CC Minutes 2002 05 13CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 13, 2002
Mayor Jansen called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge
to the Flag.
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Jansen, Councilman Boyle, Councilman Ayotte,
and Councilman Peterson
COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Labatt
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Roger Knutson, Teresa Burgess, and Sharmin A1-Jaff
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
Janet Paulsen
Deb Lloyd
Linda Landsman
Tom Kelly
Uli Sacchet
Bree O'Donnell
7305 Laredo Drive
7302 Laredo Drive
7329 Frontier Trail
Park and Recreation Commission
Planning Commission
Student from Chaska High School
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Mayor Jansen: Thank you, good evening. I'll make one announcement before we get started.
We are adding an agenda item number 8 under the Administrative Presentations that will be a
minor amendment to the Hennepin County Redistrict Plan that we had done, so that will be an
agenda item that we will be adding. We have no public announcements.
CONSENT AGENDA:
Mayor Jansen: Are there council members that have any items that you'd like to have removed
for separate discussion? Is there anyone in the audience with an item on the consent agenda that
you would like to have the council discuss separately?
Teresa Burgess: Madam Mayor? I just spoke with a gentleman out in the hallway who had
requested that you read the proclamation, item 1 (k)... Read that out loud.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, why don't we go ahead and approve the consent agenda and then I will do
that when we're done. So ifI could have a motion please.
Councilman Boyle moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that the City Council approve
the Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations:
Approve Consultant Contract for Water Treatment Plans & Minnewashta Loop
Watermain, PW024P.
b. Approval of Franchise Agreement, Reliant Energy, Minnegasco.
City Council Meeting - May 13, 2002
c. Resolution #2002-37: Call Assessment Hearing for 2002 MSA Street Improvement
Project 01-08.
d. Resolution #2002-38: Call Assessment Hearing for 2002 Residential Street
Improvement Project 01-10.
e. Resolution #2002-39: Approve No Parking Resolution for MSA Projects, Project 01-08.
f. Suspend Highway 101 Turnback Discussions, Project 97-12.
g. Approve Settlement Agreement for Parcel 9, BC 7 & 8, Project 00-01.
h. Approval of Bills.
i. Approval of Minutes: · City Council Minutes dated April 15, 2002
· City Council Minutes dated April 22, 2002
· City Council Work Session Minutes dated April 22, 2002
· Board of Review Minutes dated April 22, 2002
Receive Commission Minutes:
· Planning Commission Minutes dated April 16, 2002
j. Approval of Findings of Fact, Chanhassen Dinner Theater Liquor Violation.
k. Resolution #2002-40: Proclamation Declaring May 13-19 as Falun Dafa Week.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Mayor Jansen: We have a resolution proclaiming the week of May 13th through the 19th as.
Teresa Burgess: Madam Mayor, I'm sorry to interrupt. They wanted to videotape you reading
that. I'll step out real quick and let them know you're talking right now.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. Pardon our pause.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
Mayor Jansen: While we're waiting, why don't I go ahead and ask if there's anyone here that
would like to speak under visitor presentations, the council agenda allows time. If there's
someone with an issue of city business that you'd like to approach the city and make us aware of
this evening, you can approach the podium and state your name and address for the record please.
Bob Mortenson: Bob Mortenson. 7371 Kurvers Point Road in Chanhassen. My question is, I
have a question regarding the map for the 101 trail project. Would it be appropriate to ask the
question now or would it be appropriate to ask it at this later discussion?
Mayor Jansen: Why don't I open that up at the time we do the trail. That'd be great. Thank you
for asking. Appreciate it. Anyone else that would like to address the council, please step forward
and just state your name and address for the record please.
City Council Meeting - May 13, 2002
Connie Hargest: Mayor Jansen, City Council members. My name is Connie Hargest. I'm with
Reliant Energy/Minnegasco. Our address is 800 LaSalle Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota
55402. I provided you with a letter highlighting facts and statistics this evening, which I'm not
going to reiterate for you, and it's in regard to the franchise that you've just had on your consent
agenda. We've provided safe, reliable natural gas service to the city for the past 42 years and
we've invested over $8 million for infrastructure development in Chanhassen. Things such as gas
mains, services meters and regulators. Minnegasco also pays property taxes on this infrastructure
and we paid about $190,000 last year for the use in the city of those taxes. Reliant Energy/
Minnegasco appreciates the opportunity to serve the residents and businesses in Chanhassen and
we will continue to offer the high level of service, safe heat and reliability that you've come to
expect from us. I would be happy to address any questions.., but it sounds like you didn't have
any. Your staff has done a very good job of working on this and I want to thank Todd Gerhardt
and your attorney, Joel Jamnik for going through this endless process that we need to get to try to
get this franchise completed. Thank you Mayor Jansen and council members for considering this
renewal this evening. We appreciate this opportunity to continue serving the community of
Chanhassen.
Mayor Jansen: Great, thank you. Any questions for Connie?
Councilman Boyle: No.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. Thank you for coming this evening. Appreciate it.
Bob Mortenson: May I ask a question?
Mayor Jansen: If Connie's comfortable doing that, certainly.
Bob Mortenson: I guess my question is, does Minnegasco provide any provisions that the local
citizens could rate lock their energy costs for say an annualized basis?
Connie Hargest: Yes. Minnegasco does have a program, and that program is a brand new
program. We've had it for about the last year, and you can lock in your rate. That program is not
our traditional bill that we have but it's called a no surprise bill and it is something that if you
have questions about that, we welcome that. We have brochures on that and we'll certainly send
that to anyone who needs it.
Bob Mortenson: Thank you.
Mayor Jansen: Great, thank you. Thank you Bob. Is there anyone else under visitor presentation
that has an issue that you'd like to raise with the council at this time? Seeing no one, I will close
visitor presentations and I will go back to read the proclamation that we just approved on the
consent agenda. It's a resolution proclaiming the week of May 13th to the 19th, 2002 as, forgive
me if I say this wrong. As Falun Dafa Week. I got the thumbs up. I got it right. Whereas Falun
Dafa, also known as Falun Gong, is an integrated system for improving the mind and body
through peaceful exercises and meditation. You can tell I'm government. I was going to say
mediation. And whereas, the practice helps people relieve stress and attain overall mental and
physical health, and whereas, millions of people are practicing Falun Dafa in more than 40
countries, and whereas, Falun Dafa was introduced to Minnesota in the fall of 1998. Since that
time volunteers have offered free instruction and maintain several regular group exercise practice
sites in the Twin Cities area, including Como Park, the University of Minnesota, and Pathways in
Minneapolis. Now therefore, I, Linda Jansen, Mayor of the City of Chanhassen, do hereby
City Council Meeting - May 13, 2002
proclaim the week of May 13th to the 19th, 2002 to be Falun Dafa Week in the city of Chanhassen.
Thank you and that passed with a 4-0 vote. So moving on.
PUBLIC HEARING: FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR 2002 MSA ROADWAY
IMPROVEMENT FOR THE PORTION OF LAKE DRIVE EAST IN HENNEPIN
COUNTY.
Teresa Burgess: Thank you Madam Mayor. The City Council previously held a public hearing
on this project on January 23rd of 2002. However the properties located in Hennepin County did
not get the proper mailed notice and so this evening we are holding a special public hearing for
those properties to have a chance to speak to the council on the improvements to Lake Drive East.
Specifically Lake Drive East is proposed to be rehabilitated, which if you remember in our
conversations previously rehabilitation in this case would require milling of the existing asphalt,
area repairs in the areas that are significantly distressed. Some curb and gutter replacement and
repair, and some storm sewer adjustment in areas that are problem areas. And then it will be
overlayed with asphalt material. In this case the City will be assessing or is proposing to assess
the properties adjacent to the project approximately 40 percent. We cannot go higher than our
feasibility study, and so at this point we have not bid the project, but we are intending to assess 40
percent of the project cost. The remaining 60 percent to be paid using MSA dollars and so if
there's any questions I'll be happy to answer that. Otherwise the intent tonight is to allow the
public to speak to the council.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. Any questions for staff at this time? This is a public hearing.
If there's anyone present that would like to speak to this agenda item, please step forward to the
podium. Seeing no one, I'm going to close the public hearing and there is no motion required,
correct Teresa? So you just.
Teresa Burgess: Correct. There is no motion required of the council unless you wish to change
the motion which is included on the attachment that was approved by the council on January 25th.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. Council, any changes to the motion?
Councilman Boyle: No.
Mayor Jansen: Seeing none, we will go onto agenda item number 3 under new business.
PRESENTATION OF STRATEGIC PLAN, FRIENDS OF THE CHANHASSEN
LIBRARY.
Jill Shipley: Good evening. My name is Jill Shipley. Do I have to say where I live?
Mayor Jansen: Please.
Jill Shipley: 261 Eastwood Court, Chanhassen and if I may approach Mayor and give you new
pages of our strategic plan to look at, it will be easier for you to follow.
Mayor Jansen: Great, thanks.
Jill Shipley: These are color coded and just, I'm sure you probably all looked over the
information that was included in your packet, but this will be just a little easier for you to view.
Thanks so much for letting us be on your agenda tonight. The Friends of the Library just want to
City Council Meeting - May 13, 2002
let you know that we're really excited about the new library that's coming and we're putting
together a lot of initiatives and strategies to make sure that the library meets the needs and the
expectations of the community. We're going to have a fabulous new building out in front of City
Hall. Now, what can we do to make sure that everybody in Chanhassen knows it and utilizes it?
Our first strategy is to promote usage of the library and it's offering so that everyone knows about
it. And to that effect we want to do several different things. Provide events and reasons to bring
people to the library. Promote reading and learning. There's a significant contingency of English
language learners in our elementary schools now, as well as their parents, so what can we do to
work with the school district to help these children be able to learn the English language and
utilize the resources that are in the library so it benefits them as well. Another strategy of our's is
to continue to promote the library, much the same way we have been doing by participating in the
4th of July parade. Publishing Focal Points. Our quarterly newsletter, and increasing public
relations on events. Secondly, our major objective and strategy which is the green one on your
page now, is providing support to the Carver County library system so that when these people
come to the library, these new people who haven't used it before or the existing people, they are
happy with what they find there and they're well served by everything that's offered there. We
would like to implement this strategy in several different ways. Providing volunteer time and
talent is one way that Friends of the Library can help with this, so there's someone there that can
greet the people. Perhaps refer them on to the person that they need to see. We'd like to provide
money to ensure that we've got state of the art technology. If you examine the strategic plan of
the Carver County Library Board, they're striving for the median of technology. We maybe want
our residents maybe expect something more, and maybe want to have different options and
enhancements available to them. So maybe that's an area that the Friends of the Library can help
with. Providing money to purchase materials so that we have enough there for all of the people
who are going to be using the library. We've been a little behind in our offerings up to this point,
behind national medians and things like that. Now is the time that we can jump ahead and the
Friends of the Library are there to help ensure that that happens. To do both of those objectives
that we've listed so far, we need number 3 which is our objective of ensuring that our
organization is strong and viable and positioned to be able to work with all of these things. We
need to be financially stable so that we can undertake these things. So to that end we are
reviewing a lot of things within our organization. We have already revised our by-laws. We're
looking to add some diversity and people of influence to our Board of Directors. We're looking
to increase our membership and that little recap sheet that you show, that I had at the top of your
strategic plan will show you now that we're up to 88 members so we are growing in strength that
way. We're hoping to add a business and corporate membership to the Friend. We have a couple
of things that we do to generate revenue. We have our book sales. We're constantly increasing
our sales at those and the number of people who attend so that is good. We would like to be able
to launch a fund raising campaign for the new library to purchase things like artwork, sculpture,
benches for the library park outside the library. Things like that and to that end we'd love to be
able to implement a donor wall so that our donors are recognized for their contributions.
Something that would be a permanent site or permanent visual enhancement in the library.
Maybe in the lobby or something like that. We'd like to be able to offer a coffee shop in the
library which we think would probably generate some revenue. We also think it's primarily a
service that our community people expect, but then I know that we are going to be discussing that
a little bit later this evening. We are intending to apply for grants and just pursue any means that
we can to help get the funding and the money that we need to do what we want to do to make this
library just the best library in the southwestern part of the metropolitan area. So the fourth part,
our fourth objective or initiative then is to just be constantly assessing and monitoring all the
things that we're doing and making sure that we're achieving our goals and that we are meeting
the needs of the community and meeting the expectations of the city. What you want from us and
of the Carver County Library Board. Are there any questions at this point?
City Council Meeting - May 13, 2002
Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Council, any questions for Jill?
Councilman Ayotte: Outstanding.
Mayor Jansen: It's an outstanding strategic plan. I give you kudos for having put together an
initiative like this and I believe you've already approached and shared this with the Library
Board, correct?
Jill Shipley: Correct. This is the first, this is the rough draft of our strategic plan and we wanted
to present it to the Library Board as well as to you to get any comments or feedback before we
finalize it.
Mayor Jansen: Well we appreciate everything that you have done and are looking to do in your
strategic plan. Certainly you're more in touch with what that library needs than we are ourselves,
so we appreciate that there's so many of you that are spending your volunteer time working with
Cathy Pershman in the library. With Melissa Berchon and all of staff and being such a wonderful
support for them. I don't know if everyone's really aware of the number of volunteer hours that
are donated into the library to help, even with our current facility as far as books and helping
staff. But you're significant. It is a significant number and thank you for sharing the strategic
plan with us this evening.
Jill Shipley: Thank you for the opportunity.
Mayor Jansen: Sure.
BOYER BUILDING CORPORATION, LOCATED SOUTH OF TRUNK HIGHWAY 7,
WEST OF WASHTA BAY ROAD, NORTH OF LAKE MINNEWASHTA, AND EAST OF
DARTMOUTH:
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO REPLAT A 13.6 ACRE SITE INTO 11 SINGLE
FAMILY LOTS AND 1 BEACHLOT.
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO FILL 4,764 SQ. FT. OF WETLAND.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A BEACHLOT.
VARIANCES TO ALLOW 50 FEET OF RIGHT-OF-WAY, 9% STREET GRADE,
AND 50 X 80 FOOT HOUSEPADS.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Sue Fiedler
Jim Ginther
Matt & Steve Keuseman
Rich Friedman
Ann Zweig
Shame & Scott Broin
3121 Dartmouth Drive
3131 Dartmouth Drive
3622 Red Cedar Point Drive
Red Cedar Point Drive
3601 Ironwood Road
3840 Lone Cedar Lane
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Madam Mayor, members of the City Council. The applicant is proposing to
subdivide 13.6 acres into 11 single family lots and one beachlot. The property is zoned
residential single family. Beachlots are permitted in this area, only they require a conditional use
permit. Variances are being requested with this application to allow 50 foot right-of-way, 9
City Council Meeting - May 13, 2002
percent street grades, and a 50 by 80 house pad. The applicant is also proposing to fill 5,498
square feet of wetland. The average lot size is 35,612 square feet. The ordinance requires 15,000
square feet minimum. The gross density with this subdivision is 0.8 units. The net density is
1.65 units per acre. All the proposed lots meet the minimum requirements of the zoning
ordinance. As mentioned earlier, there is one beachlot shown on the plat, which is proposed to
serve the entire subdivision. A foot path from the bubble of each cul-de-sac will provide access
to this beachlot and eventually lead to the lakeshore where a dock with 10 boat slips is proposed.
Number of boat slips must be reduced to 9. That's the maximum permitted by ordinance. Three
wetlands occupy this site. Two of these wetlands are proposed to be impacted by this
development, while the third is proposed to remain intact. The applicant is proposing to mitigate
for the wetlands impacted at a rate of 2 to 1 as required by ordinance. The site has mature trees
which the applicant is making an effort to preserve. However, due to construction of storm
ponds, streets and grading for house pads, mature trees are being lost. Staff discussed the
possibility of custom grading some of those sites and the applicant is open to that suggestion.
There is a condition to that effect. The variance for the 50 right-of-way for the cul-de-sac is to
allow the streets to blend in with the existing neighborhood. The 9 percent grade on the westerly
cul-de-sac was discussed at length with the applicant. This grade provides the least impact on the
vegetation and staff fully supports it. The third variance deals with the size of the house pad on
Lot 4 of Block 1. The ordinance requires a 60 by 60 house pad. The lot has an area of 1.8 acres.
The applicant is proposing a 60 by 80 house pad. There are house plans that have been submitted
on this site. The issue of the dimensions of a house pad has been discussed in the past. Staff has
always maintained that we never encounter actual house plans with dimensions of 60 by 60.
There is a buildable area on this site and there is a sizeable yard on this lot. We've been working
with the applicant for several months. We believe that we have a good plan and we are
recommending approval with conditions outlined in the staff report. And I'll be happy to answer
any questions, thank you.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Any questions for staff at this time?
Councilman Boyle: Not at this time.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. Sharmin, now I just went through the conditions quickly and I was looking
for the custom grading. Did that definitely make it into a condition?
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Yes.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. I just wanted to make sure. I had only just overlooked it.
John Boyer: Can I make comments at this point?
Mayor Jansen: Just a minute, thank you. You're finding it?
Sharmin A1-Jaff: I'm looking for it.
Mayor Jansen: Okay.
Sharmin A1-Jaff: It's condition number 36(h). No, I'm sorry. 21. It should be number 37.
There is a typo.
Councilman Boyle: What page are you on?
City Council Meeting - May 13, 2002
Sharmin A1-Jaff: If you mm to page 30. (h). Item number (h).
Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you.
Sharmin A1-Jaff: And that condition number should be 37. The overall.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Okay. If the applicant has anything that they would like to add. If
there's anything new, we obviously have the minutes from the Planning Commission meeting as
to the presentation that was done there. Thank you.
John Boyer: I understand that. I do have a couple things to add.
Mayor Jansen: If you could state your name and address for the record please.
John Boyer: My name is John Boyer. I live in Minnetonka. I represent the developer, Boyer
Building Corporation and more specifically my parents, Joseph and Eileen Boyer who have
owned the property for about 30 years.
Mayor Jansen: Good evening.
John Boyer: Pardon?
Mayor Jansen: Good evening.
John Boyer: Good evening. And there are just a couple comments. Now first of all, just a
clarification on the ponding and the wetland mitigation issues. Much of the ponding on the site is
regional ponding and I just want to point that out that it's not required by the development. It's
required because of the regional off-site water that's being brought into the site. Consequently
most of the wetland mitigation is due to that construction of the regional ponds. I want to thank
the staff for working hard with us on this development over the last 9 months. The first plat that
we presented to them, quite some time ago, included 4 riparian lots. Those sites extended to the
water. It was our, well working with staff we thought that it was a good idea to extend the
beachlot across the property, the entire property to further respect that wetland basin number 2, as
well as provide an opportunity for the north properties. The properties on the other side of the
street to gain access to this site. Gain access to the water. Hence we had 10 lots. We asked for
10 boat slips, thinking that the 200, 3 slips per 200 feet calculates to 667 feet which is the length
of our beachlot. As it now tums out, and I assume that as we now have clarification, that we
probably can't expect to have 10 sites. Or 10 boat slips. But it is our intention to have 1 slip per
home site. Therefore we will, we are asking to modify the plat slightly at this point to combine
Lots 1 and 2, Block 2 into one site. That will then allow us to have 1 slip per homeowner on the
west side of the channel. And 1 slip to the north. In so doing we won't be required to provide
this much, or 667 feet of lakeshore so we're asking also that the lot line here, this lot line is
receded back to the edge of the channel. That still leaves us with 630 feet oflakeshore. 30 feet in
excess of the 200 foot times 3,600 feet minimum. Am I making myself clear?
Mayor Jansen: You're making adjustments that, did you have this conversation with staff?
John Boyer: No we didn't, and the reason I'm making the adjustment is because I'm anticipating
you vote us down on the 10 slips. We are still requesting the 10 slips, but...
Mayor Jansen: Okay, because even coming through.
City Council Meeting - May 13, 2002
John Boyer: ... 9 slips I'm trying to let it be known that we intend to make this change along the
way so if we have to re-submit with a different plat, so be it. But we are going to want to
eliminate this section of the beachlot since there's no need for it. It does not even connect unless
through wetlands to this side.
Mayor Jansen: Sharmin, that part of the beachlot, is that in the conservation easement?
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Yes it is.
Mayor Jansen: So we're impacting the conservation easement by making any of these changes.
By reducing the 2 lots to 1 lot, does it then even relate to this conservation easement?
Sharmin A1-Jaff: No.
Mayor Jansen: All it relates to really are the number of slips, correct? Or docks.
Sharmin A1-Jaff: And that would make the numbers even at that point because you will have 9
lots that don't have direct access to the lake, and there will be 9 slips.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. So if what he's suggesting, let's take this in steps. That we combine the 2
lots, is there anything that we need to do differently here this evening?
Sharmin A1-Jaff: No, that's something that we can work with the applicant on.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. So as long as we're not impacting the conservation easement, we're not
making a major change and you would be able to work with that? With the applicant.
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Correct.
Mayor Jansen: So we could approve it as it is this evening, and you could still work with the
applicant as far as making that lot adjustment.
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Correct.
Mayor Jansen: They're just coming down to the number of docks to be equal to homes. Okay.
John Boyer: Okay. To the issue of the conservation easement. Everything else is fine but the
conservation easement is not going to work for us. That was not part of our original plat. Was
not part of our conditions and it got thrown at us. We are not going to, and I'll show you why.
Mayor Jansen: Well and if I may, it was communicated very clearly to you that if in fact there
was going to be a major change made, which this is, that this proposal would need to go back to
the Planning Commission so that you could have your public hearing, because we're
circumventing the public process for you to change it here with council because the public
hearing was noticed and held at the Planning Commission. So that would be my first concern.
Making a major change here. And for you to bring forward these major changes, you know staff
has already had the conversation with you so we're not going to make them this evening. What
we have before us is what we have to consider as far as approval or not.
John Boyer: I understand. The issue is that it's not a change. The conservation was not part of
our proposal. It was not part of our plat.
City Council Meeting - May 13, 2002
Mayor Jansen: It was part of what the Planning Commission approved. It was part of the
proposal before the Planning Commission that was approved by the Planning Commission.
John Boyer: But I understand that the City Council does not necessarily always approve what the
Planning Commission approves.
Mayor Jansen: We're pretty consistent, and that's why it was related to you that if you make a
major change, that it would...
John Boyer: What I'd like to have then is a reading from the council because frankly, if we have
to go with a conservation easement, we're going to have to go back to riparian lots on that site. I
mean I'll show you why. I've got some pictures here. Okay, this is a view at the east end of the
easement which is on the west side of the channel, looking westerly. You can see there's a sewer
easement right down through. There's currently a sewer line right down through your
conservation easement. In addition, we're going to have to connect to that sewer line in 2 spots.
Consequently we're going to be adding man made, artificial disruption in that conservation
easement, which is totally against the wording of the easement. If that sewer line has to be dug
up, once again you're going to be impacting that conservation easement, which is contrary to
what the wording is in the conservation easement. I'm assuming you've all read the conservation
easement.
Mayor Jansen: Yes, thank you and in fact ifI may, staffit's not uncommon for us to end up with
utility word in these areas, correct?
Sharmin A1-Jaff: That's correct.
Mayor Jansen: And then the best is done to try to put it back into it's natural state. The point is
that the remainder of the conservation easement, which is primarily protecting the shoreline, and
we're not doing utilities in the shoreline.
Sharmin A1-Jaff: That's correct.
Mayor Jansen: It stands protected. I think we understand the conservation easement.
John Boyer: Yeah, the conservation easement is not protecting the shoreline. The conservation
easement is protecting the trees that are off the shoreline, and on the shoreline, but it's protecting
the trees. The wetlands already protected and what more protection do we need? The trees, as
you can see, this is a typical scenario with the trees right here. How are we going to clean this
up? How can we sell these lots with this kind of vegetation on them? Look at that. This is what
you're asking us to protect.
Mayor Jansen: I in fact walked the property. I know very well what it is that we are protecting.
John Boyer: We cannot sell those lots if we have, if the homeowners are forced to look through
that to look at their lake. That's the view. That's the view on Lot 5 which is one of the premium
lots. That's the view on the walkout side of Lot 5, out across the lake. You can't see the lake.
There's more fallen trees. This is the east side of the channel. How are we going to take care of
these dead trees if there's a conservation easement and we can't touch them? That's the property
directly to the west. On the west property line. That is the property. Why are we not allowed to
have that kind of view? More vegetation that's shown. This is again looking to the east along the
easement.
10
City Council Meeting - May 13, 2002
Mayor Jansen: Anything else?
John Boyer: I just want to point out, this is Part II of the conservation easement. This grants the
City the right to preserve, improve and enhance slope, trees, vegetation and natural habitat by
altering, clearing and removing trees or other vegetation. By changing the contour of the land
and by planting trees or other vegetation. It prohibits the owners of the land from doing that, but
allows the city to do that. How can that be... ?
Mayor Jansen: Well if you think we're going to go in there and clean it up, I think you're
suggesting something that we've in fact just let the safeguard for us to be able to go in and do
what might be necessary, correct Sharmin?
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Absolutely. There are diseased trees we would remove.
John Boyer: I think you have that safeguard without the conservation easement as well.
Mayor Jansen: Anything else this evening?
John Boyer: I guess I'm just asking your indulgence one more time to understand what I'm
trying to portray here and be honest with what really is going on. I don't think the vegetation
there is significant enough to create an additional burden on the property that's not required on
any other properties anywhere really along the lake other than state or regional parks.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you.
John Boyer: IfI could get a reading on it tonight, I'd appreciate it because it's going to affect
how.
Councilman Ayotte: Oh you're going to get a reading Mr. Boyer.
Mayor Jansen: You're going to get a reading. Okay, thank you. This is not a public hearing.
However, I anticipate that there might be a couple of people here who might have a couple
comments to make. I'm going to keep it limited, so if there is someone here with something new
that was not presented to the Planning Commission as far as any comments, you are welcome to
approach the podium. If you could keep it to under 5 minutes in your comments, I would
appreciate it. But do come up to the podium and state your name and address for the record.
Steve Keuseman: Hi. My name is Steve Keuseman and I live at 3622 Red Cedar Point Drive and
I'm here actually on this Boyer development. I live directly across the lake. The big bay, I guess
it'd be southwest of it and I am totally against this thing. To hear this guy talking, I mean this
guy wants the moon. I mean I've never heard of anything they're going to build on where they're
going to do so much filling and cutting and then he's complaining, how can he sell these lots?
Well if he can't sell them, maybe he should buy some property somewhere's else. I mean this
property, I've lived on Lake Minnewashta since 1963 and I've always enjoyed this property. It's
right along side the trails where you walk. It's the only place you can see Lake Minnewashta
from Highway 7 now and I would imagine that once he builds homes he's probably going to put a
berm up or something there by the highway because otherwise these people are going to, they're
going to have to have their air conditioner on all summer long because they're going to hear
nothing but trucks going down Highway 7. And then this beachlot stuff. What makes everybody
think that they're within walking distance of the lake, they have property rights? I have lakeshore
property. I'm on the lake. I mean I don't feel anybody that doesn't have lakeshore property
11
City Council Meeting - May 13, 2002
that's on the lake has right to lakeshore. I mean these people, a lot of them have more rights than
I do. Some of these lakeshore lots have their own accesses. I have to use the park and pay to
launch and take my boat out. And these beachlots that we have, not only that, we have ones that I
can tell you for now the Minnewashta Creek one, they don't even, they're not even supposed to
have a dock. They're not supposed to have any overnight boat parking, but they moor boats out
in the water to buoys. They anchor, they have at least 3 boats in the water in the summer.
Stratford Ridge, the way I understood that when that was built, it's only supposed to have canoe
racks. Now they have 5 boat slips out there. I'd like to know what's going on. I don't want no
more beachlots. I want stricter enforcement of the ones we already got. Minnewashta's a small
lake. Minnewashta's a small lake. Water patrol is just about, is non-existent on the lake. It's an
accident waiting to happen. Now when you put 10 lots in there, you're putting, you're giving 10
homeowners. It's not like, you know I can understand these 4 homes here. They have lakeshore
privileges because they have property that borders the lake, but not 10. I mean you get 10
homeowners out there. Okay, they're not only going to have 1 boat I can tell you right now.
They're going to get personal watercraft if they've got teenagers, you can bet your life on that.
And they get personal watercraft, they're going to say oh we can't tie it up at our dock. We
already got a boat. They're just going to pull it up on shore. Or they're going to have fishing
boats for their kids.., so you could end up possibly there with 20-25 boats. It's too much for the
lake. I mean we've got to put an end to it. No more beachlots. If you give them one, or if you let
them build here, if Ches Mar Farm or something gets sold, what are you going to tell the next
developer. He wants a beachlot. You're going to say okay? It's got to stop somewhere and it
stops here.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. One of the issues that was covered at the Planning Commission
meeting, which is part of why we don't hold a second public hearing here, was the issue of the
dockage and how many homes in fact would have docks and how many boats would be allowed.
The reason that we have brought forward, or staff has brought forward the common beach is to
limit the best we can the impact on the lakeshore by only having the 1 dock and then the 9 slips
available. So 9 boats. If you had the 4 docks, you could have 12 boats. And that goes to the
point of how many could actually end up out on the lake. So it was staff working with our lake
resource specialist that came up with this proposal to both protect the shoreline and do the best
that we can as far as, it just worked out that way. We can't really limit the number of boats that
are on the lake, but with all of the calculations of lakeshore, this is the maximum amount of boats
that would be allowed. Did I say that okay Sharmin?
Sharmin A1-Jaff: You said that perfect, yeah.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. And that was in the minutes from the Planning Commission meeting that
we all received. Yes sir.
Steve Keuseman: Can I mention something? You know when you talk about in 4 docks, you're
talking about 4 homeowners then.
Mayor Jansen: But to your point sir, and I do live on a lake and I am aware of how many of the
families end up with all of the boats or jet skis and so forth out on the lake at the same time,
because you do have family members that end up taking the multiple craft out so.
Steve Keuseman: I disagree.
Mayor Jansen: Well.
12
City Council Meeting - May 13, 2002
Steve Keuseman: That's 4 homeowners versus 10 homeowners.
Mayor Jansen: Understood.
Steve Keuseman: It's a whole different ballgame.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, and again this issue was covered in the public hearing at the Planning
Commission meeting and I certainly understand that we would all love to limit the amount of, I
shouldn't say all. I'm in agreement with wanting to limit the amount of development on our lakes
and on our lakeshores. You can't keep people from developing their property. They have the
legal right to build what they're building. We can't stop them. Otherwise it's a taking and we
have taken their property rights. What we have are zoning and code and ordinances that we can
apply to this property and staff, and you just heard the argument trying to back us down from the
conservation easement. It's there for the very reason that we all appreciate our lakes and it's
trying to preserve that lakeshore front. And one of the pictures that was shown was perfectly
manicured, mowed up to the lakeshore and why can't we have that on these lots? We'd like to
think that we've learned from some of the mistakes and this is a pristine lakeshore and staff has
put forward the conservation easement and then the shared dock for the reason of trying to
preserve it the best that they can. And I certainly understand it's an emotional issue to see
lakeshore developed, and that's why I walked the property. To see exactly what was going on out
there and it is difficult, but it is a limited number of homes at this point. If there's anyone, and
I'm going to say again, with something new that was not discussed at the Planning Commission
meeting, certainly come forward. Otherwise we have all read the minutes from the Planning
Commission and that is what we're considering here this evening. Otherwise come forward and
state your name and address for the record.
Rich Friedman: My name is Rich Friedman, 3601 Red Cedar Point Road. The concern that I
think that a number of people have is just not this property. Because before you in a few more
weeks you're going to have another development just like this. And that was the concern that a
number of residents around this lake have. You have this one situation where you're going to
have 10 residents that will have access to the lake. Across on the other side, on the east side of
the lake you're going to have in front of you another challenge because they are gerrymandering
the land again with one beachlot and multiple back lots that are not on the lake. And they're
going to be asking the same kind of thing. And I guess the frustration that a number of us have
that live on the lake is that you, the regional park is there. You've approved a public beach with a
fishing.
Audience: Pier.
Rich Friedman: Pier, thank you. I'm not a fisherman so I don't go out there, but the fact of the
matter is, is when is this going to stop? And while maybe allowed by law, isn't there a sense of
common sense amongst you all that says that how many more of these beachlots will you allow?
Even though it's within code and she can do her homework and she's probably done a very nice
job. The fact of the matter is that it's practicality and since the mayor has walked the current lot,
she noticed that an awful lot of that lot is currently under water. Now the concern is basically
when is enough enough and that's all we ask you. To use your good judgment to ask that same
question of the developers. Thank you.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you.
13
City Council Meeting - May 13, 2002
Councilman Boyle: Sir, may I ask you a question regarding beachlots. Why the, what's, I'm
missing something on the beachlot. I can understand the boat slips and more activity on the lake
but why the.
Rich Friedman: ...concern.
Councilman Boyle: Yeah, on beachlots.
Rich Friedman: Well there's a couple concerns. First of all, if you take a look at the way this
property is set up. At the Planning Commission they discussed who is responsible for the
beachlot, number one. Who's going to pay taxes on it? And are in fact the lots number 8, 7, 6
and 5, are they going to disregard going out to the beachlot to do their boating, or will they be
launching kayaks and canoes and a number of other kinds of things, which is contrary to what
you're trying to establish with a beachlot itself. The other concern of course is that you just add
to the number of people. If in fact you want to give access to the people in the community for a
lake, you've done so. You've already built a public beach. You have a regional park on the other
side. You already have existing community beaches. You're going to be adding one over here.
You have another one on the planning stages right now, and people have mentioned Ches Mar
Farms. They're also concerned about the Girl Scouts, so you're really impacting the number of
people when in fact the facilities are already there. Why not use, why not ask those people to go
around the lake and either use the regional park or the existing beach? I don't understand it. If in
fact you want to buy beach front land, then buy one of these lots. But just by virtue of being
within 100 or 200 or 300 yards from a lake, it doesn't give you automatically rights and
privileges. Certainly you're not going to pay the same taxes as any of us, so I just don't
understand why the commission continues to entertain these kinds of thoughts when in fact
they've already made provisions for the citizens of the community.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Sharmin, I realize this is more Lori's area of expertise, but could you
just reiterate to us what the reason is for not wanting to put the multiple docks out across this
area?
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Absolutely. There's a wetland located south of the site. If we had individual
riparian lots, each one of those parcels will require a wetland alteration permit. They will clear
vegetation to be able to access the lake. So environmentally, this is a clearer scenario. The
number of watercraft to individual lots is higher than what you would get with a beachlot. So
those are the two main reasons.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you.
Councilman Boyle: Sharmin. What is the current ordinance on slips or docks and overnight
storage in a situation like this where the homeowner doesn't actually own that slip or land? And
who will maintain that dock or those slips?
Sharmin A1-Jaff: The homeowners association will be required to maintain the beachlot.
Councilman Boyle: The beachlot and the slips.
Sharmin A1-Jaff: The beachlot and the slips. Only individuals who own property within this
subdivision will be allowed to use the beachlot.
Councilman Boyle: Okay. And they'll each have one slip, if there's 9 lots.
14
City Council Meeting - May 13, 2002
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Correct.
Councilman Boyle: Can they park their boat there overnight obviously?
Sharmin A1-Jaff: No.
Councilman Boyle: No they cannot?
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Well, they will be allowed to moor them overnight. They won't be allowed to
launch boats from the beachlot.
Councilman Boyle: Understand but the boat can stay at the slip overnight, is that correct?
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Yes, yes. Yes it can.
Councilman Boyle: Is there not a law that says you can't in a situation like that? No?
Mayor Jansen: No. No, that's part of the purpose. It's just like a private dock except it's 1
instead of 4 so it would be treated the same.
Councilman Boyle: So the homeowners will pay the insurance and everything for that?
Sharmin A1-Jaff: That's correct.
Councilman Boyle: Okay.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. Alright. If there's anyone else that has comments, if you could come
forward and state your name and address for the record, and then I am going to close this to any
further comments.
Audience: Could I just ask you a question?
Mayor Jansen: We're going to move on sir, thank you.
Debbie Lloyd: Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. My only comment is I've heard that this
meets the ordinance and I want to remind everyone there are 3 variances, and I haven't seen in
the report that all the conditions have been applied. I haven't seen that logic. I've worked
through that logic before and it would be comforting to see it. Thank you.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you. You did present findings on all of the variances, correct?
Sharmin A1-Jaff: That's correct. It's on page 22.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. That also was brought up at the Planning Commission meeting so
everything is there as we need it as far as the variances and what, 2 of the 3 were proposed by
staff and the ones that, and it is to prevent more degradation.
Sharmin A1-Jaff: That's correct.
15
City Council Meeting - May 13, 2002
Mayor Jansen: It would be worst if we didn't give them the variance. You would have more
impact to the property as far as you've reduced the width of the right-of-way and you've let them
increase the street grade in order to preserve more of the trees and the vegetation.
Sharmin A1-Jaff: That's correct.
Mayor Jansen: Okay.
Teresa Burgess: Madam Mayor, if i could also address those two since they are engineering
variances. One of the justifications that we used as staff, we struggled internally with the right-
of-way and also with the street grades, and one of the justifications that we came to with agreeing
to that and not holding a little bit stronger was that in obtaining the conservation easement we felt
that this was something that, by doing these 2 things in combination with a conservation easement
we were preserving the property and working in that same vein. But also by going to less
invasive grading and going to the lesser wide right-of-way, we were also allowing the property
owner a little bit more freedom and ability to develop the property because we were taking less
right-of-way. There's more space for them to put in those building lots and so we felt it was a
trade-off in a way for the conservation easement which was very important to the city to protect
the lakefront area and avoid those manicured lawns all the way up to the waterways.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. i'll take one more comment from the public and then i'll be
closing this. Ma'am, you can approach the podium and state your name and address for the
record please.
Shame Broin: Shame Broin, 3840 Lone Cedar Lane and I guess I have one question for the City
Council with regard to budgeting. With all the additional increase of traffic with watercraft on
the lake, how are the children being protected at Camp Tanadoona and at the beaches? Are we
increasing staff water safety out there?
Mayor Jansen: Sharmin, do we have anything to do with Camp Tanadoona?
Shame Broin: Or the public beaches with the regional park. Because watercrafts are increasing
with the public access and with the additional lots that are being sold with slips, there's going to
be a lot of additional traffic and are we looking out for the children on the lake?
Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you.
Shame Broin: And we need safeguards.
Mayor Jansen: Appreciate it.
Sharmin A1-Jaff: There is DNR staff that usually monitors the lakes.
Todd Gerhardt: Carver County. Mayor, Carver County Sheriff's Office does the water patrol for
the City of Chanhassen on the lakes and i know each year it's an issue with the number of lakes
in Carver County for patrol time so we will share that information with the County Sheriff again
when we meet with him.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. I'm going to bring this back to council. Council, any questions
for staff?
16
City Council Meeting - May 13, 2002
Councilman Boyle: I've got some comments but I'll wait.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, any questions at this time? Okay, then we can move right into comments if
you wanted to start Councilman Ayotte.
Councilman Ayotte: Okay. First off, I appreciate your comment made about the safety and I
really, here's my point. The staff has done a phenomenal job, along with the Planning
Commission getting it up to this point and they've given leeway to try to accommodate the
developer and we've given and as a result of the presentation I see a desire to change scope. Put
my back to the wall as a councilman and I will not entertain an approval as is without the thought
of bringing it back to the Planning Commission to address that scope change. I don't appreciate
being put on the spot without having the opportunity of really measuring the impact of that scope
change. The technical aptitude lies with the staff and the Planning Commission and for that
reason I would feel much more comfortable with the Planning Commission taking a look at those
changes.
Mayor Jansen: Councilman Ayotte, if I may.
Councilman Ayotte: I'm not voting I know.
Mayor Jansen: Right now the staff report, we can approve as is which is the recommendation that
came through the Planning Commission. There is no proposal formally before us from staff for
approval so you can vote on the recommendation with the knowledge that that is what came
through the Planning Commission and what the staff is recommending.
Councilman Ayotte: What Mr. Boyer presented did get in front of the Planning Commission?
Mayor Jansen: He would like us to make a change. You need to decide if you would like to make
the change. If not, then we stay with what is before us in the recommendation and staff is
recommending the conservation easement. The Planning Commission approved this with the
conservation easement and that is what's before us.
Councilman Ayotte: And what my question is, is whether or not the changes that were presented
that would be a requirement to go back to the Planning Commission and measure it's impact,
correct?
Mayor Jansen: If we wanted to decide to do that.
Roger Knutson: Mayor. Point out one item of timing. The review deadline on this is 5-14. So
unless we have an extension your options are limited. One of the options is not returning it to the
Planning Commission because you don't have that time to do that. So you could approve it as
presented by the staff in your reports in front of you. You could, if you chose, if you thought it
was appropriate, eliminate the one, combine those 2 lots into one lot. If you don't think that's
appropriate, you don't have to. As a part of the conservation easement, I'll just point out, the
actual conservation easement has not been written. That's a sample. There will need to be a
conservation easement, but the exact wording of it has not been done. That will be done in
conjunction with the final plat.
Councilman Ayotte: Would you need an extension in order for that easement to be?
17
City Council Meeting - May 13, 2002
Roger Knutson: No. That would be part of the final plat. The exact wording will be part of the
final plat process. To get excited right now, why, if someone was excited you'd think you would
have called and had some discussions about it. But there's no need to get excited about the exact
wording of a conservation easement now. Obviously, I think it's pretty obvious, you're not going
to tell someone to pull out a sanitary sewer line out of the ground. I mean that's, I think that's
pretty obvious. So that kind of detail can be worked out at final plat approval so we get
something that's acceptable to the council at that time. But you can, again the one thing you can't
do without an extension of time is send it back because you don't have the time to do that.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. Any other comments?
Councilman Ayotte: No ma'am.
Councilman Peterson: How do you feel about the conservation easements?
Councilman Ayotte: I think the imposition of a conservation easement, I think the idea of
keeping what we can as much as possible is an absolute necessity. I personally, and I'll state it
the way with respect to what's going on, that there's more push than pull and I don't feel
comfortable with how this has evolved. The Planning Commission has been handed a plate full
and it sounds like the city staff and the Planning Commission has bent over backwards, yet there
doesn't seem to be satisfaction on the part of the developer so that raises a concern for me and I
think we should do everything we can to maintain the environment as much as possible for the
obvious reasons stated. Most of which quite frankly go back to the lady who made the comment
about public safety because I think if we do sustain to retain the environment, that the likelihood
of having as much traffic as we have in our lakes will diminish somewhat. I'm also concerned
that we haven't had an opportunity to have Public Safety take a good look in terms of a template
to see the implications of yet another 9 slips, and an additional beach. I think there's till some
work to be done so I'm somewhat concerned about having my back to the wall with respect to the
suspense date and the need to approve or disapprove with what I think is not all the information
on the table. Not to take anything away from staff or the Planning Commission. I just think
there's some points that have not yet surfaced, percolated to the top but with respect to the
environmental issue, I think we should do everything we can to keep the environment as
untouched as possible.
Mayor Jansen: Appreciate your comment and just so you're aware, there was no concern raised
at the Planning Commission with the conservation easement. Any concern that was raised by the
developer was raised after that meeting.
Councilman Ayotte: I understand.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. And we can always direct staff to take a look at the safety issues. That
wouldn't necessarily, that would not hold this up. It would be a...
Councilman Peterson: ... motivated to approve the report as presented tonight with the
recommendations presented by staff. Where I'm at in the conservation easement, you know I
think that has to be carefully worded. I don't think it means to leave it untouched. You know it
has to be cleaned up. Does it have to be a green lawn? Absolutely not but I don't, I'm not
motivated to say that it's got to be untouched so there's, you know there's a big, broad sweep
there ofinbetweenness but I'm probably more motivated to clean it up. Make it more
presentable. Otherwise they don't have a lake lot so there's a struggle there between a
conservation easement and giving them the ability to build a lake lot.
18
City Council Meeting - May 13, 2002
Councilman Boyle: Thank you. That's part of my own comments too. Conservation easements
should not be intended to say okay we're going to, this is the way it is and it looks terrible so
we're going to keep it that way. Many times you can make it look a heck of a lot better with a
few changes, but you've got to have the flexibility to change it and that doesn't mean that you
tear out all the trees and put a lawn down to the lake. It can be more attractive with some
landscaping and improvement of the area so I think, I agree. It has to be worded quite carefully.
Regarding safety, I definitely think we should look into the safety and it's not just Lake
Minnewashta. It's Lotus and every other lake that's gaining more traffic. As the Mayor stated,
we really can't deny a person to develop their own property. We're just, we don't have that
power. We can put codes and restrictions and ordinances to try to guide it in the right direction
but we can't stop it. That's all I have.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. I concur with the comments that have been made. My
understanding of the conservation easement is the protection of that wetland off the shore so
certainly where there are things that are unsightly, those can be better maintained. However, to
keep the natural vegetation as is, I understand is the primary goal of having that easement in
place. And certainly we've had multiple conversations about safety issues on the lakes and what
we can do with traffic and conversations with the sheriffs department that does patrol the lakes
for us so we will continue those conversations. They certainly come up as, on an annual basis so
we will make sure that we've identified that as a concern as well. And again, it is difficult to see
property like this develop, and unfortunately to hold the property owner hostage and say that
we'd like to see it remain natural just isn't something that you know conceivably you can do as a
government. You take away property rights. And what staff has done, and I know the Planning
Commission thanked you for your work with the developer. We appreciated the developer
coming in and working with staff to do as much conservation on this land as we could, and it
certainly is a great proposal I think that's in front of us. The best that we could expect under the
circumstances, trying to maintain the integrity of this property the best that we can. What I did
like that you proposed this evening was combining those 2 lots. It is so close to the existing
property owner, that it's right in the back yard 10 feet from the property line. If we can combine
and move that house, I very much like that proposal on, what was it, Block 2, Lots 1 and 2.
Combining those. So I would not mind hearing that as part of the motion if council agrees.
Those are my comments. If I could have a motion please.
Councilman Peterson: Madam Mayor, I make a motion the City Council approve preliminary
plat for Subdivision 0-6 for Boyer Lake Minnewashta for 11 lots and one beachlot with variances
for a 50 foot right-of-way and a 9 percent right-of-way grade, and a 50 to 80 house pad, Lot 4,
Block 2 as shown on plans received April 9, 2002 subject to conditions 1 through 39 with the 40th
being added that we would look favorably upon the 2 lots mentioned tonight combining into 1.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Do I have a second?
Councilman Boyle: I'll second it.
Roger Knutson: Mayor, just to clarify. That includes adopting the Findings of Fact concerning
the variances as set forth in the planning staffs report.
Councilman Peterson: Affirmative.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, any discussion of the motion?
19
City Council Meeting - May 13, 2002
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Boyle seconded to approve the preliminary plat
for Subdivision #02-6 for Boyer Lake Minnewashta for 11 lots and one beachlot and with
variances for a 50 foot right-of-way width, a 9% right-of-way grade, and a 50 x 80 house
pad on Lot 4, Block 2, as shown on the plans received April 9, 2002, adopting the Findings
of Fact for variances, subject to the following conditions:
The applicant shall make a note on the landscaping plan that evergreens shall average 7
feet in height with a 6 foot minimum.
Each lot shall have a minimum of one overstory deciduous tree planted in the front yard
setback area.
A presentation easement shall be dedicated over the westerly 400 feet of the beachlot and
the portion located west of Lot 4, Block 2, and east of the channel.
In lieu of land dedication and/or trail construction, full park and trail dedication fees
should be paid. These fees are to be paid at the rate in force upon final platting and/or
building permit application. The current rate is $1,500 per single family dwelling for
parks and $500 per single family dwelling for trails. One-third of all park and trail fees
applicable to the entire plat are due at the time of final platting. The remaining two-thirds
are paid independently at the time of each building permit application.
The easterly lot line of Lot 1, Block 2 shall be extended to the north eliminating the
finger extending to the east. The remnant parcel shall be deeded to the property to the
east. The area located south of the 50 foot cul-de-sac right-of-way off of Washta Bay
Road shall be deeded to the property to the south.
6. The subdivision shall comply with the following table:
COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE - RSF DISTRICT
Lot Lot Lot Home
Area Width Depth Setback
Ordinance 15,000 non-riparian 90' 125' 30' front/rear
20,000 riparian 10'sides
BLOCK 1
Lot 1
Lot 2
Lot 3
Lot 4
Lot 5
Lot 6
37,092 102' 345' 30'/30'
10'
36,621 96' 369' 30'/50'*
10'
47,972 77' on curve 329.5'
10'
45,357 70' on curve 225'
10'
37,978 53' on curve 304'
10'
21,467 68' on curve 220'
10'
30'/50'*
30'/50'*
30'/30'/60**
30'/30'/60**
20
City Council Meeting - May 13, 2002
Lot 7 22,876
Lot 8 20,285
BLOCK 2
Lot 1
Lot 2
Lot 3
(Beach Lot)
Lot 4
127' 215'
107' 229'
30'/30'/60**
10'
30'/30'/60**
/30'***/10'
18,929 68' on curve
24,761 185' 156'
151,518
78,394 riparian 84' on curve
220'
10'
30'/30'
10'
30'/30'
670' 30'/75 '/50"*
10'
The 50-foot setback includes a 10 foot average wetland buffer in addition to a 40
foot structure setback.
The 60-foot setback includes a 20 foot average wetland buffer in addition to a 40
foot structure setback.
The 30-foot bluff setback includes a 20-foot bluff impact zone.
Fire Marshal Conditions:
An additional fire hydrant will be required at the intersection of Washta Bay
Road and the new proposed street.
A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around the fire hydrant, i.e. street
lamps, trees, bushes, shrubs, Qwest, Xcel Energy, cable TV and transformer
boxes. This is to ensure that hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated
by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1.
When fire protection including fire apparatus access roads and water supplies for
fire protection is required to be installed such protection shall be installed and
made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction. Pursuant to 1997
Minnesota Uniform Fire Code Section 901-3.
No burning permits will be issued for trees that are removed. Trees or brush
must be either removed from site or chipped.
Submit street names to the Chanhassen Building Official and the Chanhassen
Fire Marshal for review and approval.
Submit cul-de-sac designs to Chanhassen City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire
Marshal for review and approval.
On Lots 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, additional address signs may be required at the driveway
entrance is address numbers on the house are not visible from the street. Contact
21
City Council Meeting - May 13, 2002
the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for additional information pursuant to Chanhassen
Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #29-1992.
The utility and drainage easement along the northerly property line of Lots 1 and 2, Block
2, shall be increased to 10 feet, as requested in the attached memo from Reliant Energy,
Minnegasco.
9. Building Official Conditions:
a. Demolition permits must be obtained before demolishing any existing structures.
Final grading plans and soil reports must be submitted to the Inspections Division
before building permits will be issued.
c. Provide a water service connection for Lot 8.
d. Permits are required for the roof drainage piping on Lots 5, 6, 7, and 8.
10. Deleted.
11
Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland
Conservation Act (MR 8420).
12. All structures shall maintain a 40 foot setback from the wetland buffer edge.
13. All structure shall maintain a 75 foot setback from the OHW of Lake Minnewashta.
14.
The applicant shall obtain a Conditional Use Permit for the proposed recreational
beachlot and shall obtain amendments to the CUP prior to any alterations to the beachlot.
15. The last catch basin prior to discharge into each pond shall be a sump catch basin.
16.
The applicant examined the slopes near the southwest comer of Lot 8, Block 1 and
determined they meet the City's criteria for a bluff (rise of 25 feet above the toe and a
slope averaging 30% or greater). All structures shall maintain a 30 foot setback from the
top, toe and sides of the bluff.
17. Easement types and locations shall be called out on the preliminary plat.
18.
An encroachment agreement for the trail on Lot 3, Block 2 shall be obtained prior to trail
construction.
19. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1.
20.
Based on the proposed developed area of approximately 10.65 acres, the water quality
fees associated with this project are $8,520; the water quantity fees are approximately $
21,087. The applicant will be credited for water quality where NURP basins are provided
to treat runoff from the site and adjacent areas. The current proposal appears to provide
water quality treatment for runoff from 4.1 acres on-site and 39.0 acres off-site. (These
figures will be finalized upon final review of the storm water calculations.) In addition,
two outlet structures are proposed. Preliminary calculations show a credit of $39,480
22
City Council Meeting - May 13, 2002
against total fees of $29,609. At this time, the estimated total SWMP credit due to the
applicant for the provision ofponding for off-site areas in accordance with the SWMP is
$9,871.
21
The applicant must apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies
(e.g. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources)
and comply with their conditions of approval.
22.
Approval of this application is contingent upon the City of Shorewood reviewing and
approving this application.
23. The existing driveway access off of Highway 7 shall be abandoned.
24. Lot 3, Block 2 shall be platted as an outlot.
25.
The pond is required to be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP)
standards.
26.
Prior to final plat approval, a professional civil engineer registered in the State of
Minnesota must sign all plans.
27.
Prior to final platting, storm sewer design data will need to be submitted for staff review.
The storm water will have to be designed for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event. All of the
ponds are required to be designed to National Urban Runoff Programs (NURP) standards.
Drainage and utility easements will need to be dedicated on the final plat over the public
storm drainage system including ponds, drainage swales, and wetlands up to the 100-year
flood level. The minimum utility easement width shall be 20 feet wide.
28.
Staff recommends that Type II silt fence be used around the grading perimeter of the site
and that Type III silt fence be used adjacent to all ponds and wetlands. The silt fence
shall be removed upon completion of construction. A 75 foot minimum rock
construction entrance must be added to the entrance that will be accessed during
construction. The applicant should be aware that any off-site grading would require an
easement from the appropriate property owner. All disturbed areas must be sodded or
seeded and mulched within two weeks of grading completion.
29.
Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through
the City's Building Department.
30.
Public utility improvements will be required to be constructed in accordance with the
City's latest editions of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction
plans and specifications will be required at the time of final platting. The applicant will
also be required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the
necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee
installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. Permits from
the appropriate regulatory agencies must be obtained, including but not limited to the
MPCA, Department of Health, Watershed District, Carver County, etc.
31 Add all applicable 2002 City of Chanhassen Detail Plates to the plans.
23
City Council Meeting - May 13, 2002
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
The proposed development will be required to meet the existing stormwater runoff rates
for the 10 and 100 year, 24 hour storm events.
Revise the plans to show the following for all of the public streets: a 28 foot back-to-
back pavement width, a 50 foot right-of-way and a 45.5 foot pavement radius for the cul-
de-sac with a 60 foot right-of-way radius. Also, the applicant must provide a uniform
transition from the existing 22 foot wide pavement of Dartmouth Drive to a new 28 foot
street section.
Abandon the existing utility lines on the east side of the site, west of the proposed
manhole connection. Also, the existing house services shall be connected to the new
utility lines and the existing driveway access realigned through the bubble of the cul-de-
sac.
According to the City's Finance Department records, the underlying parcels on the east
and west sides were previously assessed for sanitary sewer and water. However, the
underlying parcel in the center of the site was not assessed for utilities. As such, the
proposed homesite on Lot 4, Block 2 will be required to pay a sanitary sewer connection
charge. The current 2002 lateral connection charge for sanitary sewer is $4,335 per lot.
Since the developer will be extending the lateral sewer and watermains to the remaining
lots, the sanitary sewer and water connection charges will be waived. Sanitary sewer and
water hookup charges will still be applicable for each of the new lots. The 2002 trunk
hookup charge is $1,383 for sanitary sewer and $1,802 for watermain.
On the utility plan:
a. Add storm sewer schedule.
b. Show the proposed utilities sewer length and slope, and review type and class of
sewer.
c. Revise sanitary service size from 4 inches to 6 inches.
d. Relocate the fire hydrant between Lots 4 and 5, Block 1.
e. Move trail out of watermain easement right-of-way at the north side.
f. Add a legend.
g. Revise watermain type to PVC class C-900.
h. No ponding allowed in public street right-of-way.
i. Add a concrete valley gutter to the east access.
j. Add and show cul-de-sac draintile.
k. Show size of storm sewer culverts on Lot 4 driveway.
1. Show all existing services.
m. Revise note on connecting to existing sanitary manhole to %onstruct outside drop
structure on existing manhole at Inv. 945".
n. The applicant shall work with the utility company to relocate the existing electric
wires.
On the grading plan:
a. Show the benchmark used for the site survey.
b. Show the location of the 75-foot rock construction entrance.
c. Add a legend.
d. Revise Lot 1, Block 2 garage elevation.
e. Revise the pond high water level elevation.
24
City Council Meeting - May 13, 2002
f. Show Lot 1, Block 1 and Lots 1 and 2, Block 2 private driveway.
g. Private driveway slope is 10% maximum.
h. Lots 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, Block 1 shall be custom graded.
i. Add a note "Resod or seed any disturbed areas.
38.
The applicant will work with staff to establish an appropriate buffer on the east property
line of Lot 1, Block 2. This buffer shall consist of 3 spruce trees, planted 15 feet on
center, along the easterly property line. The tree size shall meet the minimum
requirements of the ordinance.
39. The applicant shall work with staff to determine the appropriate trail materials.
40. Lots 1 and 2, Block 2 shall be combined into one lot.
All voted in favor, except Councilman Ayotte who opposed, and the motion carried with a
vote of 3 to 1.
Mayor Jansen: Next motion please.
Councilman Peterson: I just lost my page.
Mayor Jansen: Page 30.
Councilman Peterson: I would recommend City Council approve Wetland Alteration Permit #02-
3 for Boyer Lake Minnewashta as shown on the plans received April 9, 2002 subject to
conditions 1 through 7.
Mayor Jansen: And a second?
Councilman Boyle: Second.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Boyle seconded to approve Wetland Alteration
Permit #02-3 for Boyer Lake Minnewashta as shown on the plans dated received April 9,
2002 and subject to the following conditions:
Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland
Conservation Act (MR 8420). The applicant shall submit a Wetland Replacement Plan
Application along with all required supporting materials. The applicant shall provide
proof of recording of a Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants for Replacement
Wetland. A wetland replacement plan shall be approved prior to wetland impacts
occurring.
A wetland buffer 0 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 10 feet) shall be
maintained around Basin 1. Wetland buffers 10 to 30 feet in width (with a minimum
average of 20 feet) shall be maintained around Basin 2, 3 and the wetland mitigation area.
(Those buffers considered for PVC must maintain a minimum width of 16.5 feet.)
Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the
City's wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs, under the
direction of city staff, before construction begins and shall pay the City $20 per sign.
3. All structures shall maintain a 40 foot setback from the wetland buffer edge.
25
City Council Meeting - May 13, 2002
Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland
mitigation areas, buffer areas used as PVC and storm water ponds.
Type III silt fence shall be provided between wetland and upland areas where work is
proposed adjacent to wetland areas or areas to be preserved as buffer. If no buffer is to
be preserved, Type III silt fence shall be provided at the delineated wetland edge. All silt
fences shall be removed upon completion of construction.
Any disturbed wetland areas shall be reseeded with MnDot seed mix 25 A or a similar
seed mix that is approved for wetland soil conditions.
The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies
(e.g. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources,
Army Corps of Engineers) and comply with their conditions of approval.
All voted in favor, except Councilman Ayotte who opposed and the motion carried with a
vote of 3 to 1.
Mayor Jansen: Next motion please.
Councilman Peterson: I'd recommend City Council approve Conditional Use Permit #0-2 for
Boyer Lake Minnewashta as shown on plans dated April 9th subject to conditions 1 through 11.
Roger Knutson: And also adopting the findings.
Councilman Peterson: Yes.
Mayor Jansen: A second please.
Councilman Boyle: Second.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Boyle seconded to approve Conditional Use
Permit #02-2 for Boyer Lake Minnewashta as shown on the plans dated received April 9,
2002, adopting the Findings of Fact, and subject to the following conditions:
The beachlot shall contain no more than 3 docks with no more than 9 spaces for
overnight watercraft storage. The plat shall be revised to show 9 spaces, the maximum
allowed on a single beachlot by city ordinance.
The beachlot shall meet all requirements set forth for recreational beachlots in Section
20-263 of the City Code.
A conservation easement shall be placed over the portion of the beachlot that includes
Basin 2.
4. The applicant shall specify the materials used for trail construction.
5. The trail shall not be extended to the shoreline.
26
City Council Meeting - May 13, 2002
The beachlot shall not be used as a boat launch and the City will post the appropriate
signage.
The applicant shall explore the feasibility of avoiding wetland fill for the trail along the
north side of Basin 1 by installing a boardwalk or similar structure.
The proposed trail shall be located within the drainage and utility easement between Lots
4 and 5 on Block 1.
A cross access easement shall be granted for the trail from the owners of Lots 4 and 5,
Block 1 in favor of all the homeowners in the homeowners association.
10.
The number of non-motorized watercraft storage racks shall not exceed the amount of
storage necessary to permit 1 rack slip per lot served by the beachlot. The plans shall
reflect the capacity and location of the proposed storage rack(s).
11.
An amendment to the Conditional Use Permit shall be required for any changes to the
beachlot including but not limited to: dock configuration, installation of portable
chemical toilets, placement of boat racks and placement of structures.
All voted in favor, except Councilman Ayotte who opposed, and the motion carried with a
vote of 3 to 1.
Mayor Jansen: I think those were all of the motions. The variances were included in the first
motion. Okay, thank you.
UPDATE FROM MEDIACOM.
Mayor Jansen: Agenda item number 5 is an update from Mediacom. Do we have a Mediacom
representative here this evening? Do I hear a no? Did we move too quickly?
Todd Gerhardt: No. I told him to be here at 8:00 so I guessed the agenda pretty good.
Mayor Jansen: We can always come to that if need be so we will move onto agenda item number
6.
27
City Council Meeting - May 13, 2002
HIGHWAY 101 NORTH TRAIL, PROJECT 97-12-3.
RECEIVE AND APPROVE PLANS.
AUTHORIZE ACQUISITION OF EASEMENTS AND INITIATION OF
CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Tom Workman
Julianne Ortman
Ruth, Linda & Sarah Kinkade
Brenda & Gary Welch
Frank Kurvers
Richard Borotz
Lynn Thompson
Dianne Whiting
Deb Wolff
Sandra Resnik
Sandy Carlson
Dan Shoemaker
Robert Mortenson
Frank Mendez
Tom Devine
Neil Libson
Janet Weaver Smith
Jim Erny
Sandy Christensen
Chanhassen
8698 Chanhassen Hills Drive North
20 Basswood Circle
101 Choctaw Circle
Chanhassen
6750 Brule Circle
41 Hill Street
51 Hill Street
31 Basswood Circle
7370 Kurvers Point Road
7271 Kurvers Point Road
7380 Kurvers Point Road
7371 Kurvers Point Road
7361 Kurvers Point Road
7640 South Shore Drive
140 Choctaw Circle
31 Hill Street
7008 Sandy Hook Circle
7019 Cheyenne Trail
Teresa Burgess: Thank you Madam Mayor. Give me just a moment here to set up. We have
plans for the council. I would appreciate...
Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you.
Teresa Burgess: Madam Mayor and council. This evening we are here to receive and approve
the plans for the Highway 101 trail. This project typically we would not put the plans out like
this. We would have done this by consent agenda. However, this project has been fast tracked
and we did not have time for this to be available in the City Engineer's office for review and
comment. And because of that we are presenting them tonight so people can see them. Tonight
is not a public hearing. This set of plans is very similar to what was proposed in the feasibility
study and also what was proposed in the draft. However it has been revised to meet the ADA
standards and it has been revised to meet some of the MnDot comments and DNR comments that
are, that have been given to the City so far. We have not received all of the MnDot comments
yet. The additional MnDot comments will be included by addenda to this set of plans as
appropriate once we've had a chance to review those comments and make the appropriate
revisions. We have received draft comments but we haven't had a chance to discuss them yet.
Councilman Ayotte: You say you did see the drafts Teresa?
28
City Council Meeting - May 13, 2002
Teresa Burgess: They sent us draft comments but we haven't had a chance to discuss those with
MnDot. Those comments are, they're very difficult to understand what their reasoning is. What
their thought process is. What they're trying to achieve and so we're uncomfortable putting those
into the plans until we have them in final format and also until we have some idea what they're
trying to achieve with those comments, because we're not sure that we're in agreement with all of
the MnDot comments. There's my diplomatic answer Bob. Typical section for the plans is an 8
foot wide trail with a 1 foot shoulder on either side, and the 2 foot recovery zone. This does meet
ADA standard and is required for us to comply with the DNR grant of $500,000. We do maintain
the 8 foot widths through the entire project, and it does have the 1 foot shoulder of gravel through
the entire project. We do unfortunately have some areas that will require retaining walls and you
can see that we have a typical section of the retaining wall. We are proposing modular block
retaining wall. At this time that would be similar to a Keystone or a Versalock wall. It is not
specified which brand is to be used. It would be up to the contractor to make that proposal at the
time of bid. The third thing I'd like to point out on this sheet real quickly is that there are 2 rest
areas that are proposed on this project site. Those are to comply with ADA requirements because
of the length of the trail and the grades that we provide those rest areas. We have located them in
areas that are scenic overviews and away from homes. They are not up against the back of
homes. They're in the areas that are a little bit less, they're the DNR and the wetland areas. Real
quickly we'll just get through this real quick. Here's that first rest area out into the Outlot B. If
we can zoom in, all the way up onto the type. I don't think most people care much about the,
little bit further out Nann. No, out a little bit further. That's good. Thank you. Okay. The trail
starts at the south end near South Shore Drive. This is the condominiums and they go through the
outlot. South Shore Drive again. Around the comer and we're coming up to Hill Street. We do
require easements through this area. They are temporary easements. And up in this area you can
see that we're coming up to a match line. I apologize. This is not the way I'd like to show a
neighborhood a set of plans. I'd prefer they come in and look at them but we are proposing to put
in storm sewer as appropriate. We will be doing overland flow where appropriate also but in
some areas we will be picking it up and putting it into storm sewer. In others we are outletting.
There is, all of this will be designed, or has been designed to accommodate the flows as they are
right now, and to avoid flooding of properties. The X's through the trees are trees that will be
lost with the project. There's no way for us to avoid all the trees. We have managed to avoid the
majority of the trees. We will be doing tree replacement as appropriate, following the city
standards. Another catch basin. Relocating the utilities. We have not shown mailboxes on this
set of plans. There are mailboxes that will be impacted. Coming into the Kurvers Point
neighborhood, and you can see that.
Bob Mortenson: How come you moved the road up there... ?
Teresa Burgess: We're in compliance with the ADA standards, and that is where it needed to go
to meet those standards.
Bob Mortenson: What's different about that than it is 40 feet down? That's my property.
Teresa Burgess: Well no, it's MnDot's property but we have tried to accommodate and get it as
far away as possible. But that is where, to get the slopes in with the least grading necessary,
that's where the trail does end up.
Bob Mortenson: We had this discussion at the last council meeting and I thought it was agreed
that you were going to move that back where it was originally intended.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, let's let Teresa finish her presentation please. Thank you.
29
City Council Meeting - May 13, 2002
Teresa Burgess: We're continuing along.
Councilman Peterson: How many feet are we away from 101 now, just to give me a general
sense there Teresa?
Teresa Burgess: Where.
Councilman Peterson: Anywhere in there. Just to give me a scale.
Teresa Burgess: This drawing is, Joel this is a 50 to 1, correct? This is a 50 to 1. The one in
front of you would be 100 to 1. This is approximately half an inch so about 25 feet, 20 feet.
Right in there. I don't have a scale on me so I can only guess.
Councilman Boyle: What's the closest point at any point in there between the trail and the road?
Teresa Burgess: Back of curb. We have the trail right up against the road at one point. We have
tried to maintain the AASHTO standards. The Green Book standards for trails. They are less
stringent than the MnDot standards, but more stringent than putting it right up against the back of
the trail. It allows for a clear zone between the road and the bikers. It allows for some shy
distance. It's very uncomfortable to be that close to road that people are going 50 or 60 miles an
hour on a bicycle, and so for safety reasons we're tried to push that out where we can. To put it
closer requires us to put in guardrail and that significantly impacts the ability of the city to do this
project, both for cost, but also for safety for the motorists and the pedestrians.
Councilman Boyle: Thank you.
Teresa Burgess: And there's Cheyenne. Continuing the trail goes along here and you can see the
guardrail that I just mentioned. We do have guardrail along this area because we are right against
the back of the roadway. And you can see how close we are in this area. We're right up against
the back of the roadway right in here. In this area. We're as close as we can fit. Guardrail again
right here. In this area.
Councilman Peterson: Is there guardrail there?
Teresa Burgess: No. There's not guardrail in this area.
Councilman Peterson: So we're still about 20-25 feet there, right?
Teresa Burgess: We're further away there, which is why we don't need guardrail in that
immediate area. Here's the second rest area as we come up to the wetland. And this is our
wetland replacement area. We do have some wetland impacts we are mitigating.
Councilman Peterson: So how are we going through the wetland right now? What are we
specking out it to be?
Teresa Burgess: The trail is a bituminous path through the wetland. For cost purposes we backed
off of the boardwalk. The boardwalk was too expensive, and actually the wetland mitigation was
less expensive than the boardwalk. Trying to say under that 1.3 threshold that was budgeted in
the CIP. We had to fall back from some of the add-on's that we had considered early on such as
boardwalk. Some of the connections into neighborhoods and go back to a more traditional type
of design.
30
City Council Meeting - May 13, 2002
Councilman Peterson: So are you going to have wetland between the road and the trail? If we
shoot out there into the wetland, I'm just trying to get a sense of.
Teresa Burgess: We will not be constructing any wetland between the road and the trail. It is
possible that this will take on wetland characteristics, but it's not being designed to have wetland
characteristics. It is common for that to happen later on though. We're at approximately Fox
Hollow Trail, following up. Here you can see the end of the trail as we come up to Pleasant View
Road. Just some additional information that was included on one of these areas that had a catch
basin. This is, originally we looked at it this way. Now it's been rotated the other direction so we
can look at additional profile on the lower end so. With that if the council has any questions, I'll
be happy to answer those. And I do have the designer here this evening to answer any specific
design questions.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. I have one question. At one point you were talking doing a 6 foot wide
versus an 8 foot wide.
Teresa Burgess: 6 foot wide does not meet the DNR requirements to receive the $500,000 grant.
We are required to meet the 8 foot width to get that $500,000, which is why we have gone back to
the 8 foot. 6 foot does not meet their standards.
Councilman Peterson: Is the 6 foot substantially cheaper or not?
Teresa Burgess: 6 foot would impact the amount of retaining walls necessary on the project
because as you get, as we could pull away we'd be able to gain a little bit of height. It would
impact some of the easements. We would be able to reduce by that 2 foot width. 2 foot of width
on the entire length for asphalt. That's a 25 percent decrease in the asphalt quantities and a 25
percent, not quite 25 percent decrease. About 20 percent decrease in gravel so it has a significant
impact, but overall the trail will be a better trail at 8 foot than it would be at 6. Our equipment is
not capable of maintaining, during winter months we would not be able to plow it, a 6 foot trail
but we will be able to at an 8 foot trail. It will make it a better trail for 2 meeting parties to pass.
Two bicycles require approximately 6 foot side by side, and 8 foot allows them a little bit of
space between a little bit more shy distance so they can pass much more comfortably.
Councilman Peterson: Do we have 6 foot trails elsewhere in the city? I can't remember.
Teresa Burgess: We do have 6 foot walking paths in the city. The city does try to meet at a
minimum 8 foot. Many of our trails are 10. And MnDot is actually pressuring, they would like
10 to 12 and we have told them that that is not an option in this corridor.
Mayor Jansen: At one point I think you had even, and I don't know if you were just guessing, but
had brought the city contribution down to $500,000 versus $800,000 when we were talking about
a 6 foot versus the 8 foot. I mean it was a significant savings.
Teresa Burgess: It was a significant savings. We were looking at savings due to a reduction in
the retaining walls and it was an estimate. Looking at the reduction in quantities. The reduction
in grading, and the reduction in easements. All of that, we were estimating between $200,000
and $300,000 could possibly be cut. If we were to go to a 6 foot trail we may be able to move the
trail to another location, but that does not then meet the requirements of the DNR grant which
would mean losing the $500,000. Which then we could save 200 or 300 but cost an additional
500 because we no longer have the DNR grant.
31
City Council Meeting - May 13, 2002
Councilman Ayotte: Well there's also life cycle costs, but irrespective of all that, an 8 foot isn't
that significantly safer?
Teresa Burgess: An 8 foot is our city standard.
Councilman Ayotte: Is it significantly safer?
Teresa Burgess: That's hard to answer. There isn't any study. There's nothing to say that it is
safer. It is what most people expect from a bike path is an 8 foot width, but there's, nobody's
ever quantified or studied if it's any safer or not.
Councilman Boyle: It depends who's on the trail.
Teresa Burgess: Exactly.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. Any other questions for staff?
Councilman Ayotte: Yeah, a few. What percent would you say of the trail has a retaining wall?
About.
Teresa Burgess: Joel, if you can answer that.
Joel Rutherford: I would estimate, excuse me. Joel Rutherford with HTPO. I would estimate
that the total length of retaining wall is about 20 percent of the total length. So you've got about
9,000 lineal feet of trail. Roughly, maybe 1,800 of that would be retaining wall.
Councilman Ayotte: And of the concerns you, I don't want to say concerns. Of the ambiguity
presented and the questions and positions brought on by MnDot, do any of them have a
possibility of having an adverse affect on the trail in terms of slowing this down or?
Teresa Burgess: Representative Workman has submitted legislation that ifadopted requires
MnDot to give us a Limited Use Permit. At this point in time that does not allow them to put
conditions on that approval. They would be required to give us a Limited Use Permit. My last
conversation with Representative Workman, he was still had that out. I have not heard if it's
been voted on. I don't know Todd if you have, but MnDot's position is that they are going to
issue us a permit. Their comments do have some cost implications. That is the biggest issue is
the cost implications and then also some issues related to whether it's really good design or not.
We differ in engineering judgment in some places. In other cases we think they may be over
designing just straight up.
Councilman Ayotte: With the legislation we don't have to be concerned about MnDot putting a
barrier up to our ability to build the path, trail?
Teresa Burgess: With the legislation they would no longer be able to stop us from building the
path. That's assuming the legislation passes.
Mayor Jansen: We have Representative Workman in the audience so we'll bring him forward
once we're through with our questions to see if he'd mind giving us an update.
32
City Council Meeting - May 13, 2002
Teresa Burgess: And he's be much better at where we are on that. He has stated that it will go
SO.
Councilman Ayotte: With regard to the build-out of the trail starting at the south end. Bob's
concerned about his property and may be the concern of some of the other property owners. If
we were to start the process in tandem with working out issues, how far along will we get in
terms of how much of the trail could be built?
Teresa Burgess: If we put this out to bid, we can still make changes using construction change
orders. The problem with doing that is that it impacts the cost of the trail. Construction change
orders are a more expensive way of doing a project. The other thing is we cannot substantially
change the plans once they've been let to bid without re-bidding because a bidder can come back
in and say well if I knew that I would have bid differently. So that impacts how much
construction change order we can do. We have tried to meet ADA standards, which we've been
successful so far with, and the AASHTO standards for bike paths, which we've been successful.
We have tried to push that envelope as far as possible. I'm not sure that we can eliminate the
problem that Bob is having with it being too close to his property line. We can certainly
investigate it, but I can't promise that we'll have that answered for him the way he wants it to be.
We can approve the set of plans, authorize bids and do addenda or construction change orders at a
later date if it is found to be appropriate.
Bob Mortenson: There's no difference between my lot and the lot adjacent to it, and so on on the
other side. It's rather unusual that when you...
Mayor Jansen: Okay if, Bob if you could just wait and then I'll go ahead and open it up for you,
thanks. Appreciate it.
Teresa Burgess: And we have not tried to impact a specific lot more than another. We've tried to
limit our impacts to all the lots. It's unfortunate that it does do that but that's following the
natural grade of the properties and of the right-of-way and we're trying to minimize our impacts
as much as we can.
Councilman Ayotte: So right now, in your estimation, we probably have 3 or 4, 5, 10 residents
that have issue?
Teresa Burgess: That's the next agenda item.
Councilman Ayotte: Okay, sorry.
Teresa Burgess: We have easements that do need to be acquired on this project and this evening
we are asking council to authorize acquisition of those easements. There are 29 easements to be
acquired. We have not had conversations with any of those property owners that require
easement acquisition because we do not have authorization for counsel to negotiate.
Councilman Ayotte: I understand.
Teresa Burgess: So certainly those property owners definitely will have issues once we contact
them concerning the impacts to their property. We will actually be on their property instead of
the MnDot property. As far as individual property owners. I know several property owners have
expressed concerns and I have talked with many of them as we've gone through the process and
33
City Council Meeting - May 13, 2002
we have tried to be sensitive to them. In some cases we were able to do more and others we were
not.
Councilman Ayotte: Thanks Teresa.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Any other questions for staff?
Councilman Peterson: And maybe we should perhaps talk about this during the next section but
of the 29 that we're going to need to have easements on, if the trail was moved closer to 101, how
many of those would drop off? Best guess.
Teresa Burgess: Moving it just the 2 foot if we went to a 6 foot trail?
Councilman Peterson: Perhaps that. I don't know how, again it's tough to see where you know,
whether or not we should put in a guardrail in those areas and bring it closer to mitigate the need
to do easements.
Teresa Burgess: If you were to move it closer to the road, there are many that we could avoid by
moving closer to the road and building a non-ADA trail. But in doing that you sacrifice two
things. One, you're not meeting the ADA standards which DNR requires us to do for our grant.
It also is in, it's a good faith effort to comply with that requirement and it's a reasonable request.
And number two, in doing that you're sacrificing the aesthetics of the entire area. By putting up
guardrail along the entire corridor of 101 which is what would be required if we moved up that
close. One of the things that has been voiced by this neighborhood over and over is that they
don't want to lose the feel of the neighborhood. Guardrail is a, in some cases a necessary evil. It
is in and of itself a hazard next to the road. The intention of guardrail is to protect against a worst
hazard. They only put it up if the choice is worst than hitting guardrail. Given the traffic on 101,
the speeds and anybody that's been out there knows people try to pass on the shoulder. They try
to pass coming around traffic and quite often you end up trying to avoid that accident. We have a
lot of near accidents out there. When you put guardrail in, if you would try to avoid that accident,
you would be bounced back into traffic by that guardrail. It's not a safe situation to put guardrail
that entire length, and the cost of guardrail in those areas is going to put this above and beyond
what we have already put towards this project, which is substantially more expensive than our
typical trails. We have not cost out that much guardrail but we certainly can if the council's
interested in knowing what that comes to.
Councilman Peterson: And again I wasn't inferring that we should have guardrail the whole way.
I was just trying to get a sense as to, if we pulled the trail in certain spots to eliminate the need to
get the easements. And I know you can't answer it on the spot but it's just something...
Teresa Burgess: In most cases the easements are necessary because we're trying to get grade as
close to possible for the ADA standards. It's in most cases that's what's causing it. Not pushing
us out to get distance from the road. But actually trying to get, avoid the ditch line so that we
have good drainage and trying to get those grades that are within reason.
Councilman Peterson: Okay.
Mayor Jansen: Any other questions? I have none. Thank you.
Teresa Burgess: Real quick ifI can run through it for the council. I handed out this sheet and the
public does not have this so I'll put it up here. This project is split up into several bid schedules.
34
City Council Meeting - May 13, 2002
A, B, C, D, and E. And I apologize the color doesn't come across real great on the overhead, but
Schedule A from South Shore to South Shore. Actually to Hill. Schedule B in this area.
Schedule C, Schedule D and Schedule E. The intention of this is that when the bids come in for
council, there are sections of the trail that are not necessary to provide access into all of the
neighborhoods but do provide a nicer trail continuity to the trail and also will make it easier to
maintain because our vehicles will be able to go up the trail and come back instead of having to
zigzag through neighborhoods. But with the idea that when this project comes in from bids, if the
bids are high the council will have some flexibility and not have to reject the entire project but be
able to take the pieces that they feel most important and cost effective. We've divided the project
up in that manner into reasonable sections so that the council will have some flexibility when this
does come back with the bids. And we will not be in an all or nothing type of situation so.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. Thank you. Appreciate that. Representative Workman, would you mind.
I don't know if you came prepared to have to step up to the podium but I appreciate the fact
you're here. Thanks for spending your time this evening coming in again on this issue that
you've already spent a lot of time on.
Representative Workman: Well Madam Mayor, Mr. Gerhardt told me to be here at 6:30.
Todd Gerhardt: And you showed up at 7:30?
Representative Workman: We're old friends. I expect to be treated a little better. I'm not sure
exactly, maybe I can just, for the council and mayor, if you have questions. I did write down a
couple of things and the Transportation Policy Committee passed a bill that had our great
legislation in it that kind of forced MnDot to get off the pot as we say here in Carver County.
And we passed that bill off the House floor last week, and Representative Murphy, as I
approached the House doors today, Senator Murphy ran up to me and said we passed your darn
bill today.
Councilman Ayotte: Did he say darn, Representative Workman?
Representative Workman: Murphy didn't say darn. Murphy from Redwing doesn't say darn, but
what me meant was my red lights, motorcyclists can go through red lights bill because I had to
kind ofhornswaggle him to get that thing passed in my bill. But anyway, so we passed it and
apparently this bill is now on the Governor's desk and ready to go. A couple of things. Late in
that conference committee meeting we put language in that said notwithstanding any other laws.
This trail could be a 6 foot trail and so 8 foot is not a requirement for the grant. The DNR grant.
Now, the language says you can put it as small as 6 feet if you want. If you want it 8 feet, that's
your choice. Once again providing you folks slip as many options as you can because you know
you have a lot of them.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Appreciate that.
Representative Workman: You make this a 6 foot trail.
Mayor Jansen: And not lose the DNR grant.
Representative Workman: Correct. That notwithstanding language is probably the most popular
language at the Capitol next to the let's change shall to may, which we do a lot down there but, so
you could have a 6 foot trail if you want. The word that we have from MnDot is is that they
would love to have us proceed as soon as possible. There's a 30 day, once it's been signed, it's a
35
City Council Meeting - May 13, 2002
30 day, 30 days for MnDot to release that. What I've been told by them is that it will be released
as soon as the Governor signs the bill. And so it sounds like we're ready to go. I know that the
documents and engineering documents are not a simple matter to just pull out of a hat and so
Teresa and everybody on the staff, this hasn't been a pleasant rock in a very hard place to be
inbetween all this pushing around. Eden Prairie, Hennepin, MnDot, Chanhassen and Carver
County, probably and the Corps of Engineers yet and the DNR and me and other people and so I
appreciate all the hard work that everybody's done. We did have AASHTO standards in mind
and I know that originally MnDot was saying well we're going to have this big, huge guardrail
down and I think over in Mr. Gerhardt's neighborhood, isn't the trail right along side of the road
on Powers Boulevard and I don't remember seeing a guardrail there. But I think my goal has
been to try and get some of the politics actually out of this thing, which has been are we going to
build the road or aren't we going to build the road and I've been predicting now for quite some
time that I do think we're ever going to be able to reach agreement on that road so let's get on
with this 20 year problem of building the trail and I think, I think MnDot is ready to participate
fully and let us do that. I'm still looking forward to this party. I'm not going to start working out
until this darn trail is built so, but so I don't know if you have any questions. I did have a concern
about bringing the trail into that little park behind our house there. Personally I don't know that it
affects me a whole lot, but again as I think as some have stated, why not leave it as close to the
road. I know that the South Lotus community is kind of concerned about bringing it in the park.
We have new trees in there and with the playground, the space for our annual Thanksgiving
football, touch football game is getting a lot smaller and this trail will probably eliminate the
game and then I won't have injuries but, so I don't know if there's any questions. I think I
probably missed a few things but.
Mayor Jansen: Actually those were the two key points. Appreciate the legislation. That
certainly got us moving on this and they certainly had us in a bad spot, as you pointed out with
staff, or not being able to move forward. So appreciate that and the 6 foot, I'm intrigued with as
far as the cost savings for the city so, that you put that in there at the last minute again, really
appreciate it. I understand that.
Representative Workman: Well Mayor, I know that we're on the right track because MnDot
wasn't going to come along very politely and, but they need me for a lot of other bigger fish.
This is a very small program for them and should the city continue to be frustrated by anything
going on there, I think we've got some agreements with them that we can make sure that
everything moves along smoothly so.
Mayor Jansen: Great, thank you.
Todd Gerhardt: Did you approve a budget today? Did you approve the budget amendment
today?
Representative Workman: What's the budget? We'll get...
Todd Gerhardt: That's what I'm worried about.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. So let me bring this back as far as kicking around the 6 foot conversation.
If we're doing our plans and specs, it certainly is affected by whether we do an 8 foot or a 6 foot
trail, so if council could maybe voice some opinions on what direction to go. It is a significant
cost savings as well as potentially being able to move it even farther out from some of these
property lines and make less impact.
36
City Council Meeting - May 13, 2002
Councilman Boyle: Teresa, what would be the implications of getting bids for 6 and 8 so we'd
know exactly what that cost savings is?
Teresa Burgess: We would need to prepare plans for the 6 foot. At this point we have plans for
8. If the council is contemplating doing 6 foot, the plans for the 8 are already prepared. We
could throw them into the bid and see what we get back and have instead of bid schedules A
through E, we would have twice as many. Rather than try to figure out what letter that is. We'll
just have twice as many.
Mayor Jansen: Right. With the 6 foot though.
Teresa Burgess: I'm still thinking what a 6 foot means so.
Mayor Jansen: You'd be impacting some of those easements costs, correct? I mean wouldn't
you be able to shift this so you would need to actually redo the plans in order to.
Teresa Burgess: We would need new plans for the 6 foot. The 8 foot plans are prepared and so if
the council is interested in the 6 foot, we're going to have to prepare plans for that. That does
have some impacts.
Mayor Jansen: How long would that take? Rough guess. I'm not trying to pin you down.
Nobody hold them to this. I'm just, I'm looking for a rough estimate.
Councilman Boyle: Would Friday be asking too much?
Teresa Burgess: We have Joel on a lot of projects. Let's not do that to him because I'd like him
to come back for next year. We may be able to get back on the 28th, but more likely the first
meeting in June.
Mayor Jansen: And would that move the project out significantly or are we still within the
guidelines? I didn't bring the project schedule with me.
Teresa Burgess: We would probably slip a couple of weeks. We may be able to make that up
during the construction season. We may not, depending on what the weather is. I would
recommend regardless that the council authorize negotiation for easement. That we initiate that.
Even if you don't approve plans tonight. If we need less easement than what is proposed in
tonight's condemnation proceedings, we would take less easement and purchase less easement,
but it gives us the ability to start those negotiations and keep us as close to on track as possible.
The easements are going to be the critical path for this point in time.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. So if I'm understanding you correctly, as long as we approve 6(b), as
you've given it to us, which moves forward on the easements, you can still prepare the plans and
get that executed because you'll be taking less property than more. You'd be negotiating for the
most amount that you'd need.
Teresa Burgess: Right. At this time we're still waiting for that LUP permit, and so we could put
together the plans. We may lose a couple weeks. We may be really pushing it at the end of
October.
Mayor Jansen: Okay.
37
City Council Meeting - May 13, 2002
Councilman Peterson: Yeah, I think I've already voiced my opinion on the 6 versus 8 potentially,
but I think the only factor that seems to be consideration is the clearing of it in the winter months.
I can't fathom that we couldn't creatively find a solution to quickly clean a 6 foot trail. If we're
saving a few hundred thousand dollars, let's buy a 6 foot blade and have them change that every
time it snows for, it takes them a half an hour.
Teresa Burgess: ... run into is that the pick-up doesn't fit on the trail.
Mayor Jansen: And that it would need a Bobcat to clear it, correct?
Teresa Burgess: It would require a Bobcat to use it.
Councilman Peterson: Which we have right?
Councilman Boyle: Well we do that now. We have 6 foot trails, do we not?
Teresa Burgess: We have 6 foot pedestrian trails, correct. We don't have anything of this length
in 6 foot.
Todd Gerhardt: It's a convenience thing. You could get on there with the pick-up. Drive all the
way up to Pleasant View. Get off the road and then go onto your next project where if you use
the Bobcat you have to drive up to Pleasant View, probably have somebody come up and pick
you up with a trailer and pick-up or drive back down the trail in a Bobcat and not the fastest piece
of equipment in the world. So it's a convenience. It's also an efficiency standpoint where you
have a pick-up truck you can just fly right down there and get it cleared off so, but whatever you
decide. I mean that's just an issue that we are bringing out.
Mayor Jansen: Appreciate that.
Councilman Boyle: I think we need to weigh all of those and look at the cost comparisons.
Teresa Burgess: And keep in mind, I do want to caution the council, that number that was
brought up on a savings, that was a top of my head guesstimate that was made on a.
Councilman Boyle: No, we knew that.
Teresa Burgess: I was standing in a meeting with Linda and Todd and I guessed. So that's as
good as.
Councilman Ayotte: But even more so than the cost is the possible relief we'd get out of the
easements.
Teresa Burgess: The easements will probably not be worth very much from a dollar standpoint.
Councilman Ayotte: I'm not talking about that. I'm talking in terms of possibly reducing the
conflict with.
Mayor Jansen: Landowners.
Teresa Burgess: We may be able to reduce somewhat. We probably will not be able to eliminate
any easements but we will be able to reduce the impact.
38
City Council Meeting - May 13, 2002
Councilman Ayotte: That's a good thing.
Mayor Jansen: So is council in favor of preparation of a 6 foot trail plans and specs?
Councilman Boyle: I am, yes.
Councilman Peterson: Yes.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. I think that's the direction that we're going in.
Todd Gerhardt: Teresa, Mayor, I have one question for Teresa. If we're going to go with the 6
foot option here, isn't that going to change your easement documents?
Teresa Burgess: Our easements would if anything be less, and so we could still begin our
negotiations with those property owners on a per square foot basis. We will need to make a
determination at some point. If we bring back plans at 6 foot and council is pleased with those,
my recommendation would be then that we only purchase enough easement for the 6 foot, rather
than purchase enough for an 8 foot and bid both and then end up with a 6 foot trail anyway.
Todd Gerhardt: Are we going to know what the 6 foot versus the 8 foot is until you've got it
drawn?
Teresa Burgess: Not til we have it drawn and estimated.
Todd Gerhardt: So I would ask that the council not authorize condemnation until that's been
decided.
Teresa Burgess: We would like to have initial contact with those people to let them know that
we're going to be requiring an easement from them. Let the attorneys start getting the appraisal
information and getting all that information. The title searches done. That will be some time
consuming work to be done on their end. It also makes a difference if we do end up having to go
to condemnation from when the council authorizes.
Todd Gerhardt: Okay. Well I'd based it on the 6 foot then and once the easements have been
determined, then get it over to Roger. You know the list right now is based on the 8. So you're
saying if Joel gets it done in the next week or so, the easements then have him pass them over to
Roger to start those conversations?
Teresa Burgess: What the council tonight is authorizing us to do is negotiate. We would get that
new information. Actually Tom Scott is doing the negotiations. We would get that to him as
soon as possible, but it has very little impact from tonight's standpoint. The council is just
authorizing us to start those conversations. Start the title searches and that does not impact
whether it's 6 or 8.
Todd Gerhardt: I'm with you.
Teresa Burgess: The title search is the same regardless.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, great. I know we have at least one resident who had some comments that
he would like to make. If there's anything specific to the plans this evening that we're reviewing,
39
City Council Meeting - May 13, 2002
you know certainly you can address that this evening. This isn't a public hearing. As you can
hear we're going forward. We're just trying to decide whether it's 8 foot or 6 foot and how we
go about doing that so, certainly approach the podium. State your name and address for the
record.
Tom Devine: Tom Devine, 7640 South Shore Drive. Certainly this is a, almost a historic
evening this evening. We're on the kind of the eve of something that's really wonderful and
certainly want to thank everyone for their hard work that's brought it to this evening and certainly
Representative Workman. A couple of quick things. The 6 foot versus 8 foot, it seems to me that
there are places where maybe if the 8 foot width can be accommodated, we might go to the 8 foot
and then, it might not necessarily be an all or nothing. Then where it impacts the easements to
going to the 6 foot, I mean this is, I can remember back there was discussion about varying the
width of the trail at certain locations along there based on the availability of the land and the
space and certainly I'm sure it's the desire to build the largest possible trail wherever possible,
but on the other hand if it helps the easement situation and whatever, I'm sure there will be
people that will be comfortable with the 6 foot trail, and then having it widen out to 8 foot at
various locations, and I don't know if that can be accommodated. Certainly to keep it on the time
schedule, if it's an all or nothing, I think the 4 or 5 neighborhood associations would just say
build the 8 foot trail and forget the savings at this point and keep the project on it's timeframe and
move it along as such. I know tonight we just saw the plans for the first time, or the final draft as
you did this afternoon, and there are some specific little questions that some people have relative
to some of the locations as it's been pointed out here. And I know that there's, on the South
Lotus Lake Park area, in the referendum that was done before it was, the neighborhood expressed
a desire not to have the path go all the way through the park but rather keep it tight to the road.
And I would assume that that accommodation would be made in keeping with what was done on
the referendum monies as we did not use those monies and ask that those monies be applied to the
trail on the other side of the break there. The old farm field there. And then whatever those
issues are, they could be added by addendum or worked out through there. But certainly the only
other thing that was not totally clear was the drainage issues of where that, some of that water you
had mentioned that was going to be actually physically drained to because it has been raised a
little bit about where that water is going. Is it going to drain directly into Lotus Lake or is there a
catch or holding issue along the way there relative to that. But other than that I have nothing else
to say and I thank you for finally moving this to the point where we're voting on it this evening.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you.
Teresa Burgess: If I could answer the drainage question. We are attempting to maintain the
existing drainage wherever possible. There are some problem areas that we are trying to clean up
and direct the drainage as it was supposed to go instead of the way it does now. The ditches have
not functioned the way that they were intended to. They have not been as successful at doing
that, but we have tried to keep the water in the ditch as much as possible and follow that natural
drainage pattern and it would continue to Lotus Lake as it does now. We are not proposing a
major ponding area except for the wetland mitigation area, there would be no additional ponding
created.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you.
Bob Mortenson: Hello Madam Mayor. Bob Mortenson, 7371 Kurvers Point Road. Thank you
for the opportunity to speak. At the last council meeting we had, we discussed my property and
the fact that the trail jogs up on top of my berm there and I thought it was decided at the last
council meeting in that as you recall it was the middle of a blizzard there and I actually physically
40
City Council Meeting - May 13, 2002
took my tape measurer and went from the center line of Highway 101 and ran it up the right-of-
way there to measure out the distances that are on the map and sure enough it ends up right up in
my pine trees on the top of my berm. I'm the very tallest part on 101. It's the very top of the hill
there. That's where my house is. And there's nothing there that's any different than the lots on
either side of me. The only difference is, is there's a couple of, some brush in there and there's
some scrub trees that truthfully are probably going to have to be taken out because of the
equipment and stuff that has to go up and down there to do the road. And I see no reason why it
can't be down in a straight line along with all the other ones. If there's a matter of fill or
whatever, that would be a higher point and it would actually improve the drainage, if nothing
else, and fill in the other low spots. I don't see where it's a big deal.
Teresa Burgess: I'll respond to that real quick. Bob, can you notice these numbers right here?
26+00, 27+00.
Bob Mortenson: Okay, yeah.
Teresa Burgess: 26+00 and 27+00, 28+00, those are markings and Nann, if you can zoom real
tight in on there so people at home can see. Those are reference markings. They're referred to as
stations. They're every 100 feet along the trail. That's so that we can match up and can refer to
locations on the trail. You mm to the back here of the plans and then go through these with the
entire set of plans because, they're something that the general public usually is not interested in
but I think... This is the road. This is the trail and this is the berm. Remember 26+00? 27+00.
And 28+00.
Bob Mortenson: But this is actually where my property is.
Teresa Burgess: No. This line right here is the right-of-way. This the top of the berm right here.
This is the hill, right here.
Bob Mortenson: And how many feet from the center line to the trail is my property?
Teresa Burgess: Your property is at the right-of-way line. It is in the MnDot right-of-way.
Bob Mortenson: How many feet from the center line to the outer edge of the trail?
Teresa Burgess: I don't have it from the center line. I have it from edge of pavement.
Bob Mortenson: Okay, how many feet from there? To the edge of the pavement.
Teresa Burgess: It's approximately 30 feet to the right-of-way.
Bob Mortenson: 30? Okay, plus 10 feet. That's 40 some feet. That's what I'm telling you. I
measured it. I'll be more than happy to let you come out.
Teresa Burgess: What I'm telling you Bob, what I'm telling you Bob is here's the berm. This is
the top of the berm and here's the trail.
Mayor Jansen: So at this point we're planning and specking that the trail's going to be at the
bottom of the berm. Otherwise we're doing a tremendous amount of grading and we're not doing
the proper plans and specs.
41
City Council Meeting - May 13, 2002
Teresa Burgess: Correct.
Mayor Jansen: So right now you.
Teresa Burgess: This is on the other side of the berm. It is not on the top of the berm. It's at the
bottom of the berm. Your property's over here. This is the hill. And this is the trail at the
bottom. We are filling slightly but it will still be lower than the berm. This elevation right in
here is approximately 951. The top of the berm is 956.
Bob Mortenson: So 4 feet. If all your calculations are exact, which I don't think they are.
Teresa Burgess: Well.
Mayor Jansen: Was this prepared by the surveying company going out and doing this?
Bob Mortenson: I mean it's my property. I've walked out there. I looked at it. I'm just saying,
it doesn't look right.
Councilman Peterson: And the reason for bringing it in anyway was because of grade?
Bob Mortenson: I guess I would just say Teresa, I welcome you to come out there and look at the
property and anybody else that would like to and I'll show you exactly what I mean. I don't see
that there's any reason that it has to be any further back away from the road than any of the other
pieces down the line. I mean when you go down 101 from Kurvers Point development, there's
one big berm that runs all the way along there. Why does it at my place have to be out another 10
feet?
Councilman Boyle: Can't this be worked out?
Teresa Burgess: Sure.
Councilman Boyle: Okay, I mean between you folks.
Teresa Burgess: I don't know that it can because the place where Bob is asking us to put it is on
the edge of the pavement.
Councilman Boyle: Well, no. But I mean does this, is it necessary?
Teresa Burgess: No, because that's because we can't put it in the bottom of the ditch Bob. We
have to maintain drainage and if we put it in the bottom of the ditch, which you're asking us to
shift it over. We can't put it in the bottom of the ditch because then the water can't drain and I
understand what you're trying to do. You're trying to push this as far away from your property as
you can. I understand that and I respect that, but we did maintain that berm and we can certainly
have that conversation in my office if you think that we can do that.
Bob Mortenson:
Teresa Burgess:
Mayor Jansen:
I guess my concern is that.
But I don't want to promise something I don't...
Right. What I'm.
42
City Council Meeting - May 13, 2002
Bob Mortenson: My concern is if you pass this project as it's written here, and later on I come to
discuss it and everybody tells me I'm sorry but it's already passed so.
Mayor Jansen: Well what we're passing is what Teresa just showed you that does have the trail
below your berm and what I gathered the concern was, was if the trail was going to be on your
berm, and now it's at the base and it's within MnDot right-of-way so if it ends up on top of your
berm, then we all have an issue because the plans are showing that it's not. And that's what
we're approving.
Teresa Burgess: And just for clarification. Bob's property is one we need a temporary easement
from, not a permanent easement. During the construction we will need to be on his property but
following construction we will restore that area and move off of the property, and so we will be
contacting him if that continues to be necessary. If we go to a 6 foot trail, this is an area we can
probably cut back on that easement substantially.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. Appreciate it. Sure.
Frank Mendez: Thank you. Once again my name is Frank Mendez. I live at 7361 Kurvers Point
Road in Chanhassen and I want to thank you all once again for having reached this point. There's
been, there's always been a lot of discussion about a lot of different things and I'm glad for the
explanation that you just gave us Teresa. Once again we just saw this, many of us, for the first
time tonight so some of these things again, with further study they'll be calming of a lot of
different questions and I thank you for your response. Also to Mr. Mortenson. That was very,
that type of response really makes this whole application process that much more, the process that
much easier on all of us so thank you for that clarification Mayor.
Mayor Jansen: You're welcome.
Frank Mendez: And I also want to thank Tom Workman as well. Thanks again.
Mayor Jansen: Is there anyone else that would like to address the council on this issue?
Dan Shoemaker: Dan Shoemaker, 7380 Kurvers Point Road. I think this is a very quick
question. Just one clarification because I'm having a hard time telling from this set of plans I got.
At 25.5 in the plans that we saw 8 weeks ago I suppose, there was a catch basin that was proposed
in there. I can't tell from this version if it's there or not but I've got a runoff problem as it is. Just
want to make sure that we do not add to the problem.
Teresa Burgess: The catch basin, there is a drainage structure there. It is.
Joel Rutherford: If it's the area that I believe you're referring to. You mentioned around station
25+50. 26.
Dan Shoemaker: That's correct.
Joel Rutherford: You're right. We did originally have a catch basin at that comer that ran to the
south. Based on a review of that existing site, it appears as though the water from that area to the
north actually drains down the property lines towards Lotus Lake.
Dan Shoemaker: That's correct.
43
City Council Meeting - May 13, 2002
Joel Rutherford: So what we've done is we've added a culvert underneath the trail so that the
proposed drainage would basically be the same thing as it does now.
Dan Shoemaker: So you're going to add water down that property line?
Joel Rutherford: No, I'm not saying we're adding water. What I'm saying is that it would be
equal to what it's doing right now.
Bob Mortenson: Don't worry Dan. It will work as well as my adjustment...
Dan Shoemaker: Well that's my concern. There's been some confusion over this location for
about the past 18 months. At one point somebody came out and declared it a wetland because the
hydrant was leaking so I don't think we need any more water going down that property line. If
this is not the time to address it, that's great. I just want to make sure there's an opportunity to
get this thing fixed and not increase the problem.
Teresa Burgess: It's not picking up the road runoff. It's just picking up what's already in the
ditch and going that way. The pipe does not connect to the street and pick up water directly off
the street. It's just allowing the water to cross the trail at that point in a culvert. And we can
certainly sit down and look at the plans together and I think show you what it is on the scale
drawings. So that you can see them.
Dan Shoemaker: Well I think I'm pretty clear on what you're describing but originally in the
plan it had the water being diverted south along 101 rather than across the property...
Joel Rutherford: ... probably about 200 or 300 feet length of pipe that we could reduce by
eliminating that catch basin and having the water run down where it does now. Now if you're
saying there's already a drainage problem downstream from that point, we can certainly look at
that again and just make that connection the way it looked before, but the whole purpose for
changing that was to reduce cost.
Dan Shoemaker: I appreciate that but we can't handle any more runoff back there. We've
already got a ditch that's getting bigger because of the runoff so I would like to ask that it be re-
opened and looked at.
Joel Rutherford: As Teresa mentioned, we can certainly look at that.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. So staff you'll work with Mr. Shoemaker to take a look at that particular
area and the drainage.
Teresa Burgess: We'll re-evaluate it as we look at the 6 foot plans.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. Appreciate that.
Dan Shoemaker: Great, thank you very much.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Teresa, I'm assuming that since the plans really did just hit your
office recently, if we've got residents that would still like to make comments on these, you're
open to them contacting you?
Teresa Burgess: They can certainly contact our office, and if you'll remember when I handed out
44
City Council Meeting - May 13, 2002
your sheets I requested that you hand those back to me tonight. That is in anticipation that there
are some people tonight that would like copies and those are bound copies so we'll, if somebody
wants those, there are 4 or 5 copies floating around that they can certainly take this evening if
they'd like to. Once we have the 6 foot, unfortunately if we come back as quickly as we're
proposing to, we will not have time for a neighborhood meeting. Our normal standard would be
to have about a week where we allow them to be viewed in the engineering department so people
can comment before we come back to council. If you want to allow that time, that does clarify a
lot of these types of questions because people can come in and look at it. But that does mean that
we won't be back until June.
Mayor Jansen: I think it would probably be prudent if they have questions on the 8 foot trail, if
you could address them from these plans and specs. If we go to a 6 foot, undoubtedly we're
going to impact them less. Or you can maybe take a look at that. Council, I would hate to hold it
up for public comment because I think everyone's going to be pretty quick to come in and make
sure that, if they're got issues.
Councilman Boyle: I think they can contact Teresa and work this out. I mean go directly to the
department.
Councilman Ayotte: One area I have a concern about though is the validation of some of the
chronic concerns that have been voiced over a period of time. If there is a way to re-visit portions
of the plan and come up with a validation, i.e. the catch basin versus, and addressing the runoff
issues. Is there any way that we can have another cursory engineering review without waiting for
the residents to percolate up some of their concerns? Just a sanity check on some of the hard
points.
Teresa Burgess: Normally we do that at the same time. What we do is we have them in the
office for about a week. Staff reviews it during that time frame and the neighborhood is just
informed the plans are available if you want to come in and see them. In this case we received
the plans at 4:30 on Friday for the council meeting tonight. We did not have time to have the
neighborhoods in to see them or for the staff to really review it very closely at this point. If we
come back quickly, that will happen again. You will not have them in the office for very long
before they come to council.
Councilman Ayotte: I understand.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, but at least we can keep the process moving. Alright, with that. First of all
let me just mention. We did on the consent agenda, suspend the Highway 101 turnback
discussions and as we do that, I want to thank staff and Mr. Workman for the amount of time and
effort that we did put in to trying to get the other jurisdictions to come to the table and negotiate
in a good faith manner, but we certainly found out that that wasn't happening as we got to the last
of the discussions. But I think we can sit here and say to the rest of the community that we
certainly negotiated the best that we could to get that project accomplished and at this point we're
in a position that fortunately we moved the two projects forward on parallel tracks and we're just
dropping the one and continuing with the other so pleased that we still have the trail before us and
that the other jurisdictions weren't able to block the project. And that of course we have the
legislation to thank for them not being able to block us through MnDot by not giving us the LUP
permits so a lot of things had to come together for us to reach this point tonight and we certainly
appreciate everybody's efforts to get there. So with that, if I could have a motion council.
45
City Council Meeting - May 13, 2002
Teresa Burgess: Madam Mayor, ifI could interject just a moment. I do need the council to
authorize tonight the additional engineering fees that will be required. And since we don't have a
cost estimate, if you could just authorize reasonable engineering fees on a per hour basis. Then
we will work with HTPO to make sure that we do that in a timely and cost effective manner.
Mayor Jansen: Okay.
Councilman Peterson: Madam Mayor, I'd make a motion to receive and approve the plans for
Highway 101 trail north, and authorize and advertise bids for the 8 foot trail as noted, along with
recommending that we move ahead with the feasibility study for specs on a 6 foot trail that costs
would be reasonable on a per hour basis. And with the additional addendum that staff would
continue to work with any of the residents regarding the 8 foot trail, particularly on any specific
issues that they might have.
Roger Knutson: Mayor?
Mayor Jansen: Do I need a second before you bring? IfI could have a second please.
Councilman Ayotte: Second.
Mayor Jansen: Okay.
Roger Knutson: Just to be clear. We're not going, maybe it's my own understanding but we're
not going out for bids until we get the 6 foot back so you won't see this actually going out
advertising for bids.
Councilman Peterson: Why couldn't we? I mean there isn't really any negative because they're
going to be 2 different bids. Why not get the 8 foot now and tell them there will be a 6 foot
coming. Get a jump on the bid process.
Mayor Jansen: Do we save anything in that since we do want to see the 6?
Teresa Burgess: You save very little. We need to acquire the easements anyway. So the
easements would not be ready in time for us to award bids. We might as well wait until we're
further down the easement process. The reason for asking for authorizations to bid now is just
because it's a step taken care of we don't have to back, come back for council authorization.
Roger Knutson: But you'll still have to approve going back for the 6 plan, but if you go out to
bids now and then we go out to bids 2 weeks from now, I think what you're going to end up is
confusion in the bidding community and it might adversely affect...
Councilman Peterson: What are you recommending?
Roger Knutson: I think it's fine, just so we understand. You're not actually going out to bids
until you get the 6 foot stuff back and you approve it or don't approve it and then you're going
out to a bid with an alternative or many alternatives.
Councilman Peterson: So noted.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, great. I have a motion and a second.
46
City Council Meeting - May 13, 2002
Resolution #2002-41: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded to receive
and approve the plans for an 8 foot trail, direct staff to prepare a feasibility study for specs
on a 6 foot trail at a reasonable per hour cost basis, for construction of the Highway 101
North trail, continuing to work with the residents on specific concerns. Also authorizing
advertisement of bids. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of
4to0.
Mayor Jansen: If I could have the second motion please.
Councilman Ayotte: For the 6 foot?
Mayor Jansen: 6(b).
Councilman Peterson: 6(b)? I'm lost.
Teresa Burgess: Authorization of acquisition of easements and condemnation resolution.
Councilman Peterson: Oh, oh, oh. So moved.
Councilman Boyle: Seconded.
Resolution #2002-42: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Boyle seconded to
authorize acquisition of easements for the construction of a trail adjacent to Highway 101
north of Highway 5. Authorize Legal Services and Land Appraisals necessary to acquire
the easements, and Authorize Condemnation proceedings to acquire the easements if they
cannot be acquired in a timely manner through normal negotiations with the property
owners. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you, appreciate it.
Tom Devine: Last month we were going to schedule a ground breaking and we postponed it until
we could finally have this vote and we'd like to go ahead and probably schedule the date. I don't
know if we're prepared to do that but we'd certainly like to welcome all of you to the ground
breaking that we're going to have, and hopefully we'll have a turnout as big as we had for the
library ground breaking. We'd certainly encourage all of you to attend.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you.
Councilman Peterson: You've got to have Krispy Kreme donuts and you get us there.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. Did we have a Mediacom representative come? Okay, great.
We are going to go back to agenda item number 5.
Councilman Peterson: Can we take a 3 minute break?
Mayor Jansen: Do we need a break? Okay. 3 minute break.
UPDATE FROM MEDIACOM.
Mayor Jansen: We do have someone here from Mediacom to address us. Good evening.
47
City Council Meeting - May 13, 2002
Bill Jensen: Good evening Madam Mayor. City Council members. Bill Jensen, the Regional
Manager for Mediacom. I think I yielded my time to the previous public hearing so I'll be brief.
I did send a letter dated April 30th thanking Mr. Gerhardt and the City of Chanhassen staff for
helping us out at the coffee with the manager. I think in my letter I put 30 plus customers. We
had a real good turnout for a Saturday morning when I think people were tilling their gardens so it
was a good turnout. And we were able as I noted in the letter to fix a couple of problems that
people came right to the City Hall, so it was great and we'd like to do more of that and again
thanks to Rick Rice. He was great with us. I spoke with the City Manager. We'll be updating a
map for the city so we know where our cable is. We do have some areas in the southern part of
the city that I know is looking for some service. We are posting in a lot of the area newspapers
and I think the Villager is one. Just a reminder, if people have a cable TV drop on the ground,
they should call us and we'll come out and bury it, okay. We usually have a real good handle on
that but once in a while they get hidden from us so we come out and bury that for flee. And
that's all I have for you this evening. I can, by the way, just give you an update on the subscriber
status. We seem to be growing every month. I think I was here a couple months ago. Again,
7,375 homes are passed with Mediacom cable service. Of the 7,375 homes that are passed, 4,621
subscribe to some level of television or video service with us. That's 4,621 and 803 of those
4,621 take digital video. The digital television service, and 850 of those 4,621 take our high
speed data service. The last question that I can answer that was put to me before was, what are
we doing to promote the internet product? We are stepping up our cross channel TV spots and
we advertise on the History Channel, Arts and Entertainment Network, the ESPN's, Fox Sports
doing over 1,000 spots a month. And we'll begin placing ads again in the Villager for the HSD
service because we know we're not highly penetrated as you think we should be so, any
questions?
Mayor Jansen: Any questions for Mr. Jensen?
Councilman Peterson: I think you were in the middle oftransitioning from your internet
provider. Where are you at in that transition?
Bill Jensen: Well that's all done. As you know, we converted from Excite-at-Home to
Mediacom On Line in I believe it was late February and it was pretty seemless. Didn't receive a
lot of complaints and you know the entire industry went through those changes when the
companies like Excite-at-Home went out of business so we were one of the better ones in the
industry for the changeover so it's done. We're on our own. We're our own internet service
provider now. We do have to buy some data networking circuits from AT&T, the long distance
side but we're our own internet provider now. So it's all done.
Councilman Ayotte: The, having the Coffee with the Manager on the 20th, yOU had about 20 or
30 people there. Was there a trend, a consistency in the inquiries? Did it validate where you
thought there were some problem areas or were you surprised?
Bill Jensen: We really, there were probably out of the 30 people, there were a couple of billing
complaints and we took care of them on the spot. There was a reception complaint and also a
modem complaint and we took care of those on the spot. We actually, the technician went over
with the customer. What really kind of validated what I thought, and it's really what the council
mentioned when I was here a couple of months ago, was that there's a high degree of interest in
our internet service. A lot of people didn't know it and frankly we set up, I think just over here
on the side a dial-up modem connection. The old nuts and bolts one for a dial-up modem and we
set up our cable modem internet connection and nobody did the dial-up. They already knew that
the cable modem was a lot faster so yeah, it did validate what we expected. But we didn't, you
48
City Council Meeting - May 13, 2002
know there weren't a lot of people that came to complain, but we'd come back again. I mean I
don't want to welcome complaints but the goal is that we took care of the issues on the spot and
that really was what it was for. It wasn't to come and sell anything. We gave people the
opportunity to demo the products so.
Councilman Ayotte: Do you see, seriously now, do you see an advantage to doing more of these
coffees?
Bill Jensen: Oh absolutely.
Councilman Ayotte: Okay. Do you see an advantage of doing something in addition to the
coffees?
Bill Jensen: Oh absolutely, and I know.
Councilman Ayotte: Like what? What would you?
Bill Jensen: Well there's a couple of things. One, we didn't want the, we didn't want to use the
forum on that meeting here at the City Hall to really sell or market the products. That's, you
know you don't want to do that in City property but I see us re-launching our digital video and
our modem service at an open house event, somewhere where we can actually have all the bells
and whistles and the balloons and all of that stuff and really go after the sale part of it, but yeah.
We're finding that in a lot of areas. We kind of sneaked in in the middle of the night and began
offering modem service and digital service and not everybody read their mail piece or their
postcard etc so there will be another opportunity for us to come back. Probably in a different
location in Chanhassen, but to do another open house.
Councilman Ayotte: Okay, thank you.
Councilman Boyle: I don't have any questions. I do have a comment. I attended the coffee and I
stuck around for probably about an hour and I saw, I was there when your technician went with a
gentleman. I thought that was very favorable. Very good PR.
Bill Jensen: Yeah.
Councilman Boyle: I also switched over to cable, internet cable. High speed and I'm extremely
pleased.., the dial-up.
Bill Jensen: Excellent. Well I appreciate that.
Mayor Jansen: There you go.
Bill Jensen: Other questions Madam Mayor?
Mayor Jansen: No other questions. Just appreciate your taking the time and coming in and doing
that open house for us with the residents. Much appreciated.
Bill Jensen: Okay. Well thanks for having us and we'll be back at a full blown open house down
the road, okay.
Mayor Jansen: Great. Todd, anything?
49
City Council Meeting - May 13, 2002
Todd Gerhardt: No. Answered all the questions. Appreciate you coming in Bill.
Bill Jensen: Okay. Well I got stuck in Waseca. My apologies for being late, but I got to stay for
the good part so, well thank you. Thanks for having me.
Mayor Jansen: Well thank you.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: COUNCIL/COMMISSION LIAISON UPDATES.
Mayor Jansen: Any updates council? Southwest Metro Transit, has there been one? No? No
update.
Councilman Peterson: There has but nothing new. Urgent or interest I should say.
Councilman Ayotte: Nothing new.
Councilman Boyle: Nothing.
Mayor Jansen: Alright. I'll make one mention of the information that I think we've all now
received in the mail from the County on their redistricting project. What was that, letters A
through H, I believe as far as the proposals. Commissioner Ortman was here earlier. She was
asking if the City was intending to express an opinion on what plan we would favor. Now timing
is an issue.
Councilman Peterson: Was an issue. I think noon was the deadline.
Mayor Jansen: Well she was just saying, they do have one hearing tomorrow. They won't be
voting. The voting meeting will be the following Tuesday, so if in fact we wanted to comment, I
don't know if we want to comment individually. She just mentioned that Waconia in fact took a
position on which of the plans they were looking at favoring. She did share with me that it is
Option E that she is favoring as far as it then creating or maintaining a two commissioner district
in Chanhassen. Very similar to what we have currently. Now I don't have it in front of me to
look at that but that is what she was suggesting.
Councilman Peterson: Yeah, I had sent a note as a councilman this morning to Dick Stoltz saying
that E, or F as I recall, was preferential because of that. I think clearly, you know we as a city are
benefited by having two. And it's quite clear which ones allow that and which ones don't and E
is the best. I think F is secondary. This is going by memory now too but clearly the others don't
so I think that, I don't know if I've got mine with me or not.
Mayor Jansen: I know. I had meant to bring it tonight and I don't think I did.
Todd Gerhardt: I apologize for not putting this on the agenda. I didn't receive the plans. I
looked at the newspaper to get my information so, unless Karen got a set but I did not see any of
the maps so we could have put this on. I apologize.
Mayor Jansen: Oh no, that's okay. I didn't think of it in time to do it myself either so.
Councilman Boyle: Well if we were to do a unified response and, would it be, it would definitely
be Option E. Is that appropriate?
50
City Council Meeting - May 13, 2002
Mayor Jansen: Craig, are you recalling, are there just two that in fact allow for two?
Councilman Peterson: There's, I know it's E and F. There may be one more, but E is the one
that leaves it essentially the same. Or very similar. So you know, E is clearly the best choice for
us because it really remains it relatively static. So I'm comfortable recommending that E is, if
we're going to do something, that it should be E.
Mayor Jansen: But at this point, yeah.
Councilman Boyle: I would agree. If we're not too late.
Mayor Jansen: Yeah. But I think I'd feel more comfortable if everybody had the maps to take a
look at and take a look at E so that we can in fact make that.
I can call Karen but I didn't receive it so unless she's got it.
Shoot, so we probably don't have a set. I wonder if she'd still have it on her desk
Todd Gerhardt:
Mayor Jansen:
even.
Councilman Peterson:
Deb, you've got a big file. Do you have the redistricting map?
Councilman Boyle: Why didn't you bring that with you tonight?
Mayor Jansen: Otherwise we would have to call a special meeting in order to be able to
actually.., resolution.
Councilman Boyle: Well we can all respond individually.
Councilman Peterson: Can we not do a voice, a voice meeting tomorrow?
Councilman Ayotte: I'm out. I'm in Chicago.
Councilman Peterson: Well you've got a cell phone.
Mayor Jansen: Is that too much under the purview of polling?
Roger Knutson: Yeah, you can't do that. You could adjourn this meeting to a time tomorrow or
whenever and get back together.
Councilman Peterson: And can it be telephonic for some people?
Roger Knutson: You have a quorum here, someone could, if you're not here you're not going to
be voting.
Councilman Boyle: Why don't we each individually respond? Take a look at, I mean I've got
them at home.
Todd Gerhardt: Is that a bigger version than the Villagers?
51
City Council Meeting - May 13, 2002
Mayor Jansen: Does that have all of them in it? You need longer arms Bob. So for anyone
watching at home, we now have the Chaska Herald version of the redistricting that we're taking a
look at. That isn't very professional but, the closest thing we could come to a map.
Councilman Peterson: We'll pass it around. I assume they're a sister publication that you carried
it with you?
Mayor Jansen: This is actually kind of difficult to use, isn't it, compared to the large size that we
got.
Councilman Peterson: Yeah but it's better than.
Todd Gerhardt: Here's our precinct...would be that brown piece, so that's 7. See 7 there?
Councilman Ayotte: Yeah.
Todd Gerhardt: And then it would be the rest of 7 here and all of 6, and then 3, 2, 1 and 5. And 4
would be the goal.
Councilman Ayotte: Versus F which is.
Councilman Boyle: Where's 6 for example?
Todd Gerhardt: 6 is this gray one right here.
Councilman Boyle: Oh, right here? This one.
Todd Gerhardt: Yeah.
Councilman Boyle: Well I just feel, from what I looked at I still... Well the different colors make
it hard.
Mayor Jansen: This one's a little different. This one takes in the square down here, and that's
Chaska.
Councilman Peterson: It's a little bit different on that but not a lot.
Mayor Jansen: It puts a little square of Chaska.
Councilman Peterson: He's also got a flatter representation of population in it. It's more even.
Mayor Jansen: E does?
Councilman Peterson: Yeah.
Councilman Ayotte: Well it gives more emphasis to Chanhassen having.., if you go E.
Councilman Peterson: Well clearly, we have the largest tax base. We have the most dense
population is every bit a compelling reason that we should have better representation than we do.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, so what would council like to do on this issue this evening?
52
City Council Meeting - May 13, 2002
Councilman Ayotte: I think it's appropriate that we as a council inform the County that we favor
the adoption of E.
Councilman Peterson: So a resolution?
Councilman Ayotte: In the form of a resolution?
Mayor Jansen: Can we draft that in the form of a resolution if we approve doing the resolution
this evening?
Roger Knutson: Absolutely.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. Can I have a motion?
Councilman Peterson: I'd make a motion that the, this Council make a resolution to unanimously
support and recommend that the County Commissioners select Option E for the redistricting that
they are now sorting through.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. And a second?
Councilman Boyle: Second.
Resolution #2002-44: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Boyle seconded that the
City Council approve a resolution supporting and recommending that the Carver County
Commissioners select Option E for their redistricting plan. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, so if we can draft that and get that in. As Julianne mentioned, it's not a
voting meeting tomorrow, but there is I think the vote she said occurs on Tuesday. A week from
Tuesday.
Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, we can send it down to Stoltz's office by fax and then send a hard copy by
mail and they can make a copy and hand it out.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, great. Appreciate that. My only other update, I think everyone got the
email on the Seminary Fen. We went over to the Capitol again and did testify to try to keep that
in the, it's the House part of the joint committee that is debating where they're going to go on it,
but right now it does appear as though the funding for the Seminary Fen is still in the running, so
it's an interesting process to be a part of.
Councilman Ayotte: Don't forget that.
Mayor Jansen: Right. I think that was, and then of course there was that District 112 meeting
also which we're going to be covering under the High School conversation so I will hold on that.
Should we mention the Housing summit?
Councilman Peterson: Yeah. Give me an update as to who, do we have anybody coming?
Who's coming? This is by invitation wasn't it?
53
City Council Meeting - May 13, 2002
Todd Gerhardt: Yes. We sent out a select list of individuals. I believe we heard back from about
70 percent of them. Our concern was the Chanhassen Bank hadn't responded, and I don't
remember who the other ones.
Councilman Peterson: So we're going to get 10 people there?
Todd Gerhardt: Yeah. St. Hubert's.
Councilman Peterson: That was a guess. I mean is it going to be 30?
Todd Gerhardt: I don't think we sent out that many. I think we only sent out like 15-20.
Councilman Ayotte: You invited about 107
Mayor Jansen: 15 or 20.
Councilman Ayotte: 15-20 and you think 10 will show.
Mayor Jansen: And this was specifically targeted on organizations or folks that would be
participants with the City as far as making affordable housing work. So that's why it was a
targeted invitation.
Todd Gerhardt: We hit a couple of churches. We hit the financial institutes. We hit developers.
We hit a few residential people. Large business owners. Rosemount, Instant Web Companies I
think was another one.
Mayor Jansen: I think it'd be appropriate to provide the council with the list of organizations that
were contacted for this, and also then provide us a copy of who in fact attended and participated.
I think that would be good information for council.
Todd Gerhardt: Sure.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, so then moving on.
AMENDMENT TO HENNEPIN COUNTY REDISTRICTING.
Todd Gerhardt: I'll give you an executive summary.
Councilman Peterson: Executive summary would have been over by now.
Todd Gerhardt: Hennepin County did not like our one voting precinct or polling place. We were
going to combine, we have one residential home up in this location, and then we have this portion
that's in Hennepin County. We combined the polling places for those two sections and Hennepin
County wants to create two precincts here and here so you have to separate the polling places
then. So the one individual that lives up here who will be voting at polling place in Shorewood.
And then we do not have any residential at this time here but they would vote at I believe it's the
fire station. So with that, there's a recommendation on my list that you approve modifying the
polling place for Hennepin County Precinct #2 to occur in Shorewood, and that's it.
Councilman Boyle: So moved.
54
City Council Meeting - May 13, 2002
Councilman Peterson: Second.
Resolution #2002-45: Councilman Boyle moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to modify
the polling place for Hennepin County Precinct #2 to Shorewood. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. None.
Mayor Jansen: Then we will be adjourning into our work session items A through C that we did
not get done prior to the council meeting. So ifI could have a motion to adjourn.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded to adjourn the City Council
meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
Submitted by Todd Gerhardt
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
55