CC Minutes 1994 10 24CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 24, 1994
Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Wing, Councilwoman Dockendoff,
Councilman Mason, and Councilman Senn
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Elllott Knetsch, Kate Aanenson, Todd Gerhardt, Bob Generous, Diane
Desotelle, and Jill Kimsal
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the agenda
adding a discussion under Council Presentations by Councilwoman Dockendorf regarding item l(c). All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT: None.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the
following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations:
b. Resolution g94-110: Amendment to City Code Approving the Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP),
Second and Final Reading.
c. Request for Time Extension to Negotiate an Organized Collection Contract.
d. Resolution g94-111: Accept Utility Improvements in Minger Addition, Project No. 94-13.
f. City Code Amendment Concerning Restriction on Temporary On-Sale Liquor Licenses, Final Reading.
g. Approval of Bills.
h. City Council Minutes dated October 10, 1994
Public Safety Commission Minutes dated October 13, 1994
i. Petition to Clean Out a Stormwater Pond South of Penamint Court.
j. Resolution g94-112gt: Approve Change Order No. 1 for Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner Project 92-5.
Ail voted in favor and the motion carried.
I(A). MISSION HILLS DEVELOPMENT, TANDEM PROPERTIES.
Al Klingelhutz: I'm not asking for not approving item l(a) but I would like to have'one extension in there and
that's for discussions on the easement through Al Klingelhutz' property. I picked up a copy of the agenda on
Thursday. It was the first knowledge that I had that this easement was supposed to be donated to the city on all
the land, not even part of the Mission Hills application. It really took me by surprise because I do have two
other copies, one dated September 20th I believe and one October 4th. There's no mention of this in it. And I
have not at this time even seen the diagram of where that easement is supposed to go. There was some
discussion about a year ago and we agreed on one portion of this. It was supposed to sever some of my land
down to the section line and I proposed that they should stay along the Highway I01 and that was the only thing
we agreed upon. And I read in this report, I ,believe it's on page 10, that I refused to give an easement on that
plan and to me that's a damn lie, excuse my language. Whoever wrote this report don't remember what was put
in the Minutes. I'm a little angry. I call up to City Hall today and asked to speak to one of the engineers. I
find out one is on vacation and the other one took the day off. It seems odd to me that at least one city engineer
couldn't be in this office to provide information to someone that needs information'at any time when you've got
2 or 3 of them on staff. A copy of the agenda was picked up by me on October 20, 1994. And once I saw that
the water easement was to be given to the city through my property without any complication. As of this date I
have not received any information or description as to exactly where this watermain is being located. Until such
time as I see this, I will not even negotiate with the city on giving an easement or any compensation for that
easement. I'm really surprised that the city should request that easement should be donated to the city when no
portion of my property even comes close to the Mission Hills property on Highway 101. I understand that this
is a trunk watermain and...serving the Mission Hills property but it extends all the way from the Hennepin
County border, Lakeview Hills...along Riley Blvd. serving all of the homes on Riley Lake. All of the homes on
Lyman Blvd. Connecting onto TH 101 on the south side of my farm. Following TH 101 to the Mission Hills
project and then continuing all the way up to Highway 5. If this is not a public improvement, I don't know what
is. It's serving a lot of ureas. If the city could guurantee that every one of those landowners along that property
will give a free easement, I would probably consider doing the same thing. But a thing like this happened to me
one time before when they figured we would save a lot of money to put the sewer line in by Lake Susan. I had
3 purcels of land I had to give easements for. I gave...dollars. Twelve other people did the same thing. Two of
the people held out. One of them got $3,800.00 for the easement and the other one got more than the actual
assessment cost. So what happened is the 12 other people and myself actually paid for these two other people
sewer assessment and they could put cash in their pocket besides and I don't think that's the way things should
happen. If this would have been talked about at the time of preliminary plat, at the time of the two other reports
that came out and all of a sudden, just before it should come before the City Council...and then not having an
engineer to even discuss it with prior to the City Council, I think things could have been solved probably before
this. And I was really surprised this afternoon. I don't think Gary Fuchs from the attorney's office called me
about 3:30 this afternoon and said Al, I'd like to come out and talk to you about the easement. I said well can
we do it this afternoon. It's going before the Council tonight. It's part of the agenda. It's part of the approval
of final plat and I'd like to get it settled. But he couldn't come out today so we're meeting tomorrow morning
at 11:00. I wish that the city would consider approving the final plat and probably not having it signed until
such time as this easement situation can be figured out. That's it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you Al. Kate, can you maybe shed a little light on this.
Kate Aanenson: Sure. Mr. Klingelhutz was advised of the situation. We had a meeting with the people from
Mission Hills on October 13th and that's when the situation fa'st arose so there has been some time that he's bad
an opportunity to meet with engineering so I don't want it to appear that this all of a sudden came up in the
report on Friday. We met with his specifically about this outlot and he was told about the easement requirement
on that day that we met, October 13th. It's a condition that the engineer puts as a standard condition when
development is asking for improvements, because it's development driven. It's not a city initiated project.
They've asked for the utility services to develop their project. That as a requirement of that, we ask for a utility
easement to be dedicated so that's a standard condition.
Mayor Chmiel: In other words what you're saying, other ureas that development has been, we, the city,
normally don't pay for those kinds of easements with that development.
Kate Aanenson: Right.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Al.
2
City Council Meeting - October 24, 1994
Councilman Senn: Al, while you're getting up, if I could just a clarification to Ka~e. When you say we usually
don't pay for them though, aren't those easements generally on the property being developed?
Kate Aanenson: He's part of this process. He's splitting off one of his pieces that he's not developing but the
utility, this utility still has to go across past his portion to get into the Mission Hills development.
Councilman Senn: Well I understand that but do, and I'm coming back to the same question then. But do we
normally require the easement across other property not in the area being developed?
Kate Aanenson: All I can answer, the best I can is the way Charles put it in the staff report on page 10 and
that's the fact that Mr. Klingelhutz did petition for the utility services...part of his property which is receiving
benefit, this is all pointed out by the engineering department as part of their staff report and it's the normal
course of benefitting as part of this...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well what would the situation be if Al didn't own that piece of property next to it
that it has to run through?
Kate Aanenson: A lot of these are engineering questions.
Mayor Chmiel: Richard.
Councilman Wing: Al, if I can just interrupt. I'd just like to move approval of item l(a) with the removal of
item number 34 which addresses this and that this is, I would move approval contingent on a satisfactory
conclusion to all parties of condition number 34 which has to do with the payment of that. So rather than us
debate with Al and staff tonight and not being up on it ourselves perhaps, I have no problem approving this but I
think item number 34 is the one in question and I would approve this contingent on a successful conclusion to
all parties of that issue. Give Al a chance to address it. Give staff and management a chance to address this.
Al Klingelhutz: I'd like to wait until you call for that motion, if somebody's going to second it, but I do want to
say one, I have one statement after this is voted on.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright. There is a motion on the floor. Is there a second?
Councilman Mason: Second.
Councilman Senn: Just a question. From a process standpoint there's something about it bothering me. It's
kind of like saying, go fight it out in a room and if the four parties can't agree, this whole thing blows up and
that's what bothers me about it. I mean either it's an important enough issue to pull out and stand on it's own,
or the whole thing can sit until the thing is done.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, that depends too upon the applicants themselves and all the parties connected to it. If
they feel that that is not a given problem, maybe they want to pick up that easement segment for it or pay that.
I don't think, and I don't disagree with Al. I don't think that one person should pay and the others shouldn't.
On this particular case, that land is also going to be developable in the long run and having that there is going to
be a benefit directly to that property as well. And do we pay for that once it's going to benefit the adjacent
property? That's another question but I would think that with the motion that Richard has brought up and
3
City Council Meeting - October 24, 1994
discussion that can be done by the parties that are involved in it, they should address that particular issue, So
with that, Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Just one more comment. My understanding is if they can't come to an agreement,
it negates our passing the motion tonight and it comes back to us.
Mayor Chmiel: I would think that would be correct. Yeah, okay.
Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the Final Plat, Development Contract
and Plans and Specifications for Missions Hills, Project 93-23 contingent on a satisfactory conclusion to ali
parties of condition number 34. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Chmiel: You wanted to make one more statement Al.
Al Klingelhutz: Thank you for approving it with the one exception, I don't like to call Kate a liar and I don't
like to be called a liar either, The statement that I made tonight was factual and if Kate informed me of this, I
do not recall. Going a little further, I just received some information that just recently came down from the
Supreme Court June 2, 1994,..does not constitute conditions, the government may not require a person to give up
their Constitutional rights here. The right to receive just compensation for property that's taken for public use in
exchange. I'm not yelling for a lot of compensation, I'm yelling to be treated fair. I'd like to see what, where
the line is going and how it's going to cross TH 101 and how it's going to cross.,.and how it's going to cross
86th Street and I have not seen any of this up to this time. I think if any of you were having an easement
,..temporary easement going across your property, you'd like to know exactly where it's going to go before you
agree to anything on it. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Good, thanks Al.
I(E). APPROVE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT WITH LAKEVIEW HILLS INVESTMENT
COMPANY AND LAKEVIEW HILLS INVESTMENT GROUP, PROJECT 93-32.
Mayor Chmiet: I just have one question regarding item number 9 of that and I asked Elliott to sort of look into
this this afternoon and come back with some kind of an opinion on this. In looking at this particular line, in
relationship to the special assessment agreement with Lakeview Hills Investment Company item 9 reads, neither
the developer nor their respective partners, agents or employees shall be personally liable or be subject to any
recourse for the payment of any special assessment or interest described herein, The point I brought out was the
mere fact that if the developer were to go in and he has 20 lots, and he put in 15 of those 20 lots and decided,
because of some specific reasons the balance of those lots were bad. The soils were poor. That he could just
pick up and walk away from that and that would automatically mean that that would be taken from that point
and whoever decided to pick this up, knowing whether or not the soils were good or bad or indifferent, would
then pick up those additional assessments. At the same time that developer will walk away with dollars in his
pocket knowing he can just kick this away and what I wanted Elliott to do was to come up with something in
regard to that or the language that would be better than what is existing here.
Elliott Knetsch: I have looked into it since this afternoon Mr. Mayor and I've also had a brief opportunity prior
to the meeting to speak with the representatives for the applicant~ I think that we haven't had sufficient time to
work all any specific language to give to Council tonight, Roger Knutson from our office and the applicant's
attorney did spend considerable time on this agreement and I know Charles and Mr. Mitchell from dSM also
4
City Council Meeting - October 24, 1994
spent a lot of time on it. What I would suggest, if it meets with everyone's approv~al is that, if it meets with
everyone's approval this agreement could be approved tonight contingent on the various parties getting back
together and addressing the concern that you've raised and once that's done, if there's going to be new language,
that would have to come back to the Council similar to the last item. But ff this language is sufficient, given the
specifics of this application, then it could be signed by the Mayor. I would say though that again, our office has
recommended that this is a legal document. It meets all tests as to form and the engineering deparanent is
recommending it's adoption. There's give and take in any document. We're getting a specified level of
assessments. We're getting a guarantee that those assessments will not be appealed in District Court where the
city would incur the cost of litigation and appraisers and so forth so there is give and take in any document.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Rather than just to have me see it, I'd like the rest of the Council to also see what
that might be. Dave Mitchell, do you have anything that you would like to discuss regarding some errors that
might be in here?
Dave Mitchell: It was brought to my attention this morning that staff's report, I guess the second page, second
paragraph, the last sentence reads. The right-of-way taking occurs, and what this refers to is...subject parcel and
the three separate parcels and again the sentence reads, if the right-of-way taking occurs prior to the expiration of
this 10 year period, the assessments will come due and the exact assessment amounts will be based on
established rate adjusted based on any deviations from the remaining area proposed at this time. What that refers
to is a parcel at the north end of the subject property...TH 212 being brought down as a possible...so we cannot
fully define that specific area. The concern with the staff report tends to indicate that the assessments may be
due. Once MnDot has come to that determination. That is not what we agreed to within the agreement. The
agreement is for the...parcel given the time that it may take MnDot to actually acquire that right-of-way. In
reading the same sentence and looking at it a little bit further, what I believe Charles was trying to do with that
sentence is to say that the property that MnDot would take, the assessments would be provided for...time, which
we all know would be forgiven at that time. Or MnDot would pay for them at that time. But the subject
property retained by the investment, or the Lakeview Hills Investment Group, would be deferred to that...period.
Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes Don.
Don Ashworth: I guess what we're saying is, the agreement that you have in front of you is correct. I mean
that is what we're asking you to approve. It's just Charles' cover memo could be misunderstood as to what the
agreement is really saying. The other part is that if they would propose to develop that northerly parcel, those
assessments would become immediately due at the time that they tried to develop it. Anyway, we're
recommending approval and the Mayor's suggestion that we relook at that one sentence, that's fine. We can do
that.
Councilman Senn: Elliott, a question. Is this an issue because, well group isn't defined in here. Is this a
partnership or something? Is that the reason? I mean because if this is a corporation of any form, one with
liability or otherwise, it's a non issue.
Elliott Knetsch: The development is a corporation I think, or I could perhaps have them speak to that issue. I'm
not really sure on that but I think the Mayor's concern was that the assessments would only be running with the
property and there would not be any individual, whether it be a corporate entity, group or partnership, that they
5
City Council Meeting - October 24, 1994
be individually responsible for payment of the assessments in the event of a default in the taxes on those parcels
or the assessments were not paid.
Councilman Senn: And if they weren't and it were a corporation, they wouldn't be personally liable anyway.
Elliott Knetsch: If it's a corporation, that's correct. But that would be similar to other corporations where you
get a personal guarantee from shareholders or owners of the corporation. You might ask for that. When you're
dealing with a corporate entity where there is no person who is individually liable.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
John Thiel: Mr. Mayor, my name is John Thiel and I'm an attorney and I'm here representing Lakeview Hills
Investment Company, a contract for deed purchaser of the property. That entity happens to be a partnership.
We don't really feel that what kind of an entity it is is particularly important. We're just asking to be treated as
all other taxpayers who, when they get a special assessment on their land, they are not personally liable for it.
It's a lien against their property. If you don't pay the special assessment, you lose your property but it isn't a
personal obligation... We were just trying in this agreement to make it clear that we would be treated as
everybody else in that regard.
Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you.
Councilman Wing: So the issue is personally liable versus.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. So with that I would make that as a motion. Is thdre a second?
Councilman Wing: Second.
Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the special assessment agreement between
the City of Chanhassen, Lakeview Hills Investment Company and Lakeview Hills Investment Group dated
October 24, 1994 contingent upon the parties clarifying and agreeing upon the language in item 9. All
voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
I(K). ACQUIRE PARCEL ON GALPIN BOULEVARD FOR PARK FROM OTTO/HARTUNG, UPPER
BLUFF CREEK UTILITY PROJECT. RESOLUTION NO. 94-112B.
Councilman Senn: Todd's not here. I don't know ff Don you can answer it or not but how much of the parcel
is developable? Do we know that?
Kate Aanenson: Phil GraveL.he can probably answer that.
Don Ashworth: That's a good idea.
Councilman Senn: DO you know? Colleen.
Phil Gravel: Colleen's actually right that the parcel is about 80 to 90 feet wide.,,long.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, why don't you come up to the mic so we can get this on,
City Council Meeting - October 24, 1994
Phil Gravel: The parcel, Outlot B...is located on the west side of Galpin Blvd and it's a remainder parcel. It's
left over at the time of that plat...the road right-of-way separated this. It's between 80 and 90 feet wide and the
westerly 50 feet or such is wetland...and the easterly part is slope.
Don Ashworth: But Phil, the very northerly part of that, and assuming sewer and water were put past there, you
could probably get 2 or 3 lots out of that most northerly part.
Phil Gravel: 2 or 3 house lots?
Don Ashworth: Yes.
Phil Gravel: I don't think so.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I don't think so either.
Don Ashworth: The map that Todd Hoffman had showed me had shown that that northerly part was higher than
the road.
Phil Gravel: That's...the northerly part is adjacent to...it's out of the wetland. It's still restricted by that 90 foot
width.
Don Ashworth: Correct. I guess my point though is, the overall value being paid does recognize, we don't
really care to see it developed but hypothetically it could be.
Councilman Senn: Well I understand that. I guess the reason this caught my eye was, I really objected to the
rationale in here that we should do this because we should really be paying $20,000..00 to $22,000.00 an acre
for this property and quite honestly I think that's hogwash. It shouldn't even be in the staff report. And then to
turn around and say well, we should pay $24,000.00 for all of it, which is roughly $10,000.00 an acre because
it's so cheap, come on. ! mean do you think it's worth $10,000.00 an acre. Come on. It's non-buildable for
anything as far as I can see. I don't know. I just really question what, why we're even paying 10 for it.
Don Ashworth: Potentially Gary is the one who wrote the report. But I guess I would, it would not be in the
city's best interest to see one or two lots developed in the very northerly portion of the property. But from a
value standpoint, that potential for being developed justifies a $24,000.00 value for the entire piece in staff's
opinion.
Phil Gravel: There's enough high...
Don Ashworth: I don't know about, if we've used the right phrase in the justification but I feel that it's there.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion? Do you want to move that?
Councilman Senn: No.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a motion to move item l(k)?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'll move it.
7
City Council Meeting - October 24, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilman Mason: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: It has been moved and seconded. Any other discussion? Richard.
Councilman Wing: Mark, you're holding on your position that that's over valued?
Councilman Senn: Way over valued, Even ff you follow the rationale, I mean with you following the rationale
of $24,000.00 and you've got an acre worth of buildable property there, I'd love to see.,.that squeezes out of
that parcel,
Councilman Wing: Is it worth tabling for a meeting and having that reviewed more formally?
Don Ashworth: Phil, does it hurt if this is tabled for 2 weeks.
Phil Gravel: Yes.
Mayor Chmiel: Good answer,
Councilman Senn: I guess what I tried to say is, I'd like to see the additional parkland, don't get me wrong.
But it seems to me like this is a situation where we're rushing in and trying .to grab something in the haste of
getting additional parkland but we shouldn't be at the same time be paying a couple times what it's worth to buy
it.
Mayor Chmiel: How long have we been looking at this particular project now?
Phil Gravel: Gary's been working on this..,
Councilman Senn: But we weren't looking at purchasing it for the park, I mean that was a whole new notion as
far as I knew. At least I've never seen anything come to the Council before on it.
Phil Gravel: The meetings from the get go and as we took an easement and this 70 to 90 feet.,.we took the 30
feet or so necessary for the utility and roadway project. That would leave the remaining.,,so we knew that
that...I think Gary has known about this.,.4 to 6 months.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, I just had some discussions with Don and what he's saying may fight now make sense
but would you repeat it to Council,
Don Ashworth: Well, you're going to be approaching those kinds of dollars in acquiring an easement across the
whole thing. And then when you get done with the sewer and water there, you're going to have a potential for
houses like that's on the very north end where the houses are fight adjacent to the roadway and do you really
want to take and see potentially I or 2 houses fight on the edge of the roadway there? I mean sure, they have to
be 30 feet back but I mean that's going to be a 4 lane roadway. You wouldn't want to have driveways coming
out onto that roadway and for what I call the small additional cost, to have an ownership in the parcel. To own
the thing regardless of what you call it is much better for the city. I mean Todd feels that it will fit into the
overall park plan area because that's a, well it's quite scenic in that whole area. He fnxnly believe that there will
City Council Meeting - October 24, 1994
be a trail system that will go all the way around that wetland that is part of this parcel. But again, if you acquire
an easement at this time for sewer and water in the front and then came back at a later point for an easement to
be able to go around the wetland area, by the time you got it done, you spent the same amount of money. The
only difference is in one instance you own it and the other instance you just paid payments to owners and it just
didn't make any sense to us. We can work a deal with these owners before the sewer and water goes in. Let's
do it and get the thing done with.
Councilman Senn: What you're saying makes sense. I guess it'd be nice to see that in the staff report next time
rather than.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. So with that we have a motion and a second.
Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to acquire the parcel on Galpin
Boulevard for Park from Otto/Hartung, Upper Bluff Creek Utility Project. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None.
PUBLIC HEARING: CERTIFICATION OF DELINQUENT UTILITY ACCOUNTS.
Don Ashworth: Attached are a copy of the delinquent sewer and water billings. Under Minnesota Statute the
City does have the right to certify those for collection with literally the next year's tax statement. There is a
significant penalty which is added to delinquent accounts. During the course of the year, it's 10% on each
quarterly billing and then before certification we add another 20% to that. I have no idea why these people
continue to show up on this listing year after year. But they are paying a significant penalty for doing it.
Approval is recommended.
Mayor Chmiel: I don't know if this is something where this goes on the county assessment roll and it shows on
their tax statement as deductible from their income tax. I don't know.
Don Ashworth: They cannot legally deduct it. Whether or not they illegally deduct it, that's another question.
Councilman Senn: And it just roils to the next tax...
Mayor Chmiel: Are many of these repetitious?
Don Ashworth: Very many of them. I would say 30% or more.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Do we contact them by phone as well?
Don Ashworth: No. I think they get a f~t notice on the billing itself and then they get an individual letter type
of thing, to the best of my knowledge. Some years the Council has asked that this listing appear in the local
newspaper as son of, we want everybody to know here are people who don't pay their bills. We've talked
about shut-offs. Shut-offs are really difficult, especially where shut-offs get to be 10-15 years old. Many of
them don't work. Some properties, especially commercial properties may have water running from one business
to another so if you shut down one and you end up shutting down the wrong one. And again, with an
9
City Council Meeting - October 24, 1994
approximate 70% penalty in there, I just don't understand why people would da that. I'd be much cheaper to get
any kind of a bank loan than to pay 70% this way.
Councilman Wing: Some of these are brand new homes. I mean like Country Oaks that's.
Don Ashworth: I don't know of that to be true or not tree,
Councilman Wing: Would it pay us to do a phone survey of what's occurring and why? I remember discussion
that some of these are intentional last year. I realize it's quite a list but maybe if somebody needs to be assigned
to just go down this list and contact and get the reasons for each one.
Don Ashworth: Well where you have new parcels, I wouldn't doubt that in those instances the developer, the
builder needs the water and sewer as a part of the building process. If he's not able to sell right away, he knows
at the time of closing that that will be added onto at the time of closing so he'll just let it ride. I feel more
comfortable saying you'll get your money on those more so than maybe some of the other ones.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion? Is there a motion?
Councilman Wing: Move approval.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: Sorry, I'm moving too fast, I would like to close that public hearing.
Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Resolution g94-113: Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the Certification
of Delinquent Utility Accounts. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING: VACATE CONSERVATION EASEMENT AND ESTABLISH A WETLAND
EASEMENT AND TREE PRESERVATION EASEMENT LOCATED WITHIN THE PLAT OF THE
MEADOWS AT LONGACRE, LUNDGREN BROTHERS.
Kate Aanenson: ...vacation of conservation easement. This is the first...and that phase, what we did is we had
one conservation easement that included the wetland and tree preservation .... second phase we separated those
two out. Both of those easements, conservation easements have different standards and we felt it was more
appropriate to leave them separate, which we've done in the future phases. So we are recommending that we
vacate the original one. What we're doing is still having the same lots with the same easements, What we're
doing is separating out one wetland and one wee preservation. So we are recommending approval, The
attorney's office when they reviewed their documents had one concern which we had raised on...and all they're
saying, on that, they just want to make sure that it's clear. Modify.,.to make sure that it's...and that would be
mostly the wetland easements where we have to put them over the sewer lines...we would recommend approval
of the lots outlined in the staff report.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there anyone else wishing to address this at this time? If seeing none, can I have a
motion to close the public hearing.
10
City Council Meeting - October 24, 1994
Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Mayor Chmiel: Can I have a motion for that vacation of conservation easement.
Councilman Senn: I move approval.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Resolution g94.114: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the vacation of the
existing conservation easements on the plat for The Meadows at Longacres and amend by adding the
following:
The tree preservations shall be placed on the following:
Block 1 Block 2 Block 3
Lot 1 Lot 1 Lot 1
Lot 2 Lot 2 Lot 2
Lot 3 Lot 3 Lot 4
Lot 6 Lot 10 Lot 5
Lot 11
Lot 12
Outlot B
The following lots will have a conservation or wetland easement:
Block 1 Block 2 · Block 3
Lot I Lot 1 Lot 2
Lot 2 Lot 2 Lot 4
Lot 3 Lot 3 Lot 5
Lot 6 Lot 10
Lot 11
Lot 12
Block 4 Block 5 Outlot A
Lot 2 Lot 1 Outlot B
Lot 3 Lot 2
Lot 3
Lot 4
Lot 5
Lot 6
Lot 7
Ali voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
AWARD OF BIDS: LAKE LUCY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 92.12.
Bill Engelhardt: Mayor and members of the Council. On October 20, 1994 six bids were received for the Lake
Lucy Road Improvement Project 92-12. The low bid was received from Northdale Conslxuction at an amount of
$530,154.17. The engineer's estimates for the project was $585,000.00. The low bid is about 10% below the
estimate. Northdale Construction has performed satisfactorily on previous jobs with the city to recommendation
to award the bid to Northdale Construction in the amount of $530,154.17. Included in your packet with the bid
tabs also showing the other six bidders. They were relatively close. Second bidder was $578,964.00. High bid
was $641,901.00. But the difference between the second bidder and the fLrSt bidder was approximately
$60,000.00 is not too bad on a project of this size. Also Northdale Construction was the contractor for the force
main that was laid along TH 41 so he's very familiar with the terrain and the project location.
11
City Council Meeting. October 24, 1994
Mayor Chmiel:
Councilwoman Dockendorf:
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Councilwoman Dockendorf:
decided on the alignment.
Okay, thank you. Is there any discussion?
I guess this is the piece through Gestach and Ryan's parcel?
Why are we approving a bid when we haven't laid the road yet? When we haven't
Bill Engelhardt: This is the section from TH 41 to their cul-de-sac.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay, just through the Gestach-Paulson piece, alright.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other questions? If seeing none, is there a motion?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'd move approval.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilman Senn: Second.
Resolution g94-115: Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Senn seconded to award the bid for
the Lake Lucy Road Improvement Prolect No. 92-12 to Northdale Construction at a total contract amount
of $530,154.17. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
REZONE 37.92 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO RSF, RESIDENTIAL
SINGLE FAMILYi PRELIMTNARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 37.92 ACRES INTO 47 SINGLE FAMILY
LOTS AND 20UTLOTS; AND A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT; LOCATED AT THE
INTERSECTION OF GALPIN BOULEVARD AND PROPOSED LAKE LUCY ROAD EXTENSION,
6730 GALPIN BOULEVARD, ED AND MARY RYAN, SHAMROCK RIDGE.
Public Present:
Name Address
Ed & Mary Ryan
Chuck Plowe
Lynn Rothberger
Jerome Carlson
Peter Davis
Marlie Johnson
Nancy & Sam Mancino
Tom Owens
Neal & Debbi Wunderlich
6730 Galpin Blvd.
2725 94th Avenue No, Brooklyn Park
6681 Galpin Blvd.
6950 Galpin Blvd.
6640 Galpin Blvd.
6621 Galpin Blvd.
6620 Galpin Blvd.
120 So. 6th Street #1512, Mpls
7011 Galpin Blvd.
12
City Council Meeting - October 24, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: Kate, or Bob, I'm sorry. Tell us what happened at our last meeting that you had with Planning
Commission.
Bob Generous: In September the City Council returned this item to the Planning Commission for further
investigation and review of the plat based on some changes that were made. In the interim the city has hired, or
hired William Engelhardt and Associates to review the grading plan and provide us with some type of
presentation...material to look at so we can get a better idea of what is happening to the site. In addition we
requested that he look at alternatives for the road...Plarming Commission they affirmed their decision to
recommend denial of this plat based on the environmental concerns that they had on this site. Specifically they
were looking at the steep slopes on the western third of the parcel. Mr. Engelhardt's alternative basically
reiterated what staff said. That there are other ways to develop the western third of this site that would preserve
slopes and be more environmentally sensitive.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. I'd like to just establish some parameters here this evening. I think Council
has gone through and have read staff reports and the Minutes from the previous meeting. I would like to ask
you to provide new information at this particular time, because I think everyone here has had that opportunity to
look, read and come up with some conclusions. And if there is something new, I would like to have you please
come forward and present that at this specific time. Ed.
Ed Ryan: Thank you Mr. Mayor. Members of Council. My name is Ed Ryan. This is my wife Mary. We're
the owners of the property. We are pleased to present to you this evening a more detailed look at our plat and
to address the issues that you raised at our earlier Council meeting. We were asked to develop a model or
computer graphic that would clearly demonstrate the land use and what the project would look like when it was
completed. We have prepared a two dimensional representation of our plat and have also constructed a 3
dimensional model to provide a visual view of the neighborhood once completed. As you know, the road
alignment has been the significant issue regarding our plat. As we discussed in our last meeting, the Council
over a year ago specifically provided for flexibility in the Lake Lucy Road placement. Providing for a northerly
alignment as detailed in Bill Engelhardt's supplemental feasibility study and consistent with the comprehensive
plan. Our northerly alignment, as you can see, through the process of numerous staff meetings and planning
changes, have been moved 105 feet south of the north property line and incorporates a large outlot to provide
scenic views and act as a buffer against future growth. This alignment preserve the tree line and requires no
construction of a major roadway abutting a wetland and provides a safer roadway that rolls through the
neighborhood. The three southern alignments that have been proposed have consisted of the following. The first
was a southerly alignment outlotting the western section of our property. Referred to as the third alternative in
the staff's October 20th memorandum. The City Attorney has stated that the City could not require this area to
be outlotted. The second was a southerly alignment with northern cul-de-sacs. After our Council meetings and
detailed letter from Kate, Bill Engelhardt was hired by the city to lay out a southern alignment with northern cul-
de-sacs. This was to compare the plan to our northerly alignment of Lake Lucy and review the grading plans.
In point number 3 of the city memorandum, dated october 13th, it states that this southerly alignment does not
work to preserve the slopes. Our northerly alignment was found to be a better alternative, as the staff has
indicated in their original report. The third is a southerly alignment developed by Bill Engelhardt and I think it's
included in your packet. I have an 8 x 11 here. I know you can't see this too well. Does Council have a copy?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes we do.
Ed Ryan: Okay. This rough draft encompasses our property as well as the Mancino and Carlson properties.
Combining the three properties into one development. This plan illustrates incomplete road access to several
13
City Council Meeting - October 24, 1994
lots, Fronting lots on Lake Lucy Road and Galpin Blvd and invading the three lots to the north. We have
worked many long hours together with staff for more than 4 months to design a plan that is balanced and
sensitive to the many important features that this site has to offer. In Chuck's presentation we will demonstrate
why our plan is preferred over this new third plan. There have been some statements made that our plat does
not comply with city ordinances, Our attorney, Frank Kelly, has written a response which you have before you
which clearly shows that in working with staff, all city codes and ordinances have been observed. There also
have been statements made that we have maximized the intensity of our development. As we have detailed at
the last Council meeting, our plat density is almost identical to those plans that have been approved by Council
in our neighborhood this year and our design averages over 23,000 square feet per lot. Now briefly I'd like to
have Chuck walk through with you the neighborhood and detail the issues I've summarized that is according to
some new information that we have here today. If we could, we'd like to put a model that we just completed
of Chuck's up near your area here so that you can view this.
Chuck Plowe: Chuck Plowe, the project engineer for Ed and Mary Ryan. You've all mad the Minutes of the
Planning Commission meeting. There's a lot of things,.,repeat them again. We talked about the lb:st plan, the
second plan and the plan that we have today. At the last meeting you did ask for a visual and we just finished
this Friday night. Hopefully this will give you a better feel for what we're going to end up with when the
project's completed, It's on a 1 inch is 50 scale drawing. Or model rather, So the vertical scale is not
exaggerated. It's in proportion with the horizontal so if you're looking at, try to look at it from the downward
angle view, you can kind of picture the elevation changes and so on. One of the best ways to look at it is to
look at the homes up on the...part of the model, ~iewing it, how much higher it is. This street is at a 7 or 8, 7
1/2 % grade. There's about a 20 foot difference in elevation from here to here. It doesn't look like a drastic
change but in fact it is quite a big change because this is in relationship to the vertical horizontal so there's no
exaggeration included, This is the area that we have the outlot. Provides an excellent buffer between Lake Lucy
Road and the Mancino property. The existing trees that are being preserved are shown with this type of a tree.
Whatever you want to call it. There's some along here, Some in here. This small cluster here. Around the
existing home. And of course the wetland is a mixed variation of different kinds of brush and trees and so on. I
did look at the aerial. There was a question on the existing trees in this area behind the existing building and in
fact it did go a little bit further than what our grading plan showed. I did look at that so, other than that the tree
plan is pretty accurate. One thing I want to point out is also the open space, If you take a look at this street,
Jennifer Way and Alcove, they're spaced quite far apart. The back yard there is quite large. Along with a lot of
other spaciousness that you see within the model. The steepest slope on the grading plan is fight along this area
here and that's where the existing row of trees is. Now if you look at this plan, we're looking at the potential of
let's say Lake Lucy Road was built along the southerly alignment. This,..rolling farmland as it is, is not one of
the ordinary. We have some scattered trees but basically it's farmland, rolling farmland with some.,, so the
grading that's taking place that's shown on the plan is not out of the ordinary. I really have no other comments
unless there's any questions.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Does Council have any questions? Thank you.
Chuck Plowe: Ed would like to complete with the...
Mayor Chmiel: Sure, Maybe what we could do is to take this and set it there, where. That's a good question,
In a location so that the other people could view this and take a look at this.
Chuck Plowe: Ed would like to close,
14
City Council Meeting - October 24, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: Sure, Ed.
Ed Ryan: Thank you Mayor.
Mayor Chmiet: ff any of you would like w just take a look at that, feel free just to get up and take a look.
Ed Ryan: That presentation I hope has clarified issues that have been raised at our initial meetings. The
recommendations of staff and our neighbors have been helpful in providing thoughtful and respectful plans which
have resulted in a better design for the neighborhood. It's very important to note that after detailed review of
our plan by staff and outside consultants, staff states in their memorandum dated October 20th that they stand by
the analysis and recommendations contained in their report recommending approval of our plat subject to the
conditions listed in their original report. Our plan has met and will meet all the conditions staff listed as
required for approval. We request the approval of our plat consistent with staff's recommendations. Thank you
very much.
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Ed. Is there anyone wishing to add anything new to discussion than what has been
previously, and if so, please just state your name and address and who you're representing.
Tom Owens: Mr. Mayor and Councilmembers, my name is Tom Owens. I'm a real estate lawyer in
Minneapolis and I'm appearing tonight on behalf of six adjoining property owners that are now trying for the
f'u-st time to get a quick look at this model. The property owners whom I represent are Jerome and Linda
Carlson, Peter and Mary Davis, and Sam and Nancy Mancino. We also were able a couple of days ago to get a
copy of the revised grading plan and have prepared a model that we would like to show to the City Council.
But I'd like to begin by commenting on the applicant's statements. Ladies and gentlemen, I have to be a little
blunt in my comments here. The applicant said that when they last appeared before you with their team that you
requested information. Computer graphics or a model or something about the topography and the grading.
Ladies and gentlemen, this presentation tonight makes a mockery of the planning process as outlined in the city
ordinances. You asked and directed that this mauer return to the Planning Commission for thorough
consideration and you asked, you pleaded and you begged, you did everything but require the applicant to stand
up and pledge allegiance and provide and swear that he would provide more information to the Planning
Commission and the staff. The applicant has done so. This isn't the eleventh hour. This is 59 1/2 minutes past.
the eleventh hour. And the model that the applicant has brought to you does not answer the questions that you
asked. Those questions were, what does this do to the topography and the grading as it exists? The applicant
has prepared a wonderful model of what this may look like some day but he hasn't shown you what this does to
the present topography. And that is the key issue. Not road alignment. That's a subsidiary. A related issue.
The key issue here is steep slopes and whether this property owner should be permitted to dramatically and
seriously degrade the steep slopes on this property. You've heard lots of testimony from property owners, from
staff, from commission members and council members about how beautiful and wonderful this area is. And in
fact this is the tuff where the City of Chanhassen is going to decide whether it lives up to it's ordinance or not.
A couple of years ago the city updated it's ordinance to include steep slopes within the key considerations for
development. It did so on the basis of the 1991 comprehensive plan. That plan didn't just accidentally drop in
it the word topography or steep slopes somewhere. It shows up repeatedly in that comprehensive plan. Under
section after section after section. About the beauty of the city in relationship to it's transportation plan. In
relationship to land development. In relationship to what the aesthetics and the future of the city should be
about. That concern was reflected in a new ordinance which said, and you have all the information right before
you. You've had it cited for you many times. This isn't new. This part isn't new. This development seriously
degrades the steep slopes, and I want to be careful about coming on too strong at this point but ladies and
15
City Council Meeting - October 24, 1994
gentlemen, what I told the Planning Commission I have to underscore. This is a wb. rning bell, If you set the
precedent of approving this development in this form, you are going to have real estate lawyers back here at this
podium representing developers 3, 6, I2 months from now saying to you, ladies and gentlemen of the Council. '
Let me remind you about the plat of Shamrock Ridge, And the steep slopes in that beautiful area of the city.
The steep slopes which you permitted the developer to dramatically and substantially cut into, frill and degrade.
Now I want to clear up one other matter before we bring out our model, and that is that the 6 people that I
represent are some kind of crazy nimby's who think that this area that the Ryan's own should be turned into a
nature sanctuary. Nothing could be farther from the truth. My clients acknowledge and understand that at some
point in time the Ryan property will be developed. They also understand that it is, because of the comprehensive
plan and precedence set by this City Council, that it's almost certain be rezoned as RSF. So they are not here
begging you not to rezone or to make this 5 acre minimums or somehow to impede progress or require the
Ryan's to dedicate this property for development in 5 or 6 or 10 lots only. No, my clients want to see you as
the foremost representatives of this city, uphold the city ordinances, the comprehensive plan and see that this
property is developed. Whether it's next year or the year after or whatever. That it's developed in accordance
with the city ordinances. If that means 45 lots instead of 47, so be it. So my clients are here to protect the
steep slopes. They're here to remind you that the staff hasn't recommended this project. And I just have to
quote to you, somehow the staff has been misrepresented as if they're completely in favor of this development in
it's present form. On page 19 of last update of the city's staff report, we find this sentence. While alternate
designs may provide additional protection of natural resources, the proposal has been revised to lessen the
impacts of the development on this site. That's hardly an endorsement. And a little bit further down on that
page it says, and this is a comment that has carried forth from the very fkst iteration of this report. The steep
slopes on the western half of the development make the development of this area problematic at best based on
the ultimate proposal due to the severe slopes. We're here to answer your questions. I'm happy to do so. We
would like to show you a model that Sam Mancino has developed based on the grading plan of the applicant,
last revised and submitted to the city one week ago. And Sam, maybe you could stand up here and give a brief
explanation of what you've done and what these different colors show.
Sam Mancino: What we heard last time here was that you'd like a better representation visually of what was
going to happen to the grading. Because it's, as you've seen in this model, difficult to evaluate height in this
dimensional scale without making the model 12 feet wide, that is built exactly under blueprint. It is 1 inch
equals 60 feet width and length. This 1 inch equals 30 feet on the height to give you an idea of the contours
there. The red area indicates cuts where they're taking the tops of hills off or they're cutting into the steep
slopes on the western part of the terrain. The blue part indicates fill and most of those areas of fill for example,
anything that's looking like it's a half an inch to an inch there in thickness is probably thick enough to bury
Jimmy Hoffa in a Cadillac so it's a relatively large scale. You'll notice that moving the road up to the western
slopes there, the high part of the slope, is primarily done to be able to get enough fill carved out of the hill to be
able to replace the fill, necessary fill in the... It's not really because that's the only place the road can go. Then
in fact they're taking the tops of the hills off right now to be able again, to get that much fill. So again, this is a
major piece of grading.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Are there any questions at this time? If not, thank you.
Councilman Wing: Bill could you, if this is a model acceptable to the Ryan's for description, could you show us
where the north and the south roads would go and how they would both impact here. I don't quite see where
the layout would be. If Ryan's, if they'd like to participate, I think would be fair.
Bill Engelhardt: The southerly alignment would go through right about here..,so we would be.
16
City Council Meeting - October 24, 1994
Councilman Wing: And where's Galpin? Yeah, follow it in from Galpin.
Bill Engelhardt: This is the Gestach-Paulson plat.
Councilman Wing: Right. Start at the east and follow the road across.
Bill Engelhardt: Okay. So as you're coming in from Lake Lucy Road it would be directly across from this
point where they're entering Lake Lucy Road. As you're coming through, they're doing some fill. There's
some fill. There's some cutting. There's a cut through here and this is the knob that would be cut. On the
southerly alignment, this is basically about the same...feasibility study we left a lot of flexibility for Ryans and
we said we'd work with them however they wanted to work so there's major cuts here for the road... In any
event, this point I suspect it would come through. The southerly alignment would go through this area where I
think we're talking about, according to this plan probably a 6 to 8 foot fill for the roadway versus the fill that
they're showing of maybe 8 to 10. If you look on the plan that I developed, the red and blue contours, what we
had.., what we did is we took their grading plan. Essentially what they have in their model and then...put their
model and Sam's model would all be about the same...overall but in the same thing. Chuck's model doesn't
show the proposed cuts. It shows what it's going to look like when it's done. What this shows you is the
amount of grading that has to be done on the site. The blue contours are fill. The red contours would be cut.
The brown contours are the zero lines. The zero lines would be... The important thing is that you're looking at,
this is fill, this is fill, this is fill, this is fill, this is fill. The red are the cuts. Now the f'LrSt plan that came
through they, when we mn it through our analysis we felt they were short material. There was a significant
shortage because they had this roadway pushed up. There was more fill in here. There was more fill here.
Down here there was more fill in here. The way you take care of that to balance the site is you increase your
cuts and you decrease your fills. So the second plan they developed brought in a relatively good balance in the
materials. Still 140,000 yards of excavation.
Chuck Plowe: That was focusing on the...to reduce the f'dls.
Bill Engelhardt: That was focusing on the...right. But what this plan shows you in this particular area, right here
there's a 10 foot fill. Right here there's a 6 foot cut. Here's a 10 foot cut. A minus is a cut so through this hill
there's a 16 foot cut. Down here there's a 12 foot fill. 14 foot fill and then it tapers off down to zero. This is
a 16 foot fill down here. So you can see that, and again I'm not saying this is a bad plan. I'm just telling you
what the facts, what these contours show you is that when you're, in order to build this project, this is the area
that's going to have to be disturbed in some way or another. Either cut or fill. The only areas that don't show
disturbance would be up in this area, along this ridge, down in the wetlands, in this wetlands, and here's a zero
mark through here.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: So if it were a southerly alignment, that's through here and the difference in fill
would be approximately?
Bill Engelhardt: Oh probably, here you're talking about 16 and 12 foot fill. With the southerly alignment I
think we were looking at about a 6 to 8 foot fill.
Chuck Plowe: I think that Bob and ! talked about that a long time ago and it was more like 10 to 12. You need
to get the elevation of the roadway up...get here otherwise you can't.
17
City Council Meeting - October 24, 1994
Bill Engelhardt: When we drew our plan, again it's a preliminary alignment and we had a 5% and a 4% grade
coming up. We can steepen that grade up to 7% so we could have, you know we can reduce this speed. It's not
been designed, in no way shape or fashion was it designed.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: But the difference could be as much as 8 feet?
Bill Engelhardt: Right.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And would you need the cub up here to achieve that?
Bill Engelhardt: You wouldn't.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I mean would you.
Bill Engelhardt: No. No, we would not be on this hillside. Then the other thing we looked at as part of staff
direction on the second go around, is could you take these cul-de-sacs and flip them to the north and that's what
Ed was talking about. If we had Lake Lucy Road to the south, flip these cul-de-sacs and this private road to the
north, could you do that? My opinion is that you could not do that. That you would really be ripping into that
slope and you'd have a tremendous cut all the way along through here trying to get those roadways coming up.
Councilwoman Dockendoff: Even with private drives?
Bill Engelhardt: Private drives are a little bit tricky because you would then still have steep private drives and it
would have to be very carefully detailed on how you get those private drives up. Now what I did a sketch plan,
and that's all it was was a sketch plan for this development and what I thought what you could do is bring in a
private drive across the top and then have large lots. If you had large lots coming down to Lake Lucy Road
with the southerly alignment. That would work because they need to preserve those slopes and you'd keep your
houses on the top or set your houses into the slope and you would have no access coming off. You'd reduce the
amount of cut that you would have to make up in that slope. You'd be coming in from the top.
Chuck Plowe: We looked at several variations of the southerly alignment and trying to, as Bill has indicated,
using the private drives or cul-de-sacs, we need to come in..,because it involved a lot more extensive grading
then what you're looking at with this plan. We tried to work private drives up off and then around and it didn't,
it just ended up disturbing as much or more than what you see here.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: What if you brought it off Jennifer Way?
Chuck Plowe: Well we are doing that of course...and going beyond that, we're allowed 4 lots on a private drive.
That would be the maximum. So we couldn't really serve that property.
Sam Mancino: You couldn't do a private drive system like this?
Chuck Plowe: Well I guess that's a totally different scheme and I guess it appears as though that's, I mean you
could do a lot of different things. It's just that this isn't at all the scheme that we're looking for. This is the
southerly alignment with real large lots and you can do a lot of different things. I don't know if this would
work or not. I can't tell you.
18
City Council Meeting - October 24, 1994
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Bill, if we were to take Lake Lucy on the eastern part' and bring it to the south, just
to avoid that knob could we, ff it comes up here and then swings up here, is that too much of a serpentine
movement? For engineering purposes.
Bill Engelhardt: I think we could make it work. We need a 30 mph curve through here and we've got enough
distance that you could get it through here but I don't know what that would really achieve because either they
need the dirt or we need the dirt, one way or the other. I guess basically they would need the dirt more than we
do. We could bring the road through here and we'd have less of a cut through here but then when they started
to make their cum for their development, they would be short material because they need these knobs up here to
get that dirt off. He balances right now. The first go around and you know, granted I think sometimes the first
go around you don't look at it that detailed but the fkst go around they were significantly short. But this one he
balances so if you're going to develop this property like this, this is what you have to do. This is what's going
to happen.
Chuck Plowe: And I think, you know. I've looked at this Lake Lucy Road quite a bit and I know that in order
to avoid a large cut in here you~ do need to fill. You do need to start bringing your grade up and maybe you
could you know make a curve in here and minimize that a little bit but realistically I don't think you're going to
want to do that with Lake Lucy Road. I just. that would in effect be real detrimental to the plat as well. No
matter how you did the plat, whatever you do with Lake Lucy Road is going to affect the plat.
Bill Engelhardt: I think one thing though you have to remember on Lake Lucy Road is we're not building a
super highway. It's a collector street but it's a residential collector street so it's not tike we want to be Point A,
Point B, straight away with no curves in it. Everybody goes. Sometimes it's advantageous to have a little...
Chuck Plowe: I think too that the idea of this knob here, it is a knob. It's not a massive, it doesn't cover a big,
big area. It's right there and we need to get from Point A to Point B so there's going to be a big cut there. It's
going to happen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: What did we achieve by Richard's suggestion to lessen the width of the road?
Bill Engelhardt: We can't do that.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Why not?
Bill Engelhardt: Well first of all cutting the size of the width of the road is not, from 36 to 34 does not
significantly decrease the amount of cut. You still have the slope. The second thing is that the State Aid
standards want us to have a 30, dictate that we have a 36. The reason we were able to move down in some of
the other roadways in the width is because we met different conditions versus the open field. We were going
through existing residential areas.
Councilman Wing: Along that line, if we're going to go with 36 through here, we can't have an east Lake Lucy
situation that Mike and myself dealt with over years where we've got residential homes and driveways going
onto this major collector road. As I'm looking at this right now, that doesn't exist. The road is left intact.
There are no houses abutting it.
Bill Engelhardt: Yeah, this one they've got all of the driveways, except for the private drives here, off of
secondary streets.
19
City Council Meeting - October 24, 1994
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And by the same token, we don't want it a straight away either and are going to
encourage that speeding that we have on the east side.
Councilman Wing: Only if we're looking for a parkway effecL.,more curves in this than that.
Bill Engelhardt: To a certain extent that's true, yeah. Aesthetics.
Mayor Chmiel: To a certain point.
Tom Owens: But it was that parkway effect and the aesthetics that led to a major factor in the staff's and
consultant's recommendation for the southerly alignment. Was that the citizens and people driving along would
have the benefit of the wetland.
Chuck Plowe: They're almost going to have it now because they're sitting quite high above these homes.
They're going to almost be looking over the cul-de-sac...
Bill Engelhardt: I think when we originally were looking at the Lake Lucy Road alignment, the Ryan's at that
point didn't have any intent of developing, Lake Lucy Road drove that development and what we were trying to
do is hang to the south to leave as much of the property open as you could. The other criteria was that we
needed to get this particular point...we have to hit that point so we said, well let's stay south but our philosophy
and their philosophy differs in that I think that you feel that the lots abutting up to the wetland is more valuable
than turning it the other way but I don't,..
Ed Ryan: Well I think our philosophy from the start has been, what is more pleasing to the neighborhood that
we're in and looking at the curvature of the road is very important to us. We are on a very straight, flat road
right now on Galpin and people blow by our house at 70 mph, People move by, I travel Lake Lucy east to
work. On the straight always they're moving and I like the design of the roadway so it accommodates the
people who living in the neighborhood. And this has been a driving force for us in terms of our plan so.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I think, I appreciate your explanation of this and...
Jerome Carlson: May I just comment'?.
Mayor Chmiel: Certainly, But if you'd go up to the podium so we can get this on tape, Thank you.
Jerome Carlson: My name is Jerome Carlson. I'm a neighbor at 6950 Galpin, Just a quick comment on two
things. One I label as value and one I would label as values. There is a perspective, and perhaps it's just mine
but it's never been discussed or even mentioned here, And because this is the eleventh hour and 59th minute, or
it could be, I feel compelled to...just a couple remarks, First of all I don't think that the city staff has even
abandoned their number one preference to the southerly alignment. If they had their dmthers,..discussed ad
infinitum. Number two, I don't feel that it's the city's obligation to find a way to maximize the number of lots
on a given piece of property which the city did not create, Now I don't know how long the Ryan's have lived
here exactly but I suspect 10 or 12 years, I bought some of my land from the same very reputable individual
that they bought their's, and he's sitting here tonight. Mr. Klingelhutz. I do have some rather accurate
indication of what the value of that land was and what was paid for that land, including the house at the time it
was purchased. Not that long ago. And just as a point of information and perspective, if the lots on this
property were reduced to 40, we're not talking about trying to throw the plan out. Trying to get fid of
20
City Council Meeting - October 24, 1994
development. I'm a landowner. I want to keep my rightS. But if they were reduced just to 40 and retain the
steep slope, make it an ouflot if necessary. Guess what? 10-12 years ago that property, approximate payment
for that property was less than $200,000.00 or there aboutS. I know that property right today with only 40 lotS
would be worth at least $950,000.00. Is that a hardship? Is that enough to cause the city to preserve the values
that are ouffined in the comprehensive plan? Or are we obligated to go further and develop the steep slope? So
in terms of values, I think the comprehensive plan, several years asked citizenry what do you value? What is it
that you want these people as elected officials to be the guardians of and I think you listened. I think you did a
very excellent job of receiving input and we were a part of that. And here we axe. Now it's time. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Yes.
Chuck Plowe: Just one quick comment regarding the slopes. We all know this is hilly, rolling farmland but the
steep slopes, I guess if we talk about the steep slopes. Let's look at where the slopes are the steepest, if I don't
get my tongue fled up. Can you see where I'm pointing right here? The steepest slopes are right there. Those
are gone whether we develop it this way or whether you put in the southerly alignment. They're gone. They're
filled. These are not severely steep. The steepest is right there. If we're talking about the western portion of
the site, those are the factS. That's where the steepest part of the...
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Okay. I think it's time that we bring it back to Council and come up with some kind
of a conclusion this evening. Mark.
Councilman Senn: I don't know. I guess the easiest thing that I could say is that I've looked at this last time
that it was in here. I thought it looked like a good project. The underlying element is we can't stop
development. I think the Ryan's are very well aware of that. In fact ! think this plan's being driven more by us
and roadways and development happening around it than it is by Ryan's. It's kind of a time they'd better act or
everything around them may determine everything for them later routine. Since last meeting what I tried to do is
I took this project and I stacked it up I'm going to say against most of the subdivisions we've approved in the
last year. Stacked it up side by side. And almost without exception ! could not find one single project that
adhered to the standards that this project adheres to. 'I would love someone to show me that that's wrong but it
isn't. This project has met every standard we've ever set and it's setting a number of new ones in terms of
residential subdivisions. And I think that becomes the simple reality or the fact here of this project. I know the
road alignment issue has come up time and time again. If you want to look oat it purely on the basis of a road
alignment, which I really don't like looking at it on that basis, I'd say personally I'm going to favor a northerly
alignment because I think the southerly alignment's going to have, I think a fairly detrimental impact on the
wetland and I think it's going to also have a worse impact on the landforms. Because at that point you're going
to be forcing the Ryan's not to develop it as they're proposing but basically around the road. I think they've
come up with a good plan that doesn't work around a road per se. It works around a project of the whole area.
I can't help...but basically ! look back at everything that the staff has kind of put together on this and I think the
staff's done a good job of doing their homework and I think the staff has done a good job of kind of trying to
stay neutral but at the same time pointing out the relevant issues. I guess I'd still love to ask the staff for one
reason or another what they really think because so far I've heard everybody else say what they think they think.
I'd like to you know, I'd really kind of like to hear your own opinions straight forwaxdiy.
Kate Aanenson: It's on the record. It's on the record. We said obviously our first alternative is to wait until
the Mancino's develop and come off the north. That was rejected by the City Attorney who said if there's
another alternative, then you must pursue it...and we came up with a compromise. Obviously this isn't our first
choice and it's not their first choice...but we felt like this was an acceptable alternative. It buffers the Mancino's
21
City Council Meeting - October 24, 1994
piece. Yeah, I wish they could wait until development occurred and we had to come off the top...significantly
large lots...that's up to you to decide whether..,Council's call. It's not our fa'st choice but again this plat isn't
their first choice. We've already compromised..,
Councilman Senn: But let's put the timing behind us okay, Let's accept the City Attomey's premise that we
can't make this development conform to the time line of everyone around it, okay. Let's look at this standing on
it's own, okay. Is this or is this not what you feel is the best alternative given this project, standing on it's own
or not?
Kate Aanenson: Yes, we recommended that this would work based on the conditions in our report.
Councilman Senn: Well, that's what I thought but I mean like I say, I keep hearing a lot of other comments or
opinions as to what that is and I didn't think I was misreading what was in there. I'm sorry to put on the spot
that way but I thought it was important that I think everybody understand it. With that I think we should really
you move towards going ahead with what I think is one of the more well thought out and responsible projects
that we've seen and again, I'm going to bring that right back to our own table because that in comparison to
everything else we've done in the last year. And I don't think it's at all fair to now develop a whole new
standard, that I'm not sure anybody can meet as I listen to some of these points, unless we want to start
providing some type of underlying subsidy against the property because we're going to take all their value out of
it. Like requiring more super sized lots or whatever. So I'd like to see us just get on with it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Michael.
Councilman Mason: I agree with Mark in that I don't think we can stop development. Welt, we can't but I do
think we can nudge it in directions we would like it to go. And I think we're doing that with this project. I'm
not convinced that it's there yet and I'm not convinced that we have the capabilities to get it there. Let me back
track a little bit now, I don't totally agree with Mr, Owens. I guess I don't view this as Waterloo or
Armegendon or the Battle of Leningrad, This is an important issue, make no mistake, which leads me to what
Mark was saying about putting this development against others. I see his point and I agree with that. However,
as I think most of us agree, this is one of the nicer areas in the city of Chanhassen right now, And because of
that, whether it's right or not, I think we do, or at least I do, tend to raise my expectations some. You know we
hear that, some of the stuff, some of the discussion I think has been good, Some of it I've been a little
dismayed at because it's become you know, A versus B and they're doing this, Oh no, we're not, We're doing
that and I personally don't think that's the point. I have heard staff say that the best alternative is to wait until
Mancino's develop, I think that can be flip flopped too, Maybe because of the sensitivity of this area, people
don't want to develop but maybe they should because the Ryan's development will be better. So I'm throwing
that out. I'm not accusing of anyone, I have no intention of doing that but I think an awful lot of stuff is
coming to bear on the Ryan's that I'm not sure is right. I'm concemed that some of the, it appears that some of
the alternatives have been rejected out of hand about what can be done to save some of the steep slopes. To
save what's there. If that hasn't all been looked at, t think it's sad. I really do, Although to be honest, a cord
was struck with me just a moment ago when Jerome was talking about values. I think that's a point we ail need
to deal with on this issue, Is the cost of land 10-12 years ago, The cost of land today. Regardless of how
many homes go there, rightfully so, there will be a sizable profit. Staff, let me ask very quickly, and d this
isn't fair, let me know, Just say, you know. If it were to be 40 lots instead of 47, could some significant
grading be not done?
22
City Council Meeting - October 24, 1994
Kate Aanenson: Well I think there's a couple of things that would really... If it wasn't Ryan's today, say they
sold the property to somebody else had bought the property, that wouldn't even be an issue...Lundgren or
Rottlund or somebody else had...we wouldn't be talking about that because they've already paid that increase
increment. So we don't even look at that at the staff here. As far as the number of lots, certainly the number of
lots can be reduced and Mr. Engelhardt's plan...off the top by Mancino's and...Another was to do a PUD. Have
larger lots there and put the smaller lots, you'd have the same number of lots. Just spread it out across the
property... Now, they have chosen to go forward with this plan. We tried to...the plan that they have chosen to
go forward with. This is the plan that they want to do. Did that answer your question?
Councilman Mason: Yeah it did, thank you. Well I've also talked before about I try to get my brain and my
heart together on these things and I know some of you are laughing about that right now, and I guess I don't
blame you. I can only be a mug wump so long I guess. A little history of the mug wump part but that's neither
here nor there. I'm uncomfortable with parts of this plat but in terms of my job as a council representative for
the city of Chanhassen, and based on what our attorney says, this, that and the other thing, I think we have to
move with it. But ! would sure hope that all possibilities have been exhausted before we start moving hundreds
of thousands of cubic feet of dirt.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thanks. Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'm still trying to decide which side of the fence I should sit on. Let me explain
both. First allow me to just...a couple of points that Mark and Mike brought up. In terms of let's view it in the
context of what we've done in the past. To me that means status quo is okay and let's never change. I think
this piece of land does deserve some additional consideration and I have been upset with what we've done in the
past in terms of slopes. I look at the school site and granted that serves a higher function but I'm disappointed
with that grading. I look at the hill over here and the barracks on top of it and I'm disappointed with that. So I
don't know if this is the point to sa] we need an ordinance not only to deal with cliffs, or whatever which one
we have, but also deal with slopes and get some definition as to what a significant grade is. Anyway, so my
point is, I'm not viewing this in the context of what we've done in the past because I think it is, although I agree
not to the point of Mr. Owens' contention, it does set a precedent. In terms of the financial considerations,
that's neither here nor there. Not part of my review at all. Okay, let me get to what I really think. To be
honest now that I think of it, I like the fact that with the northerly alignment we are showing some curvature to
the road. We've had a lot of problems on east Lake Lucy with people screaming down it because it's a fairly
flat, straight away. And regardless of the speed limit, people will exceed it and we've had several complaints on
it. The southerly alignment would make it another straight away on this side. However I can't deny Planning
Commission's 7 to 0 vote saying that this plan does not work for this slope. There have been some alternatives
shown. I'm not happy with any of them, to be honest and ! realize Bill it was a rough sketch. But there's got
to be something different. Something more acceptable. And to be honest I'm also concerned that even if we do
come up with a different grading plan and we approve it, it won't work like the one that Bill analyzed and we
came up hundreds of cubic feet short so I'm concerned even if we say well this cut should only be 4 feet, when
it's said and done and the Cats are out there, that's not going to be the final product. And I don't know if we
ever checked that on any of our other plans that we approve. Can I be a mug wump? I guess there has to be an
alternative for the western portion for me to approve it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Richard.
Councilman Wing: I've got my thoughts and my notes spread over 4 different pages. That's how my mind
works and if I talk that way we're going to get nowhere here. I really hate it when it starts down at Mark's end
23
City Council Meeting - October 24, 1994
and he goes urn, because I realize it's a complex issue. His mind's ticking and it isn't going to be a simple
answer. Mike and Colleen haven't helped. I sat at the Planning Commission meeting until 1:30 in the morning
with the Ryan's, who were very patient. They had to sit through a lot of garbage to get their thing on and I
can't believe how patient everybody was. But it's the rtrst f~me I've ever seen the Planning Commission be truly
decisive and they just, words like tampering with the land and not good, and the road. I mean the road
alignment's, I'm almost, like Colleen mentioned, that north one maybe makes sense with the curvature. They
brought up the comp plan and density and slope protections and it's not the future of Chanhassen and we can't
take the density. I just kept taking notes saying, it's unusual. I guess I'd like to start by asking staff and the
attorney a couple questions. First of all, who's got what rights here? The Ryan's are developers. Land owners
and they certainly have the right to develop. And it seems to me they have the right to come in here with a
standard subdivision of 15,000 square foot lots and not say much about it, So that's one issue. And we keep
talking about these gray areas on the comprehensive plan and the ordinances where the intent is to preserve our
city's topography, it's landforms, otc, otc, etc, etc. And I think that's wonderful and it sounds great and it's
where I stand. I'm a large lot man mainly because densities upset me and no one wants to talk about density.
The only way I can deal with density then, without more intellectual discussion is simply larger lots. Means
fewer homes. Means less traffic. Less damage to the land. And over development has an impact on the land.
So I'd like to see larger lots here but it's not zoned larger lots. We don't have ordinances to protect the slopes
other than this gray intent so Elliott, who's got what rights here? What rights do I have as City Council to
address these issues and what right does the developer have? And we keep talking about this intent of
preserving and protecting. Does that really mean anything other than it'd be really nice? And we have been
rubber stamping development after development. We've been getting more and more comments back from
members of Council saying, what are we doing? To me it's becoming alarming to the point where I've
suggested we get an emergency review of our comp plan together and start looking at our land and what we
want to do with what's remaining, This happens to be one of the most sensitive areas in the city as far as I'm
concerned in terms of topography and wooded, but when we run a 36 foot road through there, we've alienated
that land enormously at that point. Somebody, before I get to the major points here, could you explain who's
got what fights here and where these gray areas in the ordinance apply or don't apply?
Elliott Knetsch: Well I'll try. You could spend a whole year in law school perhaps on that, on your question
but the property owner has a right to develop his property consistent with our ordinances. If you see a plat in
front of you that meets all of our ordinances as far as minimum lot sizes, setbacks, and so forth. Requires no
variances. The streets are well laid out and safe for traffic and so forth. Then we have very little discretion to
turn it down. Perhaps none. Where our ordinances provide standards that a plat must meet, it's up to the
Council to determine if the plat meets those standards. Here we have a standard in the ordinance which says we
are to protect, among other things, steep slopes, And that's the issue you've been grappling with. Does this plat
or does it not protect steep slopes, I think reasonable arguments can be made on both sides of that question.
Reasonable people could disagree on that issue, whether it does or it doesn't. I can give you some more
information perhaps or maybe that addresses your question.
Councilman Wing: Do we have any legal right to say we only want 40 lots here?
Elliott Knetsch: I don't know to the extent that that's an arbitrary number, no. To the extent that we can
document how that would protect slopes and address the other concerns that have been raised by staff and some
of the neighbors, then yes. If that results in a reduction in the lots, and we can pin point and state specific
reasons and point to ordinances that back us up, then yes we could ask for a reduction in the lots.
24
City Council Meeting - October 24, 1994
Councilman Wing: I think planning is very wise and we've repeatedly at this Council level not addressed the
Planning Commission concerns and issues and what's come back to us from them, an example is, they
specifically. And maybe I digress here and I'll apologize...they stated that do not put a lighted sign on the east
side of Byerly's because it's going to impact everything we do here enormously and they gave them a little brick
sign in lieu of that. Well, Council overrode that and every time I look to the west out of the windows of City
Hall, I look right into this enormous billboard and I say, boy I wish we had listened to Planning Commission.
And Planning Commission has gone through this hours and hours and hours and they don't like it. I don't
dislike it. The only thing that remains with me on issues is reducing lot sizes and preserving these knolls if you
will, or these knobs. We still have the large hill to the north. All we're going to be, we're going to be losing
some rolling terrain here. Both sides have commented that there's both sides of this. I mean I look at this and
move a little ftll here, and this gets cut here but I see the whole thing disturbed regardless. So talk about being
on the fence. I'm really, I think all of this Council are staunch environmentalists and my problem is that we're
in the decade of the 90's and the decade of the 90's is the decade of rethinking and redesigning and replanning
and that's where these battles and fights are coming from because we're all struggling to elevate ourselves to this
higher level of design and standard that we haven't know here before. And so these battles occur because our
ordinances don't say to the Ryan's, here's the rules. Come in and live with them and then we apply them
evenly. We're trying to take our ordinances and I'm not hiding behind them. Whoa be to any city planner or
Council person that is going to hide behind ordinances to the city's best interest. I don't think we're doing that.
I think we're trying to stretch them as far as we can here to our new standard which isn't clearly defined. So do
we penalize the Ryan's or do we penalize the city? There seems to be a neulxal point here right now where the
neighbors have been heard and their issues are real. Ryau's have really lried to compromise I think and come up
with something that shifts things around enough to get this thing through. Have I said a thing?
Councilman Senn: I think so.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes you did.
Councilman Wing: I would like to see the issue of the 40 lots is an arbitrary number. I'd like to see if the lot
reduction in fact did resolve some of the grading issues. I'd like to see all of these models go back to the
Planning Commission. Planning Commission sit down in a flexible manner and decide, is there anything that
can be done better or is this the best we're going to get and go with it. Bear in mind that the Ryan's do have
rights as owners and developers that we can't deny and we don't have the ordinances to say you can't do this.
Would there be some compromise that the Planning Commission would back off?. That Ryan's might come this
way a little bit. Come to the Council with a clean package here that in good faith we can pass...the developers
coming in after these folks because we've seen the light. Do I support this? I'm undecided.
Mayor Chmiel: You've got it...okay, thanks. I guess as I, there's a lot of things I could reiterate here but some
of the things that I looked at was basically what the Planning Commission did come up with. I had been on the
Ryan's property and I agree too that they have every right to develop this. As long as it's consistent with the
requirements that we have within the city and the proposed subdivision as it presently stands and as the Planning
Commission has indicated, that it does not meet the requirements of an ordinance. Ordinance number 18-60(d).
And it states that lots...be placed to preserve and protect natural amenities such as vegetation, wetlands, steep
slopes with emphasis on water courses and historic areas. And then of course the subdivision does not meet the
intent of the comprehensive plan. That's another part of it. And of course one of the other things too with that
southerly alignment and I'm concerned too with those steep slopes as to how that can be eliminated. Or at least
addressed accordingly and that southerly route would probably provide that from what Bill has indicated with the
scales as they have in front of us. As well as what we had seen previously. So I guess I know where I'm going
25
City Council Meeting - October 24, 1994
with this. As much as I'd like to say yes. Put this in, I guess I'm looking at, yes. Put this in but I would like to
see some of those changes incorporated into what I basically have just said and I think it's being consistent to
what the basic votes were within the Planning Commission and I guess that's where I'm at. Any other
discussion?
Councilman Wing: What's the time line on that direction? What does that do to this'?.
Kate Aanenson: ...the 120 days it expires, is November 3rd. So if you are making a motion tonight that it needs
to follow...the City Attorney would like an opportunity to comment on those. If your motion is... approval, that
we would have a special meeting set for the Council on November 1st to give you an opportunity to pass the
findings but we have to make a decision by November 3rd. That's 120 days. Unless there was concurrence
from the applicant allowing...
Mayor Chmiel: Elliott, would you like to elaborate a little bit as to what Kate has said?
Elliott Knetsch: There is a legal issue. We have to act on this within the 120 days. That's going to end I think
the staff reports are sufficient to lay out f'mdings if your motion is for approval. If your motion is for denial, we
would recommend that you direct staff to prepare findings of fact consistent with denial to bring to you at your
meeting. The special meeting on November lst~ If you want to in essence table this and refer it back to
Planning Commission to try to address some of the concerns raised, we would need the applicant's consent to
that.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Alright, let me ask questions of the Ryan's. I know that there has been some
discussions within the community as to the City Council tabling a lot of things. I don't agree with that statement
and the reason why many of our tablings do develop is that sometimes there's not sufficient amount of
information that's provided to us and we don't just sit back to table items. We sit back to look at it and how we
can justifiably put it through and make sure that it's right accordingly to what the requirements are as far as the
city is. Let me ask Ed and Mary, if we were to table this, would you be agreeable to a tabling and come up and
see if there's another alternative from what you've heard here this evening from Council. You can either address
that or not. I mean feel free but I'd just like to pose that question to you.
Ed Ryan: Do you want me to come forward?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, if you would please.
Ed Ryan: We appreciate the consideration of our plat and we feel we've been down a long road. [ think Kate
knows that. I think what we have before you is of value. Obviously we wouldn't want to present anything else
than what we felt very strongly about. I guess I would ask that the Council approve our plat but add the specific
direction to perhaps the westerly portion of the property whereby we, our plat is approved but subject to a
reviewal by staff, by Bill and by Chuck, oar engineer, to look at this issue as you specifically address one more
time.
Councilman Wing: Is the primary issue here grading? Is that what I'm hearing?
Councilman Senn: I don't agree that it is. From a simple fact that if you go out there and any way you start
drawing that line for that road, it's all going to equal out. I'm sorry, I've gone out there and looked at it enough
times, I just don't see that changing. So in my mind I don't think that's the real issue. I look at it in terms of
26
City Council Meeting - October 24, 1994
an overall project and how they design it and I love that model. I mean that is going to be one of the more
attractive neighborhoods in Chanhassen. Given everything else we're looking at, I think it's way, way ahead of
a lot of the other stuff we're doing. I think we can argue here all night and we can continue it, we can do
whatever over the grading issue and the grading issue isn't going to change. The road goes through there, the
grades are going to change. You're going to have cuts here, you're going to have fills there. No matter where it
goes. You're going to be moving about the same amount of soil no matter what And if Mr. Engelhardt
disagrees with that, I'd like to hear it but I think that's what he said
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And if we kept the road alignment as it stands and change lot sizes, that's not
going to solve anything because it's the road that's causing.
Kate Aanenson: Well no. Unless you put that road to the south and came in like he showed it on his
representation...road to the north, maybe a private drive. That and outlotting the lot. That would be one way...
off of Mancino's. But what you're doing is you're reducing the number of lots on that portion of the plan.
Bill Engelhardt: It doesn't make any difference on that particular plat with the grading.
Mayor Chmiel: Would you get up to the microphone please.
Bill Engelhardt: I think everybody is pretty much in agreement that we're really talking about this. The easterly
portion of it, whether we put this cul-de-sac down or up a little bit isn't too much difference. This is really kind
of a mutation. What we're talking about is this area right here. In order to create the number of lots that they
want to create in this area, you need to fill anywhere from 12 to 14 feet. And then butt it up against the
wetlands. Now if we do the, and then here it hits, you're also then cutting these fills back up in here. So you're
taking dirt off of here. You're putting it down in here. You're essentially taking the dirt out of the middle and
putting it here and here. You're going to cut those knobs off no matter what. If you put the road to the south,
and what Ed was, or Chuck was saying, the steep slopes are in here. We're talking about the road being more
down in this area. ! can see those steep slopes...you don't want to get too far into those steep slopes. You can
build a small retaining wall and there's things you can do to avoid cutting this hillside. You could, by putting
the road down here, avoid cutting in this hillside other than just the road being down here. And then the issue
becomes the number of lots because now you've got 9 lots down here. You maintain the slopes and bring in
from the top, you're talking about 4 lots. So really what you're really, and what it really boils down to is about
5 lots. The whole ballgame. And whether you want to.
Councilman Senn: Well you're saying from a grading standpoint it comes down to 5 lots.
Bill Engelhardt: Grading, that's right
Councilman Senn: Yeah, because I think a lot of.
Bill Engelhardt: From an economic standpoint it's, you know it's 9 versus 5 too.
Councilman Senn: Well where the more sensitive part of the site is too I think makes a ddference too.
Mayor Chmiel: That's exactly right.
Councilman Senn: That's to the south.
27
City Council Meeting - October 24, 1994
Jerome Carlson: Do large lots sell for more money than small lots?
Bill Engelhardt: I can't answer that,
Jerome Carlson: Well I guess I'm going to...
Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to come up here Jerome, We'd like to get that on the microphone. The only
reason I ask that because we get a void in the tape.
Jerome Carlson: I'm sorry. The comments would lead one to think that if you go from 9 to 4, that you are in
fact giving away the equivalent value of 5 full lots and I don't think that in this community that's accurate, I
think that there are lots of folks that have paid a great deal more money for the advantage and for the serenity of
having a somewhat larger lot. Therefore I don't think that's a,..offset. I don't need to repeat my earlier
comments about the finances, I think that the trade off would not be that far and that would be an alternative to
preserving that steep slope and still providing some lots. Thank you,
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I'll let you make one more comment and then I'm going to bring it back to Council. I
think it's time we come to a conclusion,
Chuck Plowe: Talking about the number of lots..Essentially we'd end up with 4 lots up here, We already have
3 there now so the net loss wouldn't be 5, it'd be more like 8. Also this steep slope that Bill's looking at the
placement of the road here and I think if you want to stay out of the wetland, the wetland does have a point but
it comes up quite far and I've looked at this so I've looked at this too many times actually. The roadway comes
up to the north with the southerly alignment such that that fill will in fact encroach into those slopes. Even
with...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Good. Okay, I guess we have 3 different ways to go with it. Either approve it. If we
don't, we have to go through the process of Findings of Fact, Or the last of it, which is to table it and have it
go back to the Planning Commission to come back with lesser amount of lots.
Councilman Senn: I'll move approval,
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, is there a second? Is there a second?
Councilman Mason: Yes. I'll second it,
Mayor Chmiel: Motion on the floor with a second. Any other discussion?
Councilman Wing: Kate, is there a way that we can approve this existing plot and the northerly road alignment
and in the process of, I recognize the motion on the floor but would that in effect, certainly we could take the
existing plot. The northerly road alignment and somehow come up with a compromise to minimize some of that
topography changes and the grading which may mean giving up a lot or two or an Ouflot C or D having to be
formed here at some point.
Kate Aanenson: We've been trying to do that. I understand what you're saying. I wish we could get
concurrence. I wish somebody would,., They have lost 5 lots since this has come in so we've worked on it, but
28
City Council Meeting - October 24, 1994
that doesn't mean they can't drop all 4 lots. I don't know how you'd motion. Mayi~e Elliott can help. The
motion is something to say that we could look at...
Councilwoman Dockendoff: But isn't it, excuse me. Isn't it the road alignment that determines the cuts? I
mean even if those southerly, I mean the cul-de-sacs and the private drives coming off of Lake Lucy to the west,
even if you made those lots bigger, it's not going to change the slope.
Kate Aanenson: No. But the option is that you can come off a private drive to the north...
Councilwoman Dockendoff: But Richard is saying keep the northerly alignment and change the lot size, aren't
you? That's not...
Kate Aanenson's statement could not be heard on the tape.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion?
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve Case//94-3 Rezoning 37,92 acres from
RR, Rural Residential to RSF, Residential Single Family and approving Preliminary Plat g94-7 subject to
the following conditions:
1. Revise the lot lines for Lots 1 through 4, Block 1 to provide a minimum of 90 feet of frontage for Lots 1
and 4.
2. Submit revised utility plans for approval of fire hydrant locations. Fire hydrant spacing is 300 feet
maximum. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for details.
3. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes,
NSP, NW Bell, Cable TV, transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located
and safely operated. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance Section 9-1.
4. A turn around acceptable to the city's Fire Marshal shall be provided at the end of the private rom off of
Jennifer Way.
5. The common portion of the private roads shall be signed "No Parking Fire Lane".
6. Either a monument sign or street sign shall be provided for the private roms to aid in the location of
homes on private roads for emergency vehicles.
7. Submit turning radius and cul-de-sac dimensions to City Engineer and Fire Marshal for approval.
Pursuant to 1991 Chanhassen Fire Code Sec. 10-204(d) and 10.203.
8. Full park and trail fees shall be collected per city ordinance.
9. An 8 foot bituminous trail shall be constructed parallel to Lake Lucy Road. The construction will be
incorporated into the Lake Lucy Road extension project. The developer shall be reimbursed for the full
cost of said trail from the city's trail fund if the developer constructs said trail as part of their project.
29
City Council Meeting - October 24, 1994
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18,
Obtain demolition permits for any buildings to be removed before their remo~,al.
A landscape buffer shall be required along the length of County Road 117, Galpin Boulevard, and along
both sides of the Lake Lucy Road extension, Section 18-61(a)(5). This buffer landscaping shall be
developed as part of the preliminary and final plat submittal for city approval. Appropriate financial
guarantees acceptable to the city shall be required. A woodland management plan must also be prepared
as part of the platting process. A landscape plan including the landscape buffer, forestation and
replacement planting must be prepared and approved by the city. The landscape plan and woodland
management plan must be prepared by a landscape professional.
Prepare baseline canopy coverage calculations and estimated canopy coverage removal area. Overlay the
tree plan on the grading plan in order to verify tree preservation.
Boulevard u:ees along Lake Lucy Road, Jennifer Way, James Court, and Anna Alcove must be diverse
with no more than two trees of the same species in a row. Mary Bay may be planted with one species
considering the trees may provide a theme for the short cul-de-sac.
Non-deciduous evergreens shall be incorporated into the tamaracks on the north side of Lake Lucy Road
and the west side of County Road 117. A minimum of nine non-deciduous evergreens shall be used to
create diversity, provide additional screening, and add interest. The evergreens planted on the south side
of Lot 1, Block 2, shall be extended east to the rear lot line.
The landscaping plan requires an additional 42 trees based on staff's analysis of the tree preservation,
forestation, and replacement requirements for a total of 284 trees. Staff recommends that the additional 42
trees be incorporated in the landscaping plan as follows:
Nine trees staggered for a windbreak along the western property lines of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1.
Windbreak trees shall include spruce (Black Hills, Norway, White).
Five trees grouped near the corners of Lots 4, 5 and 6, Block 1; 10 trees grouped along the rear lot
lines of Lots 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, Block 1; and 18 trees in groupings along the rear lot lines of Lots
2 through 11, Block 3. Rear yard tree selection shall be River Birch, Ohio Buckeye, Catalpa, Silver
Queen Maple, White or Bur Oak, Hawthorne, Aspen, Arborvitae, and Balsam or White Fir.
The following tree conservation and forestation areas shall be dedicated as part of the final plat: a 30 foot
easement along the northern boundary of the site; a 30 foot easement along the western lot lines of Lots 1
and 2, Block 1; the southern 100 feet of the eastern 30 feet of Lot 4, Block 1; the southern 30 feet of the
western 30 feet of Lot 5, Block 1; the northern 70 feet of the western 30 feet of Lot 6, Block 1; the
eastern 30 feet of Lots 8 and 9, Block 1; the western 30 feet of Lots 10, 11 and 12, Block I; the eastern
30 feet of Lots 2 through 7, Block 3; and the western 30 feet of Lots 8 through 11, Block 3.
To provide slope stabilization north of Lake Lucy Road on Outlot B, Sumac shall be planted 7 feet on
center. Such plantings shall be staggered to provide better stabilization and aesthetic appeal. Additionally,
this area must be seeded.
The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10 year and 1130 year storm events and
provide ponding calculations for stormwater quality/quantity ponds in accordance with the City's Surface
30
City Council Meeting - October 24, 1994
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
25.
26.
27.
Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve. The ~pplicant shall provide
detailed pre-developed and post-developed stormwater calculations for 100 year storm events. Normal
water level and high water level calculations in existing basins and individual storm sewer calculations
between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being
utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model.
The proposed development will be responsible for a water quantity user fee of $63,360.00 assuming 32
acres of developable land. Water quantity and quality fees may or may not be assessed dependent upon
the Lake Lucy Road improvement project assessment methodology. These fees will be negotiated based
on the developers contribution to the City's SWMP for the site. SWMP fees for water quantity and
quality are pending formal approval of the SWMP by City Council. If there are any modifications to the
fees, they will be changed prior to f'mal plat.
The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of all drain tiles found during construction.
Drain tile shall be relocated or abandoned as directed by the City Engineer.
The existing outbuildings and any septic system or wells on the site shall be abandoned in accordance
with city and/or state codes. The existing house on Lot 14, Block 3 shall be connected to the new
sanitary sewer line within 30 days after the line becomes available. The well may be utilized as long as
the well is on the lot and functional. Once the well fails or the property is sold the property owners shall
connect to city water.
Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated for all utility lines outside the plat. The minimum
easement width should be 20 feet. Maintenance access to the ponding areas shall be provided. Slopes
shall not exceed 4:1 over the easement areas.
The applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide the
necessary financial security to guarantee the installation of the public improvements and compliance of the
conditions of approval.
All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's
Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed sffeet and utility construction plans and specifications
shall be submitted to staff for review and formal approval by the City Council in conjunction with f'mal
plat consideration.
The applicant shall apply for an obtain the necessary permits from the Watershed District, DNR,
Department of Health, MPCA and other appropriate regulatory agencies and comply with their conditions
of approval.
Upon completion of site grading, all disturbed areas shall be restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood
fiber blanket within two weeks of completing the site grading unless the City's Best Management Practice
Handbook planting dates dictate otherwise. All erosion conlrol measures shall be in accordance to the
City's Best Management Practice Handbook.
Upon completion, the developer shall dedicate to the City the utility and street improvements within the
public right-of-way and drainage and utility easements for permanent ownership.
31
City Council Meeting - October 24, 1994
28.
29.
The existing home shall change it's address to be compatible with the City's ~addressing system once the
street has been constructed adjacent to the house.
The grading plan shall be revised as follows: (1) provide for 2% boulevards and 3:1 side slopes adjacent
to all streets in accordance to the City's typical street standards; (2) berming shall be prohibited from all
street right-of-ways: (3) the proposed pond between Gwendolen Court; (4) grading in the rear yards of
Lots 4 through 8, Block 2 shall be revised to drain rear to front; (5) an interim sediment pond shall be
provided on Lot 12, Block 3 until Lots 1 through 12, Block 3 are fully revegetated; (6) storm ponds shall
be designed and constructed with a 10:1 bench at the normal water level (NWL) for the first one foot
(depth) of water and then 3:1 thereafter or 4:1 slopes overall; (7) the proposed berm west of the westerly
private driveway shall be relocated westerly to improve sight distance on Lake Lucy Road from the
private driveway.
30. Lake Lucy Road shall be designed and constructed to meet State Aid standards.
31. Preliminary and final plat approval shall be contingent upon utilities being extended from Brendon Pond
unless other feasible alternatives are provided to the City for review and approval.
32. Lake Lucy Road shall be realigned southerly to be compatible with the intersection proposed in Brendon
Pond (Lake Lucy Road and Pondview Court).
33. Direct driveway access onto Lake Lucy Road shall be prohibited. A private driveway shall be required to
access Lots 4, 5 and 6, Block 4 in accordance to the City's private driveway ordinance.
and also approve Wetland Alteration Permit 4/94-3 subject to the following conditions:
Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The
city will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction begins and will charge the applicant $20.00
per sign. The proposed buffer strip shall be shown on the grading plan.
The applicant shall submit mitigation plans as required as a part of the State Wetland Conservation Act
(WCA) and Wetland City Ordinance specifically replacement plans, wetland delineation report, a map .with
wetland data points, at least one data sheet for each wetland identifying upland areas and a map of the
soils.
Councilman Senn and Councilman Mason voted in favor of the motion. Mayor Chmiel voted in
opposition to the motion. Councilwoman Dockendorf and Councilman Wing were silent. The motion
carried with a vote of 4 to 1.
Mayor Chmiel: With the vote that is taken and no comment coming back, those two silent votes are considered
as a yes vote.
Councilwoman Dockendoff: That's fine.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Motion passes 4 to 1. And my reasoning of course is yet trying to meet the
requirements of our ordinance, which is ordinance number 18-60(d).
32
City Council Meeting - October 24, 1994
Councilman Wing: My silence is the indecision and gray areas in those ordinance that we weren't able to
address tonight.
Councilman Mason: If I could.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes Michael.
Councilman Mason: If I was not up here, I know this sounds odd, but if I was not up here, I would not have
voted for it. But I think with all the information we have before us, whether I like it or not, it is a subdivision
that works. And I also think, tightly or wrongly, and I think everyone here knows how I stand on environmental
issues. But I do think that, like I said, tightly or wrongly, the fifth generation of people who live in Chanhassen
after this are probably going to say that's a very nice development. Now I don't know whether that's tight or
wrong but I think that's also something we need to take into account.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Don.
Kate Aanenson: Clarification on the motion.
Don Ashworth: Yeah, point of clarification. Staff will take the interpretation that that vote included both items.
The rezoning and the.
Mayor Chmiel: Three items. Rezoning of the property from RR, Rural Residential. To include the preliminary
plat and also the wetland alteration permit.
Don Ashworth: Exactly as shown on the agenda.
Mayor Chmiel: That's correct. All three of those respective items. Okay? Thanks for coming.
AUTHORIZE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR STAGE H IMPROVEMENTS TO LYMAN
BOULEVARD AND LAKE RILEY AREA UTILITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 93-32B.
Public Present:
Name Address
Mr. & Mrs. Bailey Janssen
Gary Skalberg
Leland & Laurie Wyman
500 Lyman Blvd.
510 Lyman Blvd.
400 Lyman Blvd.
Mayor Chmiel: Let me just inject something here, and I think this is something that we had on item l(a) on a
consent. This should, or excuse me, l(e). This should be consistent with that decision making on item l(e).
Okay. Who's going to, thank you.
David Mitchell: This project has a history dating back to a number of months. On May of '94 Council received
the actual feasibility report, ordered the public hearing on June 13th which was continued to July 1 lth. On the
July 1 lth meeting, two property owners expressed concern with the project. Asked Council or staff to go back
33
City Council Meeting - October 2A, 1994
and review possible phasing or staging of the project. We did that. Came back to 'Council on July 25th at
which point Council ordered plans and specifications for Phase I, which has been bid and awarded and will
likely begin construction in the next couple of weeks. Phase II takes in account the remainder of the portion that
was discussed back on June 13th and the subsequent meeting for those portions totaling approximately $3 1/2
million in improvements. We can certainly go through that. I don't know if Council really cares to do that at
this point. As was mentioned, there was a previous item on tonight's agenda that also is part of this and.., we
ask that Council authorize preparation of plans and specs contingent upon the successful execution of that
previous agenda item. The acceptance of both Lakeview Hills Investment Group and the City.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. Thank you David. Is there anyone wishing to address this at this time? If seeing none.
Mark, any questions?
Councilman Senn: Nope, no questions.
Councilman Mason: None on my part.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. None? Richard.
Councilman Wing: No sir.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I'd like that motion to include the fact that this is consistent with l(e) and that both of
these should be considered when this approval is going to be done. Or be taken at this time. Can I have a
motion on the floor for approval.
Councilman Senn: So moved.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilman Mason: Second.
Resolution g94-116: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to authorize the preparation
of plans and specifications for the Stage II improvements to Lyman Boulevard and Lake Riley Area
Trunk Utility Improvement Project No. 93-32B contingent upon approval of item l(e). All voted in favor
and the motion carried unanimously.
CITY CODE AMENDMENT INCREASING CITY COUNCIL SALARIES, FINAL READING.
Don Ashworth: This item has actually appeared on two previous agendas. The last time City Council asked that
the item be published one additional time showing more clarity as to exactly what it was City Council was
doing. And that a separate notice be posted or put into the Villager itself alerting citizens to the fact that City
Council would be considering increasing salaries up to the average for cities of similar size to ourself. This
office is the one who had carried out that analysis and we recommend approval of second reading of the
compensation ordinance as attached to the City Council packet. I should note that what that does is modifies so
that a City Council member, all Council members would receive $400.00 a month and in addition, for the
additional duties associated with the Mayor's position, an additional $100.00 per month would be paid to the
Mayor. Again, approval is recommended.
34
City Council Meeting - October 24, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone wishing to address this? Okay. 'Any discussion? Dick.
Councilman Wing: Sust a question of Dean Trippler, being he's in the audience tonight. Do you feel that
you've had adequate media coverage for this Dean?
Dean Trippler: Yes ....
Councilman Wing: Time frame is adequate? Okay.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Colleen?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: No, I don't have anything.
Mayor Chmiel: Mike.
Councilman Mason: No comment.
Mayor Chmiel: Mark.
Councilman Senn: I feel much better now.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, good. If you feel better, I feel better. Is there a motion?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I will move it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, is there a second? ...is there a second?
Councilman Mason: Sure.
Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve final reading of City Code
Amendment concerning the compensation of the City Council. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously.
AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE RELATING TO THE CONTROL AND PREVENTION OF DUTCH
ELM DISEASE AND OTHER ARBOREAL DISEASES WITHIN THE CITY, FIRST READING.
Jill Kimsal: Good evening Mayor...Council members. I'm Jill Kismal, the forestry intern. At the last Council
meeting held October 10th of the diseased shade tree ordinance was tabled. Council had three...concerns with
this ordinance. Number one, specification of the full or part time status of the City Forester... Secondly, special
assessments for cases of hardship. And thirdly, the establishment of a community wood chipping site. For the
fast concern, the words the full or part time has been added to Section 13-28(a). That should take care of any...
Item number two is...cost of removal would be a hardship for people 65 years or older or retired and/or disabled.
As indicated, there would be no financial assistance given by the city. Rather a deferral of the cost would be
granted based on the... Thirdly, the wood chipping site will be looked into further this winter. At this point
anything is a possibility for that~ It's definitely a good idea. I know that city staff... Staff has reviewed the
ordinance and made the necessary changes. Staff recommends adoption of the diseased shade tree
ordinance...answer any questions you may have.
35
City Council Meeting - October 24, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you. There's just one thing I'd like to suggest or have open for chscussion.
Under that Section 13-28, Forester. I called around to quite a few cities and find that they really don't have a
full time foresters. What I would like, and also a few counties as well. What I would like to do is suggest that
the, have that read the position of a part time intern city forester or tree inspector is hereby, is within the city.
Because we have so many winter months that there's nothing that can be done with trees or knowing what's
happening with them. You can go through the process as we've done before in going through the University and
bringing someone in on a part time basis as an intern I think should be, because there's many things that can be
looked at during the spring stage and throughout the summer as we can find enough time for those people to do
as we've done right now. So that would be one of my suggestions in making that particular one change.
Councilman Wing: You're saying the position of a full or part time and/or intern?
Mayor Chmiel: No. The position of, and scratch full or, and just put part time intern. City forester or tree
inspector is hereby created within the city.
Councilman Senn: The way we treat this now, isn't it kind of like a full time job?
Kate Aanenson: In the summer months.
Councilman Senn: In the summer months, correct.
Kate Aanenson: That's kind of how we felt that this... It's certainly not our intent to...but the part time also
qualifies.
Councilman Senn: I think Don's comment's a good one though.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there any other discussion?
Councilman Senn: I had one point still going back to (f) on 13-35. I think we've gotten most of the way there
but I'd like to just one addition. Where we say the assessment may be deferred on homestead property if the
owner is a person 65 years of age or older who is retired and/or by virtue of total or permanent disability. I'd
like to insert at that point, or a person who can demonstrate severe financial hardship. Because that's kind of
what I think I asked last time but we're, this new language is limited to disability or basically retirement and I'd
like to leave that other door open.
Councilman Mason: I'm just curious, Does that first sentence include that or not? Council may consider
deference for hardship. You want something more than that?
Councilman Senn: Well the thing that bothers me about that is, Council may consider deferments or hardship
and then it's like it's going on to define it, Okay. And then it closes it off again. That's why I thought I'd like
to have that inserted if we could. Does that bother you at all?
Kate Aanenson: No, I think that's fine. This was made by...
Councilman Senn: That's fine. If he's comfortable with it, that's okay.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussions? Richard.
36
City Council Meeting - October 24, 1994
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I was just going to ask if I could usurp Ma'. Ashworth's authority and hire Klm. I
think it's an outstanding report You've done a great job. I said that facetiously.
Mayor Chmiel: Richard.
Councilman Wing: Well Council under (f). We're pushing wooded lots and plantings, preserving the trees
we've got and I look at my neighborhood and on any given time I could lose 6 maples or 6 oaks. The neighbors
could lose the same. Enormous trees right next to the houses. $1,500.00 a piece to take out. And I simply right
now, with my income, may choose or may not be able to afford that and I would simply say, forget it. If the
city wants to stop the spread of this, I think we need to have assistance and when we start saying disabled or 65,
that's irrelevant. I think it could be anybody at any point in their life with any number of kids of any position
that's suddenly on a wooded lot could have a disaster befall them that is second to none. They'd have to
mortgage their house to get those trees cut down and get out of them. I think that to pick up on what Mark
started on here, his concerns for cost. I like everything that's been said but I think we need the ability to
provide city assistance. If maybe 1 tree, 2 trees, but when you start to get beyond that, people just simply may
need the city to come in and help out, for the best interest of the city. And I don't want anything deferred. I
don't want, that does nothing. Frankly I want my trees out of there right now and I don't want no trees because
I don't want to take a chance having to have this thing deferred on. I like what's done but my opinion is, we
need to have a way to offer public assistance to all the community should they beset by a disaster, which could
happen on any wooded lot.
Councilman Senn: But we do that by deferring the special assessments see. I mean that is the city assistance.
That's why I asked that that language be put in them. It basically comes back up to the heading there which is
special assessment deferral.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: So deferral meaning set aside?
Councilman Senn: Yeah. It means we pay.
Councilman Wing: Wait. Okay. Oh, explain that.
Kate Aanenson: Kind of the history of what we did when we originally had...we had the Dutch Elm Disease.
The city hooked into special money just for that...budget next week. We've got some monies in that budgeted
for that program too. It's certainly something we could put in.
Councilman Wing: Okay, define deferred then Mark. That's where I missed you.
Councilman Senn: The Council has the right to defer the assessment. I mean that can be any period of time,
including indefinitely. Which means the city picks up the cost then.
Mayor Chmiel: I know in some other cities, excuse me. Some other cities I know where they have people
come in and just cut the trees down and take them for firewood and they go out and use that to sell them. But I
don't know what our liabilities might be on having...if they fell a tree and it went on a house. They would
probably, more than likely have to carry insurance. If they didn't, we'd be liable.
Elliott Knetsch: We'd make sure they have insurance. The maximum that an assessment can be deferred under
Chapter 429 is 30 years from the date it's adopted.
37
City Council Meeting - October 24, 1994
Councilman Senn: So it can't be indefinitely?
Elliott Knetsch: Well it can be up to 30 years.
Councilman Senn: But does that mean that whoever owns that property in 30 years has to pay it then?
Elliott Knetsch: Normally the deferral ends when the hardship ends. The hardship typically ends if it's based on
age 65, when they sell the residence.
Councilman Senn: So it's not something that survives that is what I'm trying to say. It doesn't survive that
current ownership?
Elliott Knetsch: No, it does not. At that time it would become due, the hardship would be over.
Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Don Ashworth: I think the Council should be cognizant of the fact that the primary benefit of this is the Chapter
429 process where if you've got a number of trees that have to be removed and it's $5,000.00-$6,t300.00 and you
don't have that money, by going through the 429 process you're allowing that to be assessed over a 5, 8, or 10
year period of time and bringing that cost down to $500.00 per year. Something that's reasonably affordable.
The hardship area comes in here, it provides then the Council to rake that one step further and say alright. In
this particular case, because the applicant doesn't have the amount of money, we'll allow that deferment to go
out. It really won't start until 5 years from today or until the property is sold or until you know, whatever. You
can make up whatever the kind of conditions you want.
Councilman Senn: It leaves it open, right.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Councilman Wing: I still feel that if Mark Senn is reasonably wealthy on a large lot with a large home and has
a number of major trees go down, I'm not so sure I don't limit your liability. From the city standpoint, big
picture.
Councilman Senn: You don't Dick but at least, as I understand what we're creating here is, I then have the
option in that case to come into the city to make a request for assistance.
Councilman Wing: But I'm assuming you could afford to do this, but you know when you hit that $10,000.00
mark I'm saying, boy.
Councilman Senn: Well I start to wonder but then the city's got to evaluate each one of those as they come.
Councilman Wing:. Right.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, any other discussion?
38
City Council Meeting - October 24, 1994
Councilman Wing: I move approval.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, there's a motion on the floor with the recommendation of changes that we had.
Councilman Wing: Are those clarified? I didn't write them down.
Mayor Chmiel: Pardon me?
Councilman Wing: Your change to the wording of the deletion and Mark's addition to the item (f) is clarified.
Mayor Chmiel: Right.
Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Senn seconded to approve the first reading of an amendment to the
City Code relating to the Control and Prevention of Dutch Elm Disease and other Arboreal Diseases with
the city as amended. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER REQUEST FROM LUNDGREN BROTHERS FOR VARIANCE IN WORK HOURS FOR
THE WOODS AT LONGACRES, PROJECT 93-28.
Don Ashworth: Fortunately the Mayor did get me to relook through this and there is an error with the
recommendation. At least I'm assuming that. We start out saying that the request is to extend the normal hours
on Saturdays from 7:00, by 2 hours. From 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Currently it's 7:00 a.m. to.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: 9:00 to 5:00.
Don Ashworth: Yeah, 9:00 to 5:00. The ending part of the report though says 8:00 mm. to 6:00 p.m. and
that's not what the applicant is requesting. They are requesting the 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays, correct?
Mayor Chmiel: Right
Councilman Senn: Kate, but you had cited that the neighbor wanted the 8:00 a.m. I thought that's why maybe
you came up with the 8:00 a.m. and moved it to 6:00 or the 6:00 was an error and could be 5:00. I don't know.
Kate Aanenson: That was my understanding.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. That's why I was, he did mention the fact that 8:00 from one of those that did give a
response but you're fight.
Don Ashworth: So maybe.
Mayor Chmiel: Maybe it is fight. Maybe it isn't and as it read, I didn't read it fight.
Councilman Senn: My only question was did you mean the 6:00 to be 5:00 and just extend an hour in the
morning but I don't know. It seems like if the neighbors only comment was 8:00 a.m., we've got everybody
happy, let's just do it.
Mayor Chmiel: Anybody to address this issue this evening?
39
City Council Meeting - October 24, 1994
Don Ashworth: Mike, could you clarify what? Did you talk to Dave on this item?'
Mike Pflaum: No. I make the request for extension of I/me 2 hours earlier. The ordinance I understand is from
9:00 a.m, to 5:00 p,m. We requested from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p,m.
Mayor Chmiel: That's what you're requesting?
Mike Pflaum: That's what we're requesting. I wasn't aware that somebody,..
Councilman Wing: Where's Terry? We're used to working with Terry.
Councilman Senn: Maybe that's why he's here. So is 8:00 to 6:00 okay?
Mike Pflaum: Did somebody request that it.,.8:00 on Saturday?
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
Mike Pflaum: That would be f'me.
Councilman Wing: I'd move that.
Mayor ChmieI: 8:00 to 6:00,
Councilwoman Dockendorf: 8:00 to 5:00.
Mike Pflaum: 8:00 to 5:00.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, 8:00 to 5:00.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: It gets dark at 6:00 anyway. It will be...
Mayor Chmiel: I guess I wouldn't have any problem with that but in the event that there are some neighbors
who are concerned with that, then we'll have to talk to you one more time.
Councilman Wing: So the agreement 8:00 to 5:00. So moved.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve a request for waiver from Standard
Work Hours for site grading at The Woods at Longacres by Lundgren Bros Construction to 8:00 a.m. to
5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
SPECIAL USE PERMIT BETWEEN NORTH STAR RAIL AND THE CITY TO ALLOW A
PASSENGER TRAIN TO DEPART FROM CHANHASSEN.
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, I rode this train from Chanhassen to St, Paul and I accordingly am very biased
and will have to excuse myself from the voting.
City Council Meeting - October 24, 1994
Councilman Mason: Oh sit down.
Mayor Chmiel: No, the worst part of it is, is where they were dropped off. In a railroad yard and how he could
get a ride back home.
Councilman Wing: Boy was that a lonely night at 2:00 a.m. up there.
Kate Aanenson: Based on that train ride, that raised some issues that we had. The intersection was blocked at
Market for about 10 to 15 minutes. And there was some complaints about all the whistle blowing...
Councilman Mason: Wait, wait. They let him drive that thing?
Councilman Senn: Now I see why he's excusing himself from the floor. He's the whistle blower.
Kate Aanenson: ...we did have concerns about the...loading of the train so we've asked for...to look if there
isn't a mechanism...put together a special use permit. They are looking at two train trips on October 29th and
30th. These dates are Saturday and Sunday so they'd be using the existing city parking lot. They would be
boarding and unloading and again, the concern that we have is that we don't block the intersection so we have
requested that they remain between Market Boulevard and Great Plains. That the stacking remain between those
intersections so we're not blocking traffic. The other issue that we had was to make sure that people are parking
and safely walking across... The Attorney's office has prepared a special use agreement outlining the conditions
that we would have. Right now, it's my understanding...one time operation ....they are looking at other uses in
the future.
Elliott Knetsch: Well his permit would run for a year.
Kate Aanenson: After a year, okay. We are looking at other dates. The dates that we're talking about...but they
are looking at maybe 4 or 5 times a year. So based on the special use agreement... We would recommend
approval.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I guess I look at this as a boost to the businesses within downtown bringing in x number
of people within the community. And hopefully it will cause a little stimulus with the business district, and I
think from that standpoint, it's good. The only thing that I was going through here and I'm looking again. How
many total cars will be on that train? Connection.
Richard Cesario: Parked on the train?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Total number of passenger cars including the engine and the tender.
Richard Cesario: I'm Richard Cesario with North Star Rail. We have 7 passenger cars, an engine, tender.
There may be a supplemental water car but then there would be a tool car, which is a crew car where the tools
are kept in case there's a breakdown. And then there is a baggage car which is a concession car. So I wasn't
counting as I went but it's probably about 12 cars and that would fit between, we worked the measurements out
so that will fit and still leave about 400 feet between the two intersections. So it's not going to be even close
with this configuration of this train for this coming weekend.
41
City Council Meeting - October 24, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: And als'o upon selling those tickets, you will notify each of those r~cipients who are going to
travel on that train where to park so they're not.
Richard Cesario: Yes. And we'll have signs out directing train parking and we'll have people preventing the
public from parking at the bank so that knowing that it's going to stay all day, is going to park in that lot and
take up space for the local business.
Mayor Chmiel: That's my concern, right.
Richard Cesario: With this trip, the number of passengers...park and ride lot will more than handle the cars that
we expect to come into the area.
Councilman Wing: Is there any attempt to break the train while it's stationary? Is there any intent to break the
train at Market Boulevard if it's stationary for a while?
Richard Cesario: No.
Councilman Wing: You're going to try to keep it intact.
Richard Cesario: We will pull it all the way past the intersection to make sure that the last car is past Market
when we stop.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I believe I have the floor here. I love this idem Why do we don't do it 4-5 times
a day instead of 4 or 5 times a year? I'm serious. We would like, the Southwest Metro Commission who runs
the bus service in Chanhassen, Chaska and Eden Prairie, are looking into the idea of starting a passenger train as
a commuter service. Where does it run? I mean does it start here and where will it go to?
Richard Cesario: The questions you raise or issues you raise are just a can of worms when you start getting into
the various railroads and their willingness to have passengers on the railroads. I know that there is a commission
I think with a number of towns west of here looking into the possibility of commuter traffic into Minneapolis. I
don't know if that's 10 years away or 20 years away but ff you're going to do something like that, you're going
to have to get a raikoad commission put together that will cut through the various lines, this interest in having
passengers. We would love to run a lot more trips to a lot more locations but some of the major roads don't
want passengers. It's a real problem. So it just isn't as simple as saying let's run this train from here to there.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Oh, that frustrates me so much.
Richard Cesario: Well, it frustrates us a lot too.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And my second question, where can I get a ticket?
Richard Cesario: Actually I don't have any tickets with me.
Councilwoman Dockendoff: You'll be advertising for it locally?
Richard Cesario: We've been advertising in the Star Tribune for.
42
City Council Meeting - October 24, 1994
Councilwoman Dockendorf: But not the Villager? I suggest that you do the Villager. You'd get a lot of local.'
Richard Cesario: We did one in the Villager.
Councilman Wing: It leaves the 28th, right?
Richard Cesario: 29th and 30th. Saturday and Sunday.
Councilman Wing: Okay, and the dinner is $100.00 something.
Richard Cesario: The fkrst class is $179.00.
Councilman Wing: Okay, per ticket. And then the coach was?
Richard Cesario: The coach is $79.00. And there's a family plan. And there's coach tickets for children at
$39.00 but a family plan you get four, two adults, two children for $199.00 which saves you the cost of one
child's ticket.
Mayor Chmiel: So you're saying I can bring my family along? My other four Council people.
Councilman Mason: Oh thanks dad.
Councilman Senn: Where is it going?
Richard Cesario: It's going out to Hecktor-Bird Island area. Different trips have a little different...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Oh, so it's going west?
Richard Cesario: It's going west. It's going west.
(There was some conversation going on at this point in the discussion pertaining to Councilman Wing's previous
experience on the train ride into Minneapolis.)
Councilman Mason: So this Saturday the train is going to be in town so I can bring my kids to take a look at it.
Richard Cesario: It will be here in the morning and it will be back in the late afternoon.
Councilman Senn: I guess it sounds like this is something that's going to happen and maybe possibly keep on
going and growing, which I think would be wonderful. Great idea. The only thing I'd like to see is maybe
some type of a, since we're going to really be furnishing the parking and stuff, I'd like to see some type of a fee
associated to the city where we get some recoup for refumishing that parking because we do have to follow the
lot. We do have to pave it. We do have to maintain it. We do have to clean it. In fact we will have to do the
trash clean-up you know from the people and stuff going so I think it'd be nice to just have that squared away
up front so to speak and set some type of a flat fee per time or something like that. If this brings in 300 cars,
there is going to be additional city expense, or I should say Southwest Transit but they just turn around and bill
us anyway, right? Are we paying for it?
43
City Council Meeting - October 24, 1994
Councilwoman Dockendorf: No, we pay our taxes and then they give half to Minneapolis.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, any other discussion?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I think Mark's point deserves some discussion.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, that's what I'm opening it for.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Oh, I'm sorry. I guess I would consider looking at that next year if it continues
but at this point I think drumming up the business is worth the expense.
Mayor Chmiel: I'd like to see if this thing grabs on as well. If that's the particular case, then I think we
should then look at it the following year for some additional cost, What does it cost to clean it up? It depends
on who you're using, right? If I go out there and pick it up.
Don Ashworth: I look at...Southwest to plow, to sweep, to maintain. Their usage, in my own mind, is no
additional cost. But if you now were to say, okay. Let's take all of the players and then divide costs between
them, then yeah. There may be some of the cost we incur maybe should go this other direction. Then I think
we'd have to measure 365 days a year. Well, how many times Southwest uses it versus how many times they
maybe use it.
Mayor Chmiel: Well I think what we should do is just take a look see and see what happens the first two times
and see if there's that need and then go from there.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, I guess I would like to leave that open. I mean if you're making this a year's permit
rather than say it won't be reviewed until a year, I'd like to leave it open and look at it at least after a couple
times and see what.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, is there a motion?
Councilwoman Dockendoff: I would move the special use permit.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the Special Use Permit
agreement for North Star Rail, Inc. with the terms proposed in the agreement drafted by the City
Attorney. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
Councilwoman Dockendoff: I talked with Bob during the break. We had received from Aagard several weeks
ago a package of alternate ideas and I was just wondering if the rest of the Council had had a chance to look at
that.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes I did.
Councilwoman Dockendoff: And what their opinions were.
City Council Meeting - October 24, 1994
Councilman Wing:
Councilman Senn:
Councilman Wing:
city.
Councilman Senn: ...hasn't seen it. Council did.
Bob Generous: Oh really. I got a copy but they wouldn't send it...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: My inclination is to continue the negotiations with the time extension. Wanted to
know if anyone has any ideas on the topic in general.
Councilman Senn: Well we already gave the extension, right?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah.
Councilman Senn: I don't know. I like the way they're proceeding with it...
Mayor Chmiel: And let them come in with that finalized...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: That's all I wanted to know.
Councilman Wing: The question I had of Council on this same issue, and I was going to pull it. I guess I felt
some lobbying on this issue that I haven't liked. Is the Council's intent, when I talked to the individuals who
have their viewpoints, is it the Council's intent to proceed with this program and this is a serious issue. I mean
is this going to fall apart or has the Council made a decision? Has the majority of Council made a decision to
move ahead on organized collection and it is the direction that we're going to go? If this is just, we're sort of
well.
Councilman Senn: I thought we were all committed to that by next spring, with the time line we set. We want
to be active.
Councilman Wing: So the decision has been made that we are going that direction and it's not an if or but
anymore. You don't have your options to think well, maybe why are you addressing this. The issue is it's a
done deal. Now how can you make it better so that's really where we're down to then.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Right. And I wanted an affmmation of that.
Mayor Chmiel: Motion for adjournment?
Can I just, would you entertain one comment from the agenda this evening?
No, because you didn't change the agenda.
I didn't know I was going to comment on this until after a comment was made about the
Mayor Chmiel: Sure, go ahead.
Councilman Wing: The city, in an issue that's coming up at the candidates meeting that I won't be at but is the
city tabling too many things? Is the city moving too slowly? When I started 4 years ago it drove me nuts. But
when a city is developing this fast and there's this many changes occurring, I think we owe it to the community
45
City Council Meeting - October 24, 1994
to go slowly. To table, To take our time. Government and big business move slo~v and I think it's for a reason
and I'm comfortable with that and I think the people that are uncomfortable with it have different goals than I do
so. I find this acceptable to be tabling and frustrations..,because we're in an enormous turn over period right
now.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to adjourn the meeting. Ail voted in favor and the
motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m.
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
46