1987 03 16 CITY COUNCIL
~.~TING
16, 1987
Hamilton called the meeting to order. The meeting was opened with the
to the Flag.
PRESENT: Councilman Boyt, Councilman Horn, Councilman Geving and
:ilman Johnson
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Gary Warren, Barbara Dacy, Jo Ann Olsen, Lori
, and Todd Gerhardt.
OF AGENDA: Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to
the Agenda as presented with the following additions: Councilman Boyt
wanted to discuss closing the road between Frontier Trail and Kerber Blvd. and
Don Ashworth stated that be wanted to discuss the public safety vehicle under
Presentations. All voted in favor of the agenda as amended ar,]
carried.
CONSENT An~aI~A: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the
following consent Agenda it~ns pursuant to the City Manager's rec(an~endations:
a.
City Council Minutes dated February 23, 1987
Planning Cxm~nission Minutes dated March 4, 1987
Park and Recreation Cc~mission Minutes dated March 3, 1987
c. Approval of July 4th Fireworks Contract.
e. Final Plat Approval, Country Hills, Alan Mjolsnes.
PUBLIC HEARING:
~ITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT YEAR XIII Ar.r~CATION.
Barbara Dacy: At the last meeting the Council requested additional
information about CDBG funds for trails and Fire Department Personnel or
training programs and included in your packet is the responses of Mr.
Blacksted. Given the uncertain direction that he indicated in his letter,
Staff went ahead and recomm~ed the three projects that were originally
considered. The South Shore Senior Center, money for the Community Center
handicapped accessibility project and also we have recommended approval of the
Hennepin Economic Resource Organization request. I believe the South Shore
Seniors may be represented here tonight. A representative from the HERD
project was unable to attend. They have to go to 47 meetings. That's the
number of communities in Hennepin county so unfortunately he had a conflict.
Mayor Hamilton opened the meeting for public comments. There were no
comments. Councilman Horn moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to close public
hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried.
Councilman Geving: I would like to discuss the request for the HERO funds.
The comment that I have is that I don't know really who the Hennepin County
Economic Resource organization is, identified as HER(X They are requesting
City Council Meeting - March 16, 1987
funds from apparently all the communities in Hennepin County and I question
really whether or not citizens of Chanhassen could get much of any benefit
from a disadvantaged and any other program that they might offer to Carver
County and Chanhassen residents. I saw nothing in here regarding their
Charter. They indicated that they are a 501 C, tax exempt organization and
with that I would personally like to see their Charter Organization, their
Board of Directors listed, a profit and loss statement that would be submitted
to the State of Minnesota to receive the tax exempt status. As I read through
the papers here, it's relatively easy for me to diagnose that several people
got together and decided to call themselves the Board of Economic Resource
Organization. I don't really believe they exist. They exist only to get
money from county, city and state governments so they can plan an organization
and my feeling is that they don't really exist at this time. I would like to
see the things that I just mentioned. Who are the Board of Directors? Show
me their Charter for example. Show me when they started up as a business. As
a tax exempt business and until we see that, I don't believe we can get 5% of
our CBDG funds to this organization and personally I really feel it was in
poor taste to advise us, from the Staff's standpoint, for an incomplete Staff
Report. I feel that until we get that kind of information available to us, it
would be inappropriate for us to allocate tonight 5% of these funds, even
though it's only $1,400.00 or $1,500.00, they are meeting with 47 to 50
different communities and if they are able to tap 5% of all the funds that are
available. I could see where this organization could go great places. It
would be very easy for any one of us on this Council to organize ourselves as
a tax exempt orgranization and immediately go out and try to get funds to
support us and I think that's exactly what these people did. They admitted in
fact that the originators of this HERO account were members of their own
party. Two people that were part of this group decided that they wanted to
become an organization. They have no funding. They are planning for funds.
Those are the extent of my statement in this regard but I think it would be
inappropriate for us tonight to just automatically allocate funds to an
organization we know nothing about. I was hoping that we would have in
attendance here tonight a representative that we could speak to, ask questions
of and determine whether or not they are in fact a legitimate organization.
Mayor Hamilton: I would just pick up on one thing that Dale said, I'm not in
favor of doing the $1,600.00 either. Until I find out more about the
disadvantaged persons that they are trying to place, I certainly would be
willing to help anyone disadvantaged to receive a fund opportunity but being
in the location that we're at and Chanhassen away from the core city without
real good transportation out here, I don't feel that we really offer a lot to
disadvantaged and I would personally rather see us take the $1,600.00 and give
it to the Senior Center and have them do something with it rather than giving
it to the other account.
Councilman Horn: I would like to suggest a modification that would leave the
amount that was pledged to HERO in advance until we have a chance to evaulate
the organization. At some later point we find out that we don't want to make
this we could then designate it the Senior Citizen-group.
Mayor Hamilton: Do we need to have these funds designated by a specific time?
;ity Council Meeting - March 16, 1987
Dacy: Yes, we do but I think the proposal to allocate at least the
Center and the handicapped facility, I can get that application in by
March 20th deadline and then I believe the Hennepin County office will
.llow us to discuss the HERO request at the first meeting in April. That
give Mr. Arthur the opportunity to come and speak if the Council wishes
discuss that then but yes, there is a deadline of March 20th and I would
that you at least recommend the South Shore and the handicap
ect.
Hamilton: Have you talked to the HERO organization and we are unable to
out the information we need, perhaps you block in programs so you can't
t any longer on this to designate fur~s then I think the motion should
that the funds should go the senior project rather than just...
#B7-19: Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded that the
, after evaluating HERO, have the option to appropriate and reallocate
the $1,641.00, that was designated by Staff to HERO, to go to the Senior
tizen Center to increase the amount allocated to them, and that the South
Shore Senior Center and the handical~ accessibility for the Community Oenter
would be allocated the amounts as presented by Staff for the Year XIII CDBG
Money. All voted in favor and motion carried.
-.
PROPOSED MODIFICATION TO REDEVELOPMENT/TAX I~ FINANCING PLAN.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to table the modification to
the redevelopment/tax increment financing plan until HR% has had a Chance to
meet and address the item. All voted in favor of tabling the item and motion
carried.
AWARD OF BIDS:
A. TRUNK SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION, JAMES/JACOBSON PROPERTY.
Gary Warren: This was an item that on November 3, 1986 we approved plans and
specs for this trunk sewer to service the James and Jacobson area which is in
immediate need of sewer. We opened bids on March llth. We had 11 bidders
and we had a little bit larger range than we've had in recent biddings.
Annadale Sewer was low bidder of $196,906.75. It is 7% underneath the
engineer's estimate but we feel the bid is competitive and balanced and as
such, in looking at their record, we feel comfortable with their track record
so we therefore are recommending that we award the contract to Annandale Sewer
and Water for the $196,906.75.
Councilman Boyt: I would like somebody to talk to me about having flagman out
there. Today they restricted traffic down to one lane and they didn't have a
flagman most of the time fr~m the drivers that called me.
Gary Warren: Are you talking about our watezmain construction?
Councilman Boyt: Is that it?
City Council Meeting - March 16, 1987
Gary Warren: Yes, that' s what is going on now.
Resolution #87-20: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to award
the bid for the trunk sanitary sewer extension for CR 16 and CR 17 for the
James property and Jacobson property to Annandale Sewer and Water in the
amount of $196,906.75. All voted in favor and motion carried.
B. 1987 ROLLER/PACKER FOR PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
Gary Warren: We received three quotes. Basically this is a piece of
equipment that, based on our recent backlog of paving work and we're looking
at increases that will continue on with this year and our 20 year old unit is
a little bit under capacity for what we really r~_~cd to do these days. We've
gotten good mileage out of it so we solicited quotations and the low bidder,
the Roscoe unit which we feel is the best selection here for our ~r~cds, at
$8,880.00. Staff did look at used equipment and as such requested quotations
in that regard but based on the facts itemized in the middle here, we feel
that the Roscoe unit is the best buy for our needs. As such, we are
recommending award of the bid to Roscoe for $8,880.00.
Councilman Horn: I went through these specs and it appeared to me, based on
the size and capacity, the type of engines and everything else it had on it
that the used unit would be a better buy. It is a much heavier duty and it
only has 84 hours on it and it's got a Kohler engine as opposed to a Briggs
and Stratton which is a heavier duty engine. As a matter of fact, if you look
at the deluxe version of this model, you will find that they do put a Kohler
engine on it so I felt that based on the fact that this piece of equipment
only has 84 hours on it, it's a better buy. I fine it hard to believe that it
would cost, with our equilm%ent, $200.00 to go pick it up.
Councilman Geving: I would like to hear from Jerry before w~ leave this.
Gary Warren: I guess the other factor was just the staff in actually looking
at it, Jerry Schlenk I guess he could comment on that.
Jerry Schlenk: Ail the guys went out and looked at it and the used one wasn't
as good a machine .... the Briggs and Stratton engine, they had no problem
with.
Councilman Geving: Could w~ have gotten the warranty of Beuthling?
Jerry Schlenk: One year.
Councilman Horn: 84 hours is practically new though. I'm not saying there
is anything wrong with t_he Briggs and Stratton engine. What I'm saying is the
Kohler is a better engine. If you look at the capacity, it's got a heavier
weight.
.,
Jerry Schlenk: It's just a little bit bigger. ~ne width is the same.
Actually, it wouldn't make any difference to us. Either one. We could go
either way but we just felt that being the other one was a new unit. There is
a one year warranty of either one.
Council Meeting - March 16, 1987
lman Geving: On the Beuthling it has a 50 gallon water tank. Is that a
iignificant difference as compared to the 42 on the Roscoe?
Schlenk: No.
:ilman Geving: I think I would personally rather go with the Staff's
iecommendation. They did get a chance to see the three vehicles ar~ I agree
you Clark. I think you did have a good point but I do believe that I
,ld rather go with something new and the price is virtually the same. We're
$200.00 on an $8,800.00 iten.
$87-21: Councilman moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to adopt the
ition of the Street Superintendent and City Engineer to purchase the
unit for $8,880.00 for the self-propelled vibratory asphalt compactor.
voted in favor except Councilman Horn who opposed and motion carried.
18 TON HOIST FOR PUBLIC WORKS GARAGE.
Gary Warren: As you're aware, we're expanding to keep up with the demands of
the City. As such, we are looking this year at expansion of our public works
'arage, among other things, but also our fleet ar~ maintaining that fleet.
Therefore, we have solicited quotations for installation of another lift hoist
in the garage to make available to our second mechanic to work on the
This is a budgeted item. ~ne low bidder Northwest Service Station-
' Co. is the same equipment that we have presently that has worked
very well for us for the last six years. We did have them split their bids to
give us some options as far as installation of some of the pieces we could
handle ourselves but even with that, the low bidder is very competitive. As
such, we're recommending approval of the bid from Northwest Service Station
Equipment Co. for $9,809.00.
Resolution $87-22: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to
approve that the 18 ton hoist for the Public Works Garage be purchased from
the Northwest Service Station EquipmentCompany for Weaver Model EC-106B in
the amount of $9,809.00. All voted in favor and motion carried.
APPROVAL OF CHANHASSEN VISTA GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN.
Mayor Hamilton: We discussed this a couple of weeks ago and had instructions
that they were going to follow up on.
Gary Warren: Immediately after that same week we approached the developer ar~
the consultant and had a meeting with myself, the Watershed engi~ and my
engineering technician to basically walk the site again in detail to review
the recommendations that I had on the erosion control plan that I presented to
the Council on the 23rd and to basically review what we expected to have done
at this time consistent with your direction to bring things up to s~. We
did that on the 23rd. Subsequently we have received documents from the
developer which I would say are an accurate statement of the repair work that
has ~-cn done in the field. At this time I feel comfortable that we have the
erosion control situation under control as far as it was originally required ·
and I think we have a good plan for the 2nd, 3rd and 4th additions that they
k
City Council Meeting - March 16, 1987
are looking to receive approval from us tonight. I know the engineer and
developer are here if you choose to talk with them. The conditions that I
would recommend being placed on approval of the erosion control plan are
consistent with my original report with some minor exceptions. The item 11,
the establishment of the conservation easement in the 4th addition, we would
like to have that staked ahead of time and maintained so we know exactly the
boundaries of the conservation easement across the lots and I think that's the
major item here. We did receive in the packet here a letter from Dave Segal
of Enterprise Properties to try to give some indication on how they want to
pursue the project. Seeding and mulching have been completed as he reported
to me today and also a wood fiber blanket is down so I think he has taken our
direction to heart here and has gotten the site back to a level that we feel
comfortable with from the Staff's standpoint.
Councilman Johnson: First of all Gary, I don't see anything from Roger on
this. Part of t_hat motion was to have the City Attorney look into the
violations of the last permit issued.
Gary Warren: Roger is out of town on vacation but I did talk with Cecilia Ray
who checked for me. Basically, we have authority under our Nuisance Ordinance
and under Section 18 of our Subdivision Ordinance to basically rule for a
misdemeanor in a situation where there is a violation of those Ordinances.
The difficulty at this time and they talked with their prosecuting attorneys .
with Grannis, is the fact that the developer, there isn't a good track record
documenting the fact that we had problems on the site and they didn't
cooperate to take care of them and bring it up to speed so they are saying at
this time that, while you could prosecute them that it would not be a
successful prosecution. That if the developer is responding at this time,
that would be the best at this time that we could hope for. In the future the
thing to do is as soon as we have difficulties to get back to them and let
thsm start the proceedings.
Councilman Johnson: I think what really hurt us there was being between City
Engineers and now that we've got you here, nothing is going to get past you.
I guess that negates one of my questions as to whether the line drawn as to
what was approved for 1st Phase was what was approved or what was actually
done but that's neither here or there anymore. One question I asked last time
was why is 3rd and 4th Addition have to be done simultaneously? Why do we
have to open up all this ground at the same time and I see nothing in here
explaining that? Why can't we do only 3rd or only 4th? The 3rd one is done.
Gary Warren: That's true. 3rd is almost done. I think one of the factors,
the economy of scale, which I guess is a factor that developers have to deal
with, is why they would want to mass grade the site so to speak. The other is
the potential for unknown as far as stockpiling soil. If you get into the
next phases and you uncover bad soils that you haven't stockpiled enough soil
to replace the bad soils and such, it eliminates some of the flexibility to
them as far as grading the site economically. ~nat's something they maybe
want to address if they are here tonight. In my conditions, I think from a
City standpoint, the important thing that we are requesting is the letter of
credit assurety that the site could be restored, seeded and whatever and
Council Meeting -March 16, 1987
up to s~ so we are not exposing ourselves beyond anything that is
Johnson: ~hen is the 2nd Addition going to be seeded?
Warren: The 2nd Addition will be seeded, I directed the~ to seed the 1st
and until we had a little better feel for the weather here, they are
willing right at this moment to seed ar~ mulch the 2nd Addition. They are
just waiting for my direction.
Councilman Johnson: I want to "-_~ them before we start opening up more lar~.
They have gone out and seeded the 1st Addition that is within the parklands
and some of the large area that hasn't been seeded as of yet that I don't know
if they plan on. There is a large backyard area going back to the silt fence
on the west side.
Gary Warren: We've got some erosion control on that right now. They could go
and seed the 2nd Addition easily in a day or two at the most.
Councilman Johnson: We r._~ that done before the rains wipe out 2nd Addition.
Under your condition 7, the entire site should be restored with seed
immediately after grading and mulched where required. What do you define as
i~mediately? To some people that's three months.
Gary Warren: I think you're right. It's how you want to interpret it.
Councilman Johnson: What's reasonable time period that we can put in here
instead of the word immediately?
Gary Warren: Within a week after grading.
Councilman Johnson: Can we ask their engineer? I see him sitting there. Is
a week after grading an adequate time period for you to complete your seeding,
weather dependent of course?
Paul Pearson: Is this 4th Addition construction?
Gary Warren: Site grading.
Paul Pearson: I don't have any problem in a week weather permitting, provided
that it doesn't rain. That would be no problem. One thing, in talking to the
Staff, this would also include the 2nd Addition construction, once the utility
improvements are undertaken, there will be an area adjacent to the street that
will be disturbed so we've been talking to wait until the utility improvements
are completed and then seed and mulch the site. I don't think that's been
determined yet and we're willing to do it either way but any good judgment has
to be made in which may be the better alternative.
councilman Johnson: For 3rd and 4th Addition, you're not going to be doing
utility right-of-way. I don't think we're going to lay for seeding until
possibly next year when you do the utilities. On 2nd Addition, I think we
should go ahead and seed. Personal opinion is that we seed the areas of
City Council Meeting - March 16, 1987
slopes and stabilize our slopes and the flat areas along the edges where the
utilities are going to be, they are probably going to disturbed more by the
house building. I hear you've already sold three lots and if they go like
your 1st Addition did, the seed's not going to have a chance to take along the
street because they are going to be building houses along there. I'm more
concerned on the slopes. To prevent the erosion on the slopes. The seed is
there. As soon as it gets warm and the seeds can germinate, they germinate
and get going. The other, point 11 when you talk about the conservation
easement, as I remember the previous conservation easement Gary, it was to the
point all the way to the crest of the hill or some terminology like that. As
a surveyor's laid it out, we're about 20 feet below the crest of the hill.
I assume that was approved as part of the preliminary plat or final plat of
1st Addition as to exactly where that was. Before we approve the conservation
easement for 4th Addition, I don't just want it clearly marked, I want it
approved that it is where it's supposed to he. That it is the way the
conservation statement is stated. That it goes to the crest of the hill or
however exactly that is stated. Not 20 feet down from where most people
thought it was going to be.
Gary Warren: It shows on the final plat, which was approved by the City and
that's what we would want th~m to have clearly marked in the field.
Councilman Johnson: If we could get the wording of the conservation easement
is one thing. What was on the final plat was a drawn line and what was staked
in the field was a third item. I don't know how to reconcile all three of
those items together. I did not bring a transom out ar~ check the surveyor to
see if he put the stake in the right place. It seems that we continue to put
the stake in the same place everytime kids or whoever knocks it over but one
of the points of the conservation easement was that it was at the crest of the
hill and the stakes for the conservation easement are about 20 feet down the
side of the hill. They aren't near the crest of the hill and that happened as
part of the final. I want to prevent that happening on Phase 4. It happened.
There's not really a lot that I think we can do about it happening on the 1st
Addition.
Gary Warren: We haven ' t staked it out.
Councilman Johnson: That we want staked out before it's approved and make
sure that it meets where it's supposed to be. I don't think we quite made it
on 1st Addition.
Gary Warren: ~nere is a fence line out there right now which basically is
very close to what the plat shows as the conservation limit.
Councilman Johnson: There was on 1st Addition too, 20 feet below the fence
line. I have not taken and actually looked. I don't have 1st Addition's
final plat. I wasn't on the Council then. Trees. We have one section of
trees up here which is probably the best stand of trees that we've got in that
area and that's in your Block 2, Lots 6, 7 and 8. I don't want to see any of
those trees removed personally on Lots 6, 7 and 8. Those trees are well
spaced apart and as was done in Trapper's Pass and various other places around
here, none of those trees would have been disturbed and there is on reason to
k
'ity Council Meeting - March 16, 1987
llldoze those trees to put housing in there unless you have soil data showing
that that soil has to be corrected.
Warren: Is that 3rd Addition that you're talking about?
;ilman Johnson: Yes, it's in 3rd Addition, Block 2, Lots 6, 7 and 8.
next to Kerber Blvd. at Conestoga Park. Where that kind of cul-de-sac
s. You have to take the trees out where the cul-de-sac is of course but I~
about the back. They leave trees for about the first 20 or 25 foot
nto the yard and they take out a 15 foot or so swipe of trees which I think
s just going to ruin the property values. Tnen on Lot 6, they remove the
'.tees almost completely. I can't see how that's going to help your property
on those lots at all.
Pearson: In response to that, in looking at the plan, Lots 7 and 8 the
that the strip of trees is to be taken out, it was the request of the
and it's in the area where the proposed building is going to be
the construction. It's a 40 foot pad depth from the front of the
to the back of the house. It is more economical to take the trees out
the permit that we have than it is on the builder coming in with a small
khoe and a small dozer equipment, f~ can not take out the large trees that
right in the building pad itself so Lots 7 and 8, that is the reason that
trees are being removed. On Lot 6, in order to build the house with the
rades as shown, the trees in that pad area have to be r~oved.
Johnson: Are you going to fill that lot to make it a flat lot? A
~lat, treeless lot?
Pearson: Actually the cut Jay, I think we're cutting about 4 or 5 feet
)f material.
..ilman Johnson: It's hard to tell cut and fill on these drawings. That's
I would like to see marked is what is cut and what is fill. Are you
3aying you can't build on that lot with trees on it?
Pearson: In order to have the home which would have a driveway height to
able to get into his garage in, we have to cut the pad down in order for
house to be at a level where he wouldn't have a steep driveway. The
grade in the house pad area is approximately a 976 to a 978.
grade out in front is approximately a 967 so if we left the area as is,
grade to the house would be about a 7 foot of separation and that's why it
to be cut down. Maybe a comment about that. We designed the grades of
development, we made every attempt to save the trees in the area. We're
· the trees in the boulevard area. ~here is a note on the plan that
saving the trees on the lot line. The only area where we're removing
is the house pad itself or in the case of Lot 6 where we have to cut the
pad down to have a buildable lot.
..ilman Johnson: To tell you the truth, what happened the last time you
into trees, because there was no trees on any lot lines except for maybe
5 and 6 saved ar~ that was the fault of our lack of City Engineer at
time because they didn't go out and mark out the lot line trees to be
$9
City Council Meeting - March 16, 1987
saved. I'm sure we will have our lot line trees saved and as such, if we mark
trees on your lot line to save I don't see how you're going to get your
equipment in there to take these trees out in the first place. If you can't
drive through the trees to get in there with your equipment because we marked
the lot line trees to be saved, then you're not going to do this anyway so I
guess Gary can control that by marking the lot line trees and you won't be
able to go in there and clear-cut these trees out of here.
Paul Pearson: Mr. Johnson, in defense of the City Staff, the trees that were
on the lot lines, we're talking about the 2nd Addition, they were marked and
we did review them with Staff in the field. If they could be saved, they were
saved. To my knowledge there weren't any trees on the lot lines that were
removed.
Councilman Johnson: ~nis is a considerably different set of trees. This is a
much moremajestic group of trees.
Councilman Geving: Gary, you mentioned something about not having leverage to
pursue this any further in the Courts. Just as a matter of information, I
think the developers always know where they stand with the City and they
understand our language better than you think. We will pursue and prosecute
if necessary and we do have leverage. I too want to comment just briefly on
the one item that has to do with the imagination of the developer, which is
totally lacking in this particular development. If the road had been moved to
the south another 20 feet, you would have missed most of the trees that had to
be cut. I'm looking at 2nd Addition here. Secondly, if you have to go in and
destroy those trees on Lot 6, I will be terribly disappointed with you as a
builder and developer. I've watched that stand of trees for 20 years and I
can tell you it's a nice stand of trees that exist there and if you destroy
them, this may be your last job in Chanhassen. That's all I want to say. We
do have leverage and we do have ways of making things come out environmentally
sound and good for the City. There is no reason to go in there and bulldoze
the hell out of that Lot 6. I realize that the grade difference there is
about 15 feet. It's a terrific slope to the north. I can see that. I've
been by there hundreds of times but just to follow up on Jay's comment, it's
an independent comment of my own, save the trees. That's all I can tell you
and our engineer will be out there looking to make sure that that happens. As
far as the developer is concerned, I believe that he did respond to the
comments we made on February 23rd and swift action on your part. Many of the
items that we discussed that night have now been taken care of. The wood
fiber blanket is apparently taken care of and I'm pleased that you did respond
so the only thing I can tell you is save the trees.
Councilman Horn: I don't think I can add anything more to what Dale said.
Councilman Boyt: I've cried enough about the trees. We came in here a couple
of times and tried to tell you about the trees last year. What I would like
to talk about is the issue of the erosion control fencing for one and I guess
I would like to ask Gary and the engineer, are you convinced that where there
are breaks in that erosion control fencing, 4th Addition, Lot 3 for example,
that nothing is going to go through there? Is that going up hill to get to
the pond?
10
Council Meeting -March 16, 1987
Warren: When we walked the site back there, those are the high points.
The flow goes either way plus the lack of actual grading in those areas for
the most part was why we felt and the Watershed Engineer also agreed that
there could be exceptions on the high side.
Councilman Boyt: Okay, so we're safe there is what you're telling me. It was
understanding that on the north piece of property here that the easement
was to the break line basically, what we called the fence line in some places.
On the south there was, 960 comes to mind, but that there was some elevation
so I wasn't so convinced Jay that they went all the way to the break line on
the south side with that easement. I know it was discussed but I don't think
it ended up that way. I would like to also talk about the swale that you are
proposing. You may recall that back when this was discussed last November or
so that some of us who live behind this proposed that the developer, instead
of cutting a swale, join into that drainage easement that goes between what
was the Guttman's property and the King's just to the east of 3rd Addition,
Lot 4 or Lot 5. There is an easement through there. Now there is an existing
drainpipe that is broken in there. It would seem to me that it would be
fairly easy to come in with your backhoe and cut in and refill ~ sod a
trench through there with a pipe in it that would hook up to the existing
storm water system. I'm concerned about a swale that runs through, as you're
proposing. It looks like you're going to be cutting quite a little bit. It
sounds like you have made the swale. If you have to have one, it's now up to
1 1/2 feet deep which is a lot better than the 6 or so that it looked like it
was going to be originally but I don't think you need it at all and I would
like to see you take a swale out and make some sort of arrangement to hook
into that storm sewer. We got back with Bill Engelhardt last Fall and he, I
gathered, talked to David, your people somewhere along the line and told you
that that's what we would like to have done. That wasn't done -last Fall and I
would like to see that clmange made on this grading plan. That's one concern.
I don't know if anybody has any cc~m~ent about that.
Paul Pearson: I guess as far as the storm sewer design as it is laid out
right now, when this project originally began, we began on the preliminary
plat. We did a storm water analysis for the site. That was with Bill Monk
and it was determined at that time the flows from this development were to go
to a specific area. The idea was to divide up the storm water so it wasn't
all concentrated at one point. As you can see, it is being diverted to two
different locations to the north. I guess it was our understanding when we
were doing the site grading improvements or the design that the water
currently, the storm water was going between Lots 1 and 2 of the Sunrise Hills
Addition and apparently it was a nuisance type item with the yards being wet
and so on so in our design we incorporated the proposed berm which would not
allow any water except for the backyard areas of the existing homes right now
to go through that area. Ail the water would be diverted through the
Chanhassen Vista development. -In talking to City Staff, it is our
ur~erstanding that that would be the preferable alternative. In comment to
the overflow swale, the purpose of that is if at any time we were to have a
huge rain, I'm just guessing maybe a 12 to 18 inches during a 6 hour period or
something like that, if we had that large of rain ar~ the storm sewer outlet
could not har~le it, the overflow swale then to the west of Lot 3, would allow
the water to overflow through the swale and not over the top of the berm area
11
City Council ~cting - March 16, 1987
that is being constructed so the water then would flow to the south to the
large pond area and it would not flood any homes then within the Chanhassen
Vista development nor the Sunrise Hills plat. As a safety feature and the
engineering design, I think it's a good design to divert the water away from
hc~es so they aren't flooded.
Gary Warren: Yes, I think I could reinforce that from my viewpoint and also
from Bob Obermeyer, we did look at that and there was some concern in fact on
that house to the south there, Lot 2 with the elevation 950.6, the surface
948.8. I cross lot drainage ar~ such I guess when we can address a solution
such as this and can avoid having to even get involved with the lots, that's
my preference. I think the overflow swale, the direction, at least the way I
understood it from Bill Engelhardt, we wanted to minimize the impact of that
swale as much as possible and as you recognized, I think that they have tried
to do their best in that regard so we're talking about some 1 1/2 foot cut at
the most in the swale. It's a relief in that when it is used or needed, the
quicker it can get off the site and into our deeper ravine drainage area, I
think the better off we're going to be with it.
Councilman Boyt: Well, Gary it might be one of those things that got lost
between engineers but the City Council, and you can check the Minutes, they
basically said that we will leave this up to the homeowners in Lots 1 and 2.
Remember that? Wehave the homeowner from Lot 1 here tonight. The homeowners
got back to them well before the freeze and said put it through. ~nat we're
okay with you going through there. There is an easement to go through there.
It does prevent a need for a swale and there is a dandy storm water system
that they could hook up to on the other side of that so I disagree with you.
The other thing I would suggest you check is the water that comes out of that
marsh runs down to, if you're going to run it into that creek, that means that
you are apparently prepared to handle the erosion down that bank. Is that
right? If you look on Lot 3, 4th Addition, there is a steep bank there.
Steeper than most of us would want to climb and you're telling me that you're
going to run water down that bank and we're not going to have an erosion
problem into that creek?
Paul Pearson: I guess the purpose of that, the overflowing of that swale
would be in a rainstorm that more than likely will never happen and we design
the storm sewer system, we use a 100 year storm design which you probablyhave
heard on the news periodically. In that 100 year storm the high water level
within the pond will be 951 which is 3 1/2 feet below that overflow swale.
Thepond is large enough to accommodate, even if that pipe were flooded and
the storm water could not get out, the pond is large enough to accommodate the
100 year run-off from the entire development into that pond so it's very
unlikely that the overflow swale will ever be used but in the case that it has
to be, it's a relief valve so the water will not go between the existing
hc~es.
Councilman Boyt: Let me change the flow a little bit in the dike at the end
of the marsh. You're going to go in and move substantial earth there which
means I assume that somebody has gone to the trouble of getting a wetlands
alteration permit to do that? Since you're dealing with a wetlands and
pushing that berm up at the east end of that.
12
Council Meeting -March 16, 1987
Pearson: This is not a E~R weland. That is governed by the Watershed
Boyt: It is a Chanhassen wetland to which we have a Wetlands
to which you have to get an alteratio~ permit to do that. Isn't
right Gary?
Dsc,f: The wetlands alteration permit process was conducted in
'unction with the subdivision. At the time of the platting, the detail
ar~ specs weren't available and that's why this process is available
to you now to review those detail plan~ During the subdivision process we
that they were going to preserve the wetlar~s but we also knew that they
would have to do work in and around that so an alteration permit technically
already been approved by the Council.
Councilman Boyt: So you're saying that we've already approved the
establishment of this benin at the e~d of this marsh?
Barbara Dacy: In concept but you have the ability to, through the plan and
spec and grading and erosion control plan review to review that again in more
detail.
Councilman Boyt: I would think that you wouldn't ~ that if you provide
that connection to the storm sewer up towards Kiowa Circle. The other thing I
would like to know on the marsh, bow did you decide what the level was? The
high water mark. Was that through observation or was that through this map?
Paul Pearson: The high water level is actually computed by a mathematical
analysis based on the rate of run-off ar~ the size of the outflow pipe.
Councilman Boyt: I'm concerned when I see grading around the marsh as to how
that boundary was set because once you put that, it looks like about a four
foot high berm around the entire marsh, you're basically sealing it off.
Paul Pearson: As far as the wetlands themself, from previous Council meetings
we were directed to stay away from the wetlands. We are constructing the berm
to divert the water to the north but as you can see, the contours that are
proposed around the pond are staying away from the wetland limit which is
above the 950 elevation.
Councilman Boyt: So you're telling me that you're not infringing on the marsh
with that berm?
Paul Pearson: With the exception of the berm.
Councilman Boyt: Except at the east e~d? Are you going to be leaving the
water level of the marsh where it is now?
Paul Pearson: Right. The elevation of the ice that was shot was 949.3 and
the proposed March elevation was 949.5.
13
City Council Meeting - March 16, 1987
Councilman Boyt: When we're at the south end and you're running storm sewer
into a holding pond before it gets to Chan Pond, at the north end when you run
your storm sewer into the pond, you're running it directly into the pond. Can
you tell me what the difference is for Lot 6 and 7, 4th Addition?
P~ul Pearson: I'm assuming you're talking about the 1st Addition improvements
that were completed why there was a sedimentation pond?
Councilman Boyt: I think it says 4th Addition where we're talking about the
north end. I believe if you look at Sierra Trail, about half way down Sierra
Trail it looks to me like there is a storm water system that runs into the
pond from the south end of the north addition. I'm concerned that we're
running storm water directly into that pond. That pond doesn't need any
additional sedimentation in it.
Paul Pearson: I guess if the City deems that that storm water should go
through this pond, that would be possible. It would not be a problem.
Councilman Boyt: I'm not trying to get the storm water into the pond. I'm
trying to keep it from going into the pond. Maybe IR reading it wrong. Is
the storm water from Sierra Trail going into Chan Pond directly?
Paul Pearson: Yes.
Councilman Boyt: I don't think that's a good idea.
Gary Warren: I don't have the calculations for exactly the volume that is
going through that outlet there. If the grades would allow it to come to the
east to get in, I guess the other option would be to bring it to the east and
run through this pond system out. I guess I didn't think it was that bad.
Councilman Boyt: I think we're trying to set up a system where we run storm
water through some sort of sedimentation collector. I hate to see Chan Pond
used as a sedimentation collector. It seems to have been used that way for a
while. One other thing I would like to ask you to do is if you mass grade
this whole thing, I would like you to commit to keeping it moist enough so
that when we get the northwest winds which come through there, we don't get
dust. We're going to open ourselves until that seed catches to a major dust
problem. Can you do that? Wet it down?
David Segal: The 3rd A~dition, the improvements are going to be put in
immediately after the grading subject to final plat approval and so we're
talking about the 4th Addition which is about 26 lots on the south side. If
need be, we'll control the dust.
CounciLman Boyt: I'm pretty sure the need will be there.
Paul Pearson: Mr. Boyt I hear what you're saying. In working with other
projects in the metropolitan area, dust can be a problem. As far as
controlling that dust, until the top soil is placed on the site, once the top
soil is placed in the clay, which is normally the dust problem, it can't blow
around so as soon as the site is to grade, the black dirt will be placed and
14
Council Meeting - March 16, 1987
will delete the dust problem. We make every att~ to control the dust.
:ilman Boyt: What you're telling me is you need the swale because you
't have a better way of controlling that. Gary, you're going to look at
some alternative to running that storm water directly into Chan Pond?
Gary Warren: We'll take a look at that.
Councilman Boyt: I think it's reasonable to consider alternatives before we
run that in there. Unless you want to consider the road, I'm through.
Mayor Hamilton: I only have a couple of comments and that is I feel that each
time a developer comes in and responds to our requests and comments, suddenly
we're talking about going to Court. It seems to me we ought to be working
with developers and not talking about taking him to Court. Each one of them I
think is trying to build a good project. It's only to their benefit to leave
as many trees on the project as they possibly can and it improves the value of
the land. It certainly makes their lots more sellable. I haven't seen a
developer come in for a long time attempting to do a had job. I certainly
don't think that Segal's are. I thought all of Gary's points were very good
and I feel that if our engineer and staff will follow up on all the points ar~
the Chan vista people are aware that we're concerned about the project and the
erosion control and that we are going to be out there watching them to take
every step possible to make sure that everything is done properly.
Councilman Johnson: In the 1st Addition when we looked at grading plans, at
that time it wasn't a "we". I was out as a spectator, it shows a few lines
here and there and then everything is graded. Tne top soil is totally removed
off the entire project, stockpiled. Everything was graded and put back in
place and at times seemed to be regraded but is that going to happen here too
where all these lots, up to the point of the conservation easement are going
to be stripped of this top soil and there will be no grass at all left in the
entire area as it was done in the 1st Addition?
Paul Pearson: Mr. Johnson, in response to that, there are areas within the
site that will not be disturbed. In the Block 3 on the back lot lines where
the storm water will be concentrating, that will be all natural grass area.
Where the building pads and the streets are being constructed, because of the
nature of the site, because there is a lot of relief, high hills ar~ stee~
grades, we do have to grade a great portion of the site but the top soil will
be removed, stockpiled and then respread on this site.
Councilman Johnson: I guess I~ looking specifically at Block 2 of 4th
Addition I guess it is, that Lot 3 there where we put the silt fence because
there isn't going to be any grading going on I think Gary said so we are going
to do some grading in there but not all the way to the hack. Is that what
you're saying?
Paul Pearson: Correct.
Councilman Johnson: You won't be going hack to that fence line? Will that
old fence line be removed? That old harb wire fence be moved as part of this
15
City Council Meeting - March 16, 1987
project and taken off someplace? I see no disposal sites on here so I assume
you're not going to continue burying anything at this property. I would
assume that those fence posts or whatever are going to be taken off-site.
Paul Pearson: I guess I have not thought about the fence. In the 1st
Addition, that did stay. I don't know if the developer has talked to the
builder in regard to the fence but the fence also has been used as a
reinforcement for the silt fence so it has served a good purpose.
Councilman Johnson: What exactly, by approval of this, are we approving
a grading permit that they can start grading tomorrow?
Mayor Hamilton: Grading and erosion control plan based on Revision F.
Councilman Johnson: Does that mean their plan is approved so they can start
grading? So that basically is the grading permit per se?
Mayor Hamilton: Correct.
Gary Warren: Subject to them providing financial surety...
Councilman Johnson: Yes, subject to the conditions and the development
contract states something of the nature that final plat is supposed to be
approved prior to grading if I remember correctly from the last meeting we had
on this?
Gary Warren: That's on the utility construction for the 2nd Addition. ~nat's
the other thing that is approved. Utility construction is waiting final
approval of this erosion control plan also and there has been a plat
sutxnitted, correct me if I'm wrong, on the 2nd Addition.
Councilman Johnson: Are we also at this time approving the storm sewers?
Mayor Hamilton: No.
Gary Warren: That will be submitted with separate plans and specifications
with each Addition just like we did for the 2nd Addition.
Councilman Johnson: Good because I have some concerns later foradequacy of
the storm sewers but we're only doing the grading.
Mayor Hamilton: Grading and erosion contorl.
Paul Pearson: In regards to the 2nd Addition, the final plat was approved at
the last Council meeting.
Councilman Boyt: On the marsh, have you considered putting Type I erosion
control around the marsh? Since that drains a big part of that field, I'm
just wondering if you have looked at that.
Gary Warren: When you say the marsh?
16
ity Council Meeting - March 16, 1987
:ilman Boyt: It's where we're berming.
Warren: We've got erosion control on the down side, you're talking about
the inside of that?
lman Boyt: I'm talking about protecting the marsh.
Warren: We have provided for the protection of the outlets where the
torm sewer will be coming in.
:ilman Boyt: I would expect that if we get rain we're going to have a
into that marsh.
Warren: It's designed for that, that's for sure.
.ilman Boyt: And we probably don't want it to fill up with more silt.
that be reasonable?
Pearson: I think Gary's comment about the erosion control being at the
Itorm sewer outlet, when it does rain, the rain water is going to pass thro~h
Lt storm sewer area.
;ilman Boyt: You don't even have a storm sewer. You're talking about
grading. You're not talking about putting a sewer in there.
Pearson: That's correct.
~ilman Boyt: Excuse me for interrupting but if we don't have the sewer,
's to protect the marsh fr~m the run-off?
Pearson: Where the storm sewer will he constructed, that's the natural
.ow point in the street so when it rains the water is going to concentrate in
area and flow into the existing wetland area. Erosion control will be
in that low point area and I guess rather than waiting until the storm
goes in, it would be appropriate to protect that wetlands and put that
control in at the time that we start grading improvements before they
to protect that wetland.
~ilman Johnson: I would like to on number 11, after "clearly marked"
about the conservation, not only mark it but say clearly marked and
by the City Engineer in the field before constructioru We don't want
accept just anything marked as a conservation easement.
Hamilton: As far as I'm concerned all of these r.c-~ to he approved by
Engineer but I guess it's not going to hurt to include that but it is
'stood that they must meet all of these conditions and they are all going
he reviewed by the City Engineer.
:i 1 man Johnson: The other one would he to add erosion control protection
the city protected wetlands on the east boundary to be approved by the City
ineer prior to construction that Bill was just talking about. ~ne builder
ust now said he would do it.
17
98
City Council Meeting - March 16, 1987
Mayor Hamilton: I put in to review the drainage into Chan Pond.
Councilman Johnson: ~hat's different. That's this one we're talking about
here. This wetland over here which was the last point that Bill.
Don Ashworth: He agreed to put sedimentation across this area when the work
got done.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the Chanhassen
vista 2nd, 3rd and 4th Additions Final Grading and Erosion Control Plan,
Revision F, with the following conditions:
.
e
The trees to be removed shall be marked and the area of removal
checked by the City Engineer prior to any clearing and grubbing.
Erosion control fence - Type I and Type II, shall be used throughout
the site as detailed on Exhibit "A" dated March 11, 1987
0
Erosion control Type II fencing shall be installed around all storm
sewer outlets during construction.
.
Storm sewer inlets shall be protected from receiving sediment during
the construction.
.
Ail erosion control barriers shall be in plce prior to starting
grading.
.
The pond overflow swale across Lot 4, Block 3, 4th Addition, shall be
a gradual 0 to 1 1/2 foot cut. The swale should be immediatey
restored after construction with pegged sod.
.
The entire site shall be restored with seed 7 days after grading and
mulched where required.
.
The developer shall submit a construction schedule showing the
proposed completion for public improvements in all four additions of
Chanhassen Vista for the City to review prior to commencing grading
on the 3rd and 4th Additions.
.
The developer provide the City with an irrevocable letter of credit
in th. amount of 110% of the site grading and revegetation cost for
the 3rd and 4th Additions.
10.
All conditions of the supplemental Watershed District permit shall be
adhered to in addition to the September 3, 1986 conditions.
11.
The boundary of the conservation easement across Lots 1 and 2, Block
1, 3rd Addition and across Lots 1-9, block 2, 4th Addition shall be
clearly marked and approved by the City Engineer in the field before
construction begins and maintained during construction.
18
Council Meeting - March 16, 1987
12.
Submit to the City Engi~r~cr and WatershedDistrictanacceptable
erosion control detail prior to construction of the storm and
sanitary sewer connections proposed for the drainage area northof
Outlet C.
13. Dust control measures be undertaken should they be r~ed.
14.
That the City Engineer review drainage into Chan Pond and if be deems
it necessary to change that, to modify it.
15.
Erosion control protection of the City protected wetlands on the east
boundary to be approved by the City Engineer prior to construction.
voted in favor and motion carried.
APPROVAL OF 1987 LIQUOR LICENSES.
Don Ashworth: City Oouncil has the proposed 1987-88 liquor licenses. They
really are the same as previous years We did not receive Bluff Creek Golf
Course Association for non-intoxicating at time of preparation of this report.
That has ~ received. It does conform to the Ordinance. Should Council act
to approve the other applications, we would also recommend approval of that
one.
Councilman Horn moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the 1987-88 liquor
licenses as recommended by the City Manager. All voted in favor and motion
carried.
REVI~ REVISIONS TO THE NORTH LOTUS LAKE PARK PLAN.
Lori Sietsema: I'm just going to give you an update on what the Park and
Recreation Commission did and then let Mark address the different options.
Park and Recreation Commission reviewed an alternative as directed by the City
Council to move the entrance of the North Lotus Lake Park so it would wind
around the tennis court creating a difficult journey straight into the Fox
Hollow subdivision. The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed that and felt
that the plan did not make for a good park plan. They didn't like the idea of
the driveway winding around the tennis court and they felt that alternatives
could be come up with that would make for a better park plan and also serve
the concerns that the Council had. With that motion we asked Mark to come up
with some other designs and he has done so for this evening.
Councilman Horn: Other than what was presented to the Park and Rec?
Lori Siets~ma: Right, these alternatives have not ~n ~ by Park and Rec.
Mark Koegler: As a follow-up to that meeting, we looked at the whole thing.
I think I have in your packet a sketch of the follow-up result of that
meeting. Since then we have another one that is just a minor derivation. For
point of reference, Pleasant View Road sits down here, the Fox Hollow Drive
19
tO0
City Council Meeting - March 16, 1987
connection, the right-of-way goes through this portion of the property, Mr.
Bloomberg's is proposing a development on this section. This is essentially
the existing cul-de-sac that is there right now. ~ne previous plan, as you
recall, brought a driveway in, around the tennis court, back around and
looping to the north. The Park Commission at it's meeting expressed some
concerns about essentially taking an active facility and ringing it with what
is a driveway. It was interpretted by some as somewhat of a street system.
As an alternative to that, it's possible to bring what we have shown as a 20
foot park road drive through. You would wind through on a rather sequeitous
fashion. We would also recommend that we use some fairly heavy landscaping
throughout to cut sight lines through both ways and then in the center here we
would show that there would be six parking spaces which would be identified
again as primarily to serve the tennis court area. The driveway itself is
designed for a s~ limit of about 10 mph maximum. Anything over that is not
going to be terrifically comfortable and it is designed to accommodate all of
the City snowplowing equipment during the winter months. We have proposed
that as an alternative to the plan that was previously prepared and given to
the Park and Recreation Commission. This type of an option was discussed in
generalities with that group and this seemed to be the direction they were
heading and they have representatives here this evening and perhaps they could
provide any changes.
Councilman Geving: Is this a derivation of Alternate 927
Mark Koegler: Yes it is. That's a good point. The second alternate put the
park in this area. It came out here essentially and we had the option of
putting it in either way. This one obviously has the benefit of providing
better surface ties to the tennis court that it is designed to serve. The
only other point that I would add is that this still does give us the same
flexibility which has always been in the plan for eventual landscape buffering
up in this portion so we can help assist the buffering between residents and
the tennis court area. I can answer any questions that you might have.
Mayor Hamilton: Did you consider moving the tennis court as far towards the
cul-de-sac as possible?
Mark Koegler: I would call it essentially north to the left and just make a
reference to the left. The tennis court positioning on the original plan was
actually right about where the parking lot is right now.
Mayor Hamilton: But I'm saying if we left them in the same direction they
were, I guess they still aren't.
Mark Koegler: They still face the same direction.
Mayor Hamilton: Just move the tennis courts as far over as you possibly can,
actually into the road right-of-way and still have the road around it, you
wouldn't be going around it quite as much but I still like the deterrent that
you get by driving around that.
Mark Koegler: That's a possible scenario. What you actually do is right now,
the previous plan I've got a donut hole with the tennis court in the middle
20
2ity Council Meeting - March 16~ 1987
land now you're making a bigger donut hole. You're still surrounding the
facility itself with a driveway system and that specifically is what the Park'
?~mmission was not particularly in favor of. I'm reasonably comfortable with
landscaping the curvatures and I think the City Staff had indicated that if
need be some stop signs will be added, that that movement can be controlled
through there.
Councilman Geving: I like the parking better on, let's call that Alternative
~3. I like the parking on that better than what you had on ~2 and I think
that circuitous route that you showed on the original plan and the one that
the Park and Rec people didn't really like, I don't particularly like. It
certainly accomplishes the objective we set out which was to make it difficult
to get through there. I think I can go with Alternative ~3.
Mark Koegler: I should add that Alternative ~3 also will minimize any
disruption to the new residential lots that we've platted off of that cul-de-
sac so that gives us the best setback distance from those lots as w~ll.
Councilman Geving: How about the road that Bloomberg would put in there on
the north portion of his plan?
Mark Koegler: You can just catch a corner of that here. That runs from off of
Pleasant view and turns in and teminates in a cul-de-sac.
Councilman Geving: So he could get in off of this park drive?
Mark Koegler: Yes. This would access off of his new road that he would put
in.
Don Ashworth: Except you should note again that there would be two lots off
~f that cul-de-sac that would come off of that existing.
Councilman Boyt: Mark, have you gotten any feedback from the neighborhood on
their reaction to Alternate ~2 or #3?
Mark Koegler: To my knowledge, they perhaps are seeing that for the first
time this evening. The reaction from the neighbors that were present at the
Park Commission meeting were very much against the ringing of the road because
they felt, I think probably rightfully so, that it would have a fairly
substantial impact on their rearyard situation. This would take care of that
particular concern.
Councilman Boyt: Lori, have you heard anything?
Lori Sietsema: I haven't gotten anybody that has come in to look at this plan
but I do know, as Mark stated, at the Park and Rec Commission meeting that one
of the residents did propose s~mething similar to this so t~ didn't want the
road to go around the tennis court.
Mayor Hamilton: Are there any residents here that want to comment on this?
21
102
City Council Meeting - March 16, 1987
Jeff Hall: 41 Fox Hollow Drive which is just as you come in off of TH 101.
My main concern with extending Fox Hollow out is mostly just traffic control.
Whether you do it with a park drive or whatever, I still have a concern that
Fox Hollow Drive is a straight shot until you get to the cul-de-sac. I have a
3 year old son who loves to run around the yard and has a tendency to like to
run out into streets and basically my concern is if we made Fox Hollow Drive
just a unappealing road with 4-way stops every so often. Right now the
construction traffic goes through there lickety split and just a couple of 4-
way stops where I'm at, which is on the corner of Fox Hollow and GreyFox at
the top of the hill, a 4-way there and a 4-way I believe it's down another. 2
blocks, there's another juncture down there, another 4-way stop just to
control the speed of the traffic coming through there. Whether you extended
the road on not, I don't think was the big problem. ~ne big problem was how
do you control the traffic flow?
Bob Cunnard: 120 Fox Hollow which is right down at the bottom of the S-curve.
I have three children so I have concerns but I like this approach myself
because I think it will stop traffic from coming through and at the same time
give us the access to get out if we want to that way. That's what I like
about it. I do have a concern like he did about the traffic coming down fast
and that's maybe the big issue.
Dave Felthouse: 6557 Grey FOx Curve and that would be just approximately over
the corner of the tennis court. I like this park proposal because it does
give us access through and it also will slow down traffic to practically a
crawl which should eliminate any safetyhazards. I was the one who was there
at the Park and Rec Commission meeting and I didn't care for the other
alternative going around the tennis courts due to noise and lights and stuff
in our backyards and along that area but I don't see any problem with this
from the neighborhood standpoint.
Jerry Johnson: I live at 6561 which is right on the east side of the tennis
courts and my question is, there is a substantial stand of trees along the
tennis courts and I was wondering what the plan was for those. Whether those
are going to be moved?
Mark Koegler: That area itself does not have a substantial amount of trees.
Jerry Johnson: Right along the east side of the tennis courts there are quite
a few trees. Right on the lot lines between the park.
Mark Koegler: The lot line itself is approximatly 50 feet from the tennis
court. There is a swale that goes right through there approximatey a year and
a half ago and again, I would differ that there is a substantial tree stand in
there. I don't know if we're talking about the same location or not.
Jerry Johnson: Right on the lot lines. I'm on Lot 24. Right along here
there are quite a few trees. From my lot, Lot 24 over to this corner.
Mark Koegler: As indicated before, there was a drainage swale that was cut
all the way through here to about that point previously. We will not be doing
any disturbance along that.
22
k
103
City Council ~ting - March 16, 1987
Councilman Boyt: It sounds to me like the neighborhood supports the last
alternative. Orignally I was against this going through at all because Fox
Hollow Drive is narrow, the houses have a 25 foot setback, there are no
sidewalks but if the neighborhood can live with Alternative #3, I can live
with it.
Councilman Johnson: Is this going to be a platted street? I would like to
see this as a driveway. As a park access road or something but not as a
platted street. Many years ago in my wild youth I was ticketed in Texas for
taking a shortcut through an area like this where normal driving through a
non-platted street to avoid intersections, at least in the State of Texas is
illegal and I believe that it would be here. Therefore, if traffic does
start to utilize this driveway, private driveway, it's a city owned driveway
that we could, I want to make sure that we could enforce, if you're not going
there to play tennis. If you're going there to take it as a shortcut through
if it's now a platted street.
Mayor Hamilton: Then what you're telling the neighbors is if they do that and
drive through there we give them a ticket? I don't think that's what the
neighbors want.
Councilman Johnson: Do the neighbors want to use this as platted to drive
through too?
Don Ashworth: It's not a platted street. ~nis section in through here is not
a platted street. It's being treated as a driveway. It will be a driveway.
Councilman Johnson: It would be built to City street set standards?
Don Ashworth: No, it's going to be built as a driveway. A narrow width.
Councilman Johnson: I mean as far as base and stuff. If it start getting
heavy use, are we going to see it deteriorate?
Don Ashworth: No, this will accommodate vehicular traffic to allow for snow
plowing, etc..
Councilman Boyt moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve Alternative #3 as
recomended by Mark Koegler for the Fox Hollow Drive extension and North Lotus
Lake Park. All voted in favor and motion carried.
REVIEW PARK NEED SURVEY.
Lori Sietsema: Park ar~ Recreation Commission reviewed the survey that was
included in your packet. It's a final proposal. They had some questions and
concerns and discussed them and decided at the end that it was a good survey.
It will be a telephone survey so it's written in telephone script. It's
estimated that it takes about 5 to 7 minutes depending on how much discussion
the person being surveyed generates. The Park ar~ Recreation Commission has
volunteered to make the phone calls as well as some temporary help that I
have, myself and Pat. Pat is not here tonight and I apologize for that. I
23
104
City Council Meeting - March 16, 1987
don't know what happened to him but I think I'm prepared to answer any
questions that you might have. 5he Minutes relate any discussion that was in
the Park and Recreation Commission had and outlined their questions and
concerns.
Mayor Hamilton: ~ne concern I have is we're asking questions and asking
people if they found too many of this, not enough or too few about things that
we obviously don't in some cases even have any of. Jogging trails, we don't
have jogging trails and you're going to ask somebody if w~ have too many?
CounciLman Geving: ~hey will respond too few. That's what you want.
Lori Sietsema: It will give us an indication of whether they want them or
not. It will eventually give us an indication of if they want them or not.
Mayor Hamilton: I guess I couldn't see that asking a question that you
already know the answer to is going to give you anything. I would guess you
maybe have a hard time finding people who want to talk to you.
Lori Sietsema: We will be advertising in advance that we are making these
calls and I think there are enough people who are interested in what's
happening with parks and will take the time. I maybe wrong but I don't think'
we're going to have a big problem with that. We'll be letting them know ahead
of time that it does take 5 to 7 minutes and ask them if they have the time
and if they don't, then we won't pursue it with them and make another call.
Councilman Horn: I think it said in here that they would need about six hours
per day but I miss somewhere what the hours would be.
Lori Sietsema: They will be in the evening.
Councilman Horn: I hope you don't call over the dinner hour.
Lori Sietsema: No. It will probably start around 7:00 until 9:00 or 9:30.
Councilman Boyt: Is it fair to assume that Pat maybe tested this survey out
on a few people?
Lori Sietsema: Yes, he did.
Councilman Boyt: Okay, then I'm comfortable with that. I guess the question
that I have, I've talked with a few people about their interest in being
surveyed and I think we're going to find that there is quite a bit of interest
out there and people are going to want their opinion counted. I'm a little
concerned that 340 households, although it seems like a great many if I was
making the phone call, seems like a very small percentage of the ones we have.
Was Pat real comfortable that that was the right number or was it limited by
just the number of callers we had?
Lori Sietsema: No, the number of callers wasn't taken into consideration at
all. He did a lot of research with Met Council and the surveys they had done
in the late 70's and early 80's when there was funding for that, they did a
24
City Council ~M~cting - March 16, 1987
number of them, and he also contacted other cities that have done surveys and
with his statistics professors at St. Thomas, he felt that that would give us
a clear reading.
Councilman Boyt: I think it's an excellent piece of work and Ih~ real excited
~ see what the answers are.
~uncilman Geving: I think the survey is very good. A vast improvement over
what we saw before. There are a couple of questions however. I'm wondering
if we aren't repeating or getting ahead of ourselves, particularly now on the
community center. We have a committee set up to survey that and we're going
to hopefully get to the point where we are going to move ahead in that area
anyway, I'm wondering if that is a significant questioru If you are thinking
)f some items that we might want to trim from this. 0m the other hand, I
~uld possibly see that if you have an overwhelming yes here that might just
spur this committee on and say, hey let's get moving too so maybe I'll leave
that one for now. Item 10, and I think in terms of the ~ survey here, what
is the value of asking someone for example of whether or not they want to
increase the services, reduce the services or pay for the services with user
fees? I'm not so sure that the user really wants that at this point. We
don't need that at this point in the user survey. We're trying to fir~t out
the kinds of interest that are out there and the kinds of activities that we
should or should not be providing. We're going to provide them if the r~_~ is
there, I suspect this Council will vote to fund that whether it comes out of
lser fees or we fund it out of the general obligation so I~m not so sure that
would particularly like item 10 or for example asking a person their age. I
don't know how significant that is going to be if you ask a person at the end
of your survey whether they are 17 or under, or over 60? If you're going to
try and correlate that somehow that would be one thing but I don't know how
you're going to bring this all together to make that response meaningful.
Lori Sietsema: The age question is in there basically to see who we're
talking to. If we're talking to all women who are 34 years old or within that
age bracket, we've done a poor survey and that's more or less a test for us.
Mayor Hamilton: I think we should word it what is your age group and give
the~ a range.
Councilman Geving: And then, the next to the last one, number 12, why is it
significant to ask whether aperson is a homemaker or retired or has a full-
time paying job or is unemployed? Will you get a good response here do you
think?
Lori Sietsema: It's another test. Basically it was another test for us to
make sure that we were hitting more than one type of person.
Councilman Geving: I don't have any problem leaving it in but I don't see the
significance of it. Then finally, the last one was on item 4. I think you
could probaby strike the second item. We don't have any mobile homes in
Chanhassen. I think it' s great and let' s go ahead with it.
25
105
City Council Meeting - March 16, 1987
Mayor Hamilton: Jim Mady from Park and Rec is here. Do you have anything to
add Jim?
Jim Mady: No, not really. Tne concerns about those final questions, asking
more or less demographic questions are engineered to make sure we do have a
well rounded sample.
Councilman Johnson: I have concern in how we're selecting the people. In all
my experience in this type of action, we've done a random selection. Not
selecting every third, fourth or fifth or whatever phone number it was. It
seemed to be a lot more work to be done to make sure we covered everybody from
some of these phone lists you're going to be working from. Do you have a
better handle on it than what the Park and Rec Commission Minutes?
Lori Sietsema: I think what we'll use is probably the poll directorY which
will have everybody in it. What the Park and Recreation Commission really
wanted to do is make sure that they ask out of each area and that's why it's
going every fifth one. We can find out where we asked the questions and who
we asked. If we ask every fifth person in the Minnewashta Heights area and
every person in Chaparral, then we want to make sure we hit the people in the
rural area and the developed area and all the way around.
Jim Mady: One thing about that Jay, to make that statistic valid, to make a
meaningful report, if you make a random selection of where you start and from
that point it is that just straight down.
Councilman Johnson: I think it looks s~me pretty good work.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to move ahead with the Park
Needs Survey. All voted in favor and motion carried.
FINAL PLAT APPROVAL, BLUFF CREEK GREEN.
Barbara Dacy: Approximately one year ago today, or I should say until
tomorrow, that the preliminary plat for Bluff Creek Greens was being
considered by the Council. The action here tonight would be the last step that
developers need to take in securing total approval from the Council. Plans
and specs were approved and a development contract was approved by the Council
at the September 8, 1986 meeting. Since the delivery of the packet we have
also been able to substantiate some of the items that I have flagged in my
memorandum and I would like to briefly go through those four points. One, you
have in your packet a revised set of Restrictions and Covenants that were
stamped Received March 13th. They have bcc~n revised to address the Council's
concern for providing adequate storm sewer maintenance as well as the private
street maintenance. On page 11 of the Restrictions it addresses the concern
by the Council where a hold harmless clause would be reserved so that the City
would not be responsible for any cost for maintenance or problems that would
occur with the storm sewer system or the street system. I marked on the
overhead here where the storm sewer systems will be going down the lot lines.
Therefore, Staff at this point is satisfied that item one has been complied
with. However, we would still like the City Attorney to have a final reading
26
107
City Council Meeting - March 16, 1987
of the Restrictions before we sign it. As to item number 2, the final plat
copy that you have in your packet did contain a utility easement over Outlot
A, that has been addressed. A direct access easement has ~ submitted to
Staff regarding the easement for the southerly 20~ feet of the golf course
area. That we want to reviewed by the Aity Attorney as well before signing
the final plat. Three, as opposed to Lot 3, Block 4, Staff was concerned as
we have been concerned throughout this project, the availabilities of the lots
in this subdivision. The applicant has submitted additional data and I will
pass out the site plan here and I'll put it up on the overhead. Which we feel
at this time meets the intent of the Council's approval. As you recall,
during the Council consideration of this, they asked the applicant to provide
the preliminary plat that showed the areas of 25% slope and t~ have done so
on this large scale, if the Council m~bers want to look at this in detail.
When we reviewed this we contacted the applicants about this particular lot
and said show us the site plan during final plat process than can locate a
house pad, a turn around driveway and septic system site. At the time I wrote
the Staff Report we were unsure as to whether or not a septic system could be
located on this site. We have submitted the standard calculations required
for a septic system according to the PCA Standards. Ren Jakowski of the
Building Department took a first review of that and felt that a standard type
of trench system could be installed so at this point Staff is prepared to
recommend Option ~. That the Council recommend approval of Lot 3, Block 4
conditioned upon, if I could move ahead to point 4. At the preliminary plat
approval, one of the conditions was that when the building permits come in
on each of these lots, they have to submit an entirely new set of soil borings
and perc tests. During this year timeframe, the City has significantly
strengthen it's ordinance regarding septic systems and the Council ar~
Planning Commission and Staff went through three or four meetings on that.
We have also hired Rsger Machmeier for the consultant expertise if we do
encounter a problem so no matter what, each of these lots must comply to that
new ordinance which is now known as Ordinance i~-B. The reguetsed action here
tonight is recommendation of approval of the final plat subject to the five
conditions that you see before you in the Staff Report. We would also like to
note that the developer does need to bring us drainage easements after
construction of the storm sewer system. The applicant is here tonight as well
as his Attorney.
Councilman Boyt: I would really encourage us to hang on to point 4 there in
the Staff r~ndations. Other than that I have no comments.
Councilman Geving: My comment is who initiated this action? Did the
developer cGme to us to initiate this action tonight on the final plat?
Barbara Dacy: Yes. State Statute provides for a one year time approval for a
preliminary plat. Coincidentally the developer has ~ finalizing title
action and clearing up the title to prepare for finalizing the final plat.
It's the standard completion of tt~ develola~ent process. It just so happened
that it is falling fairly close.
Councilman Geving: One day before the deadline. ~nis way, when we approved
this preliminarily last year, we kept waiting for this thing to happen and
here it is one day before the deadline and I'm just curious whether or not we
27
108
City Council Meeting - March 16~ 1987
initiated this action or the developer actually came forth with this plan.
Barbara Dacy: The developer initiated the application for the final plat.
It's encumbant on Staff to make sure that all conditions by Council are met
before you approve it.
Councilman Geving: When did you get this single sheet here called "Prepared
for the Bluff Creek Green's Golf Association"? There is no date on it and
it's shown to us here as a separate item. It was not included in our packet.
I see 6-7, that doesn't mean anything to me. What does that mean?
Barbara Dacy: That was submitted by the applicant's engineer, Schoell and
Madsen. It's a reduction of a plan that has a stamp date of February 27th.
When you're copywriting it doesn't show up.
Councilman Geving: So this should be dated February 27th?
Barbara Dacy: Right.
Councilman Geving: But that's my question. Why wasn't it included in our
packet? My only comment basically has to do with the approval on the Lot 3,
Block 4 and my personal feelings is that we should leave this final plat
without this Lot 3, Block 4 unless there is good reason not to. Can you tell
me why we should include it Barbara?
Barbara Dacy: As I indicated earlier, our reservation at the time of writing
this report was very similar to yours. City Staff was not sure at that time
whether or not two septic system sites were available and that's why we asked
the developer to come back with some more detailed designs and go through the
calculations. They have done that and further, we felt with th~ condition
number 4 that no matter what, they are going to have to come back with
additional borings for a building permit that really probably is more of a
risk for the developer than the City as to whether or not that lot would in
fact be buildable. According to the information we have received, to the best
of our belief, we feel that the lot does contain two adequate sites.
Councilman Geving: How do you feel about this Gary?
Gary Warren: I guess I've only had preliminary involvement in this from some
of the alignment questions. I really haven't had a chance to look in detail
at the lots.
Barbara Dacy: In deference to the City Engineer, Mr. Monk, the former
Engineer and I were primarily involved with this and I asked that the Building
Inspector to review the design calculations of the septic systems.
Councilman Geving: So we have less reservations now about Lot 3, Block 4 than
you did a year ago?
Barbara Dacy: That' s correct.
Councilman Johnson: You got this today?
28
109
Council Meeting - March 16, 1987
Barbara Dacy: I got that late Friday afternoon.
Councilman Johnson: There are no septic fields in the packet.
Barbara Dacy: Right and that was part of the submission that what was
submitted late Friday afternoon. Unfortunately the packets w~re already gone.
Councilman Johnson: So year later nick in time, our City Er~3ineer hasn't had
a chance to review it. The building inspector has reviewed the engineering
design for the septic systens?
Barbara Dacy: They have taken instructions from Mr. Machmeier as to they
review and inspect the septic systen designs.
Councilman Johnson: I dislike last minute submissions without a memo thrown
in from the building inspector or anything that says he's reviewed this in
detail. It's quite a detail thing that he doesn't pick up and review in a
couple of minutes.
Barbara Dacy: I would have to agree with you. Staff isn't too pleased either
when we have to come to the Council like this. If the Council so choses, if
you want to table action on the item you can do that but also in that motion
you should approve an extension of the preliminary plat approval because it
expires tc~norrow.
Councilman Johnson: Do you need more time to review what was sulanitted to you
Friday? Do you feel you have done a good job and adequate review of the last
minute information you got here?
Barbara Dacy: Yes.
Mayor Hamilton: I feel as long as Mr. Machmeierhas reviewed it and givenhis
approval, I certainly don't have any problems.
Barbara Dacy: Mr. Machmeier has not -__~n_ the submission as it pertains to Lot
3, Block 4. The building inspection has. They do have to sut~nit additional
borings at the time of building permit application.
Cathy Smith: I live in Hesse Farm. I am still not pleased with this
whole thing coming across but it looks like it's going to happen whether I
like it or not. I'm interested to know what happened to the Ordinance that
was being considered to increase the lot size to 5 acres in rural areas? I
know that that was being considered at one point. I~n just asking for
clarification since that was an issue at the point when this was brought as a
public hearing last April, March whenever.
Barbara Dacy: To answer your questions. Yes, that was a question during
consideration of this item ~ what has happened is that a new Zoning
Ordinance was passed on February 19, 1987, just last month whereas the City
would enforce a one unit per 10 acre density with a minimum lot size of 2 1/2
acres. What that means is, if a landowner has 50 acres of land he can only
develop up to five lots. Minimum lot size can be 2 1/2 acres in size.
29
City Council Meeting - March 16, 1987
That's how the issue was resolved by a density provision.
Jerry Anderson: I was wondering what happened with the TH 101 and Creekwood
entrance there?
Barbara Dacy: The applicant has applied to MnDot and we dohave the
correspondence back from them. It was a condition of approval at the time of
preliminary plat and they have received the go ahead from MnDot.
Jerry Anderson: As far as...
Barbara Dacy: Right, if you were at the meeting last March the conditions
were the turn lane off of TH 101 and also the developer grant an access
easement over the southerly 200 feet of the golf course in case of an
emergency so that emergencyvehicles could cross on the golf course property
itself. Lori Sietsema has an item that she would like to present to the
Council on this.
Lori Sietsema: The City Council reviewed a number of petitions last Fall
requesting trails in different areas of the City. The Council directed the
Park and Recreation Commission at that time to update the recreation section
of the Comp Plan and as a part of that process the Commission was also
directed to develop a city wide trail plan. Planning Commissioner Tim Erhart,
as an interested citizen has been assisting Staff to identify potential trails
in the southern area of the City. He has identified the land along Bluff
Creek as desirable trail system. Tim has walked the entire length of Bluff
Creek south of Lyman Blvd. and has said there is a network of deer trails
already in existence. He has shown on this map the area and shows how
potentially trails can be developed. He has shown that he has walked south
of LYman Blvd. and shown how we can eventually hook up the north portion of
the City to the Minnesota Valley Wildlife Refuge sometime in the future. Tim
has recommended that the Council look at obtaining a trail easement along
Bluff Creek to the west of Bluff Creek right along in here and through Lot 1,
Block 3. He said he believes that this will be a valuable asset to the
residents of Chanhassen and a beautiful addition to the trail system. This
area has been looked at recently in terms of trails, it has not been to the
Park and Recreation Commission or the Planning Commission. In essence we
already own this portion along Bluff Creek and what he's done is he has walked
the whole length of Bluff Creek down through this whole area and he feels that
if we play our cards right we should be able to get an easement all along this
way. Down in this area it's nice big bluffs. If you walk along the creek you
can't even see the houses above on the bluff. What he is recommending is that
we obtain or work with the developer to obtain an easement along the creek.
Don Ashworth: He is saying going 25 feet on either side of the creek area.
Staff realizes that this is late in that entire process. We can come back
with an item at final plat time. Again, the Planning Commission member has
done extensive work there. If you look at the work, there is good potential.
You may want to try to work with the developer to obtain that. It would not
be a requirement or a condition. Staff would continue to report the progress
back to the City Council. We very well may not be able to get it at this late
date.
30
City Council ~M~cting - March 16, 1987
Mayor Hamilton: What would your feelings be about that.
Peter Stalland: I'm the Attorney for the applicant. We just four~ out about
this today but we would be happy to talk to you about some type of easement.
I also wanted to mention, I know there is a lot of concern about coming in at
the last minute. The reason why we have done that is because we're being held
up by registration title proceedings. It's in the courts and we don't have
any control over that. We've ~ pushing as hard as we can for the last year
because obviously we want to start constructioru We're very close.
Councilman Boyt: Would it be reasonable to table this since the~re in no
rush.
Mayor Hamilton: Tneir year is up.
Councilman Geving: We can give ~ an extension.
Mayor Hamilton: What would tabling action do?
Peter Stalland: It would severly curtail us trying to get construction going
right now...
Councilman Geving: I guess the only issue is this trail thing Tom.
Mayor Hamilton: And they have said t~ are willing to work with us. The
trail that is being suggested at the bottom of the bluff on the creek and it
doesn't really impact on the lots that we're discussing. It's not like it's
going through their backyards. It's their backyard but it's a beck of a long
ways away.
Councilman Geving: That's only part of it though because that trail goes for
a long ways.
Mayor Hamilton: I know but as it effects this project.
Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the Bluff Creek
Greens final plat as presented by Staff subject to the following conditions:
1. Submission of an easement document over the southerly 2M0 feet of
Outlot F prior to signing the final plat.
2. Execution of the develolmnent contract ar~ submission of the required
financial securities prior to signing the final plat.
3. Submission of street names for review by the Fire Department
(although the extension of Creekwood Drive should renain the same.)
4. All building permit application much comply with the standards
contained in Ordinance No. 10-B.
5. The covenants ar~ restrictions should be approved by the City
Attorney prior to signing of the final plat.
31
111
112
City Council Meeting - March 16, 1987
Sm
Lot 3, Block 4 is approved as part of the plat subject to soil
borings as required at the time of building permit applicatin.
.
Submission of drainage easement descriptions after construction of
storm sewers.
.
The applicant shall work with staff to address the trail easement
issue through Outlot B and Lot 1, Block 3.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT:
A. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT POLICIES - COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES.
~.. BOND OF 1987, AUTHORIZE PREPA--RATION OF BOND SALE DOCUMENTS.
C. REVIEW DESIGN ELEMENTS.
Don Ashworth: Mr. Ringrose is here from BRW and I would like to ask him to
walk through the special assessments and questions that were raised by some of
the commercial property owners. He also has Jim Lasher with him to respond to
questions regarding landscaping and the roadway area.
Don Ringrose: As Don indicated, we're here tonight for generally two
purposes. One, to bring up some final issues that were resolved at the
public hearing dealing with questions from the commercial properties and we
provided to you in written form a sketch that deals with these and a brief
explanation. The first having to do with the Kerber property and the issue
there was whether or not we had accurately or properly identified that part of
the property which is tributary to the new storm sewer system and we've gone
back and looked at it again and we think that the original identification is
reasonably accurate and nothing short of a detailed survey will make it any
more accurate and at the time of final assessment, if that kind of survey is
appropriate then we would do it at that time but for the determination of
pending assessments, we feel what we've identified is correct. The secor~ one
had to do with the Hanus property which is immediately behind the Kerber
property and their question was whether, it was suggested that it should be
included in the assessment district when we had not included it. We looked at
the situation. At the current time, based on physical constraints that are
there and particularly bituminous lip across the driveway which directs storm
water to the north rather than allowing it to go west down the cul-de-sac, it
is property identified at the current time as not being tributary to the
system. If that bituminous lip were removed, a portion of the property would
then would be tributary to the system and that portion then should be
assessed. Again, that's a determination that can be made at the time of the
final assessment hearing, q~e third and final one had to do with what is
referred to as the Rennet property which is Lot 5. It's on the north side of
79th Street approximately in the middle of the block and the owner of that
property had inquired as to whether or not he benefitted from the improvements
and therefore should be assessed. Based on our analysis, the property does
benefit consistent with the other properties in the area. It is tributary to
the new storm sewer system and the street improvements in front of it will
32
123
City Counci.1 Meeting - March 16, 1987
consist of landscaping and lighting to which he is proposed to be assessed.
There is no proposed assessment street improvements as there is already a
street there so that summarizes our recommendation with respect to those three
still unresolved or unresponded issues. If there are no further questions on
this, Jim needs a second to set up. What we would like to do is present the
preliminary landscaping plaru The evolution of what you've seen and get your
input from that and try and address some other issues that have arisen through
the design process.
Jim Lasher: We're here to talk a little bit about the landscape concept for
the downtown area and what we've got proposed. A little orientation is this
is our existing Great Plains Blvd. which now presently goes up through this
direction here as approved in previous Council meetings. The proposed roadway
is going to bend and continue all the way down to Kerber and then stop at this
point here which will he the north/south connector road going down to TH 5.
The Chanhassen area, ecologically is situated in what we call an oak savannah
terraiD. It's a pronoun feature for this whole part of Minnesota. Basically
what this describes is the general sequence of how plant material occur in the
community. Plant materials occur in which we call an oak savannah process
which is a clumping of vegetation next to large open space masses. If you
drive around the countryside you will see these old stands of oak trees, 15 or
20 of them with very large open spaces next to them. Thus the oak savannah
which is a process of very many years of farming vegetatioru What we're going
to do is we're going to try and describe and reiterate that concept in the
downtown landscape plan. Entering into Great Plains Blvd. there would be
a boulevard planting on each side of the street at a 30 or 40 foot spacing of
trees and a median which is proposed to be from 10 to 20 feet wide, depending
on if you're turning or not, would be a clumping of an oak savannah type
terrain. These materials would most likely be oaks, aspens and dogwoods which
is the pronoun type of vegetation in the surrounding communities. As you can
see by these yellow clumpings occuring every 60 or 70 feet going down the
median, would be an aspen clump or grove. What that would do is give you an
opportunity to express that same concept of oak savannah yet remaining large
open space thus the openings in oak savannah between the areas so that gives
us the opportunity to number one, to be able to see through the islands and
number two, to pick up on some of the natural terrain that is surrounding this
area. Some of the types of vegetation that we're going to suggest are some
oaks, lindens ar~ maples ringing along the edges in the darker green and the
yellow colors would be sometirg in the aspen or poplar rarge. It's a much
thinner, much lighter piece of vegetation which we would easily be able to see
througfu The shurb locations, which occur generally underneath plantings of
oak savannah, would be of the same type of this area ar~ we've concentrated
those into the 2 to 2 1/2 foot high range which would generally occur
underneath these poplars or aspen plantings all along the medians. The
median section, which I have drawn in here, to give you a general idea of the
spacings of trees and how they would relate to the viewing. As you're going
down 78th Street, you'll see that there is at least a 4 to 6 foot clear space
between the top of the shurbs and the bottom of these trees. As you note from
the aspen or poplar sequence of trees, there is a very high branching arch on
these trees which allow for sight lines to go pretty much underneath all
vegetation so thus getting rid of the problem of blocking off the islands and
picking up some of the aspects of the surrounding area. As far as the viewing
33
124
City Council Meeting - March 16, 1987
of the surrounding businesses go, I've done a sketch here that pretty much
gives us a view of the entrance going up Great Plains Blvd. so you would be
standing right at this proposed pedestrian crosswalk looking off into this
direction towards Kenny's market, with this type of planting what we can get
is the opportunity to plan a similar tree in a larger fashion that has a clear
of 6 to 7 feet and shurbery planted underneath and the sign panels along the
buildings would be pretty much right underneath the bottom of the tree so you
would pretty much be able to maintain visual access because we maintain a
seven foot clear. One of the inherent problems of doing plantings of this
scale is trying to keep everything high and low. So the types of shurbery we
would choose would maintain a 1 1/2 to 2 foot, at the most 2 1/2 foot high at
this area. This will allow for a lot of additional color such as the reds,
yellows and oranges in the fall but yet keep it low and massing so that you
can utilize being seen over the top. The lighting concept which we looked at
for this plan generally looks at two types of fixtures. Once again on this board
here we have pedestrian fixtures which we're proposing to mount on the median.
What that does is number one, is allow us to produce just one single
electrical line for the entire project instead of having to light both sides
of the street thus cutting down on costs. What it also does is it accents
this oak savannah type planting scheme that we have put into the medians. The
lights would be located approximately every 60 to 70 feet down the median with
any of the light that is coming off from these, lighting both sides of the
road. Any of the lighting proposed for any of the parking lots, spilling off
onto the edge so not actually being redundant about lighting, getting the
lighting where it will do the most good, which is the center of the road.
Along the north/south connector, we're proposing the tall, similar shoebox
fixture that's being used around the City of Chanhassen now at approximately
100 foot spacing all the way along one side of the road pretty much lighting
the whole road from one side cutting down on ~r~cding double line electrical
costs which you get by splitting lighting going down the road. The light
fixture itself is proposed to be a double fixture with a 12 by 24 inch size
which will be a wood post laminated onto a metal pole. Some of the problems
that we first looked at was a wooden pole but we found that the maintenance
requirements of that were somewhat restrictive so we went to what is now a
standard fixture made bya number of companies that has metal internal works
but just a laminated wood on the outside to give you the wood look but the
maintenance and ease of care of a metal pole. ~nese fixtures would be 70
watt, high pressure sodium. The taller fixture would be an anodized aluminum
with similar color as this with 150 watt high pressure sodium bulb. ~nis
would be included on this road ar~ any other of the additional lighting we
need to do on the new City Hall road, on Laredo and possibly a fixture up here
at existing Great Plains. The irrigation plan which we would like to look at
from basically this intersection of Kerber all the way along to this point
here. That would include irrigating 10 foot on each side of the road and 10
to 20 feet in the median. Irrigation is not proposed for t_he new north/south
collector basically because the tree spacings that we have coupled with very
low or limited planting of shurbery would not have as much water r~c~s as
these ornamental type shurbs and the ornamental trees as they are located
along this edge. Once again, we're trying to eliminate as much as cost as we
can on the project. Getting back to this parking area here, originally when
we proposed the feasibility study it had 74 spaces. In development we were
able to move this up to 90 spaces. 90 spaces now would pretty much max out
34
117
City Council --M~cting -March 16, 1987
this entire area using the existing Great Plains Blvd.. We did allow enough
space to get a walkway system that comes up along the edge next to the
cemetary here moving to the Old Town Square. The pedestrian circulation for
the whole plan is based on seven crosswalks. There will he one crosswalk down
in here for the City Hall Road connecting up to a proposed bick path which in
essence goes all the way down along the railroad, it crosses over here at
Great Plains Blvd., comes up and gets into this portion right here, Old Town
Square. The secor~ crossing occurs directly next to the exis%ing retail. A
proposed sidewalk out, across Great Plains Blvd. to an island which would then
feed some possible people coming from the Dinner Theater across the parking
lot that want to go to this retail area or up into this space here. Another
walk is a midblock crossing. One of the only midblock crossings that we have
right now which is to facilitate crossing from the Chanhassen Dinner Theater
populations over into the proposed retail in this area. Another crossing is
at the Riveria and th~n one down at Laredo Drive for crossing from the park
and the bank building. Those crossings would basically be two colors or
concrete poured. We're finding that by using brick in the roadway we're
running into major problems with maintenanceand trying to keep these up to
snuff with the rest of the road. By using just a concrete with two different
colors, we get the best of both worlds. We get a colored system, pedestrian
crossing which will alert the cars that come through and we also get the
better maintenance that is possible with concrete. That pretty much does the
landscape concept.
Councilman Boyt: What do the people in the downtown think of this? The ones
who are going to be here after we put through the road. Have you talked to
them?
Jim Lasher: We had a meeting this morning with the present tenants of the
community and we basically when through and did the exact same process that we
have right now and everyone was pretty much in concurrence with what we had.
They liked the scheme. They thought it all worked well. The only concerns
they had was access during the construction phase which we were able to
address at that time.
Councilman Boyt: Do they see this as pulling people into the City? This kind
of layout?
Jim Lasher: I guess that was not a topic that was broached. From my own
point of view, I would say that it may or may not pull people in but what it
will do is facilitate the possibility of having people look at these areas as
being a little more lucrative at this point in time. That would be my own
opinion.
Councilman Boyt: It's certainly a pretty plan. If the people downtown
support it, I guess they are the ones that are going to be paying a big part
of the price.
Councilman Geving: How about the parking arrangement behind Pauly's. How are
we going to achieve those 90 parking spaces? Are t~ of adequate size so
they don't have to have all mini cars to get in? ~nat's the only problem that
I seem to have when you throw them up in the right hand corner there where the
35
City Council Meeting - March 16, 1987
old City Hall is, they tend to get pretty boxed in.
Jim Lasher: The spaces right now are 9 1/2 foot spaces by 20 foot which is
your standard width. The standard width of the lane is 63 feet which allows a
24 foot driving lane.
Councilman Geving: Any comments from the owners of those three businesses
there on the parking lots?
Don Ashworth: Mr. Halsted has expressed concerns because as you see the
existing parking directly south of Mr. Halsted is being taken. We went out to
the site and we looked at the number of spaces that could be used in this
entire back section, because you have a gravel lot in here. I believe we keep
moving the design up to try and correct that potential deficiency. A
deficiency does exist and that will exist regardless of whether we do this or
not. There simply is not enough land area but we're up to the point of 10 or
15 cars difference of what could maximum go in there right now. As a personal
standpoint, I have gone down the past few weekends to see the actual useage and
people don't park in that gravel lot. They do but before they will park in
the gravel area and go across the scrub trees and the grass area, before they
will do that, they will park in the Kenny's lot and before they'll do that
they will park at St. Hubert's so we feel that the design being provided is
far superior to what is there right now. Mr. Pauly has not commented against
it. Mr. Halsted has raised the concern.
Councilman Geving: I like the conceptual plan. How far are the trees that
you are showing here spaced on the plan? It looks like there are far too many
for what will eventually grow up to be a lot of trees. Take 78th Street for
example and what you're showing there all the way down.
Jim Lasher: The spacing on 78th Street is 35 foot between trunk to trunk of
tree. I tend to take a little artist license when I draw these things and
what I'm trying to depict to you is in essence what we will have upon mature
growth. At the time of planting of these trees, assuming a 4 inch caliper
tree will have approximately 15 feet of clear space between each tree.
Councilman Geving: Let's go down to the western part there and come down now
to the where the bowling alley is. Do we still have plenty of room for the
parking lot or is that parking lot coming out of there where the bowling alley
is now?
Jim Lasher: The parking lot is expanding as it is right now. The process
we're in right now is a redesign of the entire bowling alley parking lot. We
may enter into that lot at this point right here a long boulevard section and
then splitting off into major parkir~3 in this area and then some to the north.
Councilman Geving: I guess this is the first time I've seen the plan extended
all the way over to Kerber. I kind of like that as well. I'm pleased with
the plan.
A1 Klingelhutz: Concerning that meeting this morning, were all the business
people notified about that?
36
119
City Council Meeting - March 16, 1987
Don Ashworth: Everytime we hold a meeting we have to send that notice
officially to the owners of the property. What Staff attempted to do this
morning was that we hand delivered to every tenant in the downtown area a
notice of this meeting so people such as Milly, Roxanne Gregory, the hardware
store, people who don't necessarily own the property but who are the ones are
working there would have an idea of what this project was all about so we
really weren't trying to get to owners Al.
A1 Klingelhutz: Actually, I don't think anyone in our building got notice of
this o
Don Ashworth: I'm sure we may have missed some buildings. If we missed yours,
we apologize.
Al Klingelhutz: Another question, I heard you use the word aspen tree. What
is the life of an aspen tree?
Jim Lasher: The life of an aspen tree is somewhere around 40 to 50 year
range.
Al Klingelhutz: I've seen them die a lot sooner than that. They are pretty
soft wood tree and they are kind of a dirty tree. I don't know if we want
them to line the streets of Chanhassen.
Councilman Geving: I guess I would agree with Al's comments on that. We've
discussed that up here.
Councilman Horn: I would double that on the popular trees.
Councilman Geving: Green Ash is a very nice tree for a boulevard. I didn't
notice that you mentioned that.
Jim Lasher: I think going back to the conceptual framework of the plan, I'm
trying to stick with one type of community which is pretty much surrounding
the area of oak savannah and I think to go hack and look at different
vegetation is definitely possible.
Mayor Hamilton: I think Don w~nted to make a comment on the bonding.
Don Ashworth: We are moving ahead. I don't r~ City Council action at this
time but the bonds for this project will be an extensive process. Again, I
wanted to make sure that the Council is aware of the fact that we are
proceeding on that and literally have engaged Andy Merry in that process. If
the Council has concerns, I guess I would like to know about that. Otherwise,
we are proceeding. ~ne bonding for this project occurs simultaneously with
the potential storm sewer contract both of which would be scheduled for June
1. In that process, I should make the City Council aware of the fact that we
are looking to potential refunding of a number of our bond issues. If that is
possible, we may be coming back asking the City Council to look to a special
meeting so that we could literally authorize the sale and consummate potential
refunding. Again, we would not bring that back unless we could see potential
savings of at least $5,00~.~ to $1~,00~.~0.
37
120
City Council Meeting - March 16~ 1987
Jim Burdick asked if the meeting was going to be on assessments. Mayor
Hamilton stated that there was not going to be an assessment hearing'tonight.
Don Ashworth: We attempted to respond to questions fr~m owners if they felt
that there was something wrong with the proposed way that we were proposing to
assess the project. As for comments, you really should have made those at the
last time around but I think you w~re out of town were you not?
Mayor Hamilton: Was there something you wanted to coherent on?
Jim Burdick: I had two things on the assessments and I wrote a letter and I
hope it's here and has been made part of the Minutes.
Barbara Dacy: It should have been included.
Councilman Johnson: We saw a letter a while back on this. I think it was in
the last packet.
Jim Burdick: I have two things and perhaps I can do it without the plot
because you are all quite familiar with this area. This improvement on the
main street terminates right at my property. It kind of runs out and I
believe the assessment plan just assesses everyone the same per foot but my
contention there is that the last inch in the dog's tail is not nearly as
valuable as the inch up near the bottom. In other words, I think I should be
assessed something for this 78th Street improvement but just being on the,
touching the tail end of it, it should be a lower assessment per square foot.
The second is this is quite a storm sewer system but when I plotted this land
down near Monterey, I put the storm sewer in as part of an enterprise. I
believe it was Bill Engelhardt, Schoell and Madsen and the City Engineer got
together and we first had a 6 to 18 inch storm sewer but the engineer
suggested that we go large enough up to 21 inches but we discover now that we
went to 24 inches and connected with a culver under 78th Street just west of
Monterey. We went 24 inch sewer all through that area so I have great storm
sewer there at the present time and I should only be assessed on benefit and
there can't be any benefit to me, I don't if I already have 24 inch storm
sewer. The alternative I think would be to not assess me or to assess me and
then give me credit for this 24 inch sewer. I understand but my plans don't
understand too well that this 24 inch sewer.., but of course it is directly
connected into. It is still being used to serve my property.
Mayor Hamilton: I think those are some good comments and Gary should probably
cover s~me of those and get back to us.
Don Ashworth: I can give some quick comment in terms of the last question
first. The points Mr. Burdick raises are absolutely correct. He does have a
storm sewer system that was required as a part of the platting of the Burdick
Addition. In a very similar way that there is storm sewer that exists on 79th
Street down in front of the liquor store and Holiday. One of the major issues
associated with this project however is how we're treating storm waters so
that it will affect our downstream community. Specifically Rice Marsh Lake
and Lake Riley. As a part of that process, we're installing major ponding
area and waters from this entire area are being directed into that ponding
38
City Council Meeting - March 16, 1987
area. It is that portion of it that Mr. Burdick is really being assessed for.
Again, it is very consistent with how we are handling the Holiday, that entire
section of the community, the assessments would be similar. I would have BRW
read their reply and again make sure that their calculation is correct but we
are in a similar situation. I forgot the first question.
Councilman Geving: He's right on the er~ of the property.
Don Ashworth: Again, I can have BRW respond to that questiom We're not down
into a specific assessment hearing at this point in time. I would like to
mention that the City Council did authorize a feasibility study to take these
road improvements from Kerber Blvd. down to CR 17 ar~ that is currently being
looked at as a part of the Charlie James road alignment etc. and BRW is also
doing that work. We have not put an emphasis on that portion of the project
feeling that the downtown area should be our first priority and again, waiting
for Mr. James and Mr. Burdick to work out some of the problems associated with
that change in the road. It's not really going to be at the end of the line.
You might say it's right in the middle. While he will have project
improvements on both sides and all the way from CR 17 to Great Plains Blvd.
and fr(~n that standpoint he's right in the middle of the project area.
Jim Burdick: I think what Don is saying is that I should be partially
assessed a~d I don't question this and when the street is extended down by
78th Street improvements are extended down to Powers Blvd. then I should be
assessed.
Mayor Hamilton: That feasibility is going to make that a little bit clearer.
Jim Burdick: I agree with the assessment for the ponding area but not for the
storm sewer mains because it's already in existence.
John: As a property owner and business owner of Chanhassen Bowl, I think that
what I've ~_~n~ the past few weeks and the work the Staff has done and the
Council and these people, if and when it happens, I think it's going to be
terrific.
A1 Klingelhutz: I'm not saying anything against the project. It's as
good...this happens to be my property. This is my front yard and I see you're
making a parking lot out of it and it does concern me a little bit on what's
happening. That's one of the reasons I asked why I wasn't invited to that
meeting this morning because I had heard of the rumor that this was going to
happen and I would have brought that up this morning. I think we should be
taking another good look at that.
Mayor Hamilton: It will be adding more parking spaces for you and I think it
would be more of a benefit to you.
A1 Klingelhutz: In the first place it is kind of isolating me from what used
to be a main street. We're going to be way in here plus the fact that the
parking right in front of building and I don't think the building will be
there that long. It's getting pretty old. We're looking at s~ne plans to put
something better there and I think w~ should discuss it a little.
39
121
122
City Council Meeting - March 16, 1987
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR AN AMATEUR RADIO ANTENNA TOWER, 6400
CHANHASSEN ROAD, JIM THEIS.
Jo Ann Olsen: ~ne applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to install
an amateur radio tower. The applicant's site is located on the southwest
corner of TH 101 and Pleasant View Road. ~ne Zoning Ordinance sets some
conditions for radio towers and those conditions are a 45 foot height limit,
10 foot setback from existing structures, a setback from the property line
equal to the tower's height. The applicant is proposing a 63 foot high tower
so he would request variance to the height restriction. He also has shown
three options for the location of the tower. Option #1 places it close to the
house where it will be braced against the house and where it would be screened
by some existing trees. The second option places it 10 feet away from the
house and is an equal distance from the property line but is more out in the
open where it can be seen easily from TH 101 and Pleasant View. The third
option is the one that Staff prefers. It braces the tower up against the
house located to the west of the home and is screened from Pleasant View and
TH 101 by existing vegetation. The FCC requires the City to approve towers.
They can not deny them because of their use in emergency situations. They do
allow the City to have the option to limit the height and again, our height
limit is at 45 feet right now. Staff established the 45 foot height
restriction from a planning pamphlet on radio towers but after researching
towers, how they are made and constructed, we found that 45 really wasn't a
very suitable height, that they came in 8 and 10 foot increments and ideally a
minimum height is 50 feet. Again, the applicant is requesting a tower height
of 63 feet. He is here and he can explain how that is used for the radio
communication. Staff prefers the third option because it screens it more from
the properties. By having it braced against the house it essentially makes it
into a collapsable tower. It will be braced at 17 feet in height so if it did
fall over it would still be within the property boundaries. Staff recommended
approval and the Planning Commission also recommended approval with Staff's
conditions. Staff had also recommended that the height limit and the 10 foot
setback from buildings be removed as part of the codification. The Planning
Commission did not want to do that. ~ney wanted Staff to review appropriate
conditions and bring that back before the~ but again, Planning Commission did
recc~mend approval with Staff's conditions.
Councilman Boyt: As I understand it Jo Ann, he is asking for a 48 foot tower,
not a 63 foot tower.
Jo Ann Olsen: It is 48 feet in height and then there is a 15 foot antenna.
Councilman Boyt: What actually counts in tower height? Is it the structure?
Jo Ann Olsen: Tne definition is the whole height. He can further explain but
the tower itself is supporting this point which the antennas will be placed
on.
Councilman Boyt: As I read the Planning Commission Minutes, it seemed as
through there was sort of efficienty gained in height here. That there was a
reasonableness that basically the FCC said that local cities have very little
to say whether these things go in or not. Given that, I would encourage that
40
125
City Council Meeting - March 16~ 1987
if this is approved, and I suspect it will be, that the City Staff send notice
to everybody in the reasonably affected area, and I don't think 500 feet is
going to be the reasonably affected area, and that that notice include the
name and address of the person who is building the tower and also recommended
procedures if they have interference. ~nere was quite a bit of discussion at
the Planning Commission about interference. I suspect that there is going to
be some. The applicant seems very willing to work with them and so the City's
responsibility would be to help that process come together by sending notice
to the people in whatever is felt to be the reasonably affected area.
Councilman Horn: I have no problem with this. I will go along with Staff's
recommendation for Option 3. I think that is the preferable location and I
also have no problem with the height.
councilman Geving: I can't think of a worse place to put a tower in the City
of Chanhassen. I would like to see the language that the FCC has ~_n eluded
to that has been placed upon us that we can not deny this tower. Are you
aware of this and have you read it?
Jo Ann Olsen: It's in your packet.
councilman Boyt: It's on page 10 of our packet.
Councilman Geving: What would happen if his neighbor and two or three other
neighbors in the neighborhood also were ham operators and wanted to put up
their own towers? We had four or five of them possibly in the same
neighborhood. Could that potentially happen?
Jo Ann Olsen: Yes.
councilman Geving: And we couldn't stop them and that's a fact. It seems
that there are some things that we haven't got any control over in our
community. I would like to see what this tower looks like. Usually when we
get an application of this nature we have at least an idea pictorially of what
the thing is going to look like when it's up.
Jo Ann Olsen: The Fire Station b_aa one.
Councilman Geving: I would like to see what this particular one looks like.
I'm glad I'm not his neighbor.
Jo Ann Olsen: His neighbor had no objections.
Councilman Geving: It's not his neighbor. It's a lot of other neighbors that
have to look at this.
Councilman Boyt: I see two different kinds here. Are we looking at the one
that spreads at the top or one that is vertical?
Jo Ann Olsen: ~ne spreads.
41
City Council Meeting - March 16, 1987
Councilman Geving: They also have these things at the top here that look like
elevators.
Jo Ann Olsen: That's the antenna. Actually, he is putting up the tower to
put the antenna on.
Councilman Geving: How many of these horizontal bars does he have across
here? I see four here on one and three on another.
Jim Theis: My proposed antenna is a six element. It doesn't make it so much
bigger in size but there is closer spacing in between because the higher I
could get it the better it would be but seeing that 48 to 50 foot tower,
that's basically where the big antenna goes, the first one which is a big one
and then you have your two meter one which is above that. That's why you ~
that 15 feet inbetween there. The last probably 10 feet of that is above like
1/2 inch aluminum straight up and down thing in that 63 feet. The reason for
the more elements is with the radio frequencies, you get a higher beam for
better reception.
Councilman Geving: What's your preferred option that is being presented here
tonight?
Jim Theis: Three is actually where I originally wanted to put it but unless
they would go with the other building codes where you attached it, it didn't
have the fall because it's the most convenient for me.
Councilman Geving: Who is going to install this tower?
Jim Theis: I probably will.
Councilman Geving: Have you even installed a tower like this before?
Jim Theis: No.
Councilman Geving: How do I know that it will meet any of our structural
requirements?
Jim Theis: It has to pass the building code. I have specifications for
putting the cement footing that goes in and the base section and basically
holding it together to make sure that the bolts are tight. I've worked on a
few of them now. I, more so than anybody else wouldn't want it to come down
so I'm going to make sure that it's right.
Councilman Geving: Jo Ann, on the Bloomington City Code, on page 278, item D
in the middle of the page requiring construction requirements and height
restrictions. Are you familiar with those?
Jo Ann Olsen: Yes.
Councilman Geving: Is there anyway we could build those into our Conditional
Use Permit these kinds of construction requirements? I think this is a very
well written code.
42
City Council Meeting - March 16, 1987
Jo Ann Olsen: We do have certain restrictions or conditions similar to this
already in our ordinance and he must go through the building department.
Councilman Geving: I kind of like what Bloomington has done. ~nis is a new
area for us. I only know of maybe one other tower and that's in Greenwood
Shores. Are there others that you are aware?
Jo Ann Olsen: I know that one and the one at the Fire Statioru They're all
over o
Councilman Geving: I think we ~ to start somewhere if we're going to get
these kind of requests that we can not deny ar~ build this kind of
construction requirements into our Ordinance. I have no further questions.
Mayor Hamilton: We may not be able to back it with our options as far as
height?
Jo Ann Olsen: ~ne FCC just controls it that you have to be reasonable and
again, in speaking with ths~ they said 40 feet was reasonable. We've got 45.
Councilman Johnson: Do we have any calculations shown that 63 feet is
required here to provide your two meter communication through topographic or
some other reason why 45 is not applicable?
Jim Theis: As far as height goes, I have the hills of Near Mountain directly
to the north. 45 feet, if I was up there would be a lot higher than my 63
will be where I'm at presently. I~ asking for it because of t_be land that is
there. Again, that 63 feet is the tip of the top two meter unit and that's
about a 10 foot thing that's straight up and dowr~ The tower height, the 48
or 50 foot tower, that range is for the HF ban which is not optimal. It is
but like I said at the Planning Commission meeting, .it would be nice to be
able to go for higher but then your pocket book has to stretch a lot more too
so that' s optimal for me.
Councilman Johnson: I kind of agree with the Planning Commission. I don't
think we should drop the height requirement as part of the recodification. I
agree there. I think we should look into it and come up with a reasonable
ordinance. If somebody comes in and they live in the valley, 48 is not even
going to get them up to where they can broadcast to their neighbor. We have
to be able to look at these things. We need something more than a list of
calculations to show that we're not being arbitrary in saying, yes, 63 is
great for this guy. We have no calculations showing that 63 is better than
45. ~nere is a hill behind them. I'm sure there is because there is a hill
up there but is that hill over 4~ Is 63 going to put him above the hill
where be can broadcast north? Will it affect his broadcasting to the north
with the two meter ban to have the hill there? These types of questions
aren't addressed here and should be addressed for us to make this decision.
If we're going to give a variance to our rules, we have to understand the
hardship that the topography is creating and the hardship has not been shown
as of yet. It's been stated that there is one but there is no proof of a
hardship. I grew up with my best friend being an amateur radio, his father is
an amateur radio operator so I had a lot of time over there. I~ all together
43
127
128
City Council Meeting - March 16, 1987
for amateur radios for variances to our rules need to be proved that our rules
are creating a hardship on the owner.
Councilman Horn moved to accept the Staff recommendation and approve the tower
for Jim Th. is for 63 feet using location 93. There was no second and motion
failed due to lack of a second.
Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the Conditional
Use Permit for a 63 foot high amateur radio tower with the following
conditions:
.
The antenna tower shall be located to the west of the home and braced
to the home at a height of 17 feet.
.
~ne antenna shall be grounded to protect against natural lightening
strikes in conformance with the National Electrical Code.
.
~ne antenna electrical equipment and connections shall be designed
and installed in adherence to the National Electrical Code.
.
A building permit shall be required for the installation of the
antennas. Applications shall include the submission of a site plan
and structural components and the Building Official must approve the
building plans before installation.
.
No part of any antenna or tower nor any lines, cable, equipment or
wires or braces in connection with either shall at any time extend
across or over any part of the right-of-way, public street, highway,
sidewalk or property line.
.
Towers with antennas shall be designed to withstand a uniform wind
loading as prescribed in Section 23.08 of the Uniform Building Code.
.
Antennas and metal towers shall be grounded for protection against a
direct strike by lightening and shall comply as to electrical wiring
and connections with all applicable local statutes, regulations and
standards.
.
Every tower affixed to the ground shall be protected to discourage
climbing of the tower by unauthorized persons.
Staff will be sending out notices to property owners within a reasonably
affected area.
Ail voted in favor except Councilman Johnson who opposed and the motion carried.
Councilman Boyt: Do I need to amend that to get the Staff to send out this
notice. Does that require an amendment?
Mayor Hamilton: It could be a condition to send out notice to all the
neighbors who are affected.
44
City Council Meeting - March 16, 1987
Councilman Boyt: I want to send out notice to the neighbors in a reasonably
affected area. I~n not talking about noticing all of Chanhassen but I think
there are going to be people that are susceptible to interference. I think
Jim has indicated that he wants to work with those people. I think we saving
ourselves a lot of trouble by getting out in front of it and sending a notice
so I would like to amend your motion to include that instruction to Staff.
Coun~i lman Geving: ~ho decides reasonable? The Staff?
councilman Johnson: I'm going to star~] by my lack of hardship.
councilman Boyt moved, councilman Geving seconded to amend the agenda to move
item 13 to this point in the meeting. All voted in favor ar~ motion carried.
ACCEPT FEASIBILITY STUDY AND SET DATES FOR PUBLIC HEARING, BLUFF CB~.RK DRIVE
STREET IMPRGg-f~]TS.
Gary Warren: Basically, in 1980 a feasibility study was conducted on Bluff
Creek to evaluate the road situation and the opportunity to upgrade it to take
care of some of the problems with wash boarding and erosion, etc. and grading
issues. What we have tonight here is an update of the feasibility. Bill
Engelhardt has prepared for the City and he has addressed basically the
assessability of the project, the need for the project as well as the use of
State-Aid funds on the project which I think is an important issue here that
we need to look at. Bluff Creek does serve as a connector between TH 212 and
CR 14 and as such I think we are looking at it from use of the State Aid.
That is one of the reasons why it is one of our State Aid roads and therefore
the use of the State Aid Funds for it and also because of the area that it
services with the Hesse Farm, the assessment approach here I think we've taken
a close look at so that we can reasonably deal with the neighborhood. Bill
has had meetings with the local residents and has prepared reports so at thi~
time I would like to have him go over the details for you.
Bill Engelhardt: As Gary mentioned, the Bluff Creek is a MSA or Municipal
State Aid road that connects TH 212 and CR 14. Back in 198~, the original
feasibility study looked at upgrading a portion of the roadway from CR 14 down
to the Hesse Farm Road's intersection as a rural section and from Hesse Farm
Roads down to TH 212 as an urban section where you would he installing
concrete curb ar~ gutter and storm sewer. In 1983 Mr. Bill Monk, the former
engineer, had suggested the possibility of reducing the cost of tt~ project
from Hesse Farm Roads down to TH 212 by eliminating the curb and gutter and
installing a rural section in that area of the roadway and putting in a ditch
checks ar~ storm sewer in the check. Storm sewer in the ditches would
essentially drop it as you go down the steep grade. We reviewed that proposal
and we found that in order to construct a rural section in this area, there
are several difficulties. One is th~ steep ravine, th~ steep grades off of
several sections of the road and then conversely on the other side of the
road, there are high embankments so by the time you cut in the ditches and
widen the road to accommodate State Aid standards, we would be acquiring
property and acquiring slope easements. In fact, t3~ houses along this
section in here, we would be up in their frontyards ar~ we would be removing a
45
129
City Council Meeting - March 16, 1987
number of trees and it just seemed like the damage that we would be doing
just wasn't feasible to construct the road in that manner. So we went back to
the original feasibility study and we're recommending that the section from
Hesse Farm Roads down to ~H 212 be constructed as an urban section with
concrete curb and gutter. That's essentially the project and how it would be
constructed. I'll try to be as brief as I can for the balance of it because
it has to do with financing. I think that's where we get into the real nuts
and bolts of this study. The total project cost for construction of this
roadway is $535,000.00. By using your Municipal State Aid fund you are able
to off-set a portion ~f that cost. You have to qualify the construction
through the State Aid Office for funding and it looks like a majority of this
project would qualify. The things that do not qualify would be like sanitary
sewer and watermain and items of that nature and we're proposing any of those
facilities in this area so it looks like a majority of the project would
qualify for the State Aid funds. Looking at this as a 429 project where it
would he an assessment project where the City would participate in part of the
cost. At minimum we would have to assess out for a 429 project is 20% of the
project cost. In my recommendation we're recommending that that 20% be the
level that we assess for this project. We did review for the CityCouncil
several options, two other options, for the assessment and the reason for that
was that several of the residents within the Hesse Farm area were trying to
draw comparisons to recently constructed roads throughout the City that also
utilized State Aid funds. One of the comparisons they were making is to the
Lake Lucy Road so we went back and tried to review that for the City Council
and put it in this report. We four~ that there is a big difference between
the Lake Lucy Road project from this project because of the nature of the
traffic. Here we're connecting a State Highway to a County Road with
potential for the TH 212 Corridor to be going in in this area and the City is
looking at working with the highway department that Bluff Creek would actually
be connected. That is future nature but those are the potential plans so the
nature of the roadway is quite a bit different from the Lake Lucy Road. In
addition, Lake Lucy Road has a majority of the property fronting on the road
where that assessment was worked out as a footage assessment. In this project
we have properties that are utilizing this road off of the road and the
comparison just isn't there. They are two different animals. ~nat's why we
came to 20% of the project should be assessed but we did give you those other
two options. 5he third option was looking at assessing out what would he a
typical rural section and urban section as the City's participation and that's
where the 43% factor came in. We don't think that's reasonable because again,
of the nature of the roadway where it is connecting TH 212 eventually in a
triangle to the top. ~ne assessment method that we looked at was an unit
method of assessment and the small map shows the assessment area. Basically
it follows something like this which goes right around the already subdivided
property. In addition, there is a parcel here, a parcel here and one parcel
down here that we considered looking at one assessment unit basically for each
of these areas based on 10 area parcel and that's your current zoning
ordinance. In other words, one unit could be built on that 10 acres so it was
reasonable to assume that we could assess this for one unit, this area one
unit, this area one unit and this area down here one unit. We ended up with
four units for unsubdivided property and we considered each individual lot as
a unit. Tne basis for that is that they do have a benefit of the use of the
road. This is their only means of in and out but it is their participation is
46
2ity Oouncil Meeting - March 16, 1987
limited through the 20% factor of the State Aid Funds picking up the balance
9f the project costs. So, going back to the assessment that we would be
looking at, based on the unit method, the 20% assessment, the 20% of the cost
~gainst the properties within the assessment area on the unit method would be
~bout $1,622.00. The balance of the project cost, which is around $428,000.00
would be paid for through the use of State Aid Funds. We're looking at
utilizing two year period for those State Aid Funds where we would be pickincj
up approximately $215,000.00 per year. That would be 1987 and 1988 funds.
The report has laid out how in about 1988 we will have a balance of about
$1,700.00. In 1989 we will be back up to speed again an~ will pick the full
boat up and proceed onto another project so it looked like over the course of
a two year period, we could handle the financing of this project through the
use of 20% to assess the benefitted properties and the State Aid Fund picking
up the balance of it. The State Aid, we will not have to, I use the word
~cumber in the report. We will not have to encumber our State Aid Fur~s if
~%e project runs into 1988 and it looks like in all liklihood that it would.
The contract would still be open and therefore we would not have to encumber
the funds but they would be available for our use. That's a real brief
synopsis of the report and I have met with the Bluff Creek Homeowners
Associatioru I have not met with any of the individual properties along the
road. Mr. Harold Hesse was in attendance at the meeting with the homeowners
~ssociation so he's one of the major landowners involved. He was concerned on
low we were going to assess the raw land. I explained to him exactly how I
explained it tonight that it would be based on one unit per 10 acre parcel.
Councilman Horn: What was his reaction?
Bill Engelhardt: I can't speak for him but he wasn't violently upset or
anything like that. He understood I think that the road ~s to be done.
That something needs to be done to the road. I think he understood that we
treated him fair and I think it was fairly well received.
Kathy Smith: I live on Hesse Farm. My concern is what the additional traffic
from upgrading this road is likely to bring to this area. It is clear that '
there is a road problem that needs to be taken care of and handled but I
prefer to see something done to handle erosion problem and leave the road in
it's current state of disrepair. It gets maintenance on a semi frequent basis
and I would be happy to ~ that continue but the erosion problem is by far a
greater concern fr~ my perspective.
Marjorie Bush: I'm the owner and operator of Bluff Creek Inn Bed and
Breakfast. Ihn located very close to the road. I have a feeling that the
house is going to be in the road and...I'm concerned a little bit more than
the people in town because the cars are driving right through the bedrooms.
The road is eroded now so that there is one lane of traffic right by my house.
They are driving in my yard. The dust is just absolutely unbelievable.
You've asked me for the provisions in the Bluff Creek Bed and Breakfast and an
occasional cleaning girl, I r~_~ an army to keep the dust off the porch.
It's s~mething that I think w~ ~ to be ashamed of. Thank you.
Kathy Smith: Is there a way we can consider doing just the lower half which
is the steeper grade and is the problem?
47
City Council Meeting - March 16, 1987
Mayor Hamilton: It seems the whole road is a probl~n.
Candy Takkunen: I live on Bluff Creek Drive. After living here in the
community for 11 1/2 years I'm working at, as we have to do, I must fir~t a
perfect community. Even though I have two your~g children, I would really
thank you immeasurably if you would go ahead with this project. I appreciat~
all the work Staff has done on this. For 11 1/2 years we have really wished
that that road would be paved. We hope that by the 21st century that it is
paved. We invited you on numerous times to come visit us in our dusty
environment. I would be the first to invite to come and visit us in our dust
free environment.
Councilman Geving: I do have a question of Don. If we proceed with this
project with the State Aid Funds as being proposed, does that also include the
project on the extension of Lake Drive East from the Legion to CR 177
Don Ashworth: The report that Bill gave you regarding funding takes into
account funding for Lake Lucy Road and Lake Drive East. Those projects will
be totally funded and the monies that he was referring to as being available,
are available for this project.
Councilman Geving: ~nis is the lowest the funds have ever gotten that I can
r~m~mr~er if w~ proceed with this.
Don Ashworth: It's taken a long time to get to where we are.
Councilman Boyt: I am hoping that we do go to the point of public hearing on
this on the 20th. My concern would be that we have talked, if Frontier Trail
should happen to go through, it was commented last Fall that the city would be
open to considering that for some State Aid support. I see us spending our
State Aid until 1989 and that makes me a little wary about funding this at the
20% level.
Councilman Geving: But it's consistent with our priorities that we
established some time ago that we would do Lake Drive East. That we would do
Lake Lucy Road and that we would finish the last major project and that was
Bluff Creek Drive. What has happened with Frontier Trail is relatively new
topic as far as I'm concerned. We didn't really discuss this until late last
fall as a potential project. We would still be able to do that project in
1989.
Councilman Boyt: As I understand, because it connects $Sth and Kerber, there
was feeling, at least in the meeting, that it w~uld qualify.
Don Ashworth: The real life story in that to qualify for State Aid, as you're
talking about, you would literally have to make the thing free flowing. In
other words, right now we put a number of impairments along Frontier. You
would have to straighten out some of the curves, the one intersection that has
stop signs that would stop you from getting over to Kerber Blvd.. I recall
the suggestion occurring but I really questions whether or not it would
qualify for State Aids. Tne project could still be done this year or next
year.
48
City Council ~'~ting - March 16, 1987
Councilman Boyt: I don't mean to discuss that project as a part of this but
that was my concern. ~ than that, I would really like to see this move to
public hearing.
Councilman Horn: I agree with that. It's long overdue.
Resolution ~87-23: Councilman Horn moved, Councilman ~eving seconded to
accept the feasibility study and set the date of April 20, 1987 for public
hearing on Bluff Creek Drive Street Improvements. All voted in favor and
motion carried.
LAKE RILEY WOODS, NORTHEAST CORNER OF TH 101 AND CR 14 (PION~RR TRAIL), GEORGE
NELSON.
A. SUBDMSION OF 134 ACRES INTO 42 SINGLE FAMILY IX)TS.
B. WETIAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR THE ALTERATION OF A CLASS B WETLAND.
Olsen: The property is located om the northeast corner of Pioneer Trail, CR
14 and TH 10L The application has gone through many, many revisions. The
application involves a preliminary plat, a wetland alteration permit and a
conditional use permit for a recreational beachlot. The Planning Commission
tabled action on the recreational beachlot so you will not be reviewing
that tonight. As part of the preliminary plat, the property is zoned A-2,
Agricultural and it has 134 acres. The application is proposing 42 single
family lots. All meet the minimum requirement of 2 1/2 acres and 180 feet of
street frontage. This application did come in under the old deadline so it is
under the old regulations. As far as the site, it is bordered by Lake Riley,
CR 14 and TH 101. It is in two blocks. Block 1, all the lots are around the
perimeter of the site. Block 2 contains the interior lots. Block 1 has a
Class A wetlands located on eastern portion of the site and Block 2 contains a
Class B wetland where a alteration permit is required. It is outside of the
Urban Service Area so each lot would have to have it's own septic system and
well. The applicant has provided four soil borings for each site for the two
treatment sites and the consultants, Roger Machmeier and Jim Anderson, have
reviewed these and have found that almost all the lots will have to have mound
systems. The only questions or problems they did have was that the sites
located on the lots were not oriented with the contour and it would have to
adjusted as such. There is adequate room for them and they rearranged them so
that should be no problem. The other problem is on Lot 14, because of the
slopes, one of the treatment sites will have to be a drainfield site. The
applicant has provided percolation tests for this area but it did not conform
exactly and are therefore requiring additional percolation tests. They stated
they would go out to the site with the applicant to make sure that they
are done correctly. The other problem with the mound system that would be
located right near the road right-of-way and would most likely be altered
along with road construction. AS you are aware, none of the sites can be
altered at all if they are going to be used as a treatment site. As far as
the street, MnDot ~ the County have reviewed this. The proposed plat does
show the realignment for CR 14. There is a remenant piece which will become
an outlot and will be unbuildable because it does not have the 2 1/2 acres.
49
City Council Meeting - March 16, 1987
MnDot has also requested an additional 27 feet of right-of-way along TH 101.
The applicant will have to provide the additional right-of-way and use that
right-of-way from the lots. Park and I~=creation Commisson reviewed this plan
and they requested a trail easement along CR 14 and TH 101. Ideally they are
trying to get the easement along the southern side of CR 14 to match up with
Eden Prairie but these easements are just in case they don't receive the
southern easement. They are requesting the easement in lieu of and they are
not going to reduce the park dedication fees. As far as grading, Staff is
recommending a phasing plan. As far as clear cutting, the Shoreland Ordinance
prohibits any clear cutting within the shoreland distance which is 1,000 feet
of the Ordinance High Water Mark. The applicant must provide a plan
designating the areas to have trees cut. All the drainage will be directed to
Lake Riley, the Class B wetlands and the larger Class A and then along the
ditches near the roads. As far as the wetland alteration permit, the Class B
wetland currently is just a low drainage area. We went out to the site and
Fish and Wildlife has reviewed this site and has confirmed that it is not a
very healthy wetland and that the application to provide a drainage would not
be a detriment. The Wetland Ordinance does require that the treatment setback
and structure setbacks must bemaintained from the Ordinary High Water Mark of
the wetland and those setbacks are 150 feet for treatment systems and 75 feet
for structures. Tne Planning Commission reviewed this. A portion of Lots 13
and 14 and 2 and 3 are within the setbacks right now and they will have to
provide a new plan meeting those setbacks. The applicanthas shown that they
will be able to do that. The Wetland Alteration Permit also is for the street
that will be placed on one end of it. ~ae drainage of the area will be
maintained by a culvert. Staff has reviewed this and feels that the
alteration to the wetland will be minimal and is recommending approval of the
wetland alteration permit. Again, the recreational beachlot has ~ tabled
because one of the conditions was that 80% of the lots be within 1,000 feet of
the recreational beachlot and this subdivision does not meet that requirement.
Staff is recommending approval with the conditions outlined by Staff. ~ne
Planning Commission also recommended approval with Staff's conditions and
added the following:
0
That Lots 2, 3, 13 and 14 of Block 2 meet all of the wetland setback
,
requirements for septic systems.
I had in there for structures and septic systems but they only wanted the 150
foot setback maintained. They felt that that was the most important. Not
necessarily structures.
Councilman Johnson: A few inconsistencies here. When I watched the Planning
Commission meeting there seemed to be a lot of talk about this Class B wetland
as part of it, the road is being taken over it. Are there any efforts being
made to maintain that wetland and make sure that we have the same amount of
area or more area of wetland to provide the nutrient sink or whatever you want
to call it, for it to continue to operate to purify the water? I'm disturbed
about taking away s~me wetland.
Jo Ann Olsen: The area that is being taken away is actually minimal and the
culverts are being provided to maintain it to be used as a drainage area for
that site. In fact, the wetland itself is going to be improved as a holding
50
City Council Meeting - March 16, 1987
pond as part of this development.
Councilman Johnson: They are going to do something to improve it? It's not
going to just sit as it is?
Jo Ann Olsen: It is being improved by the drainage being directed to it.
Councilman Johnson: Is it feasible to maintain it at it's present size?
Gary Warren: Part of the reason for the road coming in where it is is the
setback requirements from TH 10L He could miss the wetland I guess by
putting a jog in the road but I think that would be a real compromise from the
desired road design criteria.
Councilman Johnson: You're going to build an outlet structure into a wetland
and maintain it' s level?
Gary Warren: No, it's proposed to be ur~isturbed which I think is
appropriate. The only structure for this wetland is the culvert underneath
the proposed roadway which allows the west part of that wetland to still serve
some function.
Councilman Johnson: It's disturbing that this Block 1, Lot 14 that you're
having so much problem with the septic system. We really pussy footed arour~
what our consultant had to say about, he did a good job of pussy footing
around it too, about the tests that were given to us having the appearances of
not being for that lot. The appearances of having exactly the same
percolation rates and stuff like this, I don't really want to do anything on
this plat until w~ find out if w~'re being given the correct data here.
Mayor Hamilton: One of the conditions was that the drainfield percolation
test must be c~ple~ for that particular lot.
Councilman Johnson: I would like to see it before actually.
Mayor Hamilton: I agree with you.
Councilman Johnson: If it comes out very much different from what was
reported, I'm questioning all the data that was reported to us. We have, that
everybody got in the packets, the data sf~c~t shows that they have written do~
for Block 2, Lot 8 then 2 and 8 are scratched off and 1 and 14 are put in.
Is 8 real close to 14 where the guy could have been that lost?
Jo Ann Olsen: That was where they came in with the first plan and those were
the lot numbers used. We questioned the validity of those also.
Mayor Hamilton: Perhaps the gentleman back here can clarify the situation for
us.
George Nelson: Tae reason for the change in those numbers, the way the
program was set up, the man that makes the soil borings is not allowed to
erase. He is required to cross off a number and change the number and the
51
135 ..
City Council Meeting - March 16, 1987
boring numbers were changed because when we revised the plat, the lot numbers
changed. You can rest assured that we can't get a building permit to build a
house on that lot if we don't have two separate areas where we can put in
septic systems. The man who has done the soil borings is trying to coordinate
with Jim Anderson to get a time when they can go out there and resolve that.
Jim Anderson himself said that 99% of the cases, in situations like this, they
can be resolved so we're not concerned about it. I would appreciate if you go
with the approval for this situation because if I understand Staff's
recommendations, it would be subject to doing our homework on that.
Councilman Johnson: Jo Ann, also in here, your lot layout, you talk about
Lots 1, 2, 3, 5 and 9 having length over twice their width and required a
variance then you state that a Class A wetlands is located within these lots
which would not permit the lots to be resubdivided, therefore the variance
should be granted. There are no wetlands in Lots 1 or 5 that I see.
Jo Ann Olsen: ~ne wetlands setback.
Councilman Geving: I would like to have Staff review this Class B wetland
action. How it's impacted by this plan?
Jo Ann Olsen: The road is being placed over the western tip of the wetland.
There is a culvert that is being placed underneath the road that will allow
the drainage that comes from this area to the west to drain underneath the
street and be retained as a wetland.
Councilman Geving: How else could you do this if it wasn't done the way it's
being proposed.
Jo Ann Olsen: The street? As the engineer pointed out, the street location
is also located so it is adjacent to the property to the south, the Halla
property is going to be coming in and there has to be a setback from the
County Road and TH 101. They could jog it around.
Councilman Geving: How big is that wetland in terms of acreage?
Gary Warren: The piece that is being covered here is about 2,500 square feet
or about 6/100th's of an acre. Just the part that the road is covering is
about 6/100th's of an acre. It's on the upland side of it. I think we would
be much more concerned if it was on the downstream side of that wetland.
Councilman Geving: Another question I had had to do with the potential for
drainge leaving this area and going west down to the developed 96th Street
area. Is there any potential for that happening with this development? We've
had nothing but a lot of problems there with the sewage systems on 96th Street
and that whole area that is rather low. That area to the west. Would this
land prevent that from happening?
Jo Ann Olsen: I know that one of the improvements that the highway department
wanted to put in ditches for additional drainageways. Maybe Gary can address
it better but I don't believe that it would be impacting 96th Street.
52
137
City Council Meeting - March 16, 1987
Councilman Geving: It's very important that we stay away from doing that.
Jo Ann Olsen: Most of it will be directed to the east. It wouldn't go down
towards the highway. I believe it would be caught in the ditches.
Councilman Geving: Where will it be carried then Gary? Where will that water
be directed? It goes to the ditches in the TH 101 area?
Gary Warren: It would basically be sent to Lake Riley watershed.
Councilman Geving: I know but where would it go? Would it eventually get
down to that low area on Pioneer Trail?
Gary Warren: I guess I don't know at looking at what I've got right here.
Councilman Geving: The reason I ask that question is we put in an awul lot of
201 septic systems down there and it's a real problem. ~at's my only
concerr~ I want to make sure that this plan does not contribute to more water
for that low area. I have no other questions.
Councilman Boyt: What I read from the Planning Commission meeting it
that there were some people who were concerned about any run-off into Lake
Riley. Has that issue ~_n resolved?
Jo Ann Olsen: I believe that their concern was about that high number of
septic syst~ns along Lake Riley.
Councilman Boyt: And wasn't the discussion along the lines that conversion
from farmland to residential land was probably going to reduce that
contaminant?
Jo Ann O1 sen: Right.
Councilman Boyt: Am I reading this map right when it looks like we go from
the Class B to the Class A overland?
Jo Ann Olsen: It's all overland except for when we meet the streets ar~]
culverts.
Councilman Boyt: Does that tend to be much of a flow? Are we going to create
a strean here. Is there a str__~mm here now? Is it just sort of marshland?
·
Jo Ann Olsen: There is a definite drainageway but it's not a stream or
anything like that.
Gary Warren: I think the plan as it is proposed has tried to come to the site
without disturbing much of the existing terrain and such so that the impact
statement, it's just the increased hard surface from say roofs and structures
on the roadway that would be increasing run-off slightly.
Councilman Boyt: Tne developer is comfortable with the off-street trail
system?
53
138
City Council Meeting - March 16, 1987
Councilman Horn: I don't believe that is listed as one of the
recommendations.
Councilman Boyt: Let's add that. Tne other concern I have is we're
apparently, the PlanningCommission was willing to accept these buildings
within the setback from the wetlands. I would like Steve or Jo Ann or
somebody to give me a little insight. I didn't pick that up out of the
Minutes too well. Why did you guys accept building structures within the
normal setback for wetland.
Steve Emmings: I can't really answer that. I think we got caught up about
worrying about the septic systsms and sort of forgot about the structures.
Jo Ann Olsen: Obviously my recollection was that structure was included in
that motion.
Steve R~nings: I know that they weren't.
Jo Ann Olsen: I think that we felt the important one was the septic systems.
That the structures weren't going to impact the wetland so that didn't
necessarily have to be maintained.
Steve Emmings: I think that people felt that we had some pictures of that
wetland and another thing in reviewing the Minutes tonight, that didn't come
through in the Minutes but I know that we talked about among ourselves was the
fact that that Class B wetland was very shallow. There wasn't much to it and
the water that was leaving it wasn't going to Lake Riley. I think we would
have ~n a lot more concerned had the water been going to Lake Riley but it
was going to that Class A wetland.
Councilman Boyt: I have a little difficulty cutting off the tip of the
wetland. I haven't seen it so I can't get very much up in arms but the
general concept of cutting through a wetland and from my part I would buy
that. Somwhere I think we're jeopardizing our wetlands in general when we
begin saying well, that's not much of a wetlands and that's a heck of a
wetlands and so we're going to stay with our Ordinance because that's a great
one. We're going to violate it here because it's not. If it's a wetland,
classified as a wetland, then I think we need to be consistent and I would
suggest that we include structures back in that. I recognize that it is going
to make a devil of a situation with Lot 13 but that's the only one I see it
impacting on. Are we comfortable that this falls in the germain of a variance
when we talk about these lots that are longer than they would normally be? I
know we have made an effort to stay with the intent of that Ordinance about
when we will grant variances and I guess I'm asking the question of the other
Council members if they feel we are consistent with our conditions for
granting a variance when we look at those lots that are considerably longer.
Mayor Hamilton: I think we are in the past couple of years, we really haven't
followed that particular Ordinance very closely. It served a good purpose at
the time it was instituted and we've gotten several situations the last year
where it just hasn't been effective.
54
City Council ~-~ting - March 16, 1987
Councilman Boyt: You're talking about the double length? Would it be
reasonable then that we look at changing that in our codification process.
Jo Ann Olsen: It's out of the new Ordinance.
Councilman Boyt: And this was sutamitted before the new Ordinance was in
effect which is an advantage to his lot sizes and a disadvantage here. I can
live with that if we can get the structures out of the 75 foot setback. I
would like that w~ add trails ar,] I would like to see us add structures back.
Mayor Hamilton: So you would want to see the structures out of the setback?'
Councilman Boyt: I want to see structures included with septic systems as far
as being consistent with our Wetlands Ordinance. Not granting a variance for
structures.
Mayor Hamilton: Even the Class B w~tlar~s?
Councilman Boyt: Well, that's the way the Ordinance is written.
Mayor Hamilton: I'm asking specifically the Class B?
Councilman Boyt: Yes.
Mayor Hamilton: I guess personally I don't have a problem with it. I guess
you need to draw the line someplace on what a wetland is or isn't and a Class
B wetland that isn't active and there isn't much in there, I guess personally
I have no problem cutting off the tip of it to put the road in because the
problem was constructing the road in the first place. To give a variance to
put a pad within the setback, I guess I don't have a problem with that either
in this particular case. If it was a Class A it would be a little different.
Councilman Boyt: I just feel that the Ordinance was written with a lot of
concern about these sorts of issues and I think it's a reasonable compromise
to give up a tip and protect it from structure, a well system which is going
to be going in fairly close to it, if I gather than right.
Councilman Geving: That's about 200 feet isn't it?
Councilman Boyt: The well system is that circle right arour~ the structure in
13 isn't it?
Councilman Geving: I was looking down here. Well, maybe possibly on that
particular one they can move that back. This drainfield.
George Nelson: Just to put you a little bit at ease about this Class B
wetland. It was probably created originally because there were some weeds and
little brush growing in the field so the man that was farming started going
around it. There just isn't any water there. There's a culvert running under
an existing road that goes down to the lake which is a little bit to the east
of us and now the water drains down into the low area they call it a Class B
wetland. It flows through that culvert now and flows down into the Class A
55
139
140
City Council ~eeting - March 16, 1987
wetland but as far as the wetland is concerned, we didn't haveany problem
with the Fish and Wildlife out there and the Corps of Engineers out there. In
conversation with your engineer I will go along but they just didn't feel that
it was an important wetland at all. It's really a ditch.
Councilman Boyt: We have a system. Didn't someone from our Staff go out and
determine if this was a wetland or not?
Jo Ann Olsen: Yes, along with the DNR and I believe with the Fish and
Wildlife.
Mayor Hamilton: Are you the one that went out there?
Jo Ann Olsen: I visited this site but when we placed the wetlands on the
wetland map, no I wasn't here at that time but it was site by site, they went
out to the site and designated the different types of wetlands and this was
designated as a Class B wetlands.
Barbara Dacy: But the developer's information from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, we can confirm that. We talked with Elizabeth Rockwell. What he is
saying is essentially true.
Councilman Boyt: I'm not doubting his word. Did the Fish and Wildlife say
that this is not a Class B wetland?
Jo Ann Olsen: Technically it is still a Class B wetland but what we look at
is, is it going to be detrimental? Is it really going to harm the wetland and
in speaking with the experts we were told no, it wasn't going to be harmful or
detrimental to it. That it was still going to be able to function as it does
now.
Councilman Boyt: Tnen is our Ordinance inappropriate to saying don't put
structures within 75 feet of a Class B wetlands? Is that an inappropriate
Ordinance?
Barbara Dacy: It's on a case by case basis really.
Councilman Johnson: To follow up on that, I don't believe it's an
inappropriate Ordinance. 75 feet from a Class B wetlands do provide a
nutrient drain. Putting a septic field too close to a wetlands can cause a
problem in there. I differ with the opinion that changing this from
farmfields to home sites will have a net decrease in nutrients. People
fertilize. We'll look at the Saddlebrook development which is coming up later
tonight and their Environmental Assessment, they state that converting from
farmfields to residential areas will cause a 40% increase in your nutrients
into your storm water or run-off. Primarily in that case, they were
discussing phospherous. I tend to agree with them mostly because they put it
in writing. To have it stamped and sealed this where we just heard that isn't
it obvious and after I got thinking about it, your farmfields put a lot of
nitrogens in and not as much of the phosphates and stuff that are put into
homes.
56
~,ity Council Meeting - March 16, 1987
buncilman Horn: Just the opposite. The homeowners put nitrogens on and
~armers put phosphates oru The h~neowners want green ar~ the farmers want
:oots.
Dunci lman Johnson: Okay.
~ayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the Lake Riley Woods
~ubdivision R~quest %86-25 ar~ the Wetland Alteration Permit %86-3 with the
~ollowing conditions:
1. Su~nit a detailed grading plan providing the preservation of the
mound site on Lot 14, Block 1 and not permitting road drainage over
the mour~ site before final plat approval.
2. Suh~it a plan showing tt~ mound sites oriented with the contours.
3. Sub~it approved percolation tests for the drainfield site on Lot 14,
Block 1.
4. All streets must have a grade of 8% or less.
5. Designate the property between existing CR 14 and the realignment of
CR 14 as an outlot which will be considered unbuildable.
6. Any access onto CR 14 must receive a permit from Carver County.
7. The final plat must designate additional 27 feet of right-of-way
along TH 101 and all renaining lot areas shall contain 2.5 acres.
8. A phasing plan must be provided before final plat approval.
9. All disturbed areas must be i~mediately restored.
10. There shall be no clear cutting within the Shoreland area except for
public roads, structures and utilities.
11. A plan designating areas of clear cutting must be provided.
12. No direct access from Lots 18-25, Block 1 will be allowed to TH 101.
13. The developer enter into a developer's agreement with the City to
guarantee completion of improvenents.
14. Provide a schedule to the City indicating phasing of the project if
such is the intent of the developer.
15. Su]mnit a satisfactory grading and erosion control plan to the City
prior to construction.
16. Suhnit constructions plans to Williams Pipeline Company for review
and approval prior to construction.
57
1'41
142
City Council Meeting - March 16, 1987
17. That Lots 2, 3, 13 and 14, Block 2 meet all the wetland setback
requirements for structures and septic systems.
18. Provide a 20 foot easement for park trails along TH 101 and CR 14.
All voted in favor except Councilman Johnson who opposed and the motion
carried.
Barbara Dacy: Just to alert the Council, Planning Commission has asked Staff
to come back at the next meeting and talk a little bit more about the
Wetland's Ordinance and we're bringing in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
and members from the ~vironmental Protection Agency so you will be seeing
that in the Minutes. ~hat may answer some of your questions about the wetland
alteration permit process.
Councilman Boyt: One question about this. We've just created some lots so
now these property owners can come back in and claim that we need to put the
house in there or ask for a variance because now they don't have a self-
inflicted problem. They have one that the City has already approved.
Jo Ann Olsen: We are requiring the developer to show that those lots can meet
the structure setbacks and the treatment system setbacks before we will
approve those lots.
Barbara Dacy: For the final plat.
Jo Ann Olsen: We did not approve them as they are. Like Lot 13 which has no
room to move, that lot is most likely lost. The conditions that you just
approved, they must meet the setbacks before they are given the lot.
Councilman Boyt: I'll accept that but I didn't quite get it that way but
that's what I wanted to do.
SADDLEBROOK, LOCATED BETWEEN POWERS BLVD. AND KERBER BLVD. APPROXIMATELY 1/4
MILE NORTH OF WEST 78TH STREET, BUILDERS DEVELOPMENT:~
a.
REZONE APPROXIMATELY 23 ACRES OF RSF, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO
R-4, MIXED LOW DENSITY AND 8.2 ACRES OF RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY-TO
R-12, HIGH DENSITY.
B. LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE 8.2 ACRES OF RESIDENTIAL LOW
DENSITY TO RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY.
Ce
SUBDIVIDE 74 ACRES INTO 30 ATTACHED SINGLE FAMILY, 100 DETACHED
SINGLE FAMILY AND 8.2 ACRES OF ATTACHED MULTIPLE FAMILY ON PROPERTY
ZONED RSF, SINGLE FAMILY, R-4, MIXED MEDIUM DENSITY, AND~-i, MIXED
HIGH DENSITY.
Dm
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT PONDING AREAS IN AND AROUND A
CLASS B WETLAND.
58
143
City Council Meeting - March 16, 1987
E. REVIEW ~-~I~ ASSESSMENT
Jo Ann Olsen: The applicant has applied for rezoning, a land use plan
amendment, preliminary plat and wetlar~ alteration permit. Because the
subidivision is over 100 single family lots, they also had to go through the
EAW process. To cover the EAW first, the City Council must decide if the EAW
is adequate or whether or not they would have to continue with the EIS. If
the City Council approves a negative declaration then they will not require an
EIS. After reviewing the EAW, Staff has found that no significant adverse
impact from the development is a result of the development, The Met Council,
the Pollution Control Agency, the Historical Society and MnDot also felt that
an EIS was not necessary. Comments that were made though did again deal with
the phospherous loading to Lake Riley ar~ Lotus Lake. As you have ~ with
Hidden Valley and Chanhassen Hills, the impact of the development to Lake
Riley is increasing the phospherous loading ar~ Met Council has always pointed
this out as a critical lake and that they just wanted the EAW to realize that
there is a potential impact and to address it. The Met Council even admits
that there are no definite cures for this and that there is nothing that you
can actually do to prevent it. The applicant has provided an addendum
adjusting the impact of the phospherous and as far as Staff is concerned, has
met all the City Standards and is doing all that is possible to mitigate the
problem. Staff is recommending that a negative declaration on the EAW. As
far as the rezoning, they are proposing to rezone the northern portion to R-4
which is a low mixed density. It allows doubles and single family lots. They
are also proposing to rezone the 8.2 acres on the southern portion of the
property to R-12 which is high density. Staff has recommended approval of the
rezoning. The R-4 is adjacent to quads and duplexes and the R-12 is adjacent
to another R-12 district. As far as the land use plan, the doubles in the
northern part of the site and the doubles in the single family R-4, still will
be maintained under the single family designation so they can remain under the
single family. The designation to R-12 will have to be changed to a high
density designation ar~ again, this is the same as the property to the south.
The preliminary plat is proposing 82.4 acres and has proposed 30 doubles, 34
single family in the R-4 district, 76 single family in the RSF district and
80.2 acres in the R-12 district. All the lots meet the minimum requirements
of the Zoning Ordinance. The streets are provided. They have the 50 foot
right-of-way which is the standard for the City and they also provided a
larger 6~ foot right-of-way street in the center of the site. Kerber Blvd. is
adjacent to the property and Staff is recommending that this be improved to
curb and gutter to improve it to an urban section. Utilities are available to
the site. The sanitary sewer is available from both the south and the north
and water is available from Kerber ar~ will soon be available from Powers
Blvd. also. AS far as grading and drainage, the applicant is providing three
ponding areas. One pond area is in the northern portion of the site ar~ the
two ponding areas are located in the southern portion of the site. The two
ponding areas in the southern portion are within the Class B wetlar~ area. We
will review the wetland alteration permit required. AS far as the ponding
area to the north, they are providing overlar,] drainage to the creek area
which will then continue inbetween Chan Vista and Triple Crown to the ponding
area to the east of Triple Crown development where it will eventually get ihto
Lotus Lake. The Watershed District reviewed this preliminary and requested
59
144
City Council Meeting - March 16, 1987
that a pipe be installed rather than overland drainage. We had a meeting
rightbefore the Planning Commission meeting with the applicant and we were
discussing the options of drainage for that area. The pipe versus the
overland drainage. We will be working with the Watershed District, Staff and
the applicant, to come up with an optimum alternative to reduce any erosion
and to hold the water and allow sedimentation of the water. We are also
recommending the final erosion control grading plan as part of the final plat
and we also recommended an easement around the ponding area to the south at
approximately the 960 elevation. We found the 960 doesn't work the best, what
we will do is have the applicant submit a ordinary high water mark for this
ponding area and we will take that setback from the pond to maintain as much
open space as possible. As far as the Park and Recreation Commission, they
reviewed the site and the applicant is providing a 2.1 acre park to the north
adjacent to the existing part of Chaparral. The Park and Recreation
Commission thought it was a good idea for a park but they did not feel that it
was necessary and did not want to take it in lieu of park dedication fees.
The applicant has proposed another plan that will provide more lots there and
remove some of this park area as an option if they do not get any park
dedication fees reduced. The Park and Recreation Commission is also
requesting trailways along the 60 foot right-of-way, the 50 foot right-of-ways
and then the internal streets. They are also along Powers and Kerber Blvd..
There is adequate right-of-way now along the street sections to provide the
off-street trails.
Councilman Boyt: Would you go over those internal trails for me?
Jo Ann Olsen: Sure. As far as the wetland alteration permit, they are
providing ponding areas within the wetland district. When we went out to the
site with Elizabeth Rockwell, it looked like the wetland vegetation actually
came all the way up to where the ponding areas are. The applicant has shown
as the wetland as being over in the souther corner here. Again, Staff is
recommending that they provide ordinary high water mark of the wetland to
provide the actual boundaries of it. From there we will have to maintain the
75 foot structure setback from the wetland. Staff is recommending approval of
the land use planamendment, the rezoning and preliminary plat with the
conditions set in the Staff Report. Some of those conditions are different
than what was in the engineer's report and that is again a result of that
meeting that we had at the last minute before the Planning Commission meeting.
Recommendations 1, 2, 3, 6 and 11 have been changed. Number 1 was changed so
that we would state that off-street trails shall be provided along three main
streets in the development along the westerly edge of Powers Blvd.. Prior to
that the condition had recommended that additional right-of-waybe acquired
but we found out that we did not need that. Condition 2, previously had
stated that the developer will provide the curb and gutter on Kerber Blvd. and
the question of who was actually going to be paying for it is still being
worked out between Staff and the developer. Condition 3, is when we establish
the setback from the ponding area. It was set at 960 which was not actually
the best. We can work out a better one and study the setback from the
wetlands. Number 6 is where we will work with the applicant and the Watershed
District to review the best alternative of conveying the storm water from the
site. Number 11, just to establish the 75 foot setback from the ordinary high
water mark. The Planning Commission recommended approval and added the
60
City Council Meeting - March 16, 1987
condition that the R-4 district's southerly boundary be established at the
northerly street alignment rather than at the rear of the lot line as
proposed. They also added that the EAW address the Met Council's comments as
far as the impact of the site's storm water run-off to Lake Riley ar~ Lotus
Lake.
Councilman Boyt: I went over and walked the property yesterday and first, I
agree with the statement in here, I think it was from MPCA, that the EAW
looked real good. I thought it looked real good. I was impressed that they
talked about the drawbacks as well as the pluses. I was also impressed that
they are putting berms up to do something to shield the sound of the grading.
Can you tell me what the hours are for grading? Do we set that dependant upon
whether they are in a residential area or whether they are out in the
middle...
Gary Warren: We usually restrict them to 7:00 to 6:~0 or 7:~. Sometimes we
allow Saturdays but never Sundays or holidays.
Councilman Boyt: I would be very appreciative when we're in a residential
area if we didn't grade on Saturdays and Sundays and I think 7:0~ to 6:0~ is
reasonable. I agree with the Park and Bec on the trail easement
possibilities, I think that probably the City should get involved in building
them but I think we should get the easements from the developer. I would like
to see the conservation easement go on this southern most area around the
ponds that are going to be created. I would like to see the conservation
easement go to the top of that ridge line and I would rather see it in a '
conservation easement than I would in a development covenant. I want
something the City is going to enforce so I think you might need to add point
13 or 14 or whatever that that conservation easement be established up to that
southern ridge line. I agree with the R-4, moving it over to the middle of
the street. Fox Hollow, which I think was also developed by the same
development group and they have a pond over there that is similar to what they
are proposing to develop here on the north edge, if they develop this pond
that way, I would assume that you are either going to have to dig it out or
berm it up or something. Is that in your plan? I thought the pond over in
Fox Hollow was quite nice and I noticed that you have sue pretty small lots
that abut up to it and y~t maybe because of the pond they seemed reasonable.
I'm surprised that I'd say a small lot could seem reasonable. A concern that
I. have is you mention in your write-up that you're going to glade 19 feet out
of some areas. I think one of the things that we lose when we look at this is
that we don't have any kind of a way of judging how much of the terrain is
going to be shuffled around. I feel pretty strongly that property has a basic
integrity and that when people decide to develop a piece of property, we
shouldn't take something and make it look like Death Valley if it starts out
looking like a mountain or probably what would be more typical to happen, make
it look flat instead of having variations. This piec~ of property has a lot
of roll ingness to it and I'm real concerned but not having a map, I can't tell
how much they are knocking down 19 feet. If there is a peak somewhere but 19
feet is a lot of ground to take out.
Gary Warren: It basically is a peak like you're saying in the southwest
corner. I think the road elevation proposed there was 984. We don't have the
61
146
City Council Meeting - March 16, 1987
final grading plan.
Rick Murray: That's only 6 feet.
Councilman Boyt: In the write-up that I saw on someone's report on this
thing, and I don't want to dig it up now, it said 19 feet.
Rick Murray: You mentioned that to me yesterday. I went back through this
and I couldn't find it.
Councilman Geving: I saw that too.
Councilman Boyt: What do you anticipate cutting here?
Gary Warren: We've got 1007 elevation on Lot 4 and this is where I say I
don't have a grading plan per se but then the road elevation is 988 if I'm
reading it right.
Rick Sathre: I think you're right Gary in that spot we might be cutting
nearly that much. Let's put it on the overhead so everyone can see it more
easily. ~nis is Powers Blvd. and the southwesterly cul-de-sac and as you come
north a little ways, if you study the topo, you will see the 2 foot contours
rising to a peak right here and then dropping back off down to Powers Blvd..
If you count the contours you will find out that the ground has risen about 15
feet above Powers Blvd. here. ~ne intent would be to create a berm to screen
the lots but then this road would be relatively the same elevation as Powers
Blvd. and there would be a berm inbetween and then the pad area where the
houses would sit would be say 2 feet above the street so there might be in
that one spot a cut nearing 19 feet. Something like 19 feet but that's not
our goal to mass grade this to level. I think if you ~re familiar with Fox
Hollow or with the Near Mountain project which I'm also involved with, you
will see that we tried to retain the rolling character of the land and to
protect that.
Councilman Boyt: I think both of those are well done. My last concern is as
I talked to Rick earlier, my problem is with the R-12 at the south end. I
think it might be approrpriate to do some sort of blend and I think a
reasonable blend would be to put that as an R-4, not an R-12. Even though
you're talking about an opposite side of a highrise, we're talking about going
from single family residential and you're looking at R-12 and I just don't
think that's needed so I would like to see that changed to an R-4.
Councilman Horn: I didn't see any major problems with this.
Councilman Geving: ~ne comment I have to begin with is the roadway
connections to Kerber. There was some discussion about building up th~ curb
and gutter from where it ends now at the existing north end of the project and
then bringing it on through this. It seems to me that if we're going to
develop that whole leg of the property to the south, it would be advisable to
make that a road with curb and gutter on the west side of it. In fact, on
both sides. I just makes a lot of sense to develop that entire road but since
62
14'7
City Council Meeting - March 16, 1987
we're only dealing with your side at this time, I would say that that should
be done.
Rick Murray: I don't disagree and I think the comments we had in our
discussion, is whether or not it should be urbanized. Now is th~ logical
time.
Councilman Geving: I'm going to tell you. That's as urban as you're going to
be. You're only two blocks from the elementary school and only 3 or 4 blocks
from the City Hall. We're downtown when we develop this project.
Rick Murray: Right and I understand that this is going to be curb and gutter
all the way down to the south. Now, whether the school ever will be or this
section on the east side ever will be, I don't think... That was one
inconsistency that I saw. The only other question was whether or not in your
acquisition of this easement for this road and for these special assessment,
if this property hasn't already in fact contributed a residential equivalent
as would be typical of other areas of the City so it wasn't a question of
whether it should happen it's just a pocket and who shares the cost. To be
honest with you, I don't know what the acquisition price was. I haven't had
time to find that out yet.
Gary Warren: I did some research on that based on our meeting with Rick and
Rick and basically this goes back to the State Aid assessments for the work
that was done on Kerber ~ there were a series of options on the assessments
that were proposed and reviewed and the final assessments were $21.02 per
trunk foot was based on utilizing State Aid Fur~s to cover all the drainage
for the road and the easement acquisition so basically the property, the
assessment that it was given was for a rural section so there was no
assessment that they have worn to date for curb and gutter.
Councilman Geving: So there has been no assessment placed to date that could
do that?
Gary Warren: Right.
Councilman Geving: Was there any attempt to match up the road entrance off
Kerber to the Chan Vista entrance on the east side? On tt~ north end of the
project?
Rick Sathre: We purposely off set it so as to create fewer conflicts in the
left turn of the road.
Councilman Geving: How much is that off set?
Gary Warren: It was substantial.
Councilman Geving: So you're satisfied with that Gary?
Gary Warren: Both entrances on Kerber have enough separation.
63
148
City Council Meeting - March 16, 1987
Councilman Geving: I'm a little bit surprised that the Park and Rec people
didn't give you a little bit more of a problem asking for more parkland to
abut adjacent to the park to the north of this property. It would have been
very logical to me at least as I drew it on my plan to have acquired another 3
or 4 acres rather than a lousy little 2 acres which is very low and probably
not very useable for park purposes. I walked that myself and I know what's
down there. That's a ravine. ~nere's not much there so we're not really
getting anything so I'm surprised that the Park and Rec people didn't see this
opportunity to expand the park. What were the discussions? Does anybody
remember? Were they satisfied with the trail system and the park fees in
lieu of taking this land?
Jo Ann Olsen: The Park Commission looked at the overall demand in that area
and felt with all the parks in this area, there was not a need for more
parkland. What was needed was money to develop the parkland that they had.
Councilman Geving: So even though they are adjacent to Lake Ann Park and the
school, we're talking about 140 units that are going to be built here. Do you
know how many people that is? That's a lot of people. That's 500-600 people.
A lot of kids and they're not going to be wanting to walk to the park. Let's
face it, that's still half a mile away. Ih very surprised that the Park
people didn't ask for more park dedication.
Rick Murray: Their response was that the area was not a good addition.
Councilman Horn: Not only that but they said they had planned both along
Powers and Kerber Blvd..
Councilman Geving: Tnat's alright to walk. I like to hike myself but you're
talking about a lot of young kids that are going to be in this develounent.
Councilman Horn: They're thinking of getting them to other parts of the City.
This is where they drew it.
Councilman Geving: Tnat particular piece of ground, that 2.some acres is
going to dedicated, is that right Rick?
Rick Murray: We will dedicate the 2.some acres of ground to the City if I get
an off-set in cash.
Councilman Geving: You won't get that.
Rick Murray: Then wehaveanalternative that shows reducing this trail
corridor and expanding the lot.
Councilman Geving: I didn't see any discussion of that from the park people.
Their recommendation was to take the 2.1 acres or whatever it was and ask for
no reduction in the park dedication fees. What was their recommendation?
Mayor Hamilton: They didn't want it.
64
2ity Council Meeting - March 16, 1987
2ouncilman Geving: I wouldn't really want it either because it's nothing more
~ just a ravine. I don't think that's buildable. If there was you would
reave put a house there. So we'll take it for nothing.
.~ick Murray: Why?
2ouncilman Geving: What are you going to do with it if we give it back to
~u?
~ick Murray: We'll extend the cul-de-sac and we'll plat it out into duplex
£ots. There was some other discussion I think which will come up later about
~dding an access which this trailway could be shifted to make emergency access
~ut the back.
buncilman Geving: What kirxt of credit are you asking for the 2.1 acres?
~'re not talking about a lot of money.
Rick Murray: C~ntl~men, I've always been reasonable in the past.
Rick Sathre: I know this is very small but this shows, the park area that we
~how on the preliminary plat is right in here. Tais border of the park that
Ne've shown is basically a ravine that is wooded and you can see the treeline
nn the edge. The land that lies to the west of that, this nice open space
~rea in there is a high and relatively flat area. It slopes about 6 feet
lcross that area. I think it's a wonderful park space. It's buffered from
the single family by the trees and the ravine and it's all park to the north.
~ that other big map, the red area is the existing park in the Chaparall area
~ a majority of this 2.1 acres, not a majority but say an acre or acre and a
malf of it, the major open space area is a relatively flat and certainly high
spot.
~ouncilman Geving: Well, I think we w~uld have to talk about that.
Mayor Hamilton: I think a solution is take the 2.1 acres or whatever the
acreage is.
buncilman Geving: I would too. I personally would rather have the park area
park in our overall park.
Rick Murray: Some of it, an acre or acre and a half which is useable.
Councilman Geving: I would rather have the land because I can see an awful
lot of people in this area who might want to use that area just for walking.
There are a number of trees down there.
Rick Murray: This is an enlarg~nent Dale of the existing proposal.
Councilman Geving: I guess my personal preference would be for us to take
that land, the 2.1 acres.
Rick Murray: It seemed a reasonable place for us to provide a buffer between
single family and high density.
65
150
City Counci 1 Meeting - March 16, 1987
Councilman Geving: I agree. I understand what you're saying and I also can
agree to what Clark eluded to. I don't have problem with what you're
proposing. Let me see if I have another comment or two. ~ne other thing is I
think the off-street trails. Do you have any comments on that? There was
some surprise on your part or the planner's part on what the Park and Rec were
asking for.
Rick Murray: Philosophically, I think it's probably a good plan to have some
off-street trails, especially on major thoroughfares. Along Kerber and
Powers. Practically, on the interior lots, people won't want a sidewalk in
their frontyard. That's why it's been in so many plans a lack of requirements
of sidewalks. People didn't want them there. From a City's point of view, if
you don't build these sidewalks or trails, at the time we're doing the
streets, I think you have a hard time ever getting them in. We've done three
subdivisions in ~den Prairie now which are on the only three that I've
developed that require sidewalks and everytime you're always pushing the end
of the construction season and you're lucky to get your curb down and
especially last year with the terrible rain. We didn't get the sidewalks in.
The calls that we've getting is are why did you put in the sidewalk there. I
get 10 a week and now they're starting to double up. People are calling back
because they forgot what I told t~ two weeks ago.
Councilman Boyt: What are you building them out of?
Rick Murray: Those are concrete. That's their requirement. Whatever you
build them out of, they have to be hard enough. Either asphalt or concrete.
Councilman Boyt: We just had a lot of discussion about what's appropriate so
I was just curious.
Rick Murray: Tneir bike trails in ~den Prairie work a lot better and are more
designed toward the rear yard as with these along here. The interior
sidewalks, whichever side of the street you put them on, it's always the wrong
side and people would have bought the other side of the street if they had
known that there was going to be a sidewalk.
Councilman Geving: How does that work out for maintenance after you've built
them? Who pays for the upkeep and maintenance?
Rick Murray: The City. The public works department. And they have to be
plowed.
Councilman Geving: I know in many communities if it's in front of your house,
it's yours and you have to replace it.
Councilman Horn: ~ne bicycle trail?
Councilman Geving: No, the one that we're talking about here if it were
concrete. The interior concrete off-street trail. I don't want to kccp
you.
66
1'51
City Council Meeting - March 16, 1987
Rick Murray: If you don't have the City taking care of them you're going to
get exactly what Clark just mentioned. This one looks real nice because they
had a good year. This guy lost his job and has econ(anic difficulties.
Councilman Geving: I'm pleased with what I see here Rick. I just feel we -
have to negotiate a little bit more about the 2.1 acres and that can be worked
out with our City Staff. Otherwise I'm in favor of the project.
Councilman Johnson: Actually, overall I very much like this project. I like
how the natural features have ~ utilized to separate types of housing. I
like a lot of things about this project. Ihn going to start on the EA since
that was brought up first. We're missing several points on the EA that, since
they weren't considered, I personally would like to see it go back and the
points added in because as a regulating unit, the EA is not complete. There
is no discussion about what's going to happen to the buildings that are
currently there. From what I've gathered, they are right now planning to be
burned as fire practice or whatever but there is on discussioru They are
either going to be buried, burn or carried off-site. Either way, it's a solid
waste or an air pollution so it has to be in an EA for an EA to be complete.
The Staff knows that any EA that impacts eventually Lake Riley has to have the
phosphates statement in there for this EA to be a complete and thorough EA so
I think the EA should be rewritten.
Barbara Dacy: It's in there. They addressed the phosphate issue in their
~t.
Rick Sathre: Basically the findings of the addendum were that 4 pounds of
phospherous more t/man the norm would be carried upon completion of the
project.
Councilman Johnson: Gn the EA, the earlier one, it was put out for public
notice. The public did not get the amendment.
Jo Ann Olsen: It's in the report.
Councilman Johnson: That was available this Friday. That was not available
when this was public notice 3~ days ago when that was supposed to be
available. When you amend it, you have a 3~ day notice period for your
~t. We've got to follow the State Rules on this.
Barbara Dacy: The DTB says that is up to the RG to determine.
Councilman Johnson: That's right. That's us. And the air pollution is not
addressed but that's a minor thing. ~nat's not going to stop this project. I
think we can go along with the other parts of this and have the EA amended and
put to it's proof. In general, I believe this is the best EA I've seen for a
housin~ project. Unfortunately, it missed a couple points. The next item is
on the recommendations. Recommendation 1, I think we better change that to
easterly edge of Powers Blvd. so we're not doing the property across the
street for the trail. I don't think the owners of the property across the
street would appreciate it too much.
67
152
City Council Meeting - March 16, 1987
Rick Murray: Actually when you look at the extensions Jay, if you ever do
want to put this trail north of our property and you look at all the property
owners up there and you look at the property owners on this side of the road,
you've got six of them to deal with over here and you've probably got 40 of
them to deal with over here.
Councilman Johnson: To tell you the truth, if I were platting the trails, I
would have the trails on this side of Kerber and on the west side of Powers at
this point.
Rick Murray: The east side of Kerber?
Councilman Geving: I disagree.
Councilman Johnson: ~nat's where they already are. Now we have to cross t_he
street. We have to cross Kerber Blvd. to get to you. As you go down Kerber
there's a natural place where you go down to the cow path and take the cow
path under and through but the Park and Rec Con~nission wanted the other way.
Rick Murray: When you see the trail to there, you're going to force yourself
to crossing it. You're dealing not only with these homeowners, you're dealing
with the Association there to get that trail behind all of this.
Rick Sathre: There's no roc~ either.
Rick Murray: Those quads come right to the edge. If you're going to have a
fight, pick on nine guys.
Councilman Johnson: The other thing, I r~_~ some assurances that this cul-de-
sac with twins on it, is a pretty long cul-de-sac. I've seen in the past a
lot of talk about long cul-de-sacs and here we've got 1,200 foot long cul-de-
sac.
Councilman Boyt: What did the Fire Department say when they reviewed this?
Rick Murray: I think it's 850.
Barbara Dacy: A 500 to 1,000 foot range for an urban density is standards.
We have no specifics in the Subdivision Ordinance.
Councilman Johnson: I think most people put in 600 foot cul-de-sacs last
year. Anyway, we've got a trail coming out the back there. We've got a trail
going across to the other place and hopefully it can be maintained as a
possible emergency access to that end which may need some grading of the steep
slopes in there which looks like you're already going to do so.
Rick Murray: We're above the trees right there. Both of those trails that
access point would be above where the topo shows.
Councilman Johnson: I personally agree with the R-12. I think if done
tastefully and placed within those trees, it won't be too bad. I do agree
with Bill's point that R-4 would also be just as appropriate there but I can't
68
City Council Meeting - March 16, 1987
argue either way. RSF does not make any sense at all for that hilltop. Are
you into apartments? Is that part of your repetoire? Or is this going to be
like James and farm it out to s~meone else to build?
Rick Murray: Our repetoire, so to speak Jay, is to own the property, we bring
the builders with us to the site. I don't build. I will approve every plan
that goes on ar~ we would do tt~ same thing with the apartments. I would not
build. We have four builders that we're dealing with right now and we've been
approached for townhouse sites. Townhouse sites right now, at least good
townhouse sites, which we e~vision this to be, will be nice walk-out
townhouses with that bluff area for some adequate parking. The problem I have
with R-4, I have two problems with R-4. Number one, this is R-12. We don't
know that that's not going to be a high rise apartment building. If this was
rental units it would certainly impact what I'm going to try and do with my 8
acres and if it did happen to go rental units, I would not be able to convince
those builders to put their $1~0,00~.~ townhouses there. If it's done
tastefully and I understand it's coming up this next month, I got a notice, if
it is done in townhouses then it allows some more flexibility but what the
City is requiring or the City is looking for off of this piece of acreage,
granted, I think there is a desire to maintain slope. We've shown the desire
as much as possible on this side ar~ I think we will continue that on this
side. I have to be able to bring the density that's within there and
tastefully work it along the slope. With an R-4, I get duplexes and singles.
I can't very do that. There just isn't room there at R-4.
Mayor Hamilton: I like the project too. Rick, you've done a good job. I
think we ~ an R-12 because it's adjacent to another R-12 and we ~ that
type of housing in the City. The trail system, two questions, the trail
system for the park area, I would be in favor of keeping the 2 acres and
working out an equitable solution with you Rick on how we're going to arrive
at a price for that which I think we can do. I think we should take advantage
of that piece of ground and k~ it as a park. Then, the off-street trail
system, I still have a problem with that with the internal streets having a
trail system on them. I5~ not in favor of that. I'm not in favor of having a
trail that doesn't go anywhere. I know we're going through a process of
working on our trails system and trying to figure out how we're going to
arrive at a trail system that goes somewhere and hooks up with somebody else
in the system and I think that whole process is being reviewed as a part of
this. Personally, I don't see the ~ for sidewalks...
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Horn to approve the
first reading to rezone approximately 23 acres of RSF, Single Family
Residential to R-4, Mixed Low Density and 8.2 acres of Residential Single
Family to R-12, High Density Residential. Ail voted in favor except
Councilman Boyt who opposed and motion carried.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the land use
plan amendment to amer~ the 8.2 acres of Residential Low Density to
Residential High Density. Ail voted in favor except Councilman Boyt and
motion carried.
69
154
City Council Meeting - March 16, 1987
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the preliminary
plat as shown on the plat dated December 30, 1986, ar~ the wetlar~ alteration
permit with the following conditions:
.
Off-street trails shall be provided along the three main streets in
the development and along the easterly edge of Powers Blvd. and
westerly edge of Kerber Blvd..
.
~ne westerly edge of Kerber Blvd. shall be upgraded with curb and
gutter.
.
The City and the developer shall establish a trail and conservation
easement along the ponding areas prior to final plat approval.
.
Submittal of a final grading and drainage and erosion control plan
acceptable to the City, Watershed District, and DNR and adherence to
all conditions.
.
If construction phasing is proposed, the sutxnittal of an acceptable
phasing plan along with execution of a developer's agreement with the
City.
.
The City and Watershed District shall review alternatives for
conveying storm water from the northern pond to mitigate erosion
problems.
.
All street and utility construction shall be consistent with City
standards for urban residential develol~nent.
o
Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated as necessary for
placement of all utility lines.
9,
Sanitary sewer extensions off-site in order to connect with existing
municipal utilities shall be at the developer's expense.
10.
Mass grading of the site will not be permitted without adequate
assurances and guarantees being provided to the City.
11.
The applicant shall establish the OHWM of the Class B wetland and
establish the 75 foot setback.
12.
~ne City will negotiate with the developer for the purchase of the
2.1 acre park.
Ail voted in favor and motion carried.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the negative
declaration for the Environmental Assessment Worksheet with the condition that
it be amended to address the removal of the existing buildings on site, and if
they are burned, their impact to air pollution. All voted in favor and motion
carried.
70
155
City Council Meeting - March 16, 1987
APPROVAL OF MAINENANCE AGRRW~ENT WITH THE CITY OF CHASKA FOR WEST 82ND STREET.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the maintenance
agreement with the City of Chaska for West 82nd Street. Ail voted in favor
and motion carried.
APPRf)VAL OF AOCOUNTS:
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the Accounts
Payable dated March 16, 1987 for check numbers 030665 through 030693 in the
amount of $931,807.43 and check numbers 027991 through 028089 in the amount of
$119,149.57 for a total amount of $1,050,957.00. All voted in favor and
motion carried.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
Councilman Boyt: Tnis will go pretty quick since you know all the issues. We
justed voted in a cul-de-sac that was 900 feet long. What I would like to see
us do is do the same with Big Horn Drive. Basically make the entrance to
Frontier come in off of Sierra Trail. I think that so convolutes the course.
That you get your emergency entrance into Frontier and yet there is just no
way I can conceive of people thinking that that's a short cut and I seriously
think that's what w~'re going to e~ up with if w~ leave Big Horn Drive open.
Councilman Geving: Didn't w~ already approve that plan?
Councilman Boyt: We would actually be giving the developer back property in
Lots 12, 19 and 1 right here. He would be getting that land back. If we ever
extend Carver Beach Road, these guys now have a circulating road. That cul-
de-sac which I agree is long, is not much longer than what you just approved,
if any.
Mayor Hamilton: If you feel strongly about it we can put it on our next
agenda for discussion.
Councilman Geving: It's pretty crucial too.
Mayor Hamilton: The plat has ~_n approved with the road alignment as it
stands so if you want to make it.
Councilman Boyt: I'll move to put it on the agenda whenever appropriate and I
suppose we n~ to notify the developer that it's on there. As I understarz],
we've got a chance to do this. At least consider it. It offers an option.
It looks s~nething like w~ did with Fox Hollow earlier.
Councilman Horn: Do we ~ a motion?
Don Ashworth: Treat it like a visitor's presentation.
71
City Council Meeting - March 16, 1987
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
A. STREET NAMING CONTEST.
Barbara Dacy wanted the Council's authorization to submit the street naming
contest to the Chamber of Con~nerce.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded ~o authorize the Chamber of
Commerce to conduct a street naming contest for the new north/south road west
of the Bowling Center. All voted in favor and motion carried.
B. TH 212 CORRIDOR.
Barbara Dacy needed the Council to look at the'the letter in the packet
regarding the TH 212 Corridor. She was meeting with the Commission Levine and
other members of the TH 212 Coaltion to show the Department of Transportation,
the draft letter is Chanhassen's con~nitment.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to accept the letter as written
regarding TH 212 Corridor. All voted in favor and motion carried.
PUBLIC SAFETY VEHICLE.
Don Ashworth stated he took the public safety vehicle to Shakopee today. It
would be $400.00 to take the transmission out and it would be over $3,000.00
if we repair in-house. If they do the work, we would be talking about
$4,000.00. Gary Brown stated he would not advise a client to fix the vehicle.
The City Manager stated that the vehicle looks good but it is simply shot.
Jerry Schlenk confirmed that the vehicle was shot. Don Ashworth stated one
of the options would be a lease of a new vehicle. Lease payments would be
about $250.00 per month. Lease payment would be higher interest rates. The
other possibility would be to buy something off a car lot. ~hat seemed to be
the reasonable option. The City Manager said the City really needs a small
pick-up and they are not available for under $10,000.00 to $12,000.00.
Because of the number of miles the City puts on each year it isn't reasonable
to buy a used vehicle. Maybe a vehicle with low mileage. Councilman Boyt
wanted to lease a vehicle om short term and put the vehicle out to bid. The
City Manager didn't feel you could get a better deal doing that.
Resolution ~87-2~ Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to
authorize City Staff to purchase a vehicle and the purchase price not to
exceed $12,000.00. All voted in favor and motion carried.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Horn seconded to adjourn the meeting.
All voted in favor and motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 12:45
a.m..
Suhnitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
72