adjust
this lot layout given our interest in trying to make it a buildable lot
because it represents savings to the City or do we have to consider possible
variances and then it's a matter of I guess the city deciding is it worth
$15,000.00 to us or do we grant a variance. Two very important issues and we
don't have the information to answer either one tonight. Is there a timeline
on this Dale?
Councilman Geving: I'd like to resolve this tonight if we could possibly do
it. I think it's reasonable that we could call this Outlot C a buildable lot
area. I think that's reasonable. I've looked at the site. You've looked at
the site. There's an awful lot of area there in which a home could be built
and meet the setbacks.
Mayor Hamilton: Maybe we could just say we can move to purchase the property
for the $15,000.00 contingent upon Mr. Machmeier and Dr. Rockwell looking at
the property and determining if two septic systems can be put on the property
and if a pad can be located on there so we could at least move ahead with it
and see if that's possible. It's a contingent thing. If that can't be worked
out, then we need to take another look at it.
Councilman Geving: Okay, that's a good motion and then we would allow lot
area variances on Lots 1, 2 and 3 at the same time as part of the whole thirg.
Councilman Boyt: Tney still have two buildable septic sites on Lots 1, 2 and 3?
Jo Ann Olsen: Again, I just saw this plan and I will have to confirm that.
38
City fbuncil M~eting - November 2; 1987
Councilman Boyt: I think they do but I think there's a wetland sitting right
in the middle of the two. Would you guys take a look at that? There are
cattails out there. I don't know if that makes it a wetland or not.
Jo Ann Olsen: It most likely is. It was not on our map ar~ we did not
discover it.
Councilman Boyt: Okay, if w~ don't discover it it's gone?
Councilman Geving: It's right about where that number 2 is.
Councilman Boyt: I would 'maintain that if it's a wetland, how can we say it's
not?
Mayor Hamilton: How big is it? Is it significant size?
Councilman Boyt: 1/2 an acre I suspose.
Councilman Geving: Oh no. That little area is half the size of this room
Bill. It isn't very big.
Jo Ann Olsen: I know it wasn't being used as a septic site because Mr.
Machmeier and Mr. Anderson stated that the Iow area was not .suitable for
septic sites.
Councilman Boyt: Let's just do w~rse case scenario for a second, if that's a
wetland and my guess would be, with a 200 feet circle around that pretty well
wipes out Lot 2. There's just a whole rabbits nest of issues here. I agree
with you, we should make some progress and I feel we should expand the
oametary o
Councilman Horn: Won't the contingencies do that? If these other things show
up then w~'re back to the drawing board.
Councilman Soyt: I would like the contingency on Lots 1, 2 and 3 as well.
That those are still buildable.
Councilman Geving: I don't have any probl~ with that.
May~r Hamilton: Okay, so Lots 1, 2 and 3 are buildable with two acceptable
septic sites along with Outlot C.
Councilman Geving: And that we would convey the cemetary expansion parcel to
the City at a cost of $15 , 000. 00.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve purchasing the
cemetary expansion parcel for $15,000.00 contingent upon Mr. Machmeier and Dr.
Rockwell determining if two septic systems and a house pad'can be located on
Outlot C. Also, that Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 3 be buildable sites with two
septic systsm sites. All voted in favor and motio carried.
39
City Oouncil Meeting - November 2, 1987
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
Councilman Boyt: I would propose that we tell Chan vista that we do not issue
another building permit to them until they clean up the litter. As Jay and
Dale saw on Saturday, they have litter scattered all over Chan Pond. They
have litter along the housing lines to the east of the development and I don't
think they're being a responsible builder.
Mayor Hamilton: I agree with you. I would just assume that we don't issue
them another building permit period. I don't care if they clean up or not.
It's just a personal opinion.
Councilman Boyt: I would make the motion that the Council go on record as
opposed to issuing building permits until the litter is cleaned up.
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Geving seconded to prohibit the issuing of
any further building permits to Chan Vista until they clean up the litter.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
Councilman Boyt: The barricade on Frontier Trail. It's in the administrative
pack. It is recommended that we remove the barricade for winter snow removal.
That probably makes sense. I would sure like to see a couple of things
happen. One of them, I think it's important that this go on an ager~a for a
vote. I'd like to talk to the people on Frontier Trail. I think they're
probably realizing this is inevitable so I'd like to have a couple weeks to do
that. The other item is when we do take it off, and I'm pretty sure we
probably will, I'd like to see the City commit some time to s~ patrol. I
think if we can get people thinking that they've got to drive 30 mph on that
or less, and since 30 is the only thing we can enforce, we'll get them going
in the right sort of habit.
Mayor Hamilton: Including your neighbors right?
Councilman Boyt: Oh yes. I'm not talking about anybody in particular
besides the people who live right around me. It takes a special effort to
drive 30 mph or 25 which is really the reasonable s~cd limit on it and I
venture that I will probably get some calls from some people who live on
Frontier and have been stopped.
Mayor Hamilton: I think doing that is probably fine and I'm sure Jim can
handle that. I disagree I guess with wanting to put the opening UP of
Frontier as a council item. Tnat road I think was always intended to be
opened. It was approved to be opened. I think it should just be opened and
allow traffic to flow through there. I don't see any need to discuss it.
It's ~ discussed many times and part of that development it was to be a
through street and it's time it is.
Councilman Geving: I think there's another thing too Mr. Mayor. I agree with
what you just said. The decision has already been made to extend Frontier
Trail through that development. The barrier was put up there obviously to
halt some of the construction traffic but we have a memo here from our City
40
City Council ~seting - November 2~ 1987
Engineer to one of his employees~ his street superintendent~ I think the
direction is good. I think he's made a decision and that's why we have .people
in those positions to make decisions to k~-~cp things flowir~ in the City and to
now countermand that and bring it back to the Council for a decision, not only
destroys the confidence that the employees have our City Engineer but also
wondering what the hell we're doing here as council people when we make
decisions and then turn around and change it. I think the decision has
already been made Bill. q~e street should be opened up. Now, the
construction activity in that development is going slowly and it will continue
for some time. There's no question about that. It will extend well through
next summer's construction season but that doesn't prevent us from opening it
up for the winter months and I think what Gary's trying to say here is that
it's just a good snow removal practice to be able to go through that
development without having to now go all the way back around and pick it up
from Kerber Drive. So I agree with Gary's ~ here. Absolutely.
Mayor Hamilton: I think even next spring, as construction continues or if it
continues through the winter, the (~an Vista people need to be made aware that
they're not to have their construction traffic going down Frontier period and
we'll tag them if they go down there. That's not why it's being opened so
they can use it. They are to access their subdivision off of Kerber Blvd. as
they have ~n and as they should continue to do.
Councilman Boyt: And I appreciate that statement. I think it's going to be
awfully hard to enforce. It's ~ hard to keep them-from driving over the 2
or 3 foot barrier that's there now. I feel, having ~ sitting in the
audience when the Council made the decision in the first place, that it was to
be up there as long as there was construction traffic. They've been building
those houses pretty quickly. There isn't an end to the construction traffic
right now so I think it does take a motion of the Council. I would like to
see this on the agenda.
Councilman Horn: I thought it would be down before now quite frankly.
Mayor Hamilton: I just don't think it's an agenda item. I think it's already
been decided.
Councilman Boyt: Well, somebody has to make that decision I guess.
Mayor Hamilton: I think it already was is the whole thing.
Councilman Boyt: I have a third item. I gather you're saying this will not
be put on the agenda so move along to the next item. The Council, I think it
was somewhere near the end of May, early JUne, I put this item on Council
presentations to talk about my interest and I thought the Council's interest
in cleaning up some of the areas we have in towru Going out and actively
encouraging people to follow our ordinances in regard to the condition of
their homes and property. We went so far as to publish something in the paper
to everyone a list of the appropriate ordinances and then due to other demands
on staff time, were unable to complete that. In talking to Mr. Chaffee, he
said that before we would tackle proactive enforcement, he wanted to be sure
that the Council supported that as a group so I bring it back before you and
41
City Council Meeting - November 2, 1987
ask you again to encourage our city staff to go out ar~ enforce our
ordinances.
Councilman Horn: Do you have any specifics?
Councilman Boyt: Well the one specifically that stood out in my mind that the
City has been pursuing for several months and I gather is going to trial on
the 10th.
Mayor Hamilton: Is that the Gabbert property?
Councilman Boyt: Yes.
Mayor Hamilton: We've been pursuing him for 8 years.
Councilman Boyt: Well I think we're very close to action.
Mayor Hamilton: I can guarantee you right now nothing will happen. We'll go
to court and he'll lose and they'll fine him or put him in jail and they'll be
back and nothing will happen. Unfortunately that's the way it goes.
Councilman Boyt: I guess IR more optimistic than that. From what I gather
and Jim is out here and he may want to speak to this because it's my
understanding that we have several neighborhood groups and he mentions it in
his October 19th memo, that are asking him to get out and enforce traffic
regulations. I suspect that were they aware of it, there would be a good many
people who would be asking him to encourage their neighbors to clean up their
yards but maybe he can speak to that. I think there is plenty to do out
there. I think Jim is waiting for encouragement to do it.
Mayor Hamilton: He's probably also waiting for the staff to do it with. We've
kicked this item around in Public Safety and certainly with Jim we've talked
about it and we're trying to figure out what level of the contract service we
should be at with the county. We're trying to figure out what level of people
we should have on our staff here to deal with these problems. I'm not sure I
agree with going out and hammering on people who's yards might look a little
messy but I think we've done a good job of enforcing the ordinances with the
resources that we have. If people call and complain, I think we respond to
that and we take care of them as best as we can. Unfortunately the courts
don't always look upon those things the same way we do. They don't really
care if a guy's got junk in his yard. I told Jim I read an article once where
another community had the same problem. A guy had nothing but junk in his
yard. They went after him continuously to try and get him to clean it up and
he wouldn't do it. There was nothing they could do to him. Tney really can't
do anything. They can't go out there and take him by the hand and make him
clean it up. So the City built a fence around his property. A 10 foot high
fence around his fence and called it a dump. They zoned it for that right in
the middle of the city and there was nothing the guy could do about it so
there are things like that. That's a little drastic measure. .'..we have some
constraints in our budget this year dollar wise and Jim has asked in his
budget to have more people and to this point we have not made those dollars
available to him because we just don't have them. We need to prioritize where
42
City Council Meeting - November 2, 1987
we need to spend the dollars and it hasn't ~ in public safety to this
point.
Councilman Horn: I guess that's the question I have for Bill. Are you
suggesting a difference in priority of enforcement or an increase total level
of enforcement?
Councilman Boyt: I think what I'm suggesting is I would like the public
safety people to know that we support them in enforcement. That whe~ they
send a letter to someone asking them to comply with an ordinance, that we
support that effort. I~ not suggesting that they put on s~me sort of power
force to go out and do this. I think it would be the intent of the Council to
be proactive in this area. To where necessary, clean up-the towru I don't
think we should be overly aggressive and I certainly don't think we should be
sort of attackirg people in some manner. I just think we should be out there
se~ding them letters and encouraging them to get with it.
Mayor Hamilton: I think that's what we've done in the past. Like in the
snowbird issue, we've always wanted to issue a warning letter that we put on
their windshield prior to tagging them. We've allowed them to call ar~ tell
us they're having a party or a gathering at their facility so that we don't
tag their cars. The same with the parks. People parking on the grass ar~ if
you have a busy day we tell the officers not to tag them but otherwise do if
they're just plain violating our ordinance. Jim, maybe you could respond. Do
you think that the public safety people including yourself feel that the
Council is not behind the~ in their efforts to enforce the ordinances?
Jim Chaffee: What I brought up to Bill was something that happened before my
time and I think it had to do with recreational vehicles amd boats and Jerry
Schlenk I think went around to a whole bunch of people and said this is what
you're going to have to do and all these people and I heard figures from 18~
to 36~ stomed the council chambers and said this is wrong. You can't do
this.
Councilman Geving: That ~as about 1977.
Jim Chaffee: That's why when I~ hearing this send our deputies out amd if
they see a recreational vehicle that's parked in the driveway and it shouldn't
be there clearly by ordinance, it's got to be in the sideyard or backyard, if
we start knocking on doors and say you've got to move this and pretty soon the
Council starts getting inundated with calls, I want the Council to be aware
that that's the tactic we were taking now. ~nat's why I asked Bill to bring
it up to the Council.
Councilman Horn: This is o~e of those touchy situations because this is one
of those no win things. We can say sure, go do that and you can go out and
stir up the pot so bad that we'll wish you had never said that. We ~ to
know what you're going to do before we give you our blank check on these kind
of things. It's before your time also but you'll find that .I was one of the
biggest proponents of dog control in this town which I haven't found. We
spend all kinds of money on other things but I don't ~ that we do any dog
patrolling. I don't think anyone has ever told you that we shouldn't do dog
43
220
City Council Meeting _ November 2, 1987
control but I think there are some other areas that aren't that important.
Jim Chaffee: I think we can do that. If the Council was at least aware of
what we were doing prior to given, like you said a blank check. If I said
okay, now we're going to hit the wood piles or now we're going to hit the high
weeds on a proactive basis, not just a reactive. Now we're handling
everything on a reactive basis mostly because of personnel and not having the
people available to handle it but hopefully, and this is. the tactic I%~ taking
in 1988, is getting the deputies tuned to what we want on a proactive level
and have the~ be our arm of enforcement if you will. If that's the case, then
I can identify to the council say for the month of January and February we're
going to be tackling x problem.
Mayor Hamilton: It seems to me Jim that that's something that ~ds to be
discussed at the Public Safety Commission and review it thoroughly with them
and a recommendation made to the Council as to these certain things that they
feel strongly that the City ought to work on. I guess I'm kind of surprised
that it comes up here because I think it should go there first. If you've got
a list of programs that you want to work on, I think that should come from
that group.
Councilman Boyt: I think it's certainly reasonable to take the ideas and
filter them through the Public Safety group. I know that I believe in
proactive ~nforcement of our ordinances. I think that Clark is right. I
think that especially on ones where we anticipate there's going to be a
significant reaction that maybe the council wants to look at that ordinance
and say is that really what we need but I think given that, it's very
important that we be out, part of the public safety job is to look for areas
of concern. I'd like to send that message to the Public Saftey Commission.
That, at least frc~ my part, I encourage Jim and his people to do that.
Mayor Hamilton: I guess maybe the first step to that is I would see the
deputies coming in and saying I perceive that there's a problem with something
in the community and we would like to be more proactive in dealing with that
issue and present that to the Public Safety Commission. Review it and discuss
it and if they think it's a problem and something ought to be done, then that
recommendation should come to Council and say this is something we see as a
problem and this is how we're going to attack the problem and this is the
length of time we're going to do it. Maybe we don't even have to go to that
extent. Perhaps the Public Safety Commission sees it and says they think it's
something that they ought to do, just so the Council is informed of that
action probably would be enough. I think it has to come from the deputies
too. Saying there's a problem out there with 900 RV~s parking out in
everybody's frontyard and the neighbors are complaining or I don't know what
the problems are. Whatever it might be. I think it should come from the
deputies also. I guess Jim you obviously have some things you would like to
see us work on.
Councilman Horn: That's why I spill the question. Is it a matter of priority
or is it a matter of the level of funding because to put it in perspective, as
we did in the budget meeting, I've had an awful lot more complaints about
taxes in this town than I have about law enforcement.
44
221
City(~ouncil Meeting - November 2, 1987
Oouncilman Boyt: I think law enforcement is an area where the people most
directly affected are hopefully a very small minority of our population.
Taxes hit all of us so naturally you're goirg to hear more from people about
their tax burden but they all expect to live in a commttnity that's clean, neat
and safe.
Mayor Hamilton: We talk about public safety issues, if there's a drug problem
anyplace, I guess that would be number or~ on my list. If there is perceived
or otherwise thought to be a drug problem anywhere in this town, I wish they
would attack it vigorously with every gun blazing. I don't care what happens.
That's an immense problem I think and I want to keep the town clean of that
type of activity and then if there are other issues that would have an affect
on the public safety, health or welfare of our population than we should take
a look at those things.
Councilman Boyt: Does that give you a sense of where we are?
Jim Chaffee: I think so. I think I~ hearirg communication ar~ that's what
we'll work on.
Mayor Hamilton: ~hat was all for Bill. Clark wanted to talk about TH 5 first
of all.
Councilman Horn: As you may be aware, on November 9th at 7:38 we're having an
open house at the Dinner Theater. This is 7:3~ a~., to have tl~ ear of the
House Transportation Subcommittee and I would e~courage you all to attend
that. The emphasize is being put on by the Chanhassen Chamber of Commerce and
it's also co-sponsored by the coalition. I think this is our shot to show
them some numbers to show we do have problems here. It's primarily to find
out if there are really needs for highways in this area. I don't think we're
going to have any problem justifying that. All we need to do is get the
people out there to show them. If we totally mob the Dinner Theater I think
it would be appropriate. It's a contineneal type breakfast. At first we had
planned a large type breakfast and we felt that would be totally cumbersome
and interfere with what we were trying to do so it will be a light breakfast
type of thing, bring it into the meeting and the meeting will start right
away. The other issue I was going to talk about and I think I probably
already made the major points on it was the Met Council meeting that Steve
Keefe held in Chaska last Friday for elected officials. He talked about, in
fact he talked for two hours straight. He's a very good speaker. ~he two key
issues to me though were the fact that he said the MUSA line was not a fixed
line. We move it everyday and Al Klingelhutz and I picked up on that. Al was
going to talk to him after the meeting to expand on that. I had ano~
meeting to get ready for so I had to leave but that was one of the key issues
and the other one was the effect of runoff in lakes. They four~ that the
farmland is one of the key contributors to lake pollution which in effect
tells me that through development we have opportunities to clea_n up the lakes.
Make them better than what they are in their natural state and now the Met
Council is realizing that and backing it up with statistics. But he's
following through on the theme that Sandra Gardergraham established that they
want to listen to what we have to say. He didn't listen too much to what
45
222
City Oouncil Meeting - Nov~nber 2, 1987
people had to say there but he's still saying those words. They have quite
definite opinions about things. I think the one that also may be of interest
to us here is they are very much proponents of light rail transit but they
recognize that will be a key development issue because wherever you put this
line you're going to force development next to it so they're going to have
their hands tied trying to plan for that.
Mayo~ Hamilton: I think if they just hadn't spent all the money on light rail
transit studies, they probably could have completed all of TH 5 by now and had
it paid for. It's been going on for 10 years with that rail business and
they're not any closer today I don't think than they were 10 years ago. It's
kind of like TH 212 corridor.
Councilman Horn: My real apprehension about light rail transit is that it
won't pay for itself. They are saying that whatever they do has to be cost
justified so that's encouraging. I don't know what in their studies they're
finding that makes them think that may be. Obviously I'm not an expert in
that area.
Mayor Hamilton: Aren't they having a problem also in getting light rail
transit in an area where people are really going to use it? They're talking
about putting light rail transit in a lot of different areas but that isn't
necessarily the areas where people live that aren't going to use the darn
thing and then they have to figure out how to get people in there. For
instance, Hopkins. It was going to run to there arzt then they had to figure
out some way to get people into Hopkins and where are they going to park. How
are they going to get onto this thing and then how they're going to truck them
downtown. It really became a problem. They wanted to stop it there and
Hopkins was going to be the end of the line.
Councilman Horn: That brings up another thought. He made another interesting
point that I thought was somewhat of a change. He said they recognize the
fact that people don't always do things the way governmental agencies would
lead them to go. Take for instance, one of the things that really spurred
this light rail transit thing was the gas crunch. They thought everybody is
going to be using this and they said that the bus traffic increased only
slightly because people paid the $1.50 to $2.00 a gallon, whatever it takes to
drive their cars. That's what they want to do. He carried that message I
think more to the land use plan too because he's saying, we can't stop people
from moving to the suburbs if that's what they want to do so they're beginning
to recognize that they can't go against human nature in all of their grand
plans and really force things to happen. They have to more or less try to
predict what's going to happen and plan accordingly which to me is a very
optimistic thing to say.
Mayor Hamilton: Dale, you wanted to talk about postal addresses and public
information.
Councilman Geving: This subject is an old one to all of us but it is very
important and has ~-c~n very frustrating over the last 10 years sitting here as
a council member knowing the hundreds and hundreds of people that live in our
46
223
City Council Meeting - November 2, 1987
community who are only literally blocks away from main street and yet have
Chaska addresses or go a little bit north to our Lake Minnewashta area and
fir~ out that all of those people have Excelsior 'addresses. I remember Pat
Swenson when she came on the Council in the late 70's, her main objective was
to try to turn that arour~] in some of the areas that were just developing and
she worked hard at it. Basically it comes down to this. If you can get 100%
of the people in a certain area to agree to charge their mailing address from
a given city to another city like Chaska to Chanhassen, it can be
accomplished but you have to have virtually 100% ar~ she was very frustrated
by this and eventually it just failed. But not through lack of effort. She
worked hard at it. What I am proposing is a look at the undeveloped areas of
Chanhassen, south of TH 5 to begin with and I think of areas such as the one
we tackled tonight. Vogel's addition. Gagne's additioru All of the area
south of Lake Susan ar~ if I had my druthers I'd like to designate the entire
datum city as Chanhassen and go for it but I know it's not possible. But many
of these areas, in fact all of these areas that I've just mentioned have
nobody living there yet. We have a chance to-get ahead of the game ar~ as we
develop an area or as the developer comes in, we could take a shot at this
with the postal department ar~ designate it immediately as being part of
Chanhassen. Now today I talked to Al Nelson, our Postmaster from Chanhasseru
He's very, very warm to this idea that I gave him. He would like to se~ up a
meeting with the City Council, his counterpart in Chaska, the Postmaster in
Chaska and also his boss from St. Paul. Have a meeting here in Chanhassen and
go through the developments that we mentioned south of TH 5 that are emerging.
There are no people there yet and we could probably sit down and iron out in a
very short time, on paper, designated areas that will be Chanhasse~ residents.
They will be serviced by the Chanhassen Post Office forever ar~ ever and those
areas that are already designated for Chaska a~d will continue to be
designated by Chaska for mail delivery. For instance, I think it's absolutely
crazy that the people along Lake Riley don't have Chanhassen residents.
The~re Chanhassen citizens but they don't 'have a mailbox in Chanhas~ Pat
Swenson for example and all the people along there. For beginners I would
like to have a meeting with these people that I just mentioned ar~ start
working from Pioneer .Trail north. It's a good place to start as far as
concerned. Just work between downtown Chanhass~ and Pioneer Trail ar~ we
could pick up all of that area as (2mm~hassen. I don't know if we could ever
turn around the area such as Minnewashta. That's pretty encrusted and I~ not
even going to attempt to at this time but the developing areas where they have
nobody there, there isn't one resident, we have a good chance of doing this
once and for all.
Councilman Horn: So you take it a bit at a time.
Councilman Geving: Right, just grab it as developments com~ I've proposed
this to Al and he's going to get back with me tomorrow. He was so warm with
the idea that he~ like to set something UP yet this week. He suggested
Wednesday. I'd like to identify someone on the staff who would be willing to
work with this idea, I5~ looking at Barbara or Todd. Todd would be a likely
candidate.
Todd Gerhardt: I've talked with A1 o~ a n%~ber of issues.
47
224
City Council Meeting - November 2, 1987
Councilman Geving: I see this really as an opportunity as we develop an area
to go ahead and move ahead and get these areas designated because I asked A1
for example, I said how about this Vogel addition for exmaple. He says that
should be a Chaska address. I said but there's nobody living there yet, it's
crazy to designate that now. He said well I think we can change that so I
think this is all it's going to take is a meeting of the minds and maybe we
can get something going. Okay, subject number one. Tae next subject that I
want to talk about is public information. As we become more and more of a
close knit society and as a city with more and more journalism, newspapers are
abounding. We're getting more and more press, I think we have a
responsibility to act as a group and sing the company song singularly but as a
group and not as individuals. What I'm trying to say is there will be a great
deal of pressure I'm sure on each of us as individuals for press releases,
press interviews and so forth. I think we always have to understand where
we're going to and where we're coming from as not just private citizens but as
public employees of this city. As elected officials we also have opinions but
we also have ideas that are for the good of the community which leads me
really to statements that I think have been made by our public employees that
I don't necessarily really agree with as a citizen but mostly as a City
Council member and I think our public employees have a responsibility to speak
the company tune. They can give their opinions but when they formally act in
a position as an official of our community, or any other community, you really
should be speaking as an official for the community and not giving personal
opinions. There should be, if there aren't already, policies and procedures
established so that public information and interviews by our staff should be
cleared through, for exmaple the City Manager. If it's an official, public
interview or press release, I think it should be cleared. The reason I'm
saying this tonight is that I've gotten a number of calls in the last few days
from concerned citizens. We have made a very big attempt since the late
1970's to work closely with Carver County and between the period of 1976 to
1980 we had very, very poor relationships with Carver County. We had very bad
relationships. I think this city body here with Mayor Hamilton and this group
improved that considerably from 1980 on. We worked closely with the County
Commissioners. We now have our own County Commissioner from Chanhassen. We
work very closely with the Carver County Sheriff and his deputies and I
wouldn't want to see us destroy that companionship, that working relationship.
All I'm trying to say here tonight is that I think we need to follow company
policies and procedures when we're speaking as a public official. There
should be, and I repeat this, there should be a procedure or procedures in
our handbooks where public statements are cleared. Whether it's through the
mail or for the signature of the City Manager to sign off on as being the
official position of the city. If we don't do this, as our city begins to
grow and we have more than just several departments, we're going to have
public employees making all kinds of statements that are not the official
position of the city. I guess I don't r~ to dwell a lot about this except
to say that I have had a lot of calls within the last week or so over certain
issues that have appeared in the paper. I will not dwell on that. I will not
get into the details except to say that I think we ought to work as a body and
the public employees that are employees of the City should understand their
responsibility that they are speaking for the city and not as opinions that
they are providing to the press.
48
City Oouncil Meeting - November 2, 1987
Mayor Hamilton: If I could follow up on that~ I think you're right~ As we
continue to grow and as the newspapers continue to seek more and more
information, they don't care who they get into trouble. They're goirg to seek
anybody out that they can who will talk to them but there probably does need
to be a policy within the staff that the City Manager is tb~ persc~ that they
talk to and no one else will give out information unless the City Manager ts
aware of it or myself. As the Mayor a lot of public information is suppose to
go through myself also. Public comments or statements and the like so the
newspaper are free to ask anybody they wish ar~ they can contact anyone they
want but I think you're absolutely right. Dale. We ~ to have something of a
procedure for the staff to follow that if Don's not there, th~ contact the
Mayor in this case the adminstrative assistant to the Mayor and if that person
or the City Manager have discussed how answers will be given, I think that's
alright. Or in Don's absence, whoever is in charge, if it is Gary or whoever.
Councilman Gevirg: I'd like to have my comments relayed to Do~ wh~ he gets
back to the office.
Todd Gerhardt: We're in the process right now of, I'm in the process of
gathering information of updating our personnel policies ar~ that will be a
part of it. The Council will play a role in that updating. You will review
those and I will pass that onto Don.
Mayor Hamilton: Just to go even a step further, I think when we see such a
negative article appear in the paper as it did last week in the Villager about
the downtown develo~ent, I would like to see us respond to that in a positive
way and to take that article and to make comment. Whether it c~nes from Gary
again or from Don but to write an article that would in a little more positive
way outline what is happening and why things are the way they are. If you
read that article you'd think it has been a very project right from the
beginning and I think it was unfortunate that that article was written the way
it was and I received several ~ts on that as you probably did also.
Councilman Boyt: I'd like to ~ent on this. I think we're a little
different than a private business which might control it's employees a little
more closely than we do. We're a public business. Our people work for the
public and I'd certainly like to see them work together to develop a stand
that they agree with. I'd like to think that it's going to be compatible with
the City Council's stand but I flatly am opposed to saying to them they can't
be interviewed by the paper. They certainly can be interviewed by the paper.
They can say anything they want to say. They do have to live with the
consequences of what they say like any of the rest of us do. I'd be opposed
to any personnel policy that said that they had to clear whatever they were
going to say through the City Manager, the Mayor or anybody on the Council.
They're free to say anything they want to say in the paper, in my opinion.
Mayor Hamilton: Sure, as long as t~ talk to ~ out on the street.
Councilman Boyt: I don't know what you mean by out on the street but when
they are employees of the city, certainly they are going to carry that impact.
When they have a serious position in the City, they are going to carry the
weight of that position. I don't want them going out and declaring fire in a
49
City Council Meeting - November 2, 1987
crowded building and I think that they have to be reasonable but they are
entitled to their opinion and it can certainly be different than ours and I
think they can state that in the paper, in my opinion.
Councilman Horn: I think it's very similar to when one of us makes a
statement, it appears to represent the Council. I think we have to be very
careful to specifically point out that that's a personal opinion and it
doesn't necessary represent the view of your employer or anybody else on the
Council because it does have repercussions on our negotiating abilities and I
think that ultimately this may cost the taxpayers more money. I think it's
our responsibility to keep that under control.
Councilman Boyt: I agree there. They should clearly, all of us should be
clear that it's our message unless it is the council's message.
Mayor Hamilton: I just had one other thing. Pryzmus is doirg some work on
his property out there again. You probably all saw him out there Sunday.
Barbara Dacy: He is in the process of completing a grading permit application
and his item will be on the next agenda.
Mayor Hamilton: I don't know if the staff is aware but I met with he and
Roger and Don last week and we very clearly told him what he could and
couldn't do. One of the things he said he was going to do was build a house
out there. I said John, everytime we talk to you about this project you:ye
got something new you're going to do. Why don't you just stick to what we've
told you you can do and come back with some solid plan so we can review it and
either give you approval or tell you what else to do. He just won't listen.
He absolutely won't listen. Roger, Don and myself kept telling him the same
thing and he'd just look at us and say Ih~ going to build a house or I'm going
to do this.
Councilman Gevtng: He can build a farm building on that agricultural land but
if he puts up a metal building with the intention of putting something
c~ercial in there, he's going to court. That's all I can say.
Gary Warren gave a update on the downtown redevelo~t construction progress.
Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to adjourn the meeting. All
voted in favor and motion carried. The n~_cting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m..
Sukmitted by Don Ashw~rth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
50