1986 10 06
I
I
I
73
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGrJLAR MEETING
OCTOBER 6, 1986
Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order. The meeting was opened with the
Pledge to the Flag.
Members Present
Councilman Horn, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilman Geving, Councilwoman Watson
Staff Present
Don Ashworth, Barbara Dacy, Bi 11 Engelhard t
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Geving moved, Councilwoman Swenson seconded to
approve the agenda as amended with the following additions: Councilman
Geving wanted to discuss Council member's compensation, Don Ashworth wanted to
discuss car bids for the City, and Mayor Hamilton wanted to get an update of
where the City was at in regards to the Driving Range. All voted in favor of
approval of the amended agenda and the motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilwoman Swenson asked that items (a) and (b) be pulled
from the Consent agenda for further discussion. Councilman Geving asked that
item (c) be pulled from the Consent Agenda for further discussion.
APPROVE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR LAKE ANN BALLFIELD LIGHTING PROJECT AND
AUTHORIZE STAFF TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS~ -
Don Ashworth: We received the specifications late. They did not get in your
packet. I did distribute those this evening. You will find those to be in
conformance with what we have discussed to date and approval is recommended.
We are anticipating that we can get the work done yet this year. The Contract
allows the Contractor to start this year. If we get bad weather, he would be
allowed to move it into spring.
Councilman Geving: 'Ihese are the plans and specs. Do we have a dollar figure
on this? Can we get right to the meat of this?
Don Ashworth: No, there are no changes from the estimate. As of right now,
they are anticipating that the work will come in within the limits set by the
grant amount that we previously approved.
Resolution #86-74: Councilwoman Watson moved, Mayor Hamil ton seconded to
approve the plans and specifications for Lake Ann Ballfield Lighting Project
and Authorization to Advertise for Bids. All voted in favor and motion
carried.
PRESENTATION OF MAPLE LEAF AWARD, PAUL FASCHING.
Mayor Hamilton advised the Council that Mr. Fasching could not be present at
the meeting to accept the Award.
1
74
City Council Meeting - October 6, 1986
PUBLIC HFARING:
CERTIFICATION OF DELINQUENT UTILITY ACCOUNTS.
I
Councilman Geving moved, Councilwoman Swenson seconded to close public
hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried.
Don Ashworth updated the list of delinquent accounts as to the accounts that
had been paid.
Councilman Geving: According to our plans here, this document would be
presented through the paper. These items would be printed and apparently all
the items would then be transferred to the County to be placed on their taxes.
There was one question I had in regards to the amount of time that was stated
earlier and that was a delinquent account of 90 days. I guess in looking at
some of these accounts, I recognize an awful lot of them. I don't know what
$296.54 represents in terms of accounting but my feeling is that I would
prefer to see the period of time of 180 days. I guess the reason I say that
is there are some people who leave the area and may even turn their water off.
It seems to me that three months is a little bit harsh. I just feel that 90
days is just a little bit too restrictive. If there are any more comments or
feelings about that, I would like to see us increase that 90 days to 180 days.
Councilman Geving moved, Councilwoman Swenson seconded to extend the time
period for delinquent accounts from 90 days to 180 days. After the following
discussion, Councilman Geving withdrew his motion, Councilwoman Swenson
withdrew her second of the motion.
Councilman Horn: Based on the fact that you feel that there are some people
on here that aren't aware of it?
I
Councilman Geving: I suspect Clark that a good share of the people who are on
these lists, especially with the large amounts, the few hundred dollars
category and especially those in the thousands category, they are well aware
of the situation but I happen to know some of these individuals and I suspect
that a $90.00 bill for example or a $46.00 bill, etc. I think these are rather
small, insignificant as far as the City is concerned and I just feel that 90
days is far too restrictive.
Councilman Horn: What dollar amount would 180 days take us out to on the
average? Six months seems like an awful long time to me not to pay your bill.
Don Ashworth: In addition to the cut-off, I guess what I would like to be
able to do is allow the certification to occur this year as presented simply
because of the work that the Staff has gone through literally in preparing
that. Bring these items off the accounts receivable and certain certification
regarding that. I would also like to present a report to the City Councilor
a working document that would show the amount of time because these are really
much older than 90 days. By law, we have to give these owners notice and that
notice occurred at least 60 days ago. We run on a quarterly cycle so there
could be some in that cycle that were even older than that. I would again I
suggest that we proceed with certification for this year and then allow me to
2
I
I
I
83
City Council Meeting - October 6, 1986
present a report that would show the time spans in here and how it works and
then if you would like to change it fran there, that is fine.
Resolution #86-75: Councilwoman Watson moved, Councilman Horn seconded for
Certification of Delinquent utility Accounts as presented by the City Manager.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
PUBLIC HFARING:
CONSIDERATION OF SEWER EXTENSION TO WEST 65TH STREET AND CRES'lVIEW DRIVE.
Public Present:
Don Kelly
Ja.'lles Bixler
Paul Wolf
Terry Atherton
Bernie Benz
Tan Shivley
Ingvald Eidem
Dan Nikolai
2081 West 65th Street
2081 Crestview Drive
2110 Crestview Drive
2082 West 65th Street
2061 West 65th Street
2150 Crestview Drive
2050 Crestview Drive
6570 Galpin Blvd.
James Bixler: I guess I'm here on two behalfs. ene, to obviously state my
case but two, and most importantly, I think that some of the events that have
occurred with the problems that we have had up on Crestview Drive and West
65th Street weren't totally conveyed to the residents up there. I received a
letter dated May 28th from George Donnelly stating that my septic system had
failed and that I was given 30 days to correct that problem. I called the
Village to check and see when city sewer would be extended into our area. I
was informed by the office here that it was going to be anywhere from 3-7
years and actually the project had not even been considered at this point to
the point of feasibility studies or anything else. On that information, I
went through and corrected my problem putting in a new septic system that was
approved by Mr. Donnelly and have been on that system for approximately 2 1/2
to 3 months now. It is working fine. We have no water problems. '!he
problems that occurred were because of a crushed drain field, not because of
surface water. About a month ago I received notification in the form of the
agenda of this item right here stating that sewer arrl water would be brought
up into the area, especially sewer. We are not hooked up to city water at the
time, and that we were going to be assessed for the extension of the sewer up
into Crestview and West 65th. I guess I am a little against this for a couple
of reasons. One, I presently have my house up for sale. I did have my house
up for sale prior to this. I knew I was either going to have to correct my
system prior to the house being sold or that I would have to take some money
and PJ.t it aside for the correction of the sewer problems for the new owners.
I think in checking with some of my neighbors I find especially on Crestview
there is quite an outcry of people against the sewer and so forth coming up
Crestview Drive. I also understarrl that other people received this letter and
I would like to know just exactly what happens in a case like this when one of
your residents, or I should say six of your residents are given an ultimatum to
ei ther correct their sewer system or suffer some sort of penal ties I assumed
that I was to, penal ties in terms of fines or whatever am nothing was done up
there in some of the other areas except mine. I think some of my other
3
QA
6'i':
City Council Meeting - October 6, 1986
neighbors are here and maybe they would like to also say as far as how they
feel about this sewer being forced upon us as I feel.
I
Councilman Horn: Mr. Bixler, do you know who you talked to with Staff up
here?
James Bixler: As far as Mr. Donnelly?
Councilman Horn: No, when you called back to find out if there would be any
plans for sewer and water.
James Bixler: I talked to George Donnelly. He in turn I think talked to Mr.
Monk. I don't know who Mr. Monk is but I assume he had something to do with
the planning or would know of that.
Councilwoman Swenson: You were told at that time that there hadn't been a
feasibility study or anything?
James Bixler: Yes.
Councilman Geving: Can I ask you Jim what was the attitude of our Building
Inspector in this whole process?
James Bixler: Mr. Donnelly's attitude is very good but I think he had really
kind of a little bit of disgust on his part that same of the problems had
occurred as long as they had. We have had water problems for approximately
three years. In that time we have had our system pumped out. Until I got,
his name was Paul Waldron, to come up and look at the system and tell me what
was wrong with it, I assumed that I was having surface water problems and that
in turn was draining into my septic system and back into the home. '!hat
wasn't the case. The case was that I had a completely crushed drainfield. It
was installed incorrectly 12 years ago when we built the home so he was very
helpful and came out on the inspection, or I don't think he was out on the
inspection. I think one of the people who worked for him came out but the
system itself is fine.
I
Don Ashworth: It appears it is a very unfortunate situation. We did have the
six properties in that area that did have failing septic systems. The Council
is aware of the letter that was sent. Mr. Kelly had appeared I believe it was
at the Council meeting after those notices were sent out basically stating
that he would like to see the City help the property owners in that area come
to some form of solution. The comment made by Mr. Bixler is correct. That
area is proposed to be served by the Lake Ann Interceptor. It always has been
and that was the only way that sani tary sewer could serve that area. After
the request had been made by Mr. Kelly, the City Engineer went back. We re-
reviewed the sanitary sewer inverts and potential elevations and it was at
that point that we learned that the system actually could flow backwards and
flow into the manhole to the northeast of this particular problem area.
I guess what is surprising is that the neighbors themselves, because I
remember you had petitions from neighbors trying to get suwort for the
project and from my perspective I guess I felt that all property owners were
pretty well aware of the work that Mr. Kelly was trying to accomplish. I was
I
4
I
I
I
77
City Council Meeting - October 6, 1986
unaware of this complaint until this evening.
Don Kelly: I'm surprised too. I haven't talked to Mr. Bixler since early in
this project and when we first got involved he was one of the PeOple who had
problems and he was one of the people who had gotten a letter. The second
time I appeared before you I brought a copy of a letter that I had sent to my
neighbors and a copy of their reactions. en June 3rd I sent a letter to my
neighbors and I explained that I had been here on June 2nd to discuss our
problems suggesting the sanitary sewer would be the only effective solution.
We pointed out that the Council had asked the City Eng ineer to place this item
on the Council agenda and that Bill Monk and/or George Donnelly would be
preparing a Staff Report for the following meeting. The letter went to our
neighbors. Mr. Bixler responded saying that he was in favor of sewer and had
a number of comments to make so it is obvious that his decision to repair his
private sewer system was made with the understanding that city sewer was
something that the neighbors were agressively seeking. It may have been that
he felt that we weren't going to be successful or he felt that his needs were
more pressing and he couldn't wait or whatever, but it is unlikely his actions
were taken as a result of being unaware that sewer was a possibility in the
near future. I don't know, there are a number of PeOple on Crestview who are
very strongly in favor of sewer. The other people on Crestview or some of the
others on Crestview that I talked to have said that if sewer comes in they
will accept it. If it doesn't, they will live with it. As far as Mr. Bixler
referred to a number of PeOple who are opposed to sewer, I would appreciate
knowing who those people are.
Paul Wolf: My yard is adjacent to Mr. Kelly and across the street from Mr.
Bixler. When I moved in my house we were having a few problems with our
septic system. It was an elderly man that owned the place. I don't know how
often he really lived in the home. He had a fort out back I guess you could
say but anyway we had some problems because, like Mr. Bixler, our drainfield
had been kind of collapsed. I dug it up physically, by myself and the pipe
was facing toward the septic tank instead of away from it. I fixed that. I
put new rock down am moved it away am we haven't had much problem since. My
family, at this point is totally opposed to putting in city water and sewer.
We have a fine well. We have a fine septic system. There are four or five
PeOple on our septic system which is my family. I can sympathize with these
PeOple that are having problems. Now, I don't know if it has been explained
to the Board but you've built some brand new houses behind us or behind Mr.
Kelly. They have disturbed a lot of undergroum springs. They have literally
dug up the earth, tore down the trees that used to suck the water up and keep
the water away from a lot of the homes. We haven't had any real groum water
into our home. I am one of the people that doesn't have city water or sewer.
My bill comes to $16,101010.1010 some dollars. I'm a young person, I've got young
kids, I can't afford city water and sewer coming up there. I told Mr. Kelly
when he came to my house, if they bring city water am sewer up here, the
first thing I am going to do is try to sublot my property. I've got two acres
or just a little short of two acres and there is going to be a house put over
there and if he thinks he has water problems now, just wait until a house goes
in. Now I didn't say that to be mean I just said that because if they do
bring city water and sewer up there, I'm going to have to sell that portion of
property off that I bought because I liked the property. I bought the
5
78
Ci~y Council Meeting - October 6, 1986
property, not the house. 'Ihe house was just a little old house. I bought the
property so that my kids would have a nice place to play and be safe from cars
and everything else. Now they are talking city water and sewer and I can't
afford that. That is $200.013 a month more on my house payment. For somebody
that might be making a lot of money or with a big income, that would be fine
but I'm stating the case that we are totally against it right now. Maybe in
the future when we can better afford it for our needs and the neighborhood,
that would be fine. We don't have any ground water problems. None. I guess
that is all I've got to say and I do understand their problem and I feel bad
for them. In fact, Mrs. Kelly I asked her if she had her boat out last
spring. They were taking shifts. One would stay up during the night and the
other would go to bed and then the other one would be sucking water. If they
look behind their house, they will see three great big, beautiful, over
$200,000.00 houses a piece and I think that is fine, but I do believe that
they disturbed a lot of the things that were there that we had no control
over.
I
Don Kelly: If the three families that are proposed for water, are all opposed
to it, that doesn't have to be included in the project.
Terry Atherton: I live across the street from Don Kelly and essentially I
have the same problem that Don has. About 3 years ago my septic system
started to back up and we tried to pump it out and last year, we went on a
program in our house that we had two toilets in the house, we flushed one in
the morning and one at night and that was it. We went to my mother-in-law's
to take showers and to the laundermat so myself, like Kelly, are in dire need
of the septic system. At least if Crestview doesn't want it or you don't want
to put it up Crestview, I would like to see you put it up West 65th Street.
I
Bernie Benz: I live on West 65th Street and my property connects with Mr.
Kelly's. We built our house about four years ago. I guess we are kind of the
last ones in the neighborhood. We put in a mound system in our home. It is
just the two of us, me and my wife, and we have had zero problems with that.
Maybe that is a possibility too rather than, I really wouldn't want to see
sewer come in. We have water. I spent lots of money putting in this special
septic system. It works for us. I would hate to throw all that money away
and spends lots more money to have something that would work for me.
Tom Shivley: I guess there are three parts to the proposal that I would like
to comment on. Those being the sewer, the water and the road. After
considering it since the last hearing you held on this, we are very much
opposed to having the sewer come in. There are two basic reasons for that.
One is simply a cost matter. Again, we are one that gets the extra assessment
because of the water although that is a separate issue. We also have a
particular problem on our property because of the way our house is situated
relati ve to the street. We are looking at a potential charge to hook-up which
would be about equal, in fact a little more then putting in a whole new system
on-site system. We are talking a major expense so as a matter of cost, it is
a very large one for us for a problem that hasn't crept up in our system since
we've had the house or prior to that. As far as the water goes, we are very
much opposed and that is three out of three for those of us who don't have
city water. We like well water as a matter of taste and what risks are run
I
6
I
I
I
79
City Council Meeting - October 6, 1986
there an:] would prefer that. As far as the road goes, I guess I would
encourage the Council to look at the portion of the cost that is due to
repaving an:] how that is typically paid for. I don't know. I'm led to
bel ieve that perhaps sometimes some of the things that were included in the
City Engineer's report typically aren't a part of assessments. I don't know
that but I urge a close look at that. A couple of things, there was reference
made to potential subdividing earlier. My understan:]ing of that is the MUSA
line would have to move before that could happen and I'm sure you are all
aware of that an:] the factors that that plays. It is not just something that
you can go out and do right away. You know that better than I do. I
appreciate the opportunity to make my comnents.
Ingvald Eidem: We live at 2050 Crestview Drive and we've lived there now for
almost 29 years an:] have been paying taxes for 29 years an:] I think it is
about time we have sewer coming in our drive. We have had trouble with our
sewer system an:] getting water in our basement an:] we have had a septic tank
man come out and he said you are foolish to spend that much money when sewer
is only two blocks away from you, west of us an:] north of us an:] east of us.
We really need it and it is a health hazard too.
Don Kelly: Ing also has a note in his pocket from Scotty Nicholsen, right
Ing? The Nicholsen's are on vacation so they are unable to be here tonight
but they wanted to make sure that if their voice needed to be heard that he
could be heard.
Mr. Eidem: He was one that got the letter.
Don Kelly: Bernie Benz pointed out that 4 years ago that a moun:] system was
built so that his house could be built and that is performing successfully for
him. OUr house was buH t in 1978 so we have one of the next newest septic
systems and it is not serving and it is not serving because of ground water in
the neighborhood. Bernie's suggestion that we could correct our septic system
problem with a mound system is correct. My understanding is that after
Bernie's house was built, the Ordinance was changed so that new construction
wouldn't be permitted with mound systems because they aren't considered the
optimum approach to private sewer systems. I personally feel that all it is
is a matter of having a lift station to lift the affulent up above the ground
water level an:] then it flows from there. The main problem with this is that
the several of us that have septic system problems could all put in systems
like this an:] it would mean that we would all be spending rather significant
amounts of money on throwaway systems. Four years ago, Bernie put in a
system that he is concerned with replacing now with sanitary sewer. If we all
put in mound systems now, I think we can assume that in 4-6 years that we
would all be replacing those with sanitary sewer because the MUSA line would
be changing and we would be developing our sewer. I also agreed, and when I
was here before I asked you the same thing that Tom Shivley did, if a portion
of the road reconstruction cost shouldn't be considered part of the City's
general road maintenance budget. I don't know if any consideration was given
to that.
Don Ashworth: .. . any additional review by Mr. Monk.
7
80
City Council Meeting - October 6, 1986
Councilwoman Swenson: Would this be included in this meeting of September
8th, standard costs of sanitary sewer extension and the street restoration?
I
Don Kelly: Yes.
Councilwoman Swenson: Is that what you are referring to?
Don Kelly: That was addressed in the meeting because Mr. Monk had prepared
some numbers and roughly almost half of it is road restoration and when we
looked at that, the comments were that both West 65th Street and Crestview are
in need of repair regardless of whether we go through there and tear them up
to put sewer in there first. If the City repaired the roads, there would be
some cost and it would certainly benefit us if that cost was applied to this
project rather than having the project totally paid for through sewer
assessment.
Paul Wolf: I have a comment again, you are talking about the roads and stuff.
65th Street has been replaced twice. Crestview has been, I've lived there 7
years, Crestview has been patched here and there and that road is in need, you
might consider this too. It is in need of repair and it has not been touched
for as long as I've lived there, 7 years. 65th Street has been replaced
twice. We're talking a cul-de-sac and the street so we're talking already
65th Street has been replaced twice and I think it is time we start thinking
about replacing Crestv iew if they are going to replace any roads at all. I
don't mean putting the sewer in and replacing, I mean put in a street and
leave the sewer out.
I
James Bixler: I think it is quite interesting that the people that have been
up here who are in favor of the water have not complied with the letter that I
received. I would like to know exactly what has been done. We have one
family who is in favor of the sewer on Crestview Drive whose system has failed
probably 5 years ago. It has surfaced. He is on a hill and that affulent is
running out into the culvert area, passing other homes. That system is
obviously probably at least 15 years old and has obviously failed. I don't
know that the homeowners really are aware of what can be done. It is easy to
corne in say, sure let's just put in sewer and water. It is bound to corne.
Well, it is bound to corne and we know that but I think what we are talking
about here is roughly 16 families funding close to $195,000.00 worth of
improvements that quite frankly could be reduced quite drastically as that
whole area starts to develop. 1 can see just looking at your plat over here
that there are more families that will be becoming involved in that area. OUr
of the 8 families on Crestview Drive, we have two people with sewer problems
and those two people, Ing is one of them and 1 certainly know what Ing has
gone through. I went through it myself but maybe they should check or maybe
at least the Council should stay this particular thing until we can have some
things done to find out if Ing can put in a new drainfield at a cost of maybe
$2,500.00. I have three children at home, 1 have a 3 1/2 bath horne, washer,
dryer, all the things that required me to put on extra footage for my
drainfield and in our case it was $2,700.00 to completely do our septic
system. I think that these people should at least have the opportunity to find out
what their options are with an improved drainfield. From my understanding, if
we have 8 families on Crestview Drive and approximately 6 of them are against
I
8
I
I
81
City Council Meeting - October 6, 1986
this or 5 are against this, I would like to at least have a chance to come
back later and hear some more things, what other families in this area have
and there are families who are not here tonight that would rather not be here
because of the problems on 65th and not wanting to get into any kind of a
hassle over there. It is a heal th problem and I can certainly understand the
Kelly's and the Atherton's but I think too much is being done too quickly here
to force this through for families that are apparently split on this and split
along the lines of 65th and Crestview Drive.
Don Kelly: Do you have a lift station on your septic system?
James Bixler: Yes.
Don Kelly: You see, most of us do not have a lift station so that would be
added on to the cost also.
Paul Wolf: A lift station would still be cheaper then the $5,000.00.
Don Kelly: Bill Monk's comment when he made this proposal last meeting was
the proposed improvements in the feasibility study and the attached price tag
is high and in the final analysis, sanitary sewer service will be extended to
this area at some time and it is difficult to envision a less costly
alternative. The density in our immediate neighborhood is not going to change
very much. Paul can subdivide and Shivley's can subdivide, although they have
indicated that they have no interest in doing that, so as far as the cost for
our neighborhood, it is not likely to go down. There is another neighbor back
here who lives on Crestview who is in favor of going ahead and doing sewer
now. I think that the people who are not here tonight are the people who are
willing to go either way. I not aware of anybody that really opposes that
tha t hasn't been here to speak. I don't know who they are.
Councilman Geving moved, Councilwoman Swenson seconded to close public
hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried.
Councilman Geving: I think maybe you can answer this best Mr. Kelly, do you
know of any numbers that you had that have now changed since the last time you
were here? The last time you were here you talked about having 9 people in
the neighborhood who were interested in this project proceeding. Have those
numbers changed?
Don Kelly: They may have changed somewhat. When I was here before, like I
mentioned, Mr. Bixler was one of the people who said that he was in favor and
now obviously his opinion has changed. The Jim Plesky's, Petersons and
Ashenbachs were in favor. Kellys, Athertons were in favor. Eidems,
Nicholsons, Reese were in favor. Walt was concerned about the method of
payment.
Councilman Geving: Was that a yes or no?
I Don Kelly: It was not a yes or a no. So 8.
9
pCi')
dt:J.
City Council Meeting - October 6, 1986
Councilman Geving: So the numbers are approximately 8 and 7, is that correct.
8 are in favor of the project.
I
Don Kelly: 8 are in favor. Now, Bernie Benz spoke tonight, Mr. Bixler spoke
tonight and Mr. Wolf spoke tonight and the Shiveley's who were not included in
this mailing so four people have expressed opposition to it. Eight people are
in favor of it. Hugh Gilmore had said that he was interested in learning the
cost and we haven't really discussed it directly since. Madsen's, the last
time we talked to them, were going to go with the punches. Mr. Nikolai, I
have heard rumors that he would like to see sewer. He told me that if sewer
went in, he would go for it but he wasn't going to get involved in dealing
wi th the City or the County. '!hat should be all.
Councilman Geving: My question is obvious. I think it is important for us to
get a relative idea at least of those people who are for the project and those
that are against the project and quite frankly we are pretty much split down
the middle, except we do have a few more in favor. '!his is a big project. We
are talking $200,000.00. That is all I have at this time Mr. Mayor.
Dan Nikolai: I've heard a lot of things tonight but as far as the sewer is
concerned, I think everybody should put in their own system, I'm thinking of
cost. What would it cost? We get this literature $16,000.00, 9%, before
you know it, it is $22,000.00. My feeling is everybody should put in their
own sewer system as needed and that would save everybody a lot of money, it
would save the City a lot of problems which you are not set up for at the
time. You've got your own problems with sewer and water so that is my feeling I
right now. When I f9und out the cost of what I should pay when I'm retired
right now, no way.
James Bixler: Having the luxury of naming names here who are for and against
is something that I don't want to get into because I don't think I can talk
for the people that are not here this evening. The fact that we were in favor
of exploring the possibility of sewer 2 or 3 months ago has nothing to do with
the $16,000.00 or $17,000.00 projections that we were getting and I think by
the number of people that are here against the sewer, it speaks a little bit
against what Mr. Kelly is saying that these people are for and these people
are against it. I know there are 7 people who are against the sewer. Of
those, there are probably 5 or 6 here this evening. I can't speak for some of
the people who aren't here and I don't think that is my place. I also don't
think that names that appeared on a relative petition or at least a petition
to study the problem for having sewer brought up can be relative to what is
happening here this evening. I think something should be done here where we
can come up. Go through the entire block with as many people as we can find
and say yes, we are in favor of it, no we are not and until that happens we
are talking total division here. 65th/Crestview Drive, the ones with
problems, the ones without problems and I don't think that is any basis to
make a decision on $16,000.00-$18,000.00 worth of our money.
Don Kelly: '!he $16,000.00 we hear is with water for the three families that
are involved. It is really $11,000.00 as the number that we are looking at.
The $11,000.00 doesn't compare that unfavorably with the cost of putting in a
big mound system with a lift station.
I
10
I
I
I
n"...-
d~}i
City Council Meeting - October 6, 1986
Councilwoman Watson: Are we, with the lake Ann Interceptor will allow to make
use of that interceptor in what year?
Barbara Dacy: At least the year 2000 or until our existing urban service area
is fillErl which, depending on population growth, may be the year 2005, 2010.
Councilwoman Watson: Okay, so the earliest we are really looking at for the
use of the interceptor is the year 2000?
Barbara Dacy: That is correct.
Councilwoman Watson: So we have now a 14 year period that these people would
not normally be hookErl up to a sewer system? I guess I understand. Before we
had our sewer system 4 years before it went by our house and our front yard
has a lovely septic system that we have not usErl since the 4th year we livErl
in the house and I can understand feelings about that. It doesn't solve the
problem that we have a very serious problem on that street. We have sewer
surfacing and that is a tremendous health problem and I don't know if the City
at this point, since this has been brought to us in a vistor Presentation, we
have a serious health problem. You can walk through it. As one man pointed
out it is running down into a culvert. I don't think at this point if a
decision is made it should be individual. That the City can let go of this
because the City has to be a part of whatever occurs to be sure that what does
occur actually solves the problem, be it extension of city sewer or individual
systems or mound systems or whatever we decide, I think we have to hang onto
the project at least to be sure that we do actually have resolution of their
sewers draining out onto the road.
Mayor Hamilton: Are you aware Barb, when we discussed this at the previous
meetings, who was notifiErl?
Barbara Dacy: Everybody that was listed in the last two pages of the
feasibility report. The property owners list. To my knowledge we have a
record of the Affidavits. To my knowledge everyone on that list should have
been notified. I don't see any return envelopes, if anybody wants to review
the file.
Councilman Geving: w= don't have that number.
Barbara Dacy: That should have been distributErl at the last meeting, the
September 8th meeting.
Mayor Hamilton: The thing that amazes me I guess is that we have discussed
this now since May and we have had three or four different meetings here open
to the public and you have all been invited and tonight is the first time
anyone has shown up other then the Kellys or other people who are having
problems. I just don't understand that I guess. You people had to know what
was going on and you should have come forward sooner than at this point.
Paul Wolf: We have come here tonight because there are lots and lots and lots
and lots of meetings where people never say nothing. They just keep saying
this is the way it is and then when it comes up to the Board or whoever, I'm
11
n~
C)u
City Council Meeting - October 6, 1986
not pointing a finger at nobody, but before that little thing comes down on
the table arrl they say pass. We're here because we don't want it to pass.
We're standing up now. 'Ibis is our time to say, hey, we don't want it.
I
Mayor Hamilton: That is very clear. All I'm saying is I'm wondering why it
has waited until this evening.
Paul Wolf: It has waited for me personally this evening because everything
else has been sPeCulation. Like this lady has said, the year 2000. That is
what I heard. Mr. Kelly came over and talked to me. I clearly told him way
back in the summer, I understand your problems, in the spring, I understand
your problems but because one person or two people on two different streets or
four people are having problems on two different streets, does that mean that
each and everyone of us should be responsible to fix their problems. No, I
don't think so.
Mayor Hamilton: 'Ibere is certainly room for debate there.
Paul Wolf: Okay, fine. I'm willing to debate it and you will probably keep
getting this feedback constantly time and time again because the people that
aren't having problems are the people that are saying we don't want it. The
ones that are having the problems...
Mayor Hamilton: We, as a Council, we don't know when you are going to have a
problem and you probably surely will.
Councilman Horn: It will be different people every time it comes up because
it will keep failing and somebody else will be here. There will be a
different group next time because they just fixed theirs and then yours goes
bad. That is the way these things work.
I
Councilman Geving: I think you have to understand the situation here. We had
a public hearing, we talked to all the residents, Don Kelly probably pushed
this more then anybody but at least he instigated a situation where we went
through a feasibility study. On September 8th we had that meeting to discuss
it and not very many of you people showed up for that meeting. Mrs. Shivley
did, I recall her and maybe a couple of other people that were in opposition
to it but basically the people who showed up were the people that were in
favor of the project so tonight's action, we thought it would be a very smooth
action where all we would really do is open this up for the last time, take a
look at the cost of it and go ahead and award the contract. Just move ahead
to the contract phase so we are within that close to making a decision to
approve this with sewer and water for your neighborhood. Now, tonight I am
getting an indication that 7 of you people are opposed to this project and
that really is weighing heavily on our thinking here as to how we are going to
go with it. Until tonight we didn't know there was that much opposition to
the whole project and I'm sorry to say but we are very close to making a
decision whether or not we are going to proceed. We know we have a problem
and I appreciate what Councilwoman Watson had to say. We have a serious
health problem that has been noticed and brought to our attention. We are
going to have to do something about it.
I
12
I
I
I
87
City Council Meeting - October 6, 1986
James Bixler: '!hen why wasn't that health problem taken care of 30 days after
I got my notice?
Councilman Geving: I can tell you, I did not know until late...
Mayor Hamil ton: I think that Mr. Kelly did mention that there was affu1ent on
the surface and he came here and he asked us if we as a City would look at the
possibility of sewer am water into that area to serve the entire area. Not
just to solve his problem but to take care of everybody. I think that is
where Mr. Kelly began talking to the neighborhood people am letting them know
exactly what he was doing. I don't think it has been any secret here as far
as what has been going on. There is obviously a problem with the sewer am I
think Mr. Kelly was trying to speak to the neighborhood and let them know what
he is trying to do. Everybody has been notified as to what has been happening
here at the City. You were welcomed to come to any meeting and now everybody
is here tonight which is great. I'm glad everybody is here because we
certainly want your comments.
Don Kelly: '!he night that I first appeared you mentioned circulating notice.
I don't think that it took a formal motion, you can read part of the Minutes
as such but the comment was made by the Council, without any disagreement that
they felt the City could put that off until final resolution.
Councilwoman Watson: Right here on page 12, it does talk about the fact that
we would have to delay that 30 day process in order to accommodate the process
the City has to go through with public hearings and such in order to actually
initiate a contract.
Councilwoman Swenson: Mr. Bixler, when did you say that your notice, how long
ago?
James Bixler: I checked with the village Hall this morning and it was May
28th.
Councilwoman Swenson: Okay, and how long Mr. Kelly have you been having
problems with yours?
Don Kelly: We have been having problems with our septic system for four
years. We have been discussing it with Bill Monk about that long.
Councilwoman Swenson: But you never received a notice that you had to replace
yours?
Don Kelly: We did receive the same letter at the same time.
Councilwoman Swenson: But, I mean you have been having trouble for four years
but you didn't get any notices until just before you came in to see us in May?
Don Kelly: First of all, the problems were not as severe. They have gotten
more severe this year. '!his year we not only had problems with our septic
system but we also had problems with ground water coming into the house worse
than last year. Last Fall the City initiated an in-house project to put drain
13
88
City Council Meeting - October 6, 1986
tile in West 65th street thinking that that might draw away some of the ground I
water. That wasn't completed until this spring so we went through another
spring of having fun pumping like Paul was saying in the hopes that the drain
tiles would correct it. The drain tile was completed the third week in May.
We had a contractor put drain tile in our yard before Memorial Day weekend and
it became apparent that that was not going to, that is resolving the problem
of ground water coming directly into our house but we didn't go through our
drain field with the drain tile and it is not drawing water away from it so
without going right through the drainfie1d with this, it is not going to have
any effect so it is at that point that we decided we had done everything we
could do short of putting in a mound system.
Councilwoman Swenson: Okay, I understand. Thank you.
Mayor Hamilton: Maybe what we should do is table this for a two week period
of time to enable perhaps further investigation by the Engineer and if Bill
would talk to those people who are now opposed to this whole process and
perhaps look at some other a1 ternati ves. Somehow I think we have to do that
imnediate1y. We can't delay this for any longer period of time.
Don Kelly: A few weeks after I appeared here we did have water again in our
basement, septic water problems. OUr drainfie1d level has not down
significantly from where it was in the Spring so the drain tile hasn't
effected what we wanted to be done either.
Councilman Geving: Am I correct in stating that the specifications called for I
extension of sewer, extension of water and an alternative for street
construction. Is that also in there Bill?
Bill Engelhardt: The alternative is the water main. The street construction
and the sanitary sewer is the thrust of the whole project. The alternative
would be the water main section on Crestview.
Councilman Geving: So for $11,000.00 then we are taking basically sewer
extension and the road construction?
Bill Engelhardt: That is correct.
Councilman Geving: And then the road construction covers both Crestview and
West 65th Street?
Bill Engelhardt: Yes.
Mayor Hamilton: The City Manager just requested that each of you who are
opposed to putting in this project, we would appreciate that you write a
letter to the City Manager stating your position on this project.
Councilwoman Watson: At our next meeting can the City Engineer come up with
these ballpark costs on mound systems, on all the alternate systems. What
these individual lift stations cost, all the things so we can compare that
$11,000.00 figure with the alternative. monies and what we would be gaining.
The approximately life with those systems to be put in so when we corne back,
I
14
I
I
I
8tDi
r:J; c~;J
City Council Meeting - October 6, 1986
is that something that is possible? I'm talking ballpark figure. I don't
eXPeCt you to have a feasibility study done but it is hard to talk about lift
stations and mound systems and repairing drainfields and lift stations and
sanitary sewers without seeing all the figures laid out so we can see this
costs this and this costs this.
Bill Engelhardt: We can do that. 'Ihe problem that you find is that some of
the areas that we are talking about are so saturated with water that it is
going to be very difficult to even get a mound system to function. A lot of
times they will say where a mound system is used but when you have extreme
saturation, it is very difficult to get them to function so I think the first
thing we should do is find out if can even construct a mound system in that
area and the other thing would be to maybe, the only way for us to estimate
the cost of those is to take a couple of perc tests to see if this draws any
percs. We might find that the ground won't perc and that we are just wasting
our time and money by trying to upgrade the septic system.
Mayor Hamil ton: I think that information will be helpful.
Councilwoman Watson: If you can do that in the two weeks because we have the
problem that we are going to be facing very, very early in the spring.
Councilman Geving: I would like to ask you to do one other thing Bill,
interview one of the people like Bernie Benz tonight or some other person that
has put in a system up there and find out what it costs. Just a ballpark
figure. I vote that we table this for another two weeks.
Councilwoman Swenson: I just wanted to ask Bill, do you have an idea, let's
say under the very best of circumstances, what would be the lifetime of a
septic system? Are we talking about 10 years, 12 years?
Bill Engelhardt: It really depends on the maintenance that is involved in it.
You can probably get 10 years out of them if the maintenance is done on them.
The problem you run into is people don't maintain them.
Councilwoman Swenson: Would it be safe to say that sometime between now and
the year 2000, which I understand is the minimum period is that correct, that
one or all of these sytems will have failed?
Bill Engelhardt: If there is nothing done with them, yes. I would have no
problem saying that.
Councilman Horn: I would like to have you also in your report have you
comment on the effect of any of the wells in the area from having these kinds
of systems that you are proposing and some of the existing systems. For
instance, if we don't allow mound systems anymore, what effect does just a
mound system have on adjacent wells in the area?
James Bixler: There are only three wells in the area on the top of the hill.
The rest is all ci ty water.
15
~')\ tn
ao
City Council Meeting - October 6, 1986
Don Kelly: If you are going to table it, could I request also that you I
address here to evaluate the effectiveness of all septic systems in the area.
In the cases of how many people have effective septic systems and we can only
go by our observation. Of course, we know that ours have problems. Some of
the people who have expressed problems now indicate that they have no problems
so it would be best to have an independent person look at that.
Councilman Geving moved, Councilwoman Watson seconded that the Council table
consideration of Sewer Extension to West 65th Street and Crestview Drive until
Monday, October 20, 1986. All voted in favor and motion carried.
Mayor Hamil ton: I don't know if it can be done by then.
Councilman Geving: Well, I think we have an issue here that has to be
resolved.
Bill Engelhardt: We will do our best because if we don't pursue it as soon as
possible we are going to run into a problem with timing on construction this
year so we will do our best.
AWARD OF BIDS.
PARK ONE DEVELOPMENT SANITARY SEWER, STORM SEWER, WATERMAIN AND STREET
IMPROVEMENTS.
Bill Engelhardt: I didn't get a packet tonight but we wrote just a very short I
background memo on it. The bids came in well below the estimated cost. The
Engineer from RCM is here tonight to answer any questions but I would say
based on the estimated costs that award of the project is awarded to Preferred
paving.
Resolution #86-76: Councilman Horn moved, Councilwoman Swenson seconded to
award the project to Preferred Paving for the Park One Development Sanitary
Sewer, Storm Sewer, Watermain and Street Improvements. All voted in favor and
motion carried.
Councilman Geving: I do have a discussion item. I hate to bring it up but I
think it is important because it has to do with the bid item 8. Drainage,
landscaping and street construction, unclassified excavation. Now I know that
contractors balance their bids over one contract and so forth but this
particular item and several others kind of bother me because you are so
ridiculously low in this particular item for unclassified excavation you bid
was $36,000.00 and all of the other bids were in the $46,000.00, $50,000.00,
$70,000.00, $49,000.00 to $53,000.00 range.
Mayor Hamil ton: '!hey were the same as Hardri ves .
Councilman Geving: They were the same there but that was the third item bid
down. '!he only thing that I want to make sure is that that item is specified
properly and that the unclassified excavation isn't just a wash item. That
there is some work to be done there and that this isn't an item where they are
going to make up the rest of the bid on. Would you care to give us a comment
on that?
I
16
I
I
I
01
City Council Meeting - October 6, 1986
Dick Potts: Dale, the quantity for unclassified excavation is based on a
take-off to remove the dirt, to construct the street and do modifications on
the storm water holding pond. It is a measurative waste quantity. The
numbers that are on the proposal form is based on an average in there from
calculations from our plan. Low bid of Preferred Paving is $1.50, the secorrl
low bid, N:>rthdale is $1.90, the third one is $1.50 so it is hard to prove an
unbalanced bid but I don't think it is.
Councilman Geving: Well, there is a lot of difference between the two bids.
We're only talking $34,000.00.
Dick Potts: Well, because it is 25,000 yards and the 50 cents difference
between the first arrl secorrl which is at 40 cents arrl some of the other ones
at 50 cents, does make quite a bit of difference.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the Minutes of the
Ci ty Council Meeting dated September 22, 1986. All voted in favor except
Councilman Geving who abstained. '!he motion carried.
Councilwoman Watson moved, Councilman Geving seconded to awrove the Minutes
of the Planning Commission Meeting dated September 10, 1986. All voted in
favor arrl motion carried.
PRELIMINARY PLAT REQUEST TO CREATE THREE LOTS, 108 PIONEER TRAIL, DAVID
HANSEN.
Jerry Carroll: I am Dave Hansen's Attorney. At the last meeting we reviewed
the request for the five variances that Staff felt needed to be issued for Mr.
Hansen to divide his 13 acres into three single family lots. We were
discussing the possible restriction of those three proposed lots so that in
the future, without the consent of the Council as well as the three lot
owners, there could not be any further sul::rlivision of the lots. It was the
feeling of Mr. Hansen that the sidelot setback requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance of the City reflected only the possibility of future sul::rlivision of
those lots. In other words 10 feet on one side and I believe it is 100 feet
on the other side. He doesn't have any interest at all in further sul::rlivision
of those lots. He lives on one of the lots, as you recall. He wants to make
two other lots out of the total 13 acres. We sum i tted a number of copies of
the proposed restriction that he is agreeable to placing on the lots which
would prevent any further sul::rlivision without the expressed written consent of
the owners of all of the lots and the expressed written consent and upon the
approval of the Ci ty Council of the Ci ty of Chanhassen. It is my
understanding that the City Attorney has indicated to the Council that in spite
of that kirrl of restriction that they could not grant a variance unless an
undue hardship was shown and I believe that actually the division of this 13
acres into three lots should be viewed from the starrlpoint of reasonableness
and also reasonable use of the property. In other words, your Staff suggests
for example that there be three lots carved out of the 13 acres. One of the
lots would in fact constitute two lots because it is divided by the private
dri veway that Mr. Hansen has planned for the three lots. It surely seems tof
17
(Q)2
('~,
City Council Meeting - October 6, 1986
make more sense if you say, alright the 133 feet on the lakeshore would in
fact be a variance because the DNR recommends 150. Why does the DNR recommend
that? So you can have adequate sewage control on those lots. Well, the lots
are so large that there is no problem at all with sewage disposal and as far
as the front footage on a public road, that is taken care of. There is an
Ordinance provision that you can have a private easement that will serve three
lots so really we are getting down to the sidelot restrictions. We feel that
if you say alright, instead of 10 feet on one side and 100 feet on the other
side, you say you are going to allow only three houses to be buH t on 13 acres
and that is more than reasonable as far as a subdivision of the property and
that is our point.
I
Mayor Hamilton: Barb, are you going to give us any additional information?
Barbara Dacy: No, not unless the Council has specific questions.
Councilman Horn: I just need some clarification on what Roger said. As I
interpret what he told us last time that a hardship would not be found unless
there were not another reasonable use of the property and in fact Staff had
proposed another use. My answer to that was yes, but their other reasonable
use still requires a variance so is that really a reasonable use? Roger was
very brief in his response to us this time and I had a li ttle trouble
understanding what he is saying. It sounds like what he is saying, if I
interpret it properly, that if we subdivide it into only two lots, that would
still be a reasonable use of the property and this obviously could be done I
without any variances. vvell, I'm not sure it obviously could be done. We
would still have the length times width problem so I guess I'm not sure what
he is trying to tell us here and I'm not sure there is another option that
wouldn't require a variance.
Barbara Dacy: I can address Staff's options and why there are variances
needed with that particular option if that is the issue that you have.
Councilman Horn: I understand why you need variances with the option you
proposed. My question is, is what Roger is proposing in his response to us of
October 1st suggesting a third variation? It sounds like it is because it
sounds like he is requesting only two lots as being a reasonable use. I have
not seen a plat with two lots and how that would work and without that we have
no idea whether that would require a variance or not.
Mayor Hamilton: Elliott Knetsch is here from Roger's office, perhaps he can
attempt to interpret what Roger was saying.
Elliott Knetsch: I don't think Roger is suggesting a third alternative here.
I think what he is merely pointing out is two lots would be a possibility that
would allow a reasonable use of the property just as right now the present use
of the property is a reasonable use of the property. In other words, what he
is seeking to do would be to, in effect create his own hardship by
subdividing. He has no hardship as the property exists right now.
Councilman Horn: So his option is either having two lots or keeping it as one I
18
I
I
I
t!,A9
t:J;.1 (1)
City COuncil Meeting - October 6, 1986
big lot and those are reasonable alternatives which don't constitute a
hardship?
Elliott Knetsch: That's right and again, the two lot option would have to
meet the same subdivision requirements that the present proposal has to meet.
COuncilman Horn: So what he is really in fact saying is that not being able
to subdivide a 13 acre parcel is not considered an unreasonable use of the
property?
Elliott Knetsch: That's right.
Councilman Horn: I guess I have a little trouble with that one.
Mayor Hamilton: I guess I have the same problem with interpretation of what
Roger said. His last sentence seems to, it says that it doesn't create a
hardship and I can't agree with but then he says that we could impose the
condition on the property but they don't mean much because even without it the
owner could not resubdivide based on our current Ordinance so it seems if I
interpret that correctly, he is saying that you can have three lots because he
isn't going to resubdivide anyway. It doesn't matter, we could put conditions
on even though they don't mean anything.
COuncilman Horn: That didn't clarify anything for me.
Mayor Hamilton: I know it didn't clarify it for me either but it certainly
raised the question.
Councilwoman Watson: It clarified it to mean that we can throw out conditions
if we want but it doesn't make any difference because he can't do anything
with them anyway.
Don Ashworth: I interpretted that prOVISIon in terms of, they had stated that
they would put a corrlition on there that they would not be able to further
subdivide. I saw Roger's response as being, you can put that on there but
really it has little or no effect to subdivide in the future.
COuncilwoman Swenson: They can't subdivide unless it conforms and we are
asking for a corrlition that the applicant seems willing to do and which is as
far as I can tell is a benefit to us which is to prevent. In looking I was
kind of amazed because I noticed Mr. Hansen's application said that he wanted
to subdivide three large lots designed for possible further division and I
guess if I had that in mind, I would prefer to go with Staff's opinion because
it would be much more easily divisab1e but I'm not sure that it is part of the
COuncil's domain after the sewer arrl water is in to determine whether or not
these people are going to have difficulty coming to any COuncil and asking for
a rep1at. OUr concern now, it seems to me is the institution of a development
that secures the safety of the lake. I recognize that this is out of the
ordinary. I don't like to set precedence. I am pretty much of a stickler for
ordinances however, this is one of those situations that I feel is unique. I
think this is a beautiful division of the property but I would certainly want
to have Mr. Machmeier's approval on the septic sewer system. I did ask Staff
19
~4
City Oouncil Meeting - October 6, 1986
if they had suggested to the applicant about putting an easement down from Lot I
3 so you could give Lot 3 some lake access which would give you in the Staff's
proposal is to have two lakeshore lots which better fits the lake ordinance
am the third one toward the road. If you could in there, grant an easement
down to the lake for Lot 3 and I understand that was suggested and you weren't
interested.
Jerry Carroll: That would be less desirable than having three 133 foot lots
because if you had the lake easement then you have a 20, maybe a 30 foot wide
strip of ground where somebody is going to come down and make some kind of
lake use out of it. Maintenance is a problem on the lake. I believe, you are
better off maintenance wise, for the safety of the lake. with lots that are
this large, that this will be taking care of the sewage or septic system
problem which I think is what the DNR addresses.
Councilwoman Swenson: I feel like Clark does, no matter which way we go we
are going to require variances. I'm having a problem with this one, there is
no question about it because I do think they would make three lovely lots
providing as I say that we can have Mr. Machmeier's approval on a septic sewer
system. I'm not quite sure David how you planned on utilizing that road for
the three lots.
David Hansen: The entry road from the...
Oouncilwoman Swenson: The graph I have here just shows your road. It doesn't
show a road going into the other lots.
I
David Hansen: Alright, we have the main service road coming in from pioneer
Trail coming up to the middle of Lot 2 which obviously is my road am that is
why we put it in back 12 years ago when we put it in. Obviously this road
here will come around, swing aroum the side am service this am whoever buys
this lot and develops it, they can come off of this road on top of this hill
anyway they want to. I'm not sure how they will develop it. Obviously they
will put the house up towards the front up here but the service road will be
very easy. This road here will just disappear once the lots are sold am
develoPed. They may even have an easement road down the line.
Councilwoman Swenson: Whoa. Let's go up to the bottom of Lot 2. How would
you propose the road to go to where you are now?
David Hansen: Let's say that obviously I maintain my own property, we just
swing right off and come around the side of the fence right here along the lot
line here.
Councilwoman Swenson: What you will have to do I suspect, when you plat this
is to actually plat a road then for access into all three lots. You can't
leave it open because otherwise you're not showing an access into the lot
farthest away fran you.
David Hansen: We can do that but at the time of use, when they submit the
plans for the use of ei ther Lots 2 or 3. At this time they can show how they
want to come off of the road. The road borders Lot 3 for a good portion of
I
20
I
I
I
95
City Council Meeting - October 6, 1986
linear feet here and also Lot 1 so they can swing off the road anywhere they
want to.
Councilman Horn: '!he confusion was on our drawing it stops right at the end
so the line isn't visible.
Councilwoman Swenson: What is your feeling on that Barb?
Barbara Dacy: What I was going to say is that it wouldn't be a platted
roadway because as proposed it is proposed as a private easement so by State
Law a private easement is not shown on a final plat. Mr. Hansen would convey
an easement right to...
Councilwoman Swenson: each of the three lots.
Barbara Dacy: Correct.
Councilwoman Swenson: Okay, so there is no question of somebody coming back
later and saying they want access onto pioneer Trail?
Barbara Dacy: Right. '!hat would have to be filed.
Councilman Geving: I think that the three lots that are being carved out here
look fairly reasonable to me from a shoreline standpoint. I am shaken a
little bit by the DNR's wishy-washy attitude and I think I have lost all
confidence in their ability to make a hardfast decision on anything. We've
got a letter here dated August 7th that says we under no circumstances see no
proof of hardship in this variance request and they do not recommend approval.
Five days later on the 12th, they say that they are heartily in favor of it
and they want to clarify their position and now we are in favor and that it is
up to the City to demonstrate whether or not there is a hardship. Then
following the next day with a two page report and it seems to me somewhere in
the middle of those five days the Regional Hydraulatist met with Dave and
looked over the site which is a natural thing for him to do I suspect but I
can't imagine the whole department shifting that drastically in a five day
period of time. Be that as it may, I still don't believe that they gave us
very good input from anyone of those three letters other than to say that
they really don't have an opinion. I am personally of the opinion however
that we could carve three lots out of this sulrlivision. I don't know if Dave
planned it that way but it seems to me that thre is sufficient amount of
acreage here. I can't believe your statement David, and I would like to bring
this back to you. You continue to repeat throughout your testimony that you
have no interest in sulrlividing and yet on the very application you indicated
that that was your intent. Furthermore, we are talking about large acreages
here, 4.2 acres, 2.5 and 6.6 acres. There is no doubt in my mind that within
the next year or very shortly there will be a sulrlivision request on one of
these three lots, guarantee you. Whether you are there or not because PeOple
change and times change. In tonight's agenda packet we have six of these
items for lot splits. That is what is happening in Chanhassen right now.
People are splitting their lots allover the place. If they have a few acres,
they are splitting them in two lots. If they have 5 acres they want two lots
in the rural subdivision area. We are seeing this allover so this is going
21
'!1' fiP<r-
Erf~..~
U,t-.;r..
City Council Meeting - October 6, 1986
to come back again. I know it will and I guarantee that I put my wages on it
that I would be willing to bet that I am right but again, to hear you say that
you are not interested in subdividing, resubdividing, I don't know whether you
are going to be there next year, 5 years from now but I do know if you sell
Lots 2 and 3, Lot 3 will get subdivided someday before very long. I still
believe there is a hardship. The hardship I can live with and I think that we
make a 133 foot front frontage on the lake. Those would be very nice lots.
100 foot lakeshore lot is a nice piece of ground. 133 feet is a very nice
piece of ground and I think you have some nice lots there. I'm more concerned
about the variances that do exist for some of the other things that are
procedural in natural. We are hung up among ourselves about procedural of 100
foot sideyard setbacks. That is something that we have to get through here.
Either we amend our own Ordinance to take care of that or do it some other way
but we have a problem with that ourselves. I think we are a little bit stiff
on that but at the same time we have sat here for a long time and we have seem
subdivisions and we know that it is going to happen. We know that 100 foot
is put there for a good reason so that we can put sewer and water and other
improvements along that line. I'm not too excited about the length-width
variance that you are requiring. We have tackled a number of those issues. I
don't think that is a safe one. I would be a little bit more interested in
where the road is going to come out and how it is going to get hooked up with
pioneer Trail and I would be very much interested in some of the perc tests
which I think are almost minimal. They do meet standard but I have said for a
long time that our standards are not good in the City when it comes to perc
tests. I did not see, I would like to have the Council review Mr. Waldron's
note of June 30th. He makes no real recommendation. It says that it is my
opinion that a design plan be completed to insure the proper system for the
si tee What the hell does that say. I wouldn't pay this guy for a statement
like that and yet he came back and he did it twice. You had him on June 5th
am you also had him on June 30th so I didn't see anything in terms of solid
recommendations from Paul Waldron's percolation tests. As far as the site is
concerned, I think Staff gave you a pretty good alternative Dave. Making the
three lots which you requested available to you but in a different
configuration and I think those would be sellable lots am could work but I
also understand your situation wanting to make the most out of the three lots
that you could get off of rake Riley am if I were a developer and had that
land, I would want to do the same thing. I'm not hung up on the 150 foot
requirement imposed on us by the State or the requirements in our own
Ordinance. I could live with 133 feet. Just a couple more comments. The
Planning Commission denied this request in that they felt that you were making
substandard lots with your request. That may be but again it is because of
our own ordinances am the variances that would be required. I have a comment
regarding Lot 2 is proposed to be served by a private drive. Why didn't you
align those three lots all the way down to pioneer Trail Dave? Why didn't you
take the lot line and bring them right down to the road? Could you comment on
that?
David Hansen: Yes. When we designed this, now I'm going back to your
statement that why am I saying that the lots will never be resubdi vided when
in my application because in my application I worked with Staff, etc. and we
wanted to put a print together that some time in the future may be
resubdivided.
22
I
I
I
0\7
.:')J
City Council Meeting - October 6, 1986
I Councilman Geving: That isn't what you said on August 13th.
David Hansen: What did I say on August 13th?
I
I
Councilman <?eving: I read it in here at least 10 times that you had no
interest in resubdividing.
David Hansen: I don't have any interest in resubdividing but if it happened,
like in your own words, somebody bought this lot and 10 years from now when
sewer comes in, that is how we would treat this lot, Lot 3. It may be divided
somewhere in through here, the balance of this or whatever. I have
absolutely, and I will go on record as saying that we're not the least bit
interested in resubdividing these lots. The way this road comes in right now,
it will serve all three of these lots beautifully and it's a private drive.
Just like in your Ordinance. It is a private drive serving three lots. No, I
would not want it because of topographical reasons, etc. You couldn't bring
this down here because of the topographical lay, the pond is in the way.
Councilman <?eving: '!hat doesn't stop the lot line. '!hat doesn't prohibit
fran putting a lot line through there and hooking it up to pioneer Trail.
David Hansen: I don't see any advantages in this. I studied this print also
with our surveyors, Gary Gabriel, etc. who have been doing this type of work
for many, many years and we gave it many alternatives that we looked at and we
fel t that this is the best way. One, this is lakeshore property. We want to
end up with three beautiful lots on the lake. Reasonable use of these lots on
the lake and this is exactly what we came in with. The existing driveway now
that will adequately serve these three lots and someday, with the approval of
the homes that are there and the City Council, if there is someway of
subdividing these lots, like Lot 3 and 2 at this point, you have all this area
to work with in here. I think it is set up right now, the roadway is perfect.
I don't think it could be designed in a better way to serve these three lots
then the way we are proposing it. I don't want to get into reasonable use of
these lots again but two 200 foot lots here with a resubdivision someday of
100 feet would leave 64 feet of useless property along the side of my home
here and we are dealing with lake property.
Councilman <?eving: Now answer my question will you please. What do you feel
is your hardship in this case? Give us an idea at least if the variances were
applicable and that we should grant them to you.
David Hansen: I feel that my hardship in this case is both hardship and
reasonable use of the property in hand. The fact that 12 years ago when I
built my home in here and I laid these out with Jerry Schlenk. '!he size of my
home. I want contiguous, complimentary use of the property. The lots here
would supplement, would add to the value of my property or maintain the value
of my property. If we had two 200 foot lots, that is strictly for
resubdivision down the pike, then we would have 100 foot lot with 64 feet of
useless property on the west side of the one lot. We are utilizing the lake
the best. '!he hardship is hardship and reasonable use of the property. I
don't think there is anyone that would disagree with 133 foot lots on this
lake are beautiful lots. Tb utilize them or break them up in any other way,
23
(~o..
i:'/O~
City Council Meeting - October 6, 1986
whether you call it a hardship or poor use of the lane, it is hand in hand.
Reasonable or good use of the land and a hardship.
I
Counci lrnan Geving: Not just economics, is that correct?
David Hansen: I don't think it is just economics. I think it is aesethetic
value, it is DNR, the pollution value, the best use of the land on the lakes.
I think if you usErl anything improperly or forcErl to use anything improperly
it would be basically a hardship. It depends, hardship is how you look at it
but I think if we look at all the evidence here, economic yes. Value of the
lake lots on the lake, using the land to the best reasonable use on the lake
and then look at the alternatives on resubdivision if we go with 200 foot lots
and end up with 100 foot lots on the lake at some day. We are basically
making the property unuseable at that time. I think that is a hardship.
Councilman Geving: Do you know how many variances we have granted on one
subdivision that have five on it at anyone time? I don't know if we have had
very many of those. You are really stretching us there.
David Hansen: I can understand that but even Staff, the fact remains I can
almost quote the lots being more then twice as long as they are wide is no
problem. Let's look at our variances here. We are going down from 150 feet
to 133 feet. '!hat is basically a standard with 40,000 square feet thrown in.
That is just space so that it can handle a septic system feasibly or without
making problems. We have 2 1/2 times that density or 2 1/2 times the square I
footage on our smallest lot. The other one that we are looking at is sideyard
setback. We all know that 100 foot setback is strictly for resubdivision. To
discourage anything but letting the land lay dormant until sewer comes in.
The other one that we have is length versus width which we have already talked
about.
Councilman Geving: I won't take you through all this. I understand that you
repeatErl this at the previous Council meeting on September 22nd and I won't
bring you through it. I wasn't here that night but I did want to hear what
you had to say about hardship because I think that is a very crucial part of
our deliberation. Just one other question, I guess I'm going to have to ask
the Council on this. They have offerErl us for consideration this Restrictive
Covenant be placed on the land. How do you feel about that? I want to ask
our Council what they feel about the Restrictive Covenant that has been
provided to us tonight by Mr. Carroll for the further subdivision of this
land. We're ad inf ini turn now. We're tak ing about a long period of time.
Elliott Knetsch: '!he best you can say for it is that it is effective only
until it is of no actual or substantial benefit to the properties involvErl.
How long that will be I don't know. with only three properties involved, if
you have a point down the road where all three of the owners of the three
properties say this is no benefit to us whatsoever, we want to subdivide, it
is out the door.
Elliott Knetsch: Leave the Restriction in?
I
Councilman Geving: In your opinion, should we leave this in?
24
99
City Council Meeting - October 6, 1986
I Councilman Geving: Yes.
Elliott Knetsch: I believe Roger addressed that issue and that would be any
subdivision of these properties with or without this Restriction has to come
before the Council.
I
I
Mayor Hamilton: So it really has no value.
Councilman Geving: It really has no bearing but I personally think it should
be left in since I always have this opinion, if they are going to offer it,
we'll take it.
Councilwoman Swenson: When it reads with the express written consent and upon
the approval of the City Council of the City of Chanhassen, it doesn't soum
like just three people could do that. You have to have the express written
approval of the City as well as the three property owners.
Elliott Knetsch: '!hat's right. Again, that gets back to the point. Any
sulxHvision is going to come back before the Council. The three property
owners could not decide on their own to do it or to lift this Restriction.
Councilwoman Swenson: When we brought this up before Elliott, it was suppose
to prohibit further subdivision of this property ad infinitum and I don't find
that written in there.
Jerry Carroll: May I comment. I did this for two reasons. One, to make a
private restriction as well as the public restriction. You have the authority
over the public restriction. Any further subdivision would have to come
before you. What we wanted to do was make a private restriction as well so
that the person who buys the lot from Dave Hansen who thinks he is buying 6
acres that is never going to be subdivided, is going to have to consent am
rely on the consent on the owner of Hansen's property and the third lot in
order to even come before you. Now to answer your main point, was you wanted
a restriction ad infinitum. '!hat would be self destructive. '!hat would be
what in the law is called a perpetuity am a restriction on lam in perpetuity
is void. I would defer to your City Attorney but I think he would probably
agree with that.
Elliott Knetsch: I agree with that yes.
Councilwoman Swenson: Is it conceivable to put in here until such time as
sewer and water are available to property owners.
Elliott Knetsch: Yes, the restriction can say anything that you want it to.
Mayor Hamilton: '!he point is they still can not subdivide it without coming
back to the Council whether that is in there or not.
Elliott Knetsch: What this Restriction does is, it goes about as far as it
legally can in restricting use of transfer of the property but it can not, no
restriction as he pointed out, can last forever nor can the restriction last
beyom it's usefulness determined by the parties to the three lots.
25
100
City Council Meeting - October 6, 1986
Councilwoman Swenson: Okay, we have how many acres, 13 acres, roughly 6 acres I
a piece so under our present Zoning Ordinance those could be split in half.
Barbara Dacy: They would have to improve the street however. It would be
beyond the three lots and they would have to make a rural...
Councilwoman Watson: But the one lot is splitable at this point because it is
over 6 acres so there is a potential for two lots.
Councilwoman Swenson: So if we were to include until such time as public
utilities or sewer and water are servicable to this property, you are telling
me that that isn't right? That won't hold water?
Elliott Knetsch: I don't think I said that. That could be included in this
Restriction. It would just be another condition before subdivision could
conceivably occur.
Councilwoman Swenson: My affirmative action on this would definitely depend
on the Restriction prior to the servicability of sewer and water.
Jerry Carroll: In other words, you would like that Restriction to include the
requirement of sewer and water would be installed in pioneer Road before any
further. . .
Councilwoman Swenson: Sewer and water would have to be available to the
property until further subdivision was requested.
Jerry Carroll: I don't think we have any problem with that at all.
I
Councilwoman Watson: Dave, do you plan to stay on your part of the property?
David Hansen: Yes, I do.
Councilman Geving: Can I follow that up. I understand that you bought
property to the west of us. Is that correct?
David Hansen: out in Victoria? That is strictly for a different purpose.
That is strictly business. It is an equestrian development.
Councilman Geving: I think you said in here that you plan on living in that
home as a Chanhassenite, is that right?
David Hansen: I plan on living in my present home. Yes.
Councilwoman Swenson moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the
Preliminary Plat Request based on the plat stamped "Received July 23, 1986" to
create three lots and subject to the following conditions:
1. That the City's septic system consultant, Roger Machmeier, review the
submitted perc tests and proposed septic system sites.
I
26
I
I
I
~ n,-\1
1~_ \v' ...tJ...
City Council Meeting ~ October 6, 1986
2. That the deed restriction submitted, in conjunction with the packet of
October 6, 1986 include wordage to prevent resubdivision until
installation of City sewer and water.
3. No grading or building activity shall occur below the 960 contour except
for a pathway to a dock.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
Councilman Horn: [X) we need to include in there our Findings of Fact or is it
something that we have the Attorney's generate?
Elliott Knetsch: There needs to be Findings of Fact contemporaneous with the
decision. Findings of Fact can come from what has been discussErl so far and
any material presented to the Council and the Staff background. It can
further supplement that with Findings of Fact in consideration of the motion.
Counci lman Horn: But it doesn't have to be in the motion?
Elliott Knetsch: Not specifically as part of the motion, no.
Councilman Geving: I want to make sure that the comments regarding the sewer
and the perCOlation test are part of the motion.
Councilman Horn: I would like to state before we go any further my reasons
for feeling that a hardship does exist in this case is that I do believe
that the inability to subdivide a 13 acre lot is a hardship and I believe that
in this case there is no way that it can be done without a variance so I feel
that the hardship does exist in this case.
CONSIDERATION OF PAVING SUNSET TRAIL.
Barbara Dacy: Real briefly, at the last meeting the Council wanted a cost
estimate for the improvement cost for Sunset Trail. The Acting City Engineer
prepared an estimate based on standard rural section roadway, 24 feet side
pavement with 1,000 feet in length and his estimate was $38,300.00. I took
the liberty of estimating for example five possible lots on the applicant's
property, the two existing homes and one possible additional home on the east
side of Sunset Trail. You divide that number by eight and the approximate
cost could be around $5,000.00. That is fairly low compared to other rural
projects that have been constructed in the City. Staff still maintains its
original recommendation that Sunset Trail be improvErl upon subdivision
application no matter if three lots or five lots is proposed.
Mayor Hamil ton: I feel the same that I did the last time I looked at this. I
think it is a nice little subdivision. I certainly understand the problems
that the developer has with the current residents there and the neErl for them
to participate in the construction of the road so I see no reason to put a
paved road in there and I think the hard surface road without being paved,
whether it's dirt or gravel or whatever would be certainly adequate. At some
time when the area develops further or there are a few more homes, then the
road should be constructed.
27
.1-.~.
.1j"l I~.. .,.
~L \iJ'~~{ ,
City Council Meeting - October 6, 1986
Councilwoman Swenson: Would this come under further subdivision then? Are we I
talking about further then? Further back? I agree.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded that the City allow the
developer, the Mjolnes', to develop the subdivision without the need of
paving Sunset Trail, putting in an improved road with a hard gravel surface.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
LOT SPLIT REQUEST TO DIVIDE 1.71 ACRES INTO TWO SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, 2461 WEST
64TH STREET, GARY REED. - - - - -
Mayor Hamilton: This again is an item that we saw previously and there was
some misunderstanding when Mr. Reed was here, as to exactly what his request
was and what we, I think probably were approving. The recommendations made by
Staff that didn't really go too well wi th the property.
Gary Reed: The last time I was in was on September 22nd and we requested a
simple lot split and the City Council granted that but the Staff recommended
the contingencies that we didn't consider to be in line with what we wanted to
do and that would effect some of the other neighbors too. The contingencies
were that we realign the driveway for the existing house which I think was
dropped from the Staff's report on this meeting which went through a real
thicket of trees and would damage the aesthetic beauty of the pro,perty and the
useability of the driveway. The second contingency was that we ,petition to
put a road in on the west line of the division into the park. Now, we're not I
in favor of having the road go into the park at that point. We think it is
not the right location. It would be a detriment to our pro,perty. If we want
to pay for roads, we would like to put them into the remaining part of the
pro,perty that we plan on platting in the future. This would also affect the
Ziegler'S who own the lots adjacent to the proposed street that they would
like to have into the park and the Ziegler's are here tonight and they are not
in favor of sharing the cost of putting the street in either so I guess our
petitioning to put the street in would obligate us for paying for the street
and we don't wish to do that. All we want to do is just utilize some of our
buildable pro,perty that we have at this point. We also own the pro,perty to
the east of this lot which is approximately probably 6 acres and we are
currently charged for five sewer stubs on that pro,perty which are unbuildable
at this point until major drainage work is done. The water comes from
basically West Jr. High School and it is in a culvert and dumped into our
pro,perty at what would be the southeast corner of our pro,perty that comes
through a creek and then it kind of meanders over the fields and down onto
West 64th Street where it kind of makes it way across the north corner of the
proposed lot split and then it meanders back on it's way to Little Minnewashta
through the proposed park area and so on. At this point, we can not utilize
those five sewer stubs in that particular part of the pro,perty because of the
drainage. In the future I guess we would like to put in a short road or cul-
de-sac depending on the going pro,perty and what happens with that also. We
would have to work with total property to be developed at that time and work
the plat out but at that time then both of our houses would face a cul-de-sac
or a street and I think my wife wrote quite a lengthy letter and she listed I
all the points and sent one to all the ,people here so you should be familiar
with our plight here.
28
I
I
I
~ t11',9
~t. \~y Q...})
City Council Meeting ~ October 6, 1986
Mayor Hamil ton: I don't know if the Council members have any questions: I
guess I would just comment that I guess I misunderstood what you requested
last time certainly and I thought I was going out to the properties to make a
decision on it but after going out and looking at it again with Gary and Jan
and we walked around the property, I understand more clearly the type of
development or division that you are trying to put in there. I think your
request is very simple and straight forward. You want to divide your lot, use
the current driveway, not drive through to cut down all the trees to the west
of your lot and I certainly disagree with the recommendation that Oriole be
put through as the road to the park. I think we are a long ways from deciding
where that road is going to go and I see no reason for the Reeds or the
Zieg1ers to pay for a road going through. I think we need to as a City and as
a Council to sit down and look at that and start looking at the other
properties in that area that are going to be developed over the next several
years. I'm not sure what the alignment of the road is going to be to get into
Herman Field. I don't think I have seen the right alternative yet from
anything I have seen up to this point but to extend Oriole, I think would just
be foolish.
Councilwoman Swenson: I concur.
Councilwoman Watson: I think the Reeds have a very good point in that the
traffic for that park is not going to come from their immediate area but from
west of here and whether those people would come all the way down to Oriole or
if there is a better access to this some other place rather than here and
there is no way that they need Oriole paved to subdivide their lot or the
Zieg1ers paved so I think for a simple lot split they should just be allowed
to split the lot and use the present driveway.
Councilman Geving: I don't understand Mr. Mayor how this got messed up. The
Council met, they discussed this. I'm reading very clearly that it was
approved by the Council and then along comes a cond i tion or two. Who put
those conditions on there?
Don Ashworth: It was put on in the Staff Report. When you reviewed this on
September 22nd, that was part of the recommendation.
Councilman Geving: But is wasn't part of the motion? Is that correct?
Don Ashworth: You approved the iten as suhnitted, yes.
Mayor Hamilton: You see at that time the Reeds were here and they explained
what they are attempting to do and then the conditions to them that evening
weren't clear because they had just gotten them and did not make comment on
them because maybe they thought they weren't suppose to so we thought we were
doing what they wanted to do with the misunderstanding. We always felt we
were passing exactly what they wanted us to do.
Councilman Geving: I can understand that. I can see where that is confusing.
We thought we were doing you a favor. I'm sorry I wasn't here that night. I
agree that it should be undone and not improve Oriole.
29
101,
\!'pLtl-
City Council Meeting - October 6, 1986
Councilwoman Watson: What is the proce:1ure for undoing it?
I
Don Ashworth: I think in this case it is simply a clarification of the
previous motion. If you took the position that this was a reconsideration,
then you could not act on it tonight. You would have to wait for two weeks
and I don't think that is the intent of the Council. If you want to simply
call it clarification.
Councilwoman Watson moved, Councilman Horn seconded to clarify the motion made
on September 22, 1986 to read to approve the lot split request to create a
38,750 square foot lot and 35,650 square foot lot using the metes and bounds
description for Parcel A: the north 250 feet of the west 155 feet of Lot G,
Bardwell Acres; and Parcel B: that part of the west 155 feet of Lot G,
Bardwell Acres which lies south of the north 250 feet of said Lot G, with the
following condition:
1. When the rest of the adjacent property belonging to Mr. Reed is
developed and platted, that these two lots be platte:1 along with the
rest of the property.
All voted in favor of the motion and motion carried.
Councilman Horn: I would also like to comment that if this question comes up
again, I would like to see some type of an access study done for the park.
Not just carried on as part of the subdivision.
I
Councilman Geving: We're still playing around with that. We don't know
whether to come in from the west or north.
Gary Reed: Can I make a comment. The bulk of the people that are going to
use it are in the Minnewashta Manor area and it seems to me that some quick
access into the park would probably be a better place then on Oriole. I think
at the present time the park is being used. 'The kids go in there and play all
the time. It is kind of wilderness area and I think that is what our kids
need. Sometimes we don't need a groome:1, mowe:1 lawn to play on. 'They can
wrestle around back there in the woods is probably better for them then.
hanging some ropes.
Mayor Hamilton: One thing we have discussed briefly Gary is the possibilty of
the Gowen property developing and coming into the MUSA district if that
develops and having a road off of that somehow is a real possibility also.
There are a lot of alternatives.
Gary Reed: But I think the park is being utilized even though. We use it for
cross country skiing in the winter.
Councilwoman Watson: A park is not necessarily a ball field and tennis court.
The way our city is developing I think more and more of our parks should be
just like open land because we are going to forget what it looks like.
I
30
I
I
I
105
City Council Meeting - October 6, 1986
REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE 12.5 ACRES INTO FIVE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON THE SOUTH SIDE
OF PIONEER TRAIL, APPROXIMATELY 1/4 MILE EAST OF AUDUBONIfc5AD-;-SEVER PETERSON:"
Barbara Dacy: '!he property is located on the south side of pioneer Trail just
west of the property, if you recall the recent Bluff Creek Greens subdivision
and golf course on the east. As you can tell that the shape of the lot is
very restrictive in that it is very long and very short. What the applicant
is proposing is five 2 1/2 acre lots with Lot 5 needing a lot area variance
stemming from the fact that Carver County has obtained an easement, a 90 foot
easement along pioneer Trail for the future pioneer Trail improvement and thus
by approving that easement has subtracted I believe .13 of the lot area
variance. When proposed, the applicant asked Staff if they should distribute
that .13 of an acre over the five lots or just have one lot deficient and our
recommendation to the applicant was instead of five variances that one would
be preferred. The Planning Commission considered this request twice. The
first meeting the applicant was not there. '!hey wanted further information
regarding Lot 5. Lot 5 contains some of the steep slope area that is
contained in the Bluff Creek Greens. As you recall, the Bluff Creek Greens
request had six lots proposed along the south side of pioneer Trail. At that
point the creek is bending down and some of those steep slopes are... '!he
applicant did supply additional blow-ups of that particular lot and they
should have been in your packet. What they did offer was two alternative
site layouts showing two septic systems and a house pad each showing adequate
area for a large septic system with setback distance for wells and proposed
house pad, the steep slope area am the side lot 1 ines. It should be noted
that the septic systems are on fairly level slopes of 12%. '!he Planning
Commission recommendation at their last meeting was to recommend approval
subject to the nine conditions that you have on page 4 of the Staff Report.
In essence requiring erosion control, shared access between Lots 1 am 2 am
Lots 3 and 4, requiring SPeCific designs and construction plans in conjunction
with each of the septic system sites proposed, the stamard utility easement
provisions and that the driveways in each of the lots contain a turn around
area so the cars are entering front first onto pioneer Trail instead of
backing out. As a final note, the name of Hidden Valley is being used already
am the applicant has submitted an alternate name of Bluff Creek North or
Bluff Creek Estates.
Sever Peterson: '!he one concern that I did have was the .13 of an acre that
was short on the overall area am as Barb pointed out that when the road went
through there a few years ago, or about 3 years ago when they went down and
widen itself, they took 90 feet instead of the normal 66 feet am I felt well,
all good citizens take what is given to them by Carver County or any other
County where they are residing on these road things am I didn't pay any
attention to it or thought well, whatever they have to do they have to do and
I realize now that it was consequential but I would ask for a variance on that
if that would be considered by the Council.
Councilman Horn: Would your neighbor to the east of you sell you that
property?
Sever Peterson: '!he neighbor to the east of me. '!hat is a good question but
that has already been platted because I inquired of that am I did at one time
31
106
City Council Meeting - October 6, 1986
make an offer for the property to the south of me because I thought it would I
make a natural, enhance the area am so on am it was refused. Not because of
the offer but because they just were not interested in selling the property
am so I did make an attempt on both areas, if that answers your question. I
did make an attempt. Found out the property to the south would not sell and
the property to the east was platted so I was rather stuck with what I had.
Councilman Horn: They wouldn't even sell a sliver rather than the whole
thing?
Sever Peterson: They weren't interested in selling any of their property to
the south am I even had a purchase agreement, earnest money am everything
that goes along with it and we talked about it and they didn't want to do
that.
Councilman Horn: Qle other thing. Is there any way that we could double up
on driveways here or maybe only have one?
Barbara Dacy: That was discussed at the Planning Commission meeting because
they felt pioneer Trail is very busy am really functioning beyom a local
street as which it is chartered in the Carver County's plan but we felt that
if there is just one, there would be a tremendous administration problem with
of what lot goes first and that first lot's house location and driveway
location is going to determine what happens with the rest of the development
of those lots. We felt that as long as there is minimum separation standards I
being maintained between the right-of-way in this location am the driveway in
this location, it is about 700 feet, we could still accomplish minimal amount
of access points by single family homes. We checked this with what was
happening on the Bluff Creek plat to make sure that we had good separation all
the way down on pioneer Trail so that is what we are proposing.
Councilman Horn: So there is no way or you didn't think. I didn't quite
understam the fact that you had to worry about which one developed first.
Barbara Dacy: Well, if this guy comes in and so on, you are in essence
creating a frontage road along pioneer Trail am I guess we are listing
that as not being a productive use of land. Having a lot of area in there to
use for a frontage road, a lot of cutting, a lot of filling. The County has
reserved 90 feet for a reason because pioneer Trail will be improved.
Councilman Horn: Even more reason not to have more accesses on it.
Barbara Dacy: I'm not going to disagree with the philosophy of minimizing
access but we felt that one would be too restrictive. We thought that three
would.. .
Councilman Horn: You are doing a better job than the Minnesota Highway
Department does but I'm not sure it is quite good enough.
Councilwoman Watson: Wouldn't he have quite a loss of land too? He's just
barely meeting lam requirements here, if we put a frontage road on here we
would cut the lots down even further. Wouldn't we end up with five
I
32
107
City Council Meeting - October 6, 1986
III substandard lots?
Barbara Dacy: I think what Councilman Horn is suggesting that it would need
some type of easement right along the right-of-way.
Councilwoman Swenson: It would only have to be the middle three lots and it
would have to be, it is almost a common driveway I think Barbara. For
instance if you went from the easterly edge of Lot 1 to the westerly edge of
Lot 5, that would give egress into the two end properties and the middle three
also. We have other proposals coming up tonight, I would like to see this
utilized as frequently as possible to eliminate the cuts into roads. Calling
pioneer Trail a local street is probably as ludicrous as anything I can
imagine. Lyman is suppose to be an arterial and Lyman doesn't even go through.
I don't see by doing that you are really only working with the middle three
lots and you are eliminating one full cut.
Barbara Dacy: I understand the point, the Council wants to minimize the
access points and that is a traditional thing that we always look to do but we
just felt that with the perc test locations and the septic fields and so on,
and you want to maintain that 50 foot setback from the street as much as
possible, we just feel that it wouldn't be an efficient use of the land to
have a frontage road down in there especially when pioneer Trail may be
improved.
I
Councilwoman Swenson: With a 50 foot setback, I don't understand the reason
why that common driveway couldn't encroach on that 50 feet.
Barbara Dacy: No, I'm not saying that. I'm just saying the driveway can't go
across the setback or otherwise how will you get access to the lot but we are
planning around 100 foot setbacks, 10 foot setbacks, two septic system sites,
house pads locations plus topography and we just felt that it would be best to
create three individual drives, two of which are two lots sharing two drives.
That will still achieve the same objective.
Councilwoman Swenson: We could cut it down to one by merely paving maybe,
what do you need 16 feet. It doesn't even have to be paved. Just across in
the setback zone. I guess I have problems...
Barbara Dacy: Well, if this is what the Council wants to recorrunend I would
suggest then, I know Sever doesn't want to see this thing tabled or postponed
but I would recorrunend that the Carver County Engineering Department take a
look at what the design should be if you are talking about shared access.
I
Bill Engelhardt: I was just going to make a corrunent on it. In looking at the
grades and the topography and the shape of this particular piece of property,
I don't really think it lends itself to a frontage road type of situation. I
think the developer and the City Staff has got it down to a point where we
have three driveways for five lots and they are separated by over 300 feet of
distance so that is like a city block width. From an engineering standpoint,
we could go along with the three driveways because of the topography.
33
108
City Council Meeting - October 6, 1986
Councilman Geving: I think sometimes we try to get a little bit too pure in
our planning process and I think three cuts in pioneer Trail is more then
reasonable for this development. I'm more concerned about where the eventual
TH 212 might come am how it would effect this particular plan. Secondly, I
would like to see on an overall scale where the eventual southbound CR 17
might extem am cut across or near his property. Could you show me that on
your plan please.
I
Bill Engelhardt: We talked to the County about it and all they did was throw
it out to us. They said we don't know where it is going to go, we don't have
any plans, we don't have any maps but...
Councilman Geving: I disagree with you.
Bill Engelhardt: That's what they told us.
Councilman Geving: I disagree with that. We've been planning for 10 years
for TH 212. I personally have worked on it. Mayor Klingelhutz has worked on
it. OUr Mayor here Mr. Hamilton has worked on it. We know where that
alignment is. I swear it is going to go near this property and we ought to
be starting to show it so that we don't junk it all up am prohibit us from
building TH 212 because we put new developments in. We ought to start looking
at these things. We ought to start planning where TH 212 is going to be five
years from now. We know where that alignment is within 1,000 feet and I
disagree with what your statement was Mr. Engelhardt. We have got to I
recognize that this TH 212 is going to happen someday and the State has
already given us an idea of where that plan is.
Mayor Hamilton: I think Bill might have been referring to CR 17.
Bill Engelhardt: That's what they told us on CR 17. TH 212 there is a
Corridor Study of TH 212 and we have run into that allover.
Councilman Geving: Answer my question then. Where is TH 212 coming in
relation to this plan.
Bill Engelhardt: I can't tell you that according to this.
Al Klingelhutz: I think I can tell you. As far as I can see am the way I
look at a map, I don't think it can be any closer then 1,000 feet to the
closest point to this.
Councilman Geving: Of this plat?
Al Klingelhutz: This plat.
Councilman Geving: It will go to the west of this plat.
Al Klingelhutz: You've got an overall map of Chanhassen up here.
approximately on CR 14 and immediately starts to curve northward.
have it right there. Maybe I can point it out on your map.
It comes in
'Ihere you
I
34
I
I
I
109
City Council Meeting - October 6, 1986
Councilman Geving: The reason I asked those questions is that the first thing
we know we are going to have a whole lot of new development in Chanhassen am
it is going to come right smack dap in the middle of what we have planned.
Barbara Dacy: As I recall it comes in over here down by the intersection of
Audubon and pioneer Trail but it kinds of cuts like that where this
intersection would be constructed.
Councilman Geving: I wish from now on when we have plans that could possibly
be effected by TH 212 or any other planned extensions of major roads such as
CR 17, that you show them on our sketches.
Barbara Dacy: I apologize for that. We did have that on a later plat because
we knew, because of the Chan Hills alignment that went with that particular
subdivision, we were less sure in this area.
Councilman Geving: Okay, so we are okay on this particular one. Now, take
the extension of CR 17 and bring it south to pioneer Trail.
Barbara Dacy: The extension of CR 17 would be right up in here and would come
along.
Councilman Geving: We're following up the section line there? Right on the
east edge of this particular plat. Is that correct?
Al Klingelhutz: That's where the original alignment is of CR 14 or pioneer
Trail but to go beyond that.
Councilman Geving: No, I'm not going beyond. I know what is beyond that and
that is the golf course and Bluff Creek and a whole lot of other projects but
it does give us a better idea because I think someday in the very near future
we will be extending CR 17.
Barbara Dacy: I just found out the location may was wrong. It only goes over
to this section line so it is right here.
Sever Peterson: In regards to the driveway situation. I had gone down and
spoken to the County. They explained that their preference or requirement was
300 feet, every 300 feet and they said, they did indicate as Barbara has
imicated that if there was a way that we could consolidate those, it is
pleasing and I appreciated Barb working with me on consolidation. I really
strongly feel that a frontage road on this property, because of the lay of the
land and I think they are attractive property, it would tend to diminish the
property is another reason we have gone with that. There may be some
technical things that would also inhibit it that I'm not familiar with and I'm
not prepared to address those but I just feel that we tr ied to do, in 1 ieu of
Lot 5, we tried to do the three and bring it to that point.
Mayor Hamilton: I guess I would have to go along with three. They eliminated
two.
35
110
~_\lP'
City Council Meeting - October 6, 1986
Councilman Geving: I think if we had had the engineer's comment initially we I
wouldn't have pursuErl it.
Barbara Dacy: I think he said it a lot better then I did.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve sulrlivision Request
#86-23 as shown on the site plan dated August 18, 1986 with the following
cond i tions:
1. There shall not be any alteration of Lot 5 past the 890 foot
elevation.
2. Restoration of each site shall occur immediately after construction
is completed.
3. Erosion control barriers shall be required at each site before any
grading or construction is done.
4. Specific construction plans for the septic systems shall be provided
with each building permit.
5. Access permits must be obtained from Carver County with culverts
placed under each driveway.
6.
Lots 1 and 2 and Lots 3 and 4 must share a driveway.
I
7.
All driveways must have a 300 foot separation and have a turn-around.
for the purpose of not backing onto pioneer Trail.
8. Each lot shall provide 10 foot utility easements along the front and
side lot lines.
9. The name of Hidden Valley must be changed.
10. Lot 1 has a lot area variance.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
Councilwoman Swenson: I have a couple of comments I would like to make.
First of all, I was kind of surprised, I mentioned this to Barb today, I was
kind of surprised with the discussion that went on at the Planning Commission
level regarding the fact that we didn't have controls over our septic systems
and Barb explained it. She thought that it had to do with the meeting that
was held I guess the night before with the University people so I'm satisfied
with that but I think maybe we better emphasize that we do indeed have control
over it. Secondly, I would like to ask what the response has been from Bluff
Creek Watershed?
Barbara Dacy: Yes, when you called me this afternoon I had a member of Staff
try to get a hold of Bob at the Watershed District. He was not there for the I
afternoon but, Obermeyer.
36
I
I
I
1111
-'-'- 2:.1.. ..D
City Council Meeting - October 6, 1986
Councilwoman Swenson: He's Riley.
Barbara Dacy: It's Riley, Purgatory and Bluff Creek. '!hey are all one
watershed district but on our standard referral notice they were notified of
the meeting, know about their minimum requirements. '!here is not any
alteration of any slopes and so on. Just on an individual lot basis, they may
not have comments.
Councilwoman Swenson: I think Barb that in the future when we have anything
that is this close to any body of water, I would like to double check and at
least get a no comment, it doesn't bother us or what, from the Watershed
District and the Soil Conservation and the DNR. There was one thing there
that I would like to ask you to include and that is that I would prefer to see
alternate two as far as Lot 5 is concerned, to keep the septic systems as far
away as possible from draining down into Bluff Creek. I have to agree. I
think that is an extremely sharp drop down there and as you heard earlier
tonight, malfunctions of septic systems are not unknown if not properly
installed and maintained and also Mr. Machrneier' s inspection thereof.
Councilwoman Watson asked about the name of the SulXlivision and Sever Peterson
thought they had corne up with Bluff Creek Estates. Barbara Dacy said what
would have to be done is that that name would have to be doubled checked by
Carver County Survey to make sure that no plat names were duplicated.
Barbara Dacy: Just a question. '!he people who are affected by Item lea) on
the Consent Agenda wanted to know if it would be awlicable at this time to
consider their item?
Councilman Geving moved to revise the agenda and bring back the Consent Agenda
items lea) ,(b) and (c).
Councilman Horn: I wanted to comment in there for the record so we don't
start setting precedent with lots under 2 1/2 acres that we found that there
was no other al ternati ve to make this lot expanded to 2 1/2 acres and that be
one of the Findings of Fact.
CONSENT AGENDA:
1. a.
APPROVE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR SOUTH LOTUS LAKE ADDITION.
Councilwoman Swenson: I talked to the City Engineer today regarding the
attachment that you had put on your desks. One is a copy of a letter from the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and one had an attachment to recommend that
erosion plans and I talked with Bill on this and he seemed to feel that these
six items were well covered by the proposed Ordinance are already existing
practices. Is that correct?
Bill Engelhardt: Yes, all of them on the attachment if they are the same ones
that you read me that we went through on the phone. Everything that is in
those six items, the City is doing right now and requiring in their
specifications for approval so I didn't see any problem with any of them.
37
112
City Council Meeting - October 6, 1986
Councilwoman Swenson: There was one thing I think that I asked for an I
explanation and that was 4. The stabilizing methods for seeding and mulching
and you explained to me that there were times when this is not practical. For
the record would you be kind enough to repeat it.
Bill Engelhardt: Yes, what we discussed was that sometimes you get into a
situation where you are talking economics and what is practical and from a
economic standpoint, really anything is possible and it can be done but from a
practical standpoint and from a standpoint of doing more damage to the slopes
by trying to seed them too early or get on them too fast after they have been
graded or the black dirt has been spread or after we have had a hard rain and
they are too soft, we can really do more damage to those slopes then by trying
to seed them and restore them right away then leaving them go for a period of
time until they are ready for the seed and they are going to take the seed so
that was something that we discussed.
Councilwoman Swenson: I also believe you did state that the subject of
economics was not as important as the conservation and erosion. If it in fact
did effect the body of water that we would not be as concerned about the
economics as we are about the conservation. Okay, now the second thing. On
the letter section, on the back of the letter from the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency, there were a specific list of recommendations. Bill do you
have a copy? Do you have the letter, starting on page 2 of the MPCA's letter,
I have requested Staff to make some copies for distribution because this
refers to, well you can read what it refers to and I'm not sure if these are
pertinent to what we are talking about here and I guess that is what I wanted
to know. Are these rating specifications and utility plans and so forth that
we are discussing tonight, does that encompass the Bloomberg property?
I
Bill Engelhardt: Yes, everything that they have got in here, and their
engineer is here tonight, I don't see any problem with. We can go through
them item by item briefly. Item 1, primary problem related to this project is
the extent of erodable material exposed by clearing, borrowing and fill
operations. I think they have minimized the amount of grading. They also say
future clearing and fill operations should be staged to minimize the exposed
erodable material. I believe they have done that. This is something that we
are kind of looking at at all the projects and it is something that we looked
at pretty hard for instance on the Chan vista project where we approve the
grading in phases. The first addition was opened up, they brought in the
second addition and we are only allowing them to grade in the first phase of
the second addition so we don't have 100 acres or whatever it is out there
exposed so I think that is something we are looking at. MPCA generally
requires all permanent erosion control features of the project to be
incorporated at the earliest practical time. Item 2, they are doing that.
Usually if there is a sediment pond involved or this type of situation, they
will grade that first and get the erosion control barriers up first so we
don't have a problem later on in the project. At least those are under
control and in place. If they need to be cleaned up, they can be cleaned up
but at least those things are in place right from the initial start of the
project so they are doing that. 3, the excavated and graded areas should be
finished with top soil and seed and mulch or otherwise stablized as soon as
possible and I think that was a condition that we did make of the approval of
I
38
I
I
I
113
City Council Meeting - October 6, 1986
the plans and specs that as soon as those slopes are stabilized, and again
getting back to what we talked about earlier, not trying to do something too
soon but get it done as soon as possible to stablize the slopes. I believe
they are trying to do that.
Councilman Horn: May I comment on that. Your example said it may not be
practical to seed if the ground is too wet but I think it is practical, from
what I've seen or at least the way the Highway Department does it, you could
put a mulch and cover that and at some point when you need to do further work
on it that will blend right in and become a part of that. '!hey will
stabilize with mulch even if you can't seed at this time.
Bill Engelhardt: Yes, that is true but I think again, that is part of our
intention to do that and it is not our intention to leave it go.
Councilman Horn: My only point was that we shouldn't just let it sit bare
because you can't get in to seed it.
Bill Engelhardt: Right, there are things that can be done.
Councilman Horn: I think it is going on over here on the lake access point
right now. '!hat there is nothing happening and I think it can be mulched and
stabilized.
Councilwoman Swenson: I was going to say, they mentioned netting in here two
or three times. Is that...
Bill Engelhardt: Netting does work. I think the mulching and blowing it on
the slopes probably is a better way of stabilizing it but each condition is
different. Each situation is a little bit different. What you are trying
to do on the boat landing project, I did talk to the City's consultant on that
project today. He said they had some grading to do yet, of course we don't
want to do anything there, but whatever he has black dirt spread on, I have
directed him to get that seeded and mulched down so we can protect those
slopes so they are working on that.
Councilman Horn: Even if they need grading, mulch on there is going to hold
it in place until he gets it graded.
Bill Engelhardt: I think there is a point there where if they can finish it
up in a relatively short period of time and then get in and do a good job of
restoring versus trying to do something with it, opening it up again and then
going back again, I think you are just creating more problems. Mulching can
do it. Item 4, material for control of sediment should be designed to
effectively prevent sediment from leaving the site and in this case, on the
South Lotus Lake project, they have done that and on all projects that the
City is reviewing at this time they are doing that too so I think all of the
guidel ines that have been set up by the MPCA, the City has them incorporated
in their overall policies for review of plans and it is just a matter of
watching every individual project to make sure that they are maintained during
the proj ect.
39
114.
City Council Meeting - October 6, 1986
Councilwoman Swenson: In view of what you have mentioned Bill, would you I
explain to me, it says please be aware that all measures such as staging,
seeding, mulching, netting and other soil stabilization measures must be
utilized first. While the MPCA realizes that sediment basins, silt fences
and hay bales are necessary, they should be considered the last ditch measures
to prevent material from entering the lake. How can you do that?
Bill Engelhardt: I don't agree with that.
Councilwoman Swenson: How can you seed it before you protect it.
Bill Engelhardt: I disagree with that and I think the City is taking the
right approach by having their siltation fences and sediments ponds being
constructed first and then construction afterwards.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve plans and
SPeCifications for South Lotus Lake Addition. All voted in favor and motion
carried.
2. b.
CHANHASSEN HILLS FIRST ADDITION:
.!L APPROVE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS.
~ APPROVE GRADING PERMIT, PHASE I.
~ FINAL PLAT APPROVAL.
I
Councilwoman Swenson: I noticed that the Watershed District has indicated
that they are requesting additional information and they have requested our
approval be conditioned upon Watershed District approval and I would like to
add Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the Division of Water Quality of
the MPCA. Other then that I found no problems.
Councilwoman Swenson moved, Councilwoman \vatson seconded to approve the
Chanhassen Hills First Addition's plans and specifications, grading permit,
phase I, and the final plat. All voted in favor and motion carried.
3. c.
APPROVE CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 FOR LAKE DRIVE EAST BETWEEN TH 101 AND
---- ---
DAKOTA AVENUE.
Councilman Geving: I brought this up. I was only interested in the request
for extension. Usually when we have a request, we like to have it formalized
in a letter from the developer or contractor and I guess that is what I was
looking for here Bill.
Bill Engelhardt: He has supplied that. He supplied it to the consulting
engineer.
Councilman Geving: Where is it?
Bill Engelhardt: It is in the file. I'm certain it is. He supplied it to
OSM, OSM prepared the change order based on that letter and sum i tted the
change order to the City.
I
40
I
I
I
115
City Council Meeting ~ October 6, 1986
Councilman Geving: Do you feel that the 313 days is sufficient to get the job
done?
Bill Engelhardt: I think we should take it one step at a time and give them
313 days am see where we're at after 313 days am go fran there.
Councilman Geving: Is there any penalty provision for them not producing this
within schedule?
Bill Engelhardt: I believe they have a liquidated damage clause in the
contract. It is a standard phrasology, if that is a word.
Councilman Geving: So you feel comfortable with about that?
Bill Engelhardt: Yes, I do.
Councilman Geving moved, Councilwoman Watson seconded to approve Change Order
No. 1 for Lake Drive East Between TH 1131 am Dakota Avenue. All voted in
favor and motion carried.
REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE 1.16 ACRES INTO THREE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS LOCATED AT THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF POWERS BLVD. AND lAKE LUCY ROAD, LOREN BlACKSTAD.
Barbara Dacy: '!he site is zoned R-l, Single Family Residential. CUrrently
there is an existing house on what is proposed as Lot 2 so what is being
created are two vacant lots. Each lot meets the 15,131313 minimum lot area
requirement as well as widths. Frontage requirements, Lots 2 am 3 are
being proposed to be served by a joint private drive as well as Lot 1. As you
note, the Planning Commission recommems approval based on a series of
conditions in the Staff Report.
Councilman Horn: Are you building houses on this property?
Loren Blackstad: '!hat is correct.
Councilwoman Swenson: I looked and I look at these contours and they look
fine except when I drive by there, I see where this is house has been am the
lot to the east and then it appears that it goes zoom, I can't believe that
there is 2413 feet from Lake Lucy Road back to the north edge of those woods.
That just absolutely, I didn't trace it off but that absolutely sounds
incredible to me.
Barbara Dacy: For the sewer extension and so on, the house pad is going to
have to be located near the top of the slope. That is why one of the
conditions states that we wanted to review the building pad elevation prior to
the permit to make sure that the sewer can actually serve the house. Yes, it
is a steep slope. As far as our field inspection reveals, it is accurate.
Councilwoman Swenson: Just give me a for instance as to where you would put
the house? It would almost have to be right on top of that.
Mayor Hamilton: Maybe Mr. Blackstad could tell us.
41
116
City Council Meeting - October 6, 1986
Barbara Dacy: It should be right in here because the sewer would be extended
this way.
Loren Blackstad: '!he highest point on the lot is on the back left which is
the highest point of the whole topography back here and I thought about
putting it some in this area facing back into the woods to take advantage of
the view. The sewer line is 17 feet below the road level at this point and
there is no problem as far as getting slope for the sewer.
Councilman Geving: Since you are still there, what about the road?
Loren Blackstad: What about the road?
Councilman Geving: How do you intend to get to that lot?
Loren Blackstad: Straight on back.
Councilwoman Swenson: 25 feet is the width of the road?
Loren Blackstad: '!here is an easement here.
Councilwoman SWenson: You have a gravel drive of 15 feet and then 10 feet...
Loren Blackstad: '!here is an easement on each side of the property line here.
One is a little greater then the other.
Councilwoman Swenson: Are they going to be combined? Is that your intent?
Loren Blackstad: Yes.
Counciwoman Watson: I'm glad that he is going to build houses on those vacant
lots but I have gotten used to the house that exists on Lot 2. It looks
comfortable now.
Councilman Geving: When we get to the recommendation section, I would like to
make sure that the recommendaton for 1 says that the private drive will be
onto Lake Lucy Road.
Councilwoman Swenson: en the recommendation 2, the building elevation shall
be reviewed by the City Engineer.
Councilman Geving moved, Councilwoman Watson seconded to approve Subdivision
Request #86-26 as shown on the preliminary plat dated September 5, 1986 with
the following conditions:
1. Lots 1 and 3 access off of the private drive onto Lake Lucy Road.
2.
Building elevations on Lot 1 shall be reviewed by the City Engineer
prior to the issuance of a building permit.
3.
Erosion control barriers shall be placed on Lot 1 and restoration of
the land must take place immediately after construction.
42
I
I
I
I
I
I
117
City Council Meeting - October 6, 1986
4.
A private easement shall be executed for connection to the sanitary
sewer.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE 9.7 ACRES INTO THREE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS LOCATED AT THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LYMAN BLVD. AND TH un, TED SLATHER.
Barbara Dacy: We have another rural subdivision split here. To the north of
the site is Lyman Blvd. and what is being proposerl is a three lot split. This
property is unique in that it contains a lot of site building constraints
however after long evaluation of this particular subdivision, as you will
note from the Planning Commission's recommendations, so did they. Basically
what is occurring here is that you have a larger lot on the west and then the
standard 2 1/2 acre lots on the east of 3 which with a private easement on
each. Traversing through the north of the property is an existing 12 inch
underground pipeline from the William's Company and as you note, in the Staff
Report they are requesting a 100 foot easement, 50 feet on the center be
maintained so that no grading or construction activity occur on the easement.
We lookerl at the perc tests location and the boring locations especially in
relation to the wetland based on field investigation and looking at the
aerial. The edge of the wetland appears to be at the 885 contour as it is on
the south side of the property. We feel that a septic system can be located
150 feet as is requirerl by the Wetlands Ordinance from the edge of the
wetland as well as two sites being located on each lot. Lot 3, out of the
three lots, has the most constraints with the pipeline and underground
telephone cable running through the middle of the lot. Whether drilling
housing pads and septic system fields around the perc test and so on, it
is a buildable lot. The Commission, as you can see on page 5 of the Staff
Report, the second set of conditions, they had some recommendations eSPecially
on 6 that details of the septic system design and location must be provided at
time of building permit application. Item 7 was another recommendation from
the Commission, the septic system must include a design to allow inSPection of
the tank and laterals. Then on items 10 and 11, the Commission felt that no
matter what, that the metal shed on the west side of the property, that had to
be removerl and the outside storage that is occurring there now be cleanerl up.
Attached #7, Councilman Geving does show the best shot that we have on TH 212
Corridor. We did obtain that from MnDot through some other files so it looks
like that will be skirting the corner and therefore the house probably is
going to be built along the east side of Lot 1. A representative from the
applicant is here tonight.
Doug Lees: Ted goes to school in River Falls and has midquarters tomorrow and
I callerl today and I checkerl with Jo Ann and she said as long as someone was
here he wouldn't have to drive up for it so that is why I'm here.
Councilwoman Watson: Just a comment. On the bottom of this is one of those
descriptions. It is a one liner but the south line of the northeast quarter
of the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 23. It is a one
liner but it sure doesn't make much sense.
43
118
City Council Meeting - October 6, 1986
Mayor Hamilton: It does when you are working on sections, you know exactly
where you are at.
I
Councilman Geving: '!hat is an easy one. I just want to ask the
representative for Mr. Slather, does he understand the conditions that are
being proposed here to him.
Doug Lees: Yes, sir.
Councilman Geving: Particularly the removal of that shed. I have seen that
shed, I've walked by there when I was picking mushrooms on his property. That
shed is in pretty bad repair and I don't think that you could move it and
retain it.
Mayor Hamil ton: I thought that perhaps the shed should be moved prior to the
building permit application.
Councilman Geving: '!hat's a real old shed though, believe me I think he would
have trouble.
Mayor Hamilton: I just thought that he if wanted to move it back so it...
Doug Lees: Where would you want it moved if it could be moved?
Councilwoman Swenson: To where it can't be seen.
I
Councilwoman Watson: To the back of the property.
Mayor Hamilton: Well, he may want to use it for storage for the back of the
lot of something where it is off the road.
Councilwoman Watson: If it can be made presentable, there is nothing wrong
with that.
Councilwoman Swenson: I'm going to come back with it again. Why can't we
have a common driveway with one access to Lyman Blvd. on this?
Barbara Dacy: It could be consummated, I guess what we are looking at is Lot
1 would use the existing drive and Lot 2 and 3 would share and still
accomplish the minimum separations.
Councilwoman Swenson: It would be so much better to shorten up the middle one
to have a road up in there that could shoot off on both sides because Lyman
isn't going to stay. '!hat is going to get bigger and there is going to be a
lot of traffic on that when that intersection goes through.
Barbara Dacy: I'm not denying the viability of minimizing access points. '!he
way I'm looking at it is how the driveway would serve the homes proposed on
the lots. In Lot 3, the buildable area for this lot is right here. All I'm
saying is that there should be strategic locations as best as possible for I
that driveway, minimize the distance to Lot 3, provide some type of good
access to Lot 2 and buildable area for Lot 1 would be on the east side. I
44
I
I
I
119
City Council Meeting - October 6, 1986
guess right now I visualize a driveway in the middle of Lot 2 and then
spreading out like that.
Councilwoman Swenson: I live with this thing Barbara, as we all know. I
probably go around that corner of TH 101 and Lyman Blvd., I hate to tell you.
I wish I had a dollar, I wouldn't have to work for the rest of my life. I
have talked with Don about this so often because that S curve on TH 101 there
where it junctions with Lyman Blvd. is probably one of the most dangerous
intersections we have in this city. It is virtually impossible if you are
going west to see traffic coming south on TH 101 and vice versa when you get
to the other side and you are going south and you are coming across to get
onto Lyman. If we exaggerate the problem by adding driveways any closer then
we do now if we don't absolutey have to, I think we are being very remiss.
Barbara Dacy: I guess at this point in using the existing right-of-way and
culvert location on Lot 1 so it could be down as a driveway and extended...
Councilwoman Swenson: I think your idea of having a "T" into Lot 2 is great.
Barbara Dacy: I'm looking at it though. You would have to construct another
culvert and so on and you probably would want to maximize the distance to that
intersection.
Councilwoman Swenson: Barbara is suggesting that it come in where the one
dri veway on Lot 1 is recommended.
Councilman Horn: '!hat's what Barb just said.
Barbara Dacy: I guess at this point we could work with the appl icant on that
and if you would like to see us bring it back on a Consent Agenda and so on.
Councilwoman Swenson: I think that is reasonable, yes.
Councilwoman Watson: Where is the driveway on Lot 1 in conjunction with where
TH 212 will be? How close will that driveway be to TH 212 if it cuts across
the corner of that property?
Barbara Dacy: That is a good question. It is right off the northwestern tip
of the property corner and the existing driveway is right there. Another
possibility too is if and when TH 212 even goes in and it does form a problem,
the driveway can be shifted to the east at that time.
Councilwoman Swenson: I would like to make a comment on this so future TH 212
alignment but every time I see this alignment I have to chuckle because the
original alignment on this thing jutted way over towards CR 17 and when the
prospect of the dump came up, we said well you really can't go in there
because you are going to run in through all this stuff and even now I see they
are running in through the swamp but that way they were going to go was a
terrible thing, so some people that were pro for dump were led to believe
when they talked to Met Council and within a 24 hour period the road had been
moved and then they assured us that it was going to go back to the other way
and it hasn't. It is going to be very interesting to see what happens now
45
120
City Council Meeting - October 6, 1986
because the only reason it was going to be moved back because this was going I
through a wetlands and so it is going to be interesting to see whether in fact
this winds up with this alignment because that goes right through a Class A
wetland.
Councilman Geving: I would like to make the philosophical comment regarding
TH 212 am developments along this road. Here is a case tonight where they
are proposing to split almost 10 acres and it will be developed into three
single family lots along the alignment or close to the alignment. I think we
have to proceed with applications for subdivision as they come along regardless
of what may be peming out there with the TH 212 Corridor and eventual highways.
I don't think we can stop the residents and the land owners of Chanhassen from
proposing splits in their lam and the development of that property for
something that is there on the horizon, may happen some day, it may never
happen. It is just a philosophical thing Tom and when this came up I had two
developers call me on this and ask me for my opinion and I told them exactly
what I am saying now. We have to proceed as though TH 212 is not going to
happen but we have to be conscience of the fact that it is out there and it is
looming over us but nevertheless we will proceed with developments such as this
and if TH 212 happens, that property will have to be taken and emminent domain
will come into the picture so that is the only comment that I wanted to make.
I hope you all agree on that because I can see more and more of this kind of
thing effecting TH 212. We can't stop people from wanting to divide their
land.
Councilman Horn: The only way is to buy it.
I
Counci lman Gev i ng: Am you can't do that.
Councilwoman Swenson moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the preliminary
plat request to subdivide 9.7 acres into three single family lots located at
the southwest corner of Lyman Blvd. and TH 101 based on the plat stamped
"Received September 18, 1986" and subject to the following comitions:
1. The building permit site plans must designate the OHWM of the
wetland.
2. All spetic systems must be located at least 150 feet from the OHWM of
the wetland.
3. All structures must be located at least 75 feet from the OHWM of the
wetland.
4. Applicant and staff are to determine a driveway to be shared by all
three lots.
5. The driveways must have culverts and receive a permit from Carver
County.
6.
Details of the septic system design and location must be provided at
the time of building permit application. Roger Machmeier shall
review the perc tests and proposed septic system sites.
I
46
I
I
I
121
City Council Meeting - October 6, 1986
7. The septic system must include a design to allow inspection of the
tank and laterals.
8. There must be a 100 foot easement across the 12 inch pipeline.
9. A site plan and grading details must be approved by the Williams
Pipeline Company prior to a building permit being issued by the City.
10. The shed must be removed/moved and repaired upon building permit
application.
11. All existing outdoor storage must be removed from the site.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR ~ 23,048 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE/MANUFACTURING BUILDING ON
2.09 ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF PARK COURT AND PARK
DRIVE, COMPONENT ENGINEERING. - - - - - -
Note: A tape break occurred at this point while Staff was giving it's
presentation.
Barbara Dacy: ...and request that it be directed to the east onto the parking
lot and then out to the street or to the west off of the drainage way on the
southwest part of the property. That recommendation can be accommodated and I
guess if you would like to add along to condition 5 that in addition that
drainage either be directed to the east or west to be incorporated into the
storm water plan based on Bill Engelhardt who has reviewed that with Opus and
that can be accomplished. Second item I would like to point out to the
Council regarding emergency access, mention was made regarding stripping one
of the spaces in front of the building for emergency access and applicant is
proposing to do that. That is acceptable to the Public Safety Director.
Also, consultation with with Mr. Castleberry, the exit at the rear of the
building is going to be constructed no matter if future expansion within the
building occurs or not. Mr. Castleberry's second request was that this area
at least be plowed during the winter so access could be made to this point
should a fire occur and the applicant has stated that that would be
accomplished so Mr. Castleberry's comments under 7 have been or are proposed
to be complied with by the applicant. The remaining conditions are basically
the standard conditions that you see on site plan reviews. The curbing,
compliance with Watershed District requirements. We would like to see though
additional landscaping especially on the south side of the property and as you
read in the Minutes, the applicant noted that they are going to try to
preserve a lot of the existing trees that are there and there are some very
tall evergreen trees existing on the site already. They can do that fine or
he is asking for a revised plan to show where those trees are going to be
maintained and that a continuous screen is provided along the south side to
break up the view of the parking and loading activity and so on. The
applicant is here this evening.
Mayor Hamil ton: Do you have anything to add?
47
122
City Council Meeting - October 6, 1986
Dan Richmond: Nothing other then the first driveway spot is the closest spot
to the water and also to the... As far the drainage goes, I don't think that
is a real problem. A slit in the roof to go to the east in the catch basin on
16 and then to the west down to the ...but I don't think that is a big problem
so other then that. We took an existing topographic map of the trees on the
back line and we are working with the Staff and we plan on trying to save
some of those trees. A couple of them can be saved and a couple of them are
fairly mature trees but a lot of them can't be so we are going to work with
Staff and try to save as much as we can back there but a couple of them. They
appear the particular applicant's property line and they are just over it so
we won't be touching a couple of them but some we will be but I guess we won't
know until we take the blueprint and stake out the building but we have
already agreed to talk with Staff and tell them which ones will be save and
when we make application we are going to submit to them an existing vegetation
topographic map showing which will be saved. I know they are concerned about
it and there were also some people on the Planning Commission concerned.
Councilwoman Watson moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the site Plan
#86-4 based on the plan stamped "Received September 3, 1986" for a 23,048
square foot office/warehouse manufacturing building on 2.09 acres of property
located at the southwest corner of Park Court and Park Drive with the
following conditions:
1.
The perimeter of all parking areas shall be lined with concrete curb
except those areas that are to be expanded.
2.
Compliance with all of the Watershed District's regulations on new
construction.
3. That additional coniferous and deciduous trees be placed every forty
feet around the perimeter of the south and west lot lines and provide
a year round opacity of 50% of screening along the perimeter of the
proposed parking lot to the west and future driveway and dock to the
south of the proposed building.
4. Erosion control barriers be installed to prevent sediment from
leaving the site during construction.
5. The culvert located under the driveway off of Park Drive be
eliminated and additional grading be done to direct the runoff to
Park Drive.
6.
Provisions
building.
exiting is
maintained
be made to maintain an exit-way on the south end of the
I understand that this is future expansion space; however,
required and consequently existing surface must be
as well.
7.
Emergency vehicle access will have to be provided for in proximity to
the main entrance. Additionally, clear access will need to be
provided to the Fire Department connection which is not located on
this plan. Since the water supply will be coming in from the north
48
I
I
I
I
I
I
123
City Council Meeting - October 6, 1986
end of the building, we may be able to provide access to the Fire
Department connection and emergency vehicles in the same space.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
Barbara Dacy: Mr. Mayor, if you would be willing to rearrange the agenda
again. We have a gentlemen here regarding the last item on the grading and
erosion control. I don't know how long you are going to take on the PUD.
Councilwoman Swenson moved, Councilman Geving seconded to amend the agenda to
reverse items 17 and 16.
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT FOR GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL, FINAL READING.
- -
Councilman Geving: My problem is that we didn't get any builders on this.
Barbara Dacy: Yes we did. I received several phone calls and Rick Sayther
wanted to address the Council.
Rick Sayther: I am representing Lundgren Brothers here tonight. As you know
we are working with them on the Near Mountain project and for other people
that have worked in Chanhassen for a few years now. We are very sympathetic
to the problems of the community relating to drainage and I think it is wise
that you are trying to beef up the Ordinance. While I appreciate the
opportunity to comment on it and I guess the thrust of my comments really are,
I think that it would be wise to try to separate out the different types of
lots that might be creating problems or the different types of situations that
cause problems to the City. I'm sure some building activities, a new home or
a new structure on an already developed neighborhood area where you are
opening up a piece of ground that hasn't been opened up for years and you
might be right next to a lake or a stream and the potential for impact on that
water body is very great. I think that is one specific instance. The second
one might be where you are also in a developed area that is stable but you're
not next to a water body where your risk of having sediment get to a lake or
stream is not quite as high but certainly there is a risk to pollute the storm
sewer system. Then the third situation that I am most often faced with is a
subdivision that is undergoing major development at the time where we have
installed erosion control facilities for the entire subdivision. I made a
couple of overheads and I would 1 ike to use them with you to show you what we
typically do in those instances. I know you do know but maybe to get very
specific about one spot. This drawing is a small portion of the Chestnut
Ridge and Near Mountain 7th Addition area. Pleasant View Road would be just
off this south end of the drawing. In our earlier development in order to
protect the large public wetland which lies along the north edge of Chanhassen
on the Shorewood boundary, we installed a sedimentation storage pond right in
the middle of the project. After it was completed we put erosion control,
sil t fence around the pond and then we graded the lot. This is the area that
has just recently been paved this summer so we established an erosion control
pattern to control runoff heading toward that pond which in and of itself is
one way to control sediment before it can get to the wetland. Those sediment
control fences stay in place until the lots are restored with sod or seed.
When we get to the building permit time and there is house going to be built,
49
124
City Council Meeting - October 6, 1986
now this is that same lot closest to the pond. When we come in with a survey
on that site, we show the existing and proposed elevations. The green ones
are the pre-existing and the red ones are after construction elevations so I
think in a development situation where it is an ongoing thing, I think that we
are addressing the concerns that are in the proposed Ordinance. Maybe not in
every case. Maybe if there are very steep slopes there may still be concern
but I'm afraid that the Ordinance, unless there are separations for the
different situations made, unless there are separate circumstances outlined in
the Ordinance, we may get very redundant in what we are doing. I know we want
to end up with the same end result but I would 1 ike to see somehow to
streamline the process. What I would suggest or what I would ask you to do is
to allow the building communi ty, myself and others to work with the Staff to
try to make provisions in the Ordinance to separate out the different
situations out in Chanhassen where there is a high risk, a lower risk and an
even lower risk situation and structure the Ordinance or suggest that it could
be structured to deal differently with those different situations.
Don Ashworth: I think we have had a number of concerns that basically
parallel the comments given this evening to make an adjustment to this
Ordinance so as to insure that the building community does not need to be
concerned that we will be overly harsh. I think that most of the lots
developed do not require significant erosion control associated with it. We
simply want to have the ability to require certain types of erosion control
when we see that it is going to be a problem. '!he wordage that we had
suggested Barbara was.
Barbara Dacy: 1 under the proposed Ordinance basically states that required
with every building permit is a grading plan and what that plan encompasses is
detailed and 2, spot elevations etc.
Don Ashworth: The wordage changed and I thought it was at the City's
discretion.
Barbara Dacy: I believe what was suggested was wherever deemed necessary.
Don Ashworth: Wherever deemed necessary. Right and you were going to suggest
that that be inserted where. In 1.
Barbara Dacy: Yes, if it would be anyplace it should be in 1.
Councilwoman Swenson: Who would deem that it is necessary? Would that be
done at the time that the development contract, I mean the final plat? Is
Council going to determine whether or not this is going to have to be done?
Don Ashworth: This is part of the individual permit itself. In most
instances, when the individual comes in and if we can tell that the lot is
abutting a lake, stream or adjacent to a pond area, we will require something
similar to what Rick had presented. '!hat information will suffice in
instances like that. In most instances, the actual construction would be
looked at at the time that the foundation is put in and it is at that point in
time that the inspector will be out on the site and can reasonably see whether
50
I
I
I
I
I
I
125
City Council Meeting - October 6, 1986
or not there would be any type of restoration problems associated with that
particular lot.
Councilwoman Swenson: How would that have applied for instance in the Triple
Crown Estates that for all practical purposes nobody anticipated would result
in what it did? with the drainage.
Don Ashworth: Are you talking about Chaparral?
Councilwoman Swenson: No, I'm talking about Triple Crown. The erosion into
the.. .
Don Ashworth: This Ordinance is really set for existing lots of record and
any type of development that may occur 6-12 months after the development plan
itself goes through. The lot can go in, if it is a problem that was incurred
because we did not have as many conditions going along with the development
contract and development plan that we potentially could have. If we had the
Ordinances in...
Councilwoman Swenson: The comment the building inspector was not able to
determine that this was going to happen is that what you are saying and
therefore it wasn't dealt with out at Laukka?
Don Ashworth: No, Laukka, again we have learnerl a number of things this past
summer including some methods of hay bale installation, silt fences, etc. We
beefed up the Ordinance in terms of the reviewal process that we will go
through if we should corne up with it including identification of mature trees
and more distinctly showing the amounts of grading. That is a whole separate
set of ordinances that deal with the subdivision of land and what it is you
look at when a developer comes in or a particular development.
Councilwoman Swenson: So this is what is already here as opposed to what will
be corning in?
Don Ashworth: That is correct. This deals with existing lots of record and
potentially is some of the homes you are buiding are built for 4-5 years and
maybe some of those silt fences will be down and it will be this Ordinance
that puts those fences back up.
Councilwoman Swenson: Where are you putting at the discretion of the City?
Don Ashworth: Somewhere in number 1.
Councilwoman Swenson: I would propose two changes. First of all, I think 20
feet of horizontal distance to the ordinary high water mark is entirely too
close. I think it should be at a minimum 40 because you get those graders in
there and 20 feet is, as somebody said, spitting distance. And I'm not
comfortable with the building inspector making this decision. I think this
should be the City Engineer since he has the expertise to make these
determinations.
Mayor Hamil ton: In both 1 and 4.
51
-"2~.
.10
City Council Meeting - October 6, 1986
Councilwoman Swenson: Yes sir and anything having to do with engineering or
technical things of this nature I think we ought to have the appropriate
people taking care of it.
I
Mayor Hamilton: I agree with the City Engineer in both 1 and 4.
Councilman Geving: I agree with that am I agree with the 40 feet.
Don Ashworth: Realize the City Engineer doesn't get out on each building
permit but if I'm hearing what the Council is saying is this will require
then that he takes a more active role especially where it is anticipated there
may be same projected problem.
Councilman Geving: I think they can figure that out can't they between the
building inspector am the engineer. They know which areas are potentially
going to give us problems. He doesn't have to look at every single lot that
is going to be developed.
'-
Don Ashworth: '!his is what I'm saying. I think we can reasonably work
through that.
Councilwoman Watson: Once the erosion controls are in place, an occasional
visit by the City Engineer should be enough.
Councilwoman Swenson: I think the City Engineer should make the determination I
as to what has to be done to protect these things. I would not trust somebody
that does not have the expertise of a City Engineer and I think this is much
too important a subject not to be covered by someone of that nature.
Councilman Horn: We're talking about a sul:rlivision, not each individual lot.
He views this whole thing as a sul:rlivision request.
Councilwoman Swenson: He will know what lots are going to require this and
then he has to go out am okay the fact that these things are being done.
Councilman Horn: Right and he'll get that when he reviews the sul:rlivision.
Councilwoman Swenson: Well, he'll have to go out am see that it is done
though Clark.
Barbara Dacy: Also what it is saying too Mr. Horn is that if they see a
problem developing, this is requiring if it is near a lake, this is requiring
an individual grading plan for that individual lot and we will have that on
record am then we can go there, the Ci ty Eng ineer, whoever am if they didn't
do it right they make them put it back, install more hay bales and so on so it
does go beyom the sul:rlivision review.
Councilwoman Swenson: It is lakes and/or wetlands.
Councilman Horn: My point is that he can identify the critical ones during
the review.
I
52
I
I
I
133
City Council Meeting - October 6, 1986
Barbara Dacy: Yes and as a matter of fact we did that with Chan vista
identifying those:
Councilwoman Swenson moved; Councilman Geving seconded to approve the Zoning
Ordinance Amendment for Grading and Erosion Contro1~ Second and Final Reading
with the changes noted below:
1. Whenever deemed necessary, a satisfactory erosion control and grading
plan must be approved by the City Engineer before a building permit
is issued for construction. Said plan is to address on-site grading
activities as well as protection of adjacent slopes, streets, lakes,
ponds, drainageways, wetlands, and developed property.
3. Every effort shall be made to minimize disturbance of existing ground
cover. No grading or filling shall be permitted within forty (40)
feet of horizontal distance to the ordinary high water mark of a
water body unless specifically approved by the City. Also,
to minimize the erosion potential of exposed areas, restoration of
ground cover shall be provided as quickly as possible after
copm1etion of the grading operation.
4.
Every effort shall be made during the building permit application
process to determine the full extent of erosion control required.
However, the City Engineer shall be empowered to require additional
controls to correct specific site related problems as normal
inspections are performed.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
Councilman Horn: Just one comment, after tonight I'm wondering about our
review process. We have had several i terns that we have come up to the last
minutes and more input comes in.
Councilman Geving: Like what?
Councilman Horn: I was speaking of the comment we got earlier on the sewer
and the comment that there was a public hearing on this one tonight and we
have a presentation when we are about to approve the final reading of it.
What happens to our public hearing process and why don't these inputs get in?
Why don't people respond during the public hearing processes?
Barbara Dacy: I can't understand the 65th Street/Crestview situation. There
are affidavits on file. There were two public hearings. I can address the
grading and erosion control. We did not notify the builders until after
Council direction at the last meeting. That is a good point. We should have
done that for the Planning Commission public hearing and I'll take the rap for
that.
53
134
City Council Meeting - October 6, 1986
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT FOR THE PUD DISTRICT, FINAL READING.
I
Councilman Geving moved, Councilwoman Watson seconded to table the Zoning
Ordinance Amendment for the POD District, Final Reading to the next City
Council meeting on October 20, 1986. All voted in favor and motion carried.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS
Mayor Hamilton wanted to know what was being done with the Pryzmus' Driving
Range. Work was continuing even though a citation to discontinue work had
been issued. Mayor Hamilton wanted something done once and for all to stop work
at that location. Don Ashworth asked Elliott Knetsch if he knew the status on
this item. The City Manager stated the last report he had received from Roger
Knutson's office was that their office was continuing the prosecution for non-
compliance. Mr. Pryzmus had contacted City Hall more then two months ago
stating that he had a purchaser of the property and that he asked if we
couldn't hold off for just another 20 days and he would have this proposed
purchaser in to show the plans that he was proposing to carry out on the
property. He did not do that. The last time that the City Manager had talked
with Roger Knutson's office, they were picking that prosecution back up again
and that it was literally in Court. Elliott Knetsch stated that it is being
pursued in Court because he had drafted the criminal Complaint for violation
of the Ordinance. Councilman Geving asked if an injunction could be served on
him and Elliott Knetsch stated yes. Elliott Knetsch stated that other then
waiting for him to be brought into criminal court and waiting for that
disposition, it is difficult to move him without incurring substantial legal I
expenses. He could attempt to get an injunction and that would involve a
couple of hearings in court. It can be done and it is not all that difficult
to do. First you would get a Temporary Restraining Order, it is an ex parte
order and then he would have an opportunity within 10 days of either granting
that or to come in and give his side of it so that could be pursued if that is
what you wish. The Council agreed that the only recourse was to go after him
legally.
Mayor Hamilton also asked about the Williams pipeline and what was the
procedure for hearings on William's Pipeline going through Chanhassen. Don
Ashworth stated that a letter had been sent which required having William's
pipeline answer a list of questions. They had also sent the same list of
questions to an independent company. The most critical pieces of information
that the City needs to know is what year was the pipe manufactured, was it the
McLaughlin pipe that is in the ground and was the seam welled on it and if
receive an affirmative response to any of those three then they might be
considering testimony.
Don Ashworth stated that he had found two different low bids regarding the
purchase of vehciles for the City. The first one which would appear to be the
lowest pricewise is the Omni from Bloomington Freeway Dodge. This appeared to
be a vehicle that had been leased a lot and the City Manager could not
recommend that one even though the price appeared to be low. '!he two that are
being recommending are under Freeway Ford. The 1985 Escort, 4,100 miles. I
They are almost new vehciles. $12,600.00 is a good price, good mileage,
excellent bid. The ones above the Escorts were at $12,800.00 and what makes
54
I
I
I
129
City Council Meeting - October 6, 1986
them attractive is they have a three year warranty on them so there would be
two remaining years. The 1985 would have a few months of warranty am that is
it. 'Ihe City Council stated that they felt the two cars with the low mileage
might be the better choice but they left it to the discretion of the City
Manager.
Councilman Geving wanted the Council members to think about council
compensation. A change in ordinance form has to be done by November 4th to
raise the mayor and council member's compensation for the next two years and
can not be done until the next election period which is two years hence. An
Elected Official Salary Survey which was done in June of ten comparable cities
to Chanhassen am his analysis of this was that the comparable citis came in
this way. 'Ihe office of mayor was $3,619.00 as opposed to our $3,600.00.
Council members are a little bit higher then the average with $2,763.00
compared to our $2,400.00. Last year, as an example Councilman Geving
attended 84 meetings in the City of Chanhassen and just for the sake of
keeping records, tallied over 500 personal hours of his time at Council
meetings, special council meetings, HRA meetings, Chamber of Commerce
meetings, calls out to sites by residents on numerous occasions. Don
Ashworth stated that this i tern would be placed on the next meeting's agema
and the council members could think about it until that time.
Councilman Geving moved, Councilwoman Swenson seconded to adjourn the meeting.
All voted in favor and meeting was adjourned at 11:15 p.m..
Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
55