Loading...
1977 03 16 I I I . JOINT MEETING WITH CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING COMMISSION, ECOLOG¡CAL COMMITTEE, AND PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION MARCH 16[ 1977 Acting Mayor Neveaux called the meeting to order at 7:45 p.m. with the following people present: Councilman Pearson, Councilman Geving, Councilman Waritz¡ Roman Roos, Jerry Neher, Walter Thompson, and Dick Dutcher of the Planning Commission, and Gary Eastburn of the Ecological Committee. Pat Boyle, Phyllis Pope, and Joe Betz of the Park and Recreation Commission came late. Bill Schoell, Bill Brezinsky, Bruce Pankonin, Craig Mertz, and Don Ashworth were also present. MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT UPLAND STORAGE AND RETENTION PROJECT: Larry Kelley, President of Board of Managers of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, John Holmquist of Hickok and Assoc. and Dale Palmatier, Watershed District Manager, were present. The Planning Commission and Ecological Committee have reviewed the proposal and found many unanswered questions. Bill Brezinsky - I talked to Mr. Kelley before the meeting tonight and told home what the concerns were of the city. The main concern, of course, is to answer the questions that the City Council and Planning Commission have been getting from the citizens is, where is the water going to come on my property and how often is this going to happen? The report doesn't give the elevation of the dam or outlet structure so we don't know what the top ponding elevation will be. Another one of the concerns is, the lake level in Minnewashta and Christmas Lakes is going to fluctuate and as the lake level fluctuates will there be erosion in these lakes? What will be the effect on the wildlife and the plant life along the lakeshore? Another question was, will the watershed district be seeking easements and compensating the homeowner for the property that will be sometimes inundated? Larry Kelley - The first part of the water management plan was initiated through a petition that was received from the municipalities located along Minnehaha Creek starting with Minneapolis, including the Minneapolis Park Board, and the cities of Edina, St. Louis Park, Hopkins, and Minnetonka. Jointly they did petition the Board of Managers of the Watershed District in September 1973 for a whole series of improvements along Minnehaha Creek. Number one of which was a new. water control structure at the headwaters of the creek because as you know the Grays Bay Dam is not a water control structure and the objective there is to be able to hold water back in the spring of the year and release it as needed. The second major part of this plan is the upper watershed storage and retention program. There are roughly 14,000 acres on Lake Minnetonka and the DNR established an ordinary high water level on Lake Minnetonka which as we see it would give us roughly 6 to 8 inches to move in, for a total storage of water on Lake Minnetonka itself of approximately 7,000 acre feet. The upper water storage program would involve the construction of approximately Joint Meeting March 16, 1977 -2- twenty small dams or weirs in six sub-watersheds that drain into Lake Minnetonka. We would gain about 7,500 acre feet of storage. I In 1975 we made the preliminary study and held a public hearing on the project on November 30, 1976. There was no intent on the part of the Board of Managers to exert pressure on anyone in connection with the project. We set the date for the public hearing and underestimated the time that would be consumed in tracking down names and addresses of property owners of record with the result when the hearing was held the notices, in some cases got into the mail in ample time and in many cases they did not. This whole thing is not in that big a hurry so there is no desire to exert undue pressure on anyone. We do feel there are many misconceptions about the project. Some of which will be discussed. An example, I think may be, for instance, the degree of fluctuation that may occur in the water level in Christmas Lake. Another misapprehension may be tied into the fact that we have no intention to draw down the water levels of general purpose lakes, such as Christmas Lake, to augment the water in Lake Minnetonka. We had expected to hold our next public hearing and as many public meetings with smaller groups as may be necessary. We had expected to hold that second hearing sometime this month but the fact is that we have met within the past period of weeks with staff members of DNR and as a result of this work we are doing with the DNR it is very likely that this next public hearing will be co-sponsored by the DNR and the Watershed District. There has been a new element introduced into the picture too. We did not think we would be involved in getting permits from the Corps of Engineers in connection with these projects. It appears now that we may have to do so. It has been suggested to us by the Corps of Engineers that instead of holding a two way public hearing that perhaps we should make it a three way hearing because the Corps advises us they will also have to hold a public hearing. I Since the November public hearing we have obtained aerial photos of all the land involved. We do not have two foot contours at this point but we are in a far better position now to be able to lay the maps down in front of property owners and talk more specifically with them about where these flood levels are going to come on their property. I Dale Palmatier - It is not our purpose to impose any severe hardships on anyone. We don't intend to raise the water level on any lake, by our present plan, above levels where water hasn't been before. I I I Joint Meeting March 16, 1977 -3- John Holmquist - Mr. Ashworth was kind enough to send us a copy of the minutes of the Council meeting and Planning Commission meeting and a copy of Bill Brezinsky's report. I have gone through these and tried to distill from these your primary questions. I can see from the questions that were raised at these meetings that our report could have been a little more complete. One of the primary questions raised is the anticipated level of the lakes. We say that in a 100 year storm there will be, for example, a foot of water on Minnewashta and slightly under a foot of water on Christmas Lake. The question is, are we proposing to dam to cause water to rise above that level? The answer is no. Another question is, what's thé location of these structures? In the case of Christmas Lake and Lake Minnewashta this is pretty firmly fixed. On Christmas Lake the existing structure will be modified. In the case of Minnewashta, there is no firm concrete outlet for Minnewashta, however, the outlet structure would be in the vicinity of County Road 15 where it outlets in the creek to Virginia. The purpose of the structures that we are proposing would be not to rAise those levels but to retain the water at a higher level for a longer period of time. This would be the result of these structures. What we are trying to do is get an overall flood control project. In order to reduce as much as possible any proposed fluctuation of Lake Minnetonka we are also looking at the upstream lakes. This is a two prong attack, we want to control the outlet from Lake Minnetonka and to more effectively do that we want to control what's going into it. In the event right now, of a 100 year storm under existing conditions, the water level would come up to a certain elevation on Christmas Lake. We are not proposing to increase that. We would propose to hold that water there for a longer period of time. The starting point is the existing outfall elevation of a lake. We are saying that a normal spring runoff is not equivalent to a 100 year storm and therefore you are not going to have water ponding. Acting Mayor Neveaux - You are not going to construct those dams to ·produce a +1.0 feet above existing? John Holmquist - Only in the event of a 100 year stórm. It will be somewhere between the existing outfall elevation and 100 year flood. The amount of sedimentation you are going to get in Christmas Lake and Lake Minnewashta is there now. These revisions in the outlets aren't going to increase it. What we are talking about in improving water quality is a faster moving stream course, where the water is moving fast enough and there is insufficient ponding to take the sediment out of it. In other basins that we are proposing in the upper watershed we are saying that by ponding that water it's going to drop that sediment and it will be a clearer affluent and a more measured discharge of that affluent so that it won't pick up the sediment. Joint Meeting March l6, 1977 -4- Acting Mayor Neveaux - You are saying that sedimentation will not be a problem in Christmas and Minnewashta? John Holmquist - No, that statement doesn't really apply to those lakes. It applies to amaller basins. I Acting Mayor Neveaux - You have copies of our minutes, will you be responding to our concerns? Larry Kelley - We would like to work with your staff and get all your questions answered to your satisfaction before the public hearing. METROPOLITAN COUNCIL OPEN SPACE PLAN: The Metropolitan Council held a public hearing on March 3 to consider an Open Space System Plan. The hearing was continued to March 10. The City requested that the record be kept open an additional ten days to receive comments from the City. The county would be the implementing agency of this plan. The City Planner commented on the proposal. All regional recreational open space facilities should be connected via some type of linear linkage to facilitate different modes of recreational transportation. The City Plan shows a connection between the Minnetonka West Junior High and the Rice Marsh Lake area because it is a sewer interceptor route and would be a good place for a trail. The Metropolitan Council proposes to construct the trail further to the north. The Arboretum is not mentioned in the proposed plan. The Arboretum could be connected to the Lake Minnewashta Regional Park. The City Planner feels that a lot of the statements using "shall" should be reworded to read "should". Clubs such as local snowmobile, cross country ski, and cycling clubs could aid and give a lot of expertise in the open space plan to make it meaningful. I METROPOLITAN COUNCIL SPECIAL USE POLICY PLAN: The City Planner discussed his concerns regarding this policy plan. He feels boat accesses are regional in nature and serve more than the local community. He does not feel privately operated marinas should be included in the policy plan. The words "consideration," "special consideration," and "greater consideration" should either be defined or reworded. Councilman Waritz moved to direct the City Planner prepare a response to the Metropolitan Council Open Space Plan and Special Use Policy Plan for Mayor Hobbs' signature expressing the concerns outlined in the City Planner's reports of March 11, 1977. A copy of this letter be sent to Jim Daly and Pat Murphy. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Acting Mayor Neveaux, Councilmen Waritz, Geving, and Pearson. No negative votes. Motion carried. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - REDECK BRIDGE ON STATE TRUNK HIGHWAY 5 (DETOUR): Bill Brezinsky explained the proposal. Staff has met with the Department of Transportation on the proposed detour. The DOT feels the redecking of the bridge is necessary. To do the work the dept. has to provide ten foot shoulders on the bridge as per federal I regulations. In 1977 the DOT will be repairing the sub-structure and in 1978 they will be replacing and widening the bridge deck. A detour will not be" required in 1977. The detour will take place between May 1 and June lO, 1978. The City Engineer feels that signing should be employed at Highway 41 for eastbound traffic and westbound traffic at Highway l69 to discourage traffic through the downtown area. The sign should indicate that there is construction I I I Joint Meeting March 16, 1977 -5- ahead. Construction of an off-street bicycle path north of West 78th Street from Laredo Drive to Powers Blvd. to protect bicyclists during the heavy traffic periods is recommended. The east intersection of Highway 101 and West 78th Street should be improved in the manner suggested in the CBD Study to improve intersection safety during and after the bridge detour. Mr. and Mrs. Frank Bongard were present. The City Engineer explained that the Bongards have a drainage problem in the area where the DOT will be improving the detour exit at Highway 5 and West 78th Street. He asked the DOT to look at the problem as it is in highway right-of-way. The DOT has agreed to maintain West 78th Street throughout the project and restore it to a satisfactory condition after completion of the project. Gene Of stead and Mike Robinson, Department of Transportation, were present. They feel that parking would not have to be restricted on West 78th Street except close to intersections. The 1976 traffic count on Highway 101 between its east and west junctions on West 78th Street is 5,300 ADT and approximately 12,000 ADT on State Highway 5. Representatives of the DOT will meet with City Staff to firm up the detour proposal. METROPOLITAN COUNCIL'S PROPOSED RULES FOR ~1ATTERS ALLEGED TO BE OF METROPOLITAN SIGNIFICANCE: The City Planner gave a report on this proposal. A public hearing was held March 16, 1977, by the Metropolitan Council. There are eight items that trigger this Metropolitan Significance Review. The Planner believes that only #8 will affect Chanhassen. He feels the City Council should exclude the area of Chanhassen that is inside the MUSA Line and not be restricted or defined by governmental boundaries. Councilman Geving moved to direct City Staff to prepare a letter to be sent to the Metropolitan Council under Mayor Hobbs' signature outlining the concerns as stated in the City Planner's memorandum of March 11, 1977. Motion seconded by Councilman Pearson. The following voted in favor: Acting Mayor Neveaux, Councilmen Pearson, Waritz, and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PRE-APPLICATION: The City's application is an eligible project under HUD criteria. The Metropolitan Council found the project inconsistent with area-wide plans and policies. City Staff recommended a letter be sent to the HUD area office asking them to reject the Metropolitan Council's evaluation and also letters to the Federal Legislators. Councilman Geving moved to direct the City Planner prepare a letter, under the Mayor's signature, similar in content to the letter of March lO, 1977, to Mr. Robert Hoffman but directed to the area HUD office outlining the City Council's concerns over the Community Development Block Grant Application. A comparable letter, together with the application, be sent to Federal Senators and Representative requesting their support. The City Planner will personally do a follow up to the HUD Office. Motion seconded by Councilman Waritz. The following voted in favor: Acting Mayor Neveaux, Councilmen Pearson, Waritz, and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. Joint Meeting March 16, 1977 -6- AWARD AND DISBURSEMENT GUIDELINE FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF PLANNING I ASSISTANCE GRANTS: The Metropolitan Council will be holding a public I hearing on r1arch 17, 1977. The City will receive $7,346 to complete all the plan components as outlined in the Mandatory Planning Act. The City Planner stated that this amount is totally inadequate to complete the Comprehensive Plan. He feels Gayle Kincannon and the Lake Use Advisory Committee should be complimented for the fair way they allocated the funds. He is concerned about some of the II in service" monies where the Council has to decide whether to use Federal Revenue Sharing for the planning process. Councilman Waritz moved to send a letter of appreciation to the Metropolitan Council for the $7,346 which they allocated us for the planning process stating that it will not be enough to complete the planning process but we realize their total funds are limited and we appreciate our share. The City of Chanhassen feels that Gayle Kincannon and the Land Use Advisory Committee has been fair in allocating planning funds on an impartial basis. A copy of this letter should be sent to Senator Robert Schmitz and Representative K. J. McDonald. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Acting Mayor Neveaux, Councilmen Pearson, Geving, and Waritz. No negative votes. Motion carried. A motion was made by Councilman Waritz and seconded by Councilman Geving to adjourn. The following voted in favor: Acting Mayor Neveaux, Councilmen Pearson, Geving, and Waritz. No negative votes. Meeting adjourned at ll:30 p.m. Don Ashworth City Manager I I