1993 06 28CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR HEETING
3UNE 28, 1993
Hayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. The meeting was opened
with the pledge to the Flag.
COUNCIL HEHBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilwoman Oockendorf, Councilman
Ming, Councilman Mason and Councilman Senn
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Paul Krauss, Sharmtn A1-3aff,
scott Hart and Todd Hoffman
APPROVAL OF ~GENOR: Councilwoman Oockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconed to
approve the agenda with the following changes and additions: Add 1.S, Variance
for a 3 1/2 foot variance to construct a 6 1/2 foot high fence; and changing
item number 5(a) to read, Preliminary and Final Plat and Preliminary and Final
PUD Development Plan Approval. All voted in favor of the agenda as amended and
the motion carried.
PUBL/C aNNOUNCE~NTS: None.
CONSENT AGEN~q: Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the
following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations:
a. Prairie Creek 1st and 2nd Additions:
1) Final Plat Approval
2) Approve Development Contract and Construction Plans and Specifications
b. Royal Oaks Estates:
1) Final Plat Approval
2) Approve Development Contract and Construction Plans and Specifications
c. Approve Construction Plans mhd Specifications for Chanhassen"Business
Center, Project 93-1.
d. Approve Construction Plans and Specifications for Windmill Run, Project
93-3.
f. Resolution ~93-57: Accept Utility Improvements in Bluff Creek Estates
and 2nd Additions, Project 92-10.
g. Approve Liquor License for Chanhassen Rotary Club, 3uly 2.
h. Resolution ~93-58: Approve-1994 Southwest Metro Drug Task Force Cash Match
and Resolution.
Approval of Accounts.
L
City Council Meeting - June Z8, 1993
j. City Council Minutes dated June 14, 1993
Planning Commission Minutes dated June 2, 1993
Public Safety Commission Minutes dated June 10, 1993
~11 voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
E. ACCEPT STREET ;[:HPROVEHENT~ IN TR_OENDLE AOOITION, PRO3E.C_T 9~-3,.
Councilman Wing: I'm just assuming this one may have been on someone else's
11st also. Z just dldn't want to move ahead on thls in a state of oonfuslon.
There seems to be some assumptions made here regarding that road that seem to be
our assumptions and there seems to be some controversy and I'm wondering .lf we
want to act at all on this until this item is cleared up a little bit more and a
determination of what's golng on and who's who and what direction we're golng.
Is this premature with all the issues before us?
Paul Krauss: Councilman Wing, lt's really an engineering 1rem and... As I
understood it, the only issue that came to bear on the discussion of this...
Councilman Senn: What we do on this road has nothlng to do with the extension
of?
Paul Krauss: Well thls road has been...
Councilman Senn: But what we're doing tonlght doesn't negate or confirm the
questlon one way or the other as I understood lt. I just wanted to make sure.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I checked with staff this afternoon. That's one of the
questions that I had. And they addressed that and indicated that as far as they
were concerned it had no bearing factor on it.
Councilman Wing: If nothlng else, I would move approval of item l(e).
Councilwoman Oockendorf: Second.
Re~olution ~9.3-59: Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to
accept Street Improvements in TroendIe AddLtion, Project 91-3. Ali voted tn
favor and the motion carried unanimously.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
Gary Delaney: My name is Gary Delaney and I live at 11~1 Bluff Creek Drive
which is in the southern part of Chanhassen. And I come here tonight because I
know that there is a good number of you that are new Councll people and you may
not be aware of the activities on Bluff Creek Drive that have been taking place
in the last 2-3 years. Let me assure you it is probably the most heavily
traveled road...in the city of Chanhassen, or maybe even the State of Minnesota
for all we know. I take thls opportunity because the bridge is now closed
coming from Shakopee...We don't care to have our frlends and neighbors be
inconvenienced by the activities or the flooding but for goodness sake... Now
it starts at about 4:30 in the morning when people are coming across 169 and
down 212...and by-passing Minnesota 101 and taking Bluff Creek Drlve whlch runs
parallel to 101, and I'm not talking about 10 or even 100. I'm talking about
City Council Meeting - 3une 28, [993
thousands of cars and trucks per day that use this basically a residential
street. And you may not be familiar with the history of how it got to be a
State Aid road. It's rather interesting and colorful and it's something that
was occurred and put to the residents who live in that area that probably didn't
understand what they were getting into when they consented to...I'm not so sure
the City of Chanhassen...problems that this road would face. It originally was
a dirt road about 3 years ago.and the State...to make it a State highway or a
State road. State Aid road and part of it is being paid by the State of
Minnesota and certainly part of it is being paid by the residents there. Last
summer finally there was gravel trucks that were delivering gravel up to the
Target store that was being built and I used to stand out there with my
telephone and I'd be calling the Mayor and Don Ashworth and some other people
and they couldn't hear me because of this truck traffic. It's also there as far
as the cars are concerned. I don't think there's any one of you here who would
live on a road like that, and maybe having lived there for 5 or lO years or even
longer if all of a sudden...thousands of cars a day came by you...We run the
Bluff Creek Inn, my wife and I, and it's an asset to this community. It's a
historic site that Chanhassen. It's the oldest functioning house tn the State of
Minnesota. Our property is the oldest piece of real estate in the State
of Minnesota and it's a very beautiful place. We have guests that come and stay
there during the mid-week as well as the weekends too and it's hardly a good
example as far as people becoming acquainted'with...our community. We get a lot
of guests who are from out of town who are coming here because of a result of
their company relocating them so they stay with us for [ to 3 to 5 days...enjoy
our ambiance and then the real estate agent picks them up and takes them out to
look for houses. Well, obviously...and the traffic going by, it just curddles
my blood as well as all the rest of the residents up and down Bluff Creek Drive
..
because of this ridiculous traffic. And so many of you are new folks who I
haven't talked with in the past and I don't mean to be a burr under the saddle
but it is something I think that's reasonable for you to consider and to make a
pledge and I'd like to have you do that. Commit yourself to try and resolve
this thing. All of this traffic that's going on there is going to 3onathon.
It's the early shifts at Nordic Trak and all the other companies that do
business. They're in Chaska for the most part and also huge semi trucks that go
up there one after another. This ks not a...this is a residential street. It's
not County Road 17. It's not Minnesota State Highway 101. Those are both
between, or on either side of us so I personally think that it's Just plain
unfair and I would, there's been talk about how to help us but nobody's really
done anything about it and I'm here to tell you tonight that I truly...because
it isn't just us. It's the other nice people...I'd like to know tf any of you
might have questions of me as to any of the statements I've made. If you feel
that they're exaggerated or untrue. Are you familiar with this issue? Can you
share a response...
Councilman Wing: I was one of them that was probably on the early days of that
project and I remember the traffic studies and they're not in your favor. The
proposed was county, it was a county traffic study. Bluff Creek's a busy road
and was a bEsy road whether it was paved or not. So it was going to become an
increasingly busy road whether it was paved or not. So from growth potential of
the city, I could recognize your problem. I guess I would ask you, what's the
solution?
City Council Meeting - June 28, 1993
Gary Delaney: If I come up with a solution that are reasonable, would you folks
be...
Councilman Wing: Well I'm just kind of, you're living there. Is anything
coming to mind right now?
Gary Delaney: Sure. I have two solutions which I think are reasonable. I
don't know if this is the forum to present them or not. I would like to do that
but I don't think...
Councilman Wing: This is semi off the record. Just off the cuff. What are you
seeing as the solution?
Gary Oelaney: Well I think the traffic has got to be stopped. It's only going
to increase so I think there has to be a commitment...after if you're willing to
make that commitment...
Mayor Chmiel: Gary as you're well aware, and the road being a State Aid road
does give all those vehicles a rlght to be on there.
Gary Delaney: But it's also a city street and it's also the taxpayers...fair
share.
Mayor Chmlel: Yes, and I don't disagree with it but maybe there are some
solutions that can be concluded in trying to eliminate some of that traffic
golng through there. I sat there many a time and you're rlght...but there is no
way that we, as a city, is responsible for...and I don't know if that can be
elther. The flrst thing that comes to my mind would be stop slgns...
(There was a problem with the sound system at this point and the discussion
could not be heard on the tape.)
Mayor Chmiel: ...but maybe there's something that we can look at and I'm not
sure that we can come up wlth a conclusion.
Gary Oelaney: ...none of them are going to be easy and all of them are going to
requlre some courage of this Councll to...take a stand on. Yeah, there ls heavy
industrial traffic...
Mayor Chmiel: It was a State Aid road before that. It was a State Aid road
be fore it was uldened.
Gary Delaney: As a dirt road?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. I might suggest that ue probably refer this to our Public
Safety Commission and have them look at that to come up with some conclusions if
they can. And I would 11ke, if you have some ldeas or concepts as to how you
can do it, that are going to be legal for the city, I'd like you to contact
Scott Hart who's our Public Safety Director and he happens to be sltting here.
And give him those ideas as well. But I thank you for comlng in and presenting
your slde of it and we can see what can be done, if anythlng at a11. I'm not
sure. We can at least look at it a little stronger.
City Council Meeting - June 28, 1993
Gary Delaney: ...haven't been down there...
Councilwoman Oockendorf: I haven't been down there and I'm not familiar with
the road or even the traffic issue but to just piggyback on something the Mayor
said. There's only so much that we have in our toolkit to stop traffic. We
can't patrol speed limits or stop signs.. That all has to be done according to
regulations so I'm-not sure wha~ exactly we can do but we'd certainly be open to'
your suggestions. '.
Mayor Chmtel: Good. Thanks Gary. Apprec£ate it.
REOUEST FOR A 3 FOOT VAR~AI4CE TO CONSTRUCT A & 1/2 FOOT HI~ FEMCE WITHIN THE
FRONT YARO SETBACK ON pRq)PERTY ZONEO RSF A~B LOCRiEO ON L~E RILEY BOIR.EVAR~.
30HN ANO ERIR~ KLINGELHUTZ. &h%RI~NCE C~E ~3-4.
Sharmin Al-Jarl: ...appeared before the Board of Adjustments and Appeals today.
...so it's before you right now .... The applicants are requesting a & 1/2 foot
fence to be located on Lake Riley Boulevard...to act as a privacy fence. When I
met with the applicant she stated that on several occasions while her and her
daughters were fishing at the lake, they were harrassed by passers by and that
is the main reason why the fence went up. In the ordinance it states that we
have to survey the neighborhood within SO0 feet to see if there is a comparable
use. Now we looked at the parcel south of.the subject property. All of those
parcels have houses on them that act as fences for people that are on the lake.
And this particular parcel do not have this.advantage. We feel that without the
fence they will not be able to enjoy the property and for that reason we are
recommending approval of this variance..'Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Final recommendation Sharmin was?
Sharmin A1-3aff: Approval of the variance, and that's how the Board felt as
well. It's just that... ''
CounciLman Mason: If staff thinks it's okay and the 2/3 of the Board think it's
okay...
Councilman Wing: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. There are conditions contained
within this. Four conditions by staff and those would be part of the approval.
Sharmin A1-Jaff: There were additional.conditions added by the Board of
Adjustments and Appeals. I apologize.
Mayor Chmiel: What were those?
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Landscaping be completed. The fence kept up. No trailers or
campers be located on the site. No storage of boats, with the exception of the
boat that belongs to the applicant. And no portable, toilets shall be permitted.
Councilman Mason: What, do they have a bunch there now?
City Council Heeting - June 28, 1993
Mayor Chmiel: The last one sort of throws me. Okay. With those conditions.
Would the second approve those conditions as well?
Councilman Wing: Certainly.
Councilman Hason loved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve Variance Request
~3-4 for a 3 foot variance to construct a 6 1/2 foot high fence within the
front yard setback on property zoned RSF and located on Lake Riley Boulevard for
3ohn and Durene Klingelhutz as stated in the staff report with the following
conditions which were added by the Board of Ad3ustJents and Appeals=
1. Landscaping be completed.
2. The fence be kept up.
3. No trailers or campers be located on the site.
4. No storage of boats, with the exception of the boat that belongs to the
applicant.
5. No portable toilets shall be permitted.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
AWARD OF BIDS= BOULEVARD TREE PLANTING PROJECT 93-16.
Oon Ashworth: ...the bid from Fair's Garden Center of Honticello is for the
amount of $91,385.00. We have checked them and find them to be a good firm.
We're recommending approval of the low bid of Fair's Garden Center in the amount
of $91,385.00.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. ! was 3ust looking and I saw that Wilson's Northwest
Nursery is also in here, which is very close and so is HN Valley.
Councilman Wing: Hr. Mayor, you have discussed this one at length and won.
Hayor Chmiel: Which one?
Councilman Wing: This one. We stopped it cold last time. I think we've made
some headway and how do you feel about it this time?-
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Before it's a slam dunk I need to.
Hayor Chmiel: Oh, we're not going to.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: What is this?
Hayor Chmiel: This is the plantings that we're proposing in doing for Kerber
Boulevard. And Arboretum Boulevard. Planting trees in and ad3acent to that
road.
Councilman Senn: Starting where and ending where?
City Council Meeting - ~une 28, ~993
Mayor Chmiel: I would most imagine starting anywhere from 78th Street onto
County Road 17...Highway 5 to County 17 and 18.
Councilman Senn: Arboretum, Isn't that a misprint? Aren't we really talking
about Audubon?
Don Ashworth: Audubon.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. But it's In here as Arboretum Boulevard.
Councilman Wing: The last time th~s was here the Mayor and myself voted,'
decided to plant the trees ourselves for less money and we have since withdrawn
that offer.
Mayor Chmiel: I started getting callouses thinking.
Don Ashworth: Audubon from Highway 5 to the first road...300-400 feet south of
the railroad track.
Councilman Senn: And how many trees are we planting?
Mayor Chmiel: Total number of species I'm not sure. We did have that.
Don Ashworth: Do you recall Todd?
Hayor Chmiel: Charles not being here. Being sick, he probably could haVeltold
us that but.
Councilwoman Oockendorf: But we've got some new stuff going in on Audubon to
the west...do a lot of these plantings...
Councilman Wing: This is for existing, as I remember It.
Don Ashworth: These are all boulevard trees. Boulevard trees.
Councilman Senn: What size?
Don Ashworth: If you could table this until maybe later in the agenda. I'll
find out.
Mayor Chmiei: Alright. We'll move this somewhere when it comes time, why don't
you get that information.
Don Ashworth: Size and the number, right?
Mayor Chmiel: Size and number and I think we had that last time, but I don't
recall. I know there were some maples and they're looking at different species
as to what size. I think they were 2 1/2 inch caliper or somewhere between 6 to
8 feet.
Don Ashworth: I think they're a little bigger Don.
Hayor Chmie[: Were they?
City Council Meeting - June 28, 1993
Don Ashuorth: They were 2 1/2's and I think we've got...
Councilman Wing: This is kind of...I pulled this last time it was here because
the engineering fees or the consultant fees seemed excessive and I didn't
understand how it worked. And then it kind of got thrown out and now it's back
in a different form with a lot less money involved here but all the landscaping
plan, all the discussion was done at that time. For me this is just a very
simple, to me this is an agenda item but it's not fair to Mark and Colleen. As
a matter of fact, I would move approval of this for discussion, with respect to
Colleen and Hark wanting to not continue. I would move approval of Project
93-16 and give it Fair Garden Center, Monticello. Just because I'm familiar
with it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there a second?
Councilman Mason: I'll second that.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, it's been moved and seconded. Any other discussion?
Councilman Wing: Hark, I don't want to dump this on you. Do you want to pursue
this?
Mayor Chmiel: He's got it here now.
Councilman Senn: I'm Just looking at the numbers and they blew my mind so to
speak.
Councilman Wing: They're less than they were.
Councilman Senn: ...sit and figuring this, if they were 1 1/2 inch caliper or
12 foot trees, we'd be buying 3,000 trees and the other way, if you're talking
20 foot trees, 2 1/2 inch caliper, you're buying 1,500 trees and I don't see how
that...
Councilman Wing: This is a big package. This is engineering, grading,
maintenance, upkeep, replacement, care. I mean there's a lot involved here.
There's a whole package. Not just planting trees and going on as wholesale.
There's a big package involved.
Todd Hoffman: These are ail '2 1/2 inch caliper...
Mayor Chmiel: Do they have a list there Todd on the right?
Todd Hoffman: The species are...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Are all those trees, are they salt acceptable? I know
some of those species are but I'm not sure about the others.
Todd Hoffman: My understanding is that 8arton-Aschman...
Councilwoman Oockendorf: There's not a total number on there?
Mayor Chmiel: Oo just a quick total on this.
City Council Meeting - 3une 28, 1993
Paul Krauss: it's about 600.
Mayor Chmiel: &O0 trees?
Councilman Mason: It is important to remember that It's not just the cost of
the trees we're looking at.
Mayor Chmiel: No, there's the maintenance and upkeep of those trees as well.
Councilman Senn: $[50.00 a tree?
Hayor Chaie[: Okay. Any other discussion?
councilman Senn: Secondly. Why, I mean is this something we're going to do on
every boulevard in the city?
- -
..
·
....
Oon-Ashworth: May I respond?
Mayor Chmiel: 13o ahead.
Don Ashworth: Where we have'carried out new street construction, we have
typically Included boulevard trees along with lt. In this particular one the
original project included landscaping but we never got around to doing them.
And then it got to be 2 years later'and I still have the construction account
open and it still has the dollars available and that's when'we first started
coming back to City Council. Should we do this or not, and so-Councilman Wing
is correct. This has been on the table I'd say for at least 2 years. Maybe 2
1/2 years, well, you probably recall'when this was completed. 'I'd say it was
at least 4 to 5 years ago that we did both of those two streets.
Councilwoman Oockendorf: So the money was set aside then, is that-what you're
saying? : ' -.
Don Ashworth: Right.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussions? Hearing none, I'll call for-a
motion. " ..
Councilman Wing: I have a motion and a second, to'approve this.
Reao~utiop ~93-&0: Counc/laan #/rig moved, Counc/laan I~aaon seconded that the
Kerber Boulevard and Audubon Road Land. cap~rig Project ~)3-1& be a~arded to
Fair's Garden Center of ~lont/cello-at a contract aaount of $91,385.00.. All
voted /n favor and the eot/on carT/ed unan/eoumly.
. . . ..
AWARD OF BTO~:' 1993 STREET 'RF.~'~~. PRO3ECT 93~11. '"
Don Ashworth: See if I 'do as well on th/s one. Again we have carried out,
taken bids for our sealcoat program. The City Council did see the specific
streets that we were looking at. That was, I would say roughly, a month ago that
we brought those back. In some areas we're doing a patch prior to going in and
actuaIIy doing the seaIcoat itself. We're typicaIIy Iooking at a program of
around $175,000.00. The low bid.for th/s year's program came in' at $1&4,116.71
City Council Meeting - June 28,
from Astech Asphalt Surface Technologies. Staff is recommending approval.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Was Astech the company that did last year's sealcoating as
well?
Don Ashworth: I have no idea.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any discussion? If not, I'll call for a motion.
Councilman Wing: Do you want a motion?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, I think I'd better get a motion. I move it.
Councilman Wing: Oh I'll second it.
Resolution ~3-&l: Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Wing seconded to award the
1993 Street Repair and Sealcoat Program ProJect ~93-11 to Astech Asphalt Surface
Technologies Corporation at a contract amount of $164,116.71. All voted in
favor and the motion carried unanimously.
RECONSIDER CONDITIONS OF_APPROVAL FOR LAURENT. ADDITION,
Paul Krauss: In May the Council approved a small plat for Gil Laurent. What
has happened is that Gil operates a farm in that area. The area is going to be
significantly altered by the...construction of Highway 212 at some point in the
future. Gil was looking to get an additional single family lot out of this. We
recommended approval at the Planning Commission. However, a condition was added
pertaining to the reservation of a trail easement...either side of Bluff Creek.
...Mr. Laurent objected to that condition and asked that it be reconsidered by
the Council and that's why we're... Staff continues to support the acquisition
of the easement. We've been putting together the Bluff Creek corridor now for
several years. This is an important part of it and...developed right away but
we do...
Todd Hoffman: My only addition was that I did take the opportunity to meet with
Gtl Laurent. I had actually made the appointment with Paul and Paul was not
able...Paul and I discussed the width of this proposed easement and came up wlth
a figure of 50 feet on either side because of the nature of the creek in that
area. It's not well defined so if an eventual trail were to be pursued and
constructed sometlme out into the future, then we could clarify where that trail
bed would lie and then allow the, if he llved on the opposite side of the creek,
he... Other regards, this is certainly in trying to in the mind's of the
applicant, I can't predlct when this trail would be constructed but certainly at
some time out into the future. As you know, the Pioneer Trail is situation
where it is because of the gorge or the creek comes up out of the depths there
so to speak and flattens out so the City has acquired easements from H£ghway 5
to Lyman Boulevard. That segment is complete. Thls property would represent
the southern most half of the second segment of Lyman Boulevard to Pioneer
Trail. And then the city does own some property farther south. So again we'd
recommend that...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Mr. Laurent, are you here this evening? Okay,
would you like to come up and at least present your portion of your case to the
10
City Counci[ Meeting - 3une 28, 1993
Council?
(The microphone the Laurents were speaking into was not working properly so
their conversation was not picked up on the tape.)'
Paul Laurent made a statement·
Mayor Chmiel: Todd, would you like to clarify that?
Todd Hoffean: I clarified that with 3o Ann Olsen, the original labeled it an 8
foot easement but it would be a standard 20 foot easement for an 8 foot trail.
Drafted that report.
Paul Krauss: ...we first did the. trail corridor on either side of Bluff Creek.
· ..one of the things we did recommend though, after talking with Todd...We
understood that that really wasn't necessary. MnOot required that...
Mayor Chmiel: The trail easement is still going to be there and I guess maybe
if you understand where the City's coming from. If we don't normally get that
now, we don't get it at any given time and that trail may not go through there
for the next 20 years, for all we know.
Paul Laurent made a statement and then Gil Laurent made a statement.
Mayor Chmiel: Don, you and ! discussed th~s rather at length one day. Would
you like to at least give the...Council as to the discussions that we had on
that?
Don Rshworth: Well ! think one of the biggest issues uae the requirement that
we require .them to plat that portion of the property that's going to eventually
be purchased by the State, And some of the problems that ! had with that is,
i'm not quite sure how t. hey're going to develop the remaining portion of the
property· And by our making it easy for the State, ! think that we have created'
problems for the Laurent's. So [ really felt that we were stepping beyond our
step in making that as a requirement. But as it deal with the trait portion,
Todd at least did convince me on that day.that this may not come back to plat.
May not come back again before us and if there were ever going to be a time
where you had the opportunity for the trail, now would be the time to do.that
and get it recorded against the property. [f there's an issue in regards to, is
this a good location or isn't it? Should it be up higher? Should there be some
step or whatever? ! don't know if any of those positions have been presented
back to Todd. [f you've gone through.some of those. [f you'd tike to respond
on that issue. ! can't .speak to that .issue. The major issue that Don and !
have talked about was, should we really act as an inbetween between this owner
and the State of Minnesota and kind of came to the conclusion, let the .State
fight their Dan battles. Ch3 you wish to speak to that other issue Todd?
Todd Hoffman: Again as ! indicated earlier, the exact location of where that
trail would be, it's labeled on the comprehensive plan as a nature trail which
would lend itself to either turf Or possibly an aggregate trail. The City has
accumulated the easements in land acquisition all the:way along this corridor so
it is important to keep'that contiguous. If we lose a few segments here and
there, 5, 10, 15...that corridor together. These pieces are either more
11
City Council Meeting - June 28, 1993
difficult and more expensive at that time to file. As an insurance measure...
if the City wishes to carry out it's comprehensive plan...
Mayor Chmiel: Todd, on the recommendation on page 2. The last sentence. It
reads there that the property will have to be platted again in the future when
the right-of-way is acquired by MnDot. It's on page 2. Just prior to
Recommendation. Last paragraph. Last sentence. It has to be replatted one
more time, or be platted again.
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, I'm not certain that that's true...we didn't go through
replatting of all the lots on Highway 5...
Roger Knutson: If the State condemns it...one of two ways. Just an easement...
I don't see why this would be the case.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Would have to be platted again.
Roger Knutson: It could be but there'd be no necessity.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there anything else that you'd like to say at this time?
Gil Laurent: Wouldn't that trail go on the other side of the road? We have
very little room in front of my house. Thls last winter there have been at
least two cars come over here and where...It's only 20-25 feet wide before you
get to the barn...
Mayor Chmiel: Todd, is there anythlng you can address on that?
Todd Hoffman: The comprehensive plan has not identified to date the north or
south side as the corrldor for Ploneer Tra11. At some tlme in the future that
segment is labeled, I believe it's 2000-2005 so as development occurs along
Pioneer Tra11, whichever slde comes in with the most appropriate corridor, you
then want to choose that locatlon but until that tlme, again we just want to
lnsure that we take that opportunity to gain the easements along there...
cumbersome in the process later on.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. So exactly where that's going to be is still undetermined.
We don't know if it will even be there. I guess is what Todd's saying. Is
there any other thing that you'd like to say?
Paul Laurent made a comment.
Mayor Chmiel: And even with that one, and that was something that I had tried
to see if we could somehow circumvent but unfortunately there's no other way
that we can really do that. To make that difference. Just for the one lot of
the one place that you want to build on. Yeah, and we understand that.
Paul Laurent and Gil Laurent made comments.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anything you'd like to address to that?
Todd Hoffman: I do not recall if this went to Planning without this
recommendation as a part of that.
12
City Council Meeting - June 28, [993
Paul Krauss: It did and it was raised at the Planning Commission meeting...
Todd Hoffman: At some point [n there I had a conversation at thelstaff level
..
with 3o Ann Olsen. An appointment was made to go out and visit the landowners
and then...was passed over to'the'Planning Oepartment to add that...
Paul Krauss: Well it wasn't...
Todd Hoffman: Perhaps that was the situation where we had discussed' It but It
just didn't go down...
..
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Appreciate your input. Rrm there any discussions?
Richard.
Councilman Wing: 3us[ the only quest[on I've got Todd ks, first of all the fact
that this is kind of old bus[ness in a way that Bluff Creek has long ago been
decided to be guarded with due process and we want to have that access, both
north and south from the river all the way uP to MInnewashta. And that these
simply have to be taken when we can get them. But regardless of the consistency,
when [ go down there and look at this, and I think Laurent's comment on th[s,
what Bluff Creek? [ mean if there was some pristine'mountain stream running
through this, It'd be pretty impress[ye. But when [ get down there,
particularly at this location, it's hard to Identify. So ! guess ! would ask
you Todd, is in fact this the location you.want or should it in fact be graded
and properly Installed through this stretch and following the topography because
it's sort of, is it or £sn't [t at this point. ~o ! would just ask you, is this
the Location specifically that you want and this is specifically where the trail
might best go? If not, maybe we want to be east or west and worrying about that
easement.
Todd Hoffman: Again, at this point I did not intend to plan for or carry out an
exercise of Investigating where exactly within this easement this would be
placed. Certainly 10 years from no~ when you wanted to build this [tall you
would put those type of efforts In. At that time if [t became known that you
couldn't put the trail segment'in this portion of the property,'wbtch you're
correct in your statement. The confines of the creek in this'a~ea, they Just
aren't there. It goes into a wetland type 6f area. It shoots down Into the
gorges'of Bluff Creek so 10-15 years [n the future if an alternate location is
identified that would be coming out of one of the potential future residential
streets in the area, then cutting south to Pioneer and then going over...that
may happen. A master plan has not been developed for this trail' segment to
date.
Paul Krauss: ...there is so much that's unknown over there, when 2[2 comes
through...cLty to the 2[2 environmental impact study, that we Wanted to have a
bridge sec[ton over Bluff Creek. Now Bluff Creek ks Very well deftned on
.
the Jeurrisen property, which Is just next door. So they may even have to
channelize a part of it to fit it underneath the highway. We honestly don't
know. And last time I heard, the construction of that segment of highway was
pushed beyond the year 2000.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Oelayed. Okay, Colleen.
City Council Meeting - June 28, 1993
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I don't know. this is a tough one because it is a
simple subdivision and we're treating them like a Lundgren Bros coming in who
can afford to dedicate that kind of land. On the other hand, this has been
identified as a very important trail section in our city and we need to get that
land by hook or by crook and certainly ue don't want to do it by crook but.
I guess I'm uncomfortable because we don't know exactly where the trail...uill
go, therefore we can't tell the Laurent's exactly what land will be used and how
it will look and therefore they're uncomfortable with where the easement should
be, and I guess I am too. On the other hand we don't want to undertake a large
study to determine where it should go until we're ready to do it and I guess
because we know for certain that the trail won't go in for probably 15-20 years,
you will have the use of that land, so to speak, until that time.
Gil Laurent made a statement.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I don't have any other comments.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Hichael.
Councilman Mason: Well, I think we need an easement there. I certainly
wouldn't be happy if I was in their position. I think it's been made cIear that
we don't know where that trail's going yet. And maybe it's an easement we'I1
vacate in 10 years but I also appreciate Todd's comment about when something
like this comes along, we need to get the easement if at all possible because
once it's gone, it's gone. It's my understanding that this kind of puts them in
a continuing form of limbo not knowing what's going to happen to that land but
on the other hand, there are some I think that would say that the City is
finally getting on top of things and taking care of things ahead of time instead
of trying to react. ! see the need to have an easement there at this time.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark.
Councilman Senn: I think the uncertainty's going to remain down there for a
long time. I think most of that's going to be caused by the State, from what
I've seen. I think as far as the easement goes, I think we really need to get
it. Like Mike says, we may never use it or we may trade it later but ! think
that's a position we should be working from rather than a position of, oh please
can we have it later. It's an important element of the corridor so I think we
ought to take it and maintain it and go from there.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion? Of course the reason that I brought
it back was for the same reasons that the Laurent's have indicated. But the
trails become a real problem with that. It is necessary, there's no question
because it's something that we have to look at for the future of the city and
having those trails connected and if we miss out on that segment of it, it will
start there and end there and go from beyond. So I think we're in a position
where we have to take a stance on it one way or the other and I'm not happy with
what we have to do with just having one additional lot. But the other
standpoint too, I didn't want to put us, or Mr. Laurent in a position that he
wouldn't be able to negotiate with the Highway Department either. And that was
one of my major concerns. Making it easy for the Highway Department to acquire
his property. So with that I would look for a motion.
14
City Council Meeting - 3une 28, 1993
Councilman Mason: Could I ask a question here?
Mayor Chmiel: Sure.
Councilman Mason: How does granting this easement now affect negotiations with
the State having that land?
Mayor Chmiel: I don't thtnk .it does with that segment of it. Although it was
mentioned. Is that right Todd?
Todd Hoffman: I Cannot comment on how that' would affect that but t'he city would
be working with the state.at, lthat tlme to get the underpass segments or the
overpass and the trail connections, ao they wou~d be 'a partner in that process.
Paul Krauss: You know, we really can't tell you exactly how that Process 'is
going to go. MnDot's already aware of the trail corridor. We make sure of
that. The land in question is either flood plain, wetland or both in any case
so what, ! don't know what kind of a value they would assign to it. Whether or
not the trail easement has much bearing on that. But this is something that
MnDot's supposed to be taking into account. But what ! tried to do there is
trace on where'the creek is well defined and where it isn't. It is pretty
defined where the arrows are. It is not where the dashes are but as near as ue
can tell, it does not emcumber the proposed lot. That's on the other'side of
the barn.
Counc/lman Wing: That's what ! wanted to clarify too. The gully is right
across from the easement right?
Mayor Chmiel: That's right. That could very well be. 6ood point.
Councilman Mason: I'LL make a motion.'
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Councilman Senn: guestton. Is this particular trail corridor tied to 2127
..
Paul Krauss: No. No, I mean 'we've been trying to put' together bits and p~eces
of it for at least 4 or 5 years. ! mean it came out during the comprehensive
plan. What we tried to do was make MnOot aware of it so that when they do
eventually build 212, 'that they don't come In and say, we're just. going to put a
culvert over this thing. That they do make plans from the start for a bridge.
Councilman Senn: So our development of the trai! ts independent of what happens
with 2127
Paul Krauss: Oh yeah, and ! think at. the rate MnOot's going, we're more than
likely to have the t~ail 'before they have the highway.
Councilman Senn: Okay. ! just wanted to make sure.
Councilman Mason: I will recommend In regards to conditions of approval for
plat for Laurent Addition, City Council reaffirms that condition ~4 remain as
part of the preliminary plat and final plat approval and the first part of
15
City council Meeting - June 28, 1993
conditions '~6 be removed from the conditions of approvaI. And then yeah,
everything else will remain the same.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there a second?
Councilman Senn: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any other discussion?
Councilman Nason moved, Councilman Senn seconded that the City Council reaffirms
that condition t4 remain as part of the preliminary plat and fins! plat approval
and that the flrst part of cond/tton ~6 be removed from the conditions of
approval. Preliminary plat approval for Laurent Addition ts subject to the
following conditions:
1. The applicant shall dedicate on the final plat a 50 foot wide corridor for
County Road 14 (Pioneer Trail).
2. Proposed locations for the on-site sewage treatment sltes should be
submitted to the Inspections Division for review and approval prior to final
plat approval.
3. The applicant shall receive access approval from Carver County for a
driveway to Lot 1, Block 1.
4. Park and trail fees will be required at the time the building permit is
issued. A 20 foot trail easement along Pioneer Trail shall be dedicated and
a 50 foot easement on either slde of Bluff Creek for recreational purposes.
5. The applicant shall dedicate on the final plat drainage and utility
easements over all pondlng and wetland areas, including Bluff Creek.
6. The appropriate side, front and rear drainage and utility easements should
also be dedicated wlth the final plat.
voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
CHAS_KA NACHINE AND TOOL, INC,, ~OTS..3. 4, AND 5. BLOCK 2, 8URDT.CK PARK, 7900
KERBER BOULEVARd_:.
PRELIHINARY AND FINAL PLAT AND PRELIHI~LqRY AND FINAL pUD OEVELOPHENT PLAN
APPROVAL FOR REZONING OF PROPERTY FROH BG, GENERAL BUSINESS TO PUD. PLANNED
.UN~.T OEUELOPHENT.
B. cOHpREHENSIVE_ PLAN AHENDHENT TO ALLOW LIGHT IND. U.STRIAL USE ON PROP_~RTY
GUIDED FOR COHHERCIAC USE.
C. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 16.335 SO. FT. AODIT%ON.
Sharmin A1-Jaff: On April 12, 1993 the city Council approved a concept plan for
this planned unlt development. There are four applications before you.
Preliminary and final plat to combine three parcels, I'm sorry, two parcels into
16
City Council Heeting - June 28, [993
a single parcel. R planned unit development, site plan approval and
comprehensive plan approval.. This applicant has' really come a. long way from
when it uas f[rst submitted to the City, The appL[cant Is putting on an
addition to a~ ex[sttng butldtng. 'Currently there Is cedar wood shingles on the
building. All of this utl! be Yemoved. Instead the.appL!cant.u[1L be using
seamed meta. L. The setbacks on the bu[ld[ng meets'the mtn[mum requirements and
that has been revised agat'n. The appl[cant has cooperated throughout the
process. Hard surface coverage currently exceeds 80~. Wtth'thts proposal [t
mill go doan to 70~ which meets the m[ntmum requirements of the ordinance.
Landscaptng.. The appltcant wtL[ be adding 20 trees. Staff quest[one if al1 of
those trees will fit on the parcel.' If'they don't, then we would make the
recommends[ton that they would be moved to the City's parcel that contains the
fountain right now. When the Planning Commission rev[e~ed th[s application,
Commissioner Manc£no noted that the elevation of the add[[ton ts 2 feet higher
than the ex[sting building. 'To eliminate this problem, the applicant ts adding
columns to basically break the new addition from the old one. There's also the
issue of the use of tao different sizes of windows. The new addition has larger
a[ndows than the ex£sting bu£1ding, ge're recommending that the same s[ze be
used. The Planning Commission also requested that t[le, well two commissioners
actually requested that tile be used for accent rather than paint. The
applicant ts going to use both tile and paint and he's got samples a[th h[m that
you can see right here. One Issue that I will leave for Todd to address is the
park and trail fees. Staff is recommending that park and trail fees be paid for
both'additions, the old and the new one. The applicant ts objecting to this.
He's saylng that he would only pay for the new add[[ion and we're Leaving [t up
to the Council's discretion as to what should be done. With that we're
recommending approval of th~s application with conditions outlined tn the
report.
Mayor Chmtel: 'Thank you. I'm sorry, ! had a little discuss[on here. Would the
applicant like to make a presentation of this at this tree? If you mould Just.
state your name and your address.
Doug Hansen ams not speaking into the microphone and therefore his presentation
mas not picked up on the tape.
Mayor Cha[el: Okay, thank you. Are there any questions at this time? We'LL
start on 'the Yar end. Mark.
.,.
Counctlman Senn: I didn't see a big.problem u[th the painted stripes.
Especially given that's what Market Square has and Target I believe also.
didn't see a. b.ig concern likewise over the a[ndows. I mean tt almost seemed
more preferable, to see a [tttle more glass, and Less block or bulk. ! told Paul
earlier that I have some real concerns tn.'chang[ng the underlying guiding Comp
Plan simply from a standpoint that'maybe very comfortable with this use and
stuff but you knoa, [f we rezone [t. PUO and we have all t'he controls there nos,
that's great. But when an.other.¢oepah¥ comes tn, I still really quest[on our
ability [o"enforce'that and not':alloa a person reasonable use of their land and
[f the underlying guidance ts [ndustr.ial, I think at Least raises some concerns
in ay mind. One of the thtngs I not[ced when I w&S going through th[s, that
having some problems a[th that I'd like to', I guess either get a quest[on
answered on or understand a little blt more ts tn all the or[g£nal documentation
and land development contracts and all that tn here, there was absolutely all
City Council Meeting - June 28, 1993
outside storage was prohibited. And now in what you're suggesting or what staff
is suggesting, that's being significantly relaxed to allow outside storage so
long as it's screened and I guess in this particular set I have a real problem
with that. I'd like to see the language be maintained as it always has been,
which is no outside storage. ! think the language, with the exception of trash
facilities, is here and provided was the only exception from the previous
contract language. So I'd like to see that get in there a little tougher. The
only other question I had is, is TIF being used on the expansion? I understood
TIF was used on the original building. Is it also being used on the expansion?
Mayor Chmiel: I think as they indicated, none was provided for the first phase
of that building. There was no TIF dollars, is that right Don?
Don Ashworth: That's correct. And as far as I'm aware, I didn't see any type
of, I mean you're purchasing that for market value. There was no TIF back to
yOU, correct?
Doug Hansen: ...using the market value or...
Don Ashworth: So the new addition is being partially written down from the
standpoint of feellng there could be a higher value. $3.00. I flnd it difficult
to believe that back in that section you oould get $3.00 a square foot. But
anyway, you're purchasing it for a $1.50. I don't know if I would constder that
necessarily a large subsidy, if any. You'd almost have to make the determination
if you feel that that land would sell on the open marketplace for a hlgher
amount than $1.50.
Councilman Senn: I thlnk a lot of that goes back to the zoning question. I
mean if you're selling it as commercial general business, I think tt's going to
sell for more than lt's golng to sell as industrial. That's a general question.
Mayor Chmiel: That's normally 2 to 4.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, I mean you know it seems to me that if we are, I mean if
TIF is a justification, that's what I'm try£ng to get at. I mean if we're
rezoning the property, I hope we're not rezoning it and then selllng it for the
lesser price. Unless that's part of the whole deal with the TIF so there's not
a double dlp so to speak because Z otherwise would look at that very much as
being a double dip if you're going to provide the TIF and on top of that you're
golng to slt here and downzone the property, turn around and charge a lesser
price than the other zoning would charge the property.
Don Ashworth: I believe the Planning Commission and the HRA looked at it as
though, similar to the back side is that the...property, is It reasonable that
that could be built out for commercial use, especially recognizing that there is
an industrial buildlng there today and that if you put controls in there, allow
for the expansion of the industrial. Industrial, what's a better word to look
for but, that that would be a better use for the property and was compatible.
Councilman Senn: But to answer my questlon there, I mean like you say, the
dollar reduction in the land is the TIF subsidy?
Don Ashworth: Yes.
18
City Council Meeting - 3une 28, 1993
Councilman Senn: One and the same.
Don Ashworth: That's the way it was given to the HRA and that's what they
approved I believe. ..
Councilman Senn: Well, that was it. Other than that I.just want to say, I
think it's great to see him expanding.
Mayor Chmiel: Michael.
Councilman Mason: I agree with most of what Mark's saying. I think the plaster
looks nice in there. Bigger windows are okay with me. In fact I find it nice
that the employees will have the opportunity to look out a little more.. The
paint is okay. I don't, well as I share Mark's concerns about the PUOj it seems
well enough defined for me that I can live with that. The tree thing, I agree
with Mr. Hanson. I mean if'he's got, if there are in fact too many trees and
maybe he shouldn't have to spend the money on them. I mean, you know. I think
that's kind of tit for tat there. We do demand people to put more trees in and
he in fact has too many, let him knock a couple bucks off. I don't know how we
make, who makes that decision.
Mayor Chmiel: I think we can leave that up to staff.
Councilman Senn: The tree man.
Paul Krauss: If I could explain the logic behtnd.ii...very little of that
frontage that's owned as a part of this property. And we originally talked
about 30 trees being put in there. We knocked that down to 20 trees and we saw
how much land there was available to accommodate it and we said fine, stick all
the 20 trees on this property. But if there doesn't happen to be room for
reasonable planting of all of thee, stick a few df'them on city. owned land
adjacent to it. Across the railroad tracks. So we're not trying to get our
land reforested but you still accomplish the goal"of planting trees. Because of
the way the property lines fall out, the goal is'to put trees between Highway 5
and this property so you either go to the back of the£r property, across the
tracks on our property but it still accomplishes the same goal.
Councilman Mason: Yeah, I guess I'd say ff Mr. Han~on wants to plant his trees
there, that's fine. But ! don't think we should, that should be a condition
personally. But I agree with what you're saying about that and the fact that I
want to see that happen.
Councilwoman Oockendorf: Everything I"m going to say about how the buildingl
looks and is balance against you can't see it anyway so. Really.-Why are we
going from cedar shakes to steel? That just goes against everything. I,mean
I understand from the tie in and the paint, etc. but that just seems to be
against logic that you would go from a quality cedar shake to ribbed steel. Is
it just to make it tie in with the coloring and with the...?
· .
Sharmin Al-Jaff: That's one of the reasons. The other one is, the cedar shakes
are weathering. It's time to replace them.
19
City Council Meeting - June 28, 1993
Paul Krauss: And the steel is not inexpensive. I mean anybody's that's built
with it, that's one of the most expensive roof treatments available.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well, yeah I don't care uhat...cedar shakes look
nicer. Anyway. I guess I'd go along with, again because you don't see the
structure. The people that work there see it and they work inside. Therefore I
would say, they want bigger windows, so much the better. That's fine. Other
issues. How are ue going to screen the, for storage in back, how are we going
to screen that? I understand we've got large sheets of metal that cannot be
contained.
Sharmin Al-Jaff: With additional trees.
councilwoman Dockendorf: And those are a mixture of conifers?
Sharmin Al-Jaff: Correct. And that's one of the reasons why the 5 evergreens
were added.
Councilwoman Oockendorf: So in the winter...pretty hidden back there. And
about the parking spaces. You're saying that 59 spaces are not necessary and
that they can be removed or what's the situation with parking?
Sharmin Al-Jaff: What I'm saying is the, per ordinance requirements we need 43
spaces. The applicant is providing 59 spaces and that's enough. More than
enough. More than we require.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Right. And my theory is, ['d rather see green than
asphalt, so ls there any way we can reduce that?
Paul Krauss: Well, the ordinance gives a bare minimum and a rule of thumb. In
this case the applicant, based on experience says that he believes they need
more than that. We didn't dispute that because it's based on actual operating
characteristics. But also we worked with the applicant so that the site, which
ls not way out of kllter in terms of hard surface coverage, ls going to comply
with current standards. So we do have a net improvement of green space.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: But I'm thinking we're requiring a transit element in
this and if we're going to have, use Southwest Metro for Dial-a-Ride, etc and
van poollng, why are we havlng more parklng spaces? I mean it just seems out of
whack. Mr. Hanson.
Doug Hanson: I think you're probably not aware that there's a building that's
20,000 feet has 68 spots now. We're adding 16,000 to 36,000 feet and cutting 8
spaces.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: But what's the useage now?
Doug Hanson: Chaska Machine has 90~ of it. Steinkraus Plumbing will have a
small area. We have some trucks...I know that we have 5 tenants in there and we
use those...
Councilwoman Oockendorf: So based on your experience, you're going to need it?
2O
City Council Meeting - June 28, 1993
Doug Hanson: ...we're really concerned that if I ever have to come to you...
Councilwoman Dockendorf= Okay. And regarding the, going, back for park. and
trail fees on the existing structure. I thought that was kind of chinsey of the
Commission. That's just my opinion.
Councilman Mason: I agree with Councilman Oockendorf's comment on the park and
trail fee. I don'{ know about the chinsey"part but I don't know that.
Mayor Chmiel: No, I was going to address that issue if no one else has and I
would suggest that we drop that part. I'll let that one get to it. Richard.
Councilman Wing= It's all been said. Shakes, I understand that. The windows
are fine. The trees, originally I was with Hike. I said land specific but then
all of a sudden I looked over and I saw that TIF money being thrown in there.
And if we're going to pound TZF money into this, then 20 trees is a minor Issue.
I think'that's, to even bring that up is a problem.. Or better yet, I'l! go with
10 trees but then we pull the TIF money. It's a choice. Whatever you guys,
whatever the owner wants to do.
Doug Hanson: Can I just pass this aorund?...
Councilman Wing: For what?
Mayor Chmiel: He's still paying taxes.
Councilman Wing: I understand that. I heard you make the comment. We're still
writing it down. The trail fees retroactive, that's inappropriate. I don't see
any need 'for that. Rnd then I'm concerned about the outdoor storage. [s
everybody clear on that? Are we happy with that outdoor storage?
Mayor Chmiel: Well I think yeah. I think we can leave it with item number 4,
there shall be no unscreened outdoor storage permitted, period. And scratch the
last sentence of item number 4.
Councilman Senn: Where again?
Councilman Wing: Number 4, the last sentence would be deleted. There should be
no unscreened outdoor storage permitted, period. So I guess with that stricken,
with the number 10 stricken. Excuse me. Number 10 would be intact.
Councilman Mason= Without the parenthesis.'
Councilman Wing: Without the parenthesis.
Councilwoman Oockendorf: Right. Keep'what's inside of them.
Councilman Wing: Yeah, with those corrections I guess I'm happy with it.
Councilman Mason: Then what are you' going to do about item 14 there on page 157
·
Councilman Wing: I would just leave the,.whateveK can go'on the property and
then the remaining will be used along Highway 5, because there's going to be
..
21
City Council Meeting - June 28, 1993
outdoor storage and the only view here is wintertime. So I think those
evergreens are significant. I guess I'm not dissatisfied with that. I guess I'd
leave, speaking for myself, Z would leave 14 intact and let staff work that out.
I don't see that as a burden.
Councilman Senn: Don, what's past practice or is there a policy in place
relating to the park and trail fees. As an expansion versus new construction
and how that affects, I mean before we just kind of do lt? I mean ls there
something there?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, we've done that before where there's been a couple
different things done. Not so much with the large expansion but for Instance
wlth Kenny's in ltself resurfaclng and dolng everything else that we've done
there with new brick front and everything. The Riveria was another one. There
was a partial extension put on that, and that wasn't charged there. A complete
rennovatlon lnside and out as well. So I think that what has already been in, I
can't see how we would justifiably charge for.
Councilman Senn: No, I understand. HX question is more of just one though,
does that spllt something we've already had in place as a pollcy. ~nd thls
an industrial specifically which I know is treated differently.
Mayor Chmlel: We're not...I don't thlnk we've ever had anythlng that I can
recall in the past 5 years.
Councilman Senn: But what did we do like with, who was it in Redmond?
Mayor Chmiel: No that was, there was, no there wasn't any charges. Was there
park and rec on that one? I don't recall.
Todd Hoffman: There was on the addition but there also was on the original
building.
Councilman Senn: That one dld originally under the original plan.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. By the time we sell them that swampland to make up for the
total amount of square footage, they weren't very happy with us but it least
worked out so they could do that expansion.
Councilman Wing: I really believe that if there was an issue here, significant
issue, from experience Mr. Hoffman would be saying excuse me Mr. Mayor. Could
I interrupt here. He would not be letting thts go by so quietly.
Todd Hoffman: I'm just attempting to 1tvs up to my new reputation and the
second tlme tonlght that the side of the vlew whlch is the dark horse slde of
t he view.
Mayor Chmlel: I just have a couple questions. I think everything else has been
covered. When I look at the total amount of square footage and I total it up it
shows 16,309 as opposed to what's in the report of 16,335. It should be 16,309
and that should be changed, unless [ stand to be corrected. That's one of them.
As everyone has said, I don't believe that it would be rtght of us to charge
them trail fees on the 15 year old structure that's already there. The new
22
City Council Meeting - June 28, 1993
portion, I think that's probably right and I don't see any objections by Mr.
Hanson on that part of it. In covering the point.of Item number 4, as Richard
has indicated. I think if we just strike that last sentence and strike the word
unscreened and have it read, there shall be no outdoor storage permitted,
period. Is that what you said?
Councilman Senn: Oon, could we also do that little modification back under the
intent permitted uses language there, because I assume that's something that's
going to be attached to this. Down under-[[ght manufacturing there.
.'
Mayor Chmiel: Right.
· ..
Councilman Senn: So it just says no outdoor storage.
Mayor Chmiel: Under the permitted uses.
Councilman Senn: Yeah basically it provides a definition of light manufacturing
there.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. Okay. To cover it completely. So with that.
Paul Krauss: Hr. Hayor, one minor correction. We were just .checking out the
square footages, and we think 'the one that you 'read was the origInal size of the
building before we did some cut off a corner to meet the hard surface coverage.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, if he cut off a corner then tt would bring it down to that
total amount as to opposed to the 16,335. Okay.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Hr. Mayor, I have one more question for Paw'1. Could
you just explain to me exactly what we're doing thls PUD? My understanding ts
it will be non-transferable to a new owner. Is that true?
Paul Krauss: No, the PUD's recorded.against the property. It becomes part of
the title... A different property owner can buy the building but it's encumbent
by the same conditions, mm
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And that was your concern Mark? It may open it up?
Councilman Senn: t4y concern was more. from a standpoint, this use seems, to be
very acceptable and all that sort of thing but yeah, the changes coming later
will be and then you-say as long as they meet. the'conditions and I look at this
and I say, well 11ks no vistble emissions of smoke. Well that's great as long
as the equipment's working...equtpment tsn't working, then It's a major problem
and that's not a concern here but tt may be with the new user. And I mean, you
just get Into~a lot of quest-ions but Z guess the~real Issue becomes, and'Pau'l'
and .I talked~about this :earlter .... to'what nth degree so'to'speak-do yoa-'take 'it.
And the =then. option sis jus~t-to create the..'£n the ordinance Itself where we
simply .leave-the.tmderlying guide a[one and rezone' it. PUO, which causes Paul
bigger problems I guess. .-. -
.. . . · .
.. .
.. .
Mayor Ohmic1: Okay. Any other discussion? If not, can I have a motion?
City Council Hooting - June 28, 1993
Councilman Wing: I'll move, let me just read this rather than trying to make it
up, if you'll permit me. The City Council approves the rezoning of 2.2 acres,
with the square footage included, of BG, General Business to PUD, and approve
the preliminary and final development plans, preliminary and final plat approval
and comprehensive plan amendment from commercial to office industrial as shown
in plans dated April 9, 1993, revised June 18, 1~93, and with a waiver of the 5
acre minimum PUD zone requirement subject to the following conditions. Items
number 1, 2 and 3. Item number 4 shall read, there shall be no outdoor storage
permitted. Item 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 as is. Item number iO as is, deleting the
parenthesis. 11, 12, 13, 14, approved and then we skip to, on mine we skip from
14 to 16. Item i6, under the PUD agreement. The only change that I was aware
of was simply under permitted uses. No outdoor storage period.
Councilwoman Oockendorf: I'll second that.
Hayor Chmiel: Discussion. The only other thing that I'd like to emphasize, as
Hr. Hanson's indicated, prior to rezoning of the development, to provide the
information that Hr. Hanson was looking for from HRA so he can keep this on a
given schedule. Do we have any idea Don how long that might take to get that
clarified to him?
Don Ashworth: WeIl as I recaII, the HRA has approved the sale and now we're
solely into the technicaI portion of making that happen. So I don't know of any
reason we shouidn't be able to get the survey compIeted. If there's any other
work that needs to be done. I mean we shouId be able to close as soon as you
wish to close.
Councilman Senn: Is there a misunderstanding there who's responsibility that
is? I mean number one wouId kind of imply that's all the appIicant's
responsibility and I heard the applicant say that he's kind of waiting for the
city to do that. Is that maybe the problem?
Don Ashworth: Right. It sounds that way. And I guess I haven't.
Councilman Senn: But as we're passing it here, that is the applicant's
responsible as it usually is?
Paul Krauss: I think you've got two things there. I mean the first is, as a
condition of sale is he going to want a boundary survey, and if he does, does
the HRA pop for that. The second thing is, Hr. Hanson has to combine what he's
buying from us with what he already owns and that's his responsibility.
Councilman Senn: Right, okay.
Councilman Wing moved, Councilwomand Dockendorf seconded that the City Council
approves the rezonlng of 2.2 acres (97,163 square feet) of BG, General Business
to PUD, and approve the preliminary and final development plans, preliminary and
final plat approval and Resolutign ~3-&2 comprehensive plan amendment from
commercial to office industrial as shown on plans dated April 9, 1993,
revised 3une 18, 1993, and with a waiver of the 5 acre minimum PUD zone
requirement subject to the following conditions:
24
City council Meeting - June 28, 1993
1. Preliminary and final plat approval combining Lots 3, 4 and 5, Block 2,
Burdick Park into one lot with appropriate easements. All typical utiIity
and drainage easements shall be dedicated to the city on the final plat.
Plat documents need to be prepared by the applicant.
2. Rezoning approval from BG, 6eneral Business.to PUD, Planned Unit
Oevelopment.
3. The expansion of the building shall match and. enhance the architectural
design of the existing building. Rock face concrete block shall remain as
the main material used on the building and sba1! be painted. All cedar
wood shingles shall be replaced with ribbed steel panels. However,.the
accent stripes shall be created by using paint.
· .
4. There shall be no outdoor storage permitted.
5. Prior to rezoning and development, the applicant shall purchase the
property in question from the HRA.
Transit planning shall be incorporated into this development.
7. The applicant shall submit detailed storm sewer calculations prepared by a
professional engineer for the City to review.
8. The applicant shall provide a $500.00 security for connection to the City's
storm sewer line:and, boulevard restoration on Picha Drive. This fee will
be refunded upon satisfactorily completing connection and restoration of
the City's boulevard.
....
9. Type ! erosion control fence shall be installed around the perimeter along
the grading limits.
10. Park and trail fees shall be paid at the time of application of building
permit on the new structure.- ... · .' ~.
11. Approval of the minor comprehensive plan amendment by the Hetropolitan.
Council.
12. Stop signs shall be installed at the exit points to Picha Drive.
..
13. Heet the conditions of the Fire Harshal.
. .
14. Should open space for planting .the proposed trees be problematic and
limited on the subject site, 10 trees shall-.be located on Outlot A,
Crossroads Plaza. --' ~
16. The PUD Agreement shall include the following conditions:
:.
a. Intent -'
The purpose of this zone is to create a'PUO that would allow the expansion
of an existing office/light manufacturing use. It is intended that this
use be operated and maintained to preserve its low intensity character to
25
City Council Meeting - June 28, 1993
ensure its compatibility with surrounding uses and the greater Chanhassen
Central Business 01strict.
b. Permitted Uses
The permitted uses in this zone are limited to the light industrial/office
or less intensive uses than the existing use. The uses shall be limited to
those as deflned hereln. If there lsa question as to the whether or not a
use meets the definition, the Planning Oirector shall make that
interpretation.
1. Light Manufacturingz
2. Retailz,
3. Newspaper and small printing offices
4. Veterinary Cllnlc
5. Anlmal Hospital
G. Offices
Light manufacturing is subject to the following limitations:
- no visible emissions of smoke
- no noise emissions exceeding the MnPCA standards measured at the
property line
- no outdoor storage
- no overnight parklng of semi trallers or inoperable vehlcles
- all parking must be accommodated on-site ina concealed location behind
the building
Retail uses are subject to the following limitations:
- signage consistent with approved sign package
- fetal1 uses must be consistent wlth the slte's restricted parking
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
NON-CONFORHIN6 USE PERHIT FOR ~CHHID'S ACRES BEACHLOT.
Public Present:
Naee Address
Gary Carlson
Tom Owens
Ken Our
Craig Miller
Brad Solheim
3831 West 62nd Street
1230 So. 6th St, ~1512, Minneapolis
4830 Westgate Road, Minnetonka
6450 Mlnnewashta Parkway
Roger Knutson: I think the Council's gone through this process numerous times
but just to say what the process is about. What this item has to do with is
registering a non-conforming use. The issue is only one. Is what was the level
of use in 19817 Other issues such as ownership, right of access, boat
violations, was the level of use in '81 appropriate, what does the property look
26
C£ty Counc£1 Meeting - June 28, 1993
like today. None of those tssues are issues. There's on/y one issue. What was
there
Councilman Senn: Don?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah.
Councilman Senn: You know I've had a number of phone calls on thls and stuff
and I guess I'm going to do something that isn't normal for us to do but I would
really like to see us Just simply pass a motion tonight tabling this a~d telling
the neighborhood to go back and get something decided amongst themselves In
terms of what they want to do. And then come In and propose something to use on
some kind of a bas£s that we know they're all 1tying with lt. I mean I don't
see us, we're not going to get anywhere if we're going to try to mediate between
the parties here and I don't know, I'm not even.sure 'that-the '81 question Is
answerable and I think there's plenty of room in this thing for a compromise and
I would really like to see the people involved get together arid figure out some
form of compromise that they can all 11ye wtth and then be coming back into us
when there's something we can do about it so to speak.
Mayor Chmtel: Yeah, there's a lot of questions that remain unanswered and we
can't give all the answers to this. No matter what flnal decision we come up
with. I think there's some legality questions and tf those legality questions
are there, that's a court dectston to come up with to say who has property
rights where and how much the property rights are. Secondly, as you've
mentioned, the beachlot was done, a survey of that beachlot was done in '81 and
as staff has indicated, that there has been some items on there. That there was
one dock 45 feet in length and one boat on shore and that dock Increased over.
the period of time. It was 30 a~d then it went to 4S, if I remember reading
what's tn here. And those are some of the things that I think, what we can do
is basically address those and what ! would 11kc to'ask, once we get staff :
report and it's up to Council whether they might'want to table this. 'I think we
have to move ahead on it. It doesn't matter to me one way-or'the other but I
think we should move ahead on it to come up with the conclusions as to what,s
here and I think we've all read this and probably gone through tt word for. word,
and knowing what was done within the Minutes'from the Planning Commission
meeting. And ! also. read some things In the admin/stratlve section which gave
me a little more insight on this under ¥isitor Presentation from January 25th of
'93 as well. Where thlngs were discussed. Who has what and why they have it
and indicated that information. So I will leave tt to Council.. If their
decision, you want to proceed or if you want to table. There lsa motlon on the
floor to table.
Councilman Senn: And if I could just clarify. Part of the reason that I think
that it almost becomes £mportant that we do is, as you [ook at this and you look
at all the issues, I mean not an indifference or whatever but I mean to me they
aren't legal Issues. To me you have to apply common sense rules here. And to
me thls ts very easily solveable issue, apply common sense rules. And if
everybody would Just screen out there.it'seems to me the work force ts simply to
answer these questions tn a legal context' which I don't think...best situation.
And that's why I'd really like to kind of.give it back to them and say come on,
one more chance. Let's go do it and see tf you can do it and if you can't, then
we'll do it for you but I don't know.
27
City Council Meeting - June 28, 1993
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. I think the issue that Roger put forth is basically what
uae the use in 1981, and that's what the ordinance covers and even though common
sense can enter into it. That's the issue.
Councilman Wing: I don't understand what we're, I'm losing track of what we're
doing here tonlght. I don't care if the neighbors get along or not. Our lssue,
after Planning Commission looked at thls is to merely determine what the '81
useage was and allow the permit. We have to be consistent and we have to be
reliable on this issue because we're already done what, 8, g, 10, 12 other ones
where we've cut back boats. We've enforced the '81 ordinance. We're not going
to not enforce the '81 ordinance here. Whatever information we have to justify
that decislon and I thlnk Plannlng Commission has been extremely generous here.
It's our decision to make. I'm not going to table this so the neighbors can get
along. We haven't had neighbors get along on any one of these and we could
table every one and it's not a neighbor lssue. It's our issue to enforce the
'81 ordinance which was long ago decided to do and I'm not about to change
paths. But there's a motion.
Councilman Senn: We've got so many affidavits both way on this, I don't know. I
think that makes it a little unique. I don't know.
Councilwoman Oockendorf: Rlght, and I agree that's the way it should be done
but unfortunately that's not the way the ordinance is written and unfortunately
I think part of the reason we're here tonight is because the neighbors can't get
along.
Councilman Wlng: That's why we're permitting these ls because the neighbors
consistently can't get along and something had to be done. This permit is going
to say here's the law and let's not talk about it anymore.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. There's a motion on the floor. Is there a second? If
not, it dles for lack of second. We'll go through the process. One of the
things I'm going to request ls that if there's something new that can be added
to the information that you're golng to provide this evening, we'd 11kw that
Information. If not, believe we've gone over this. We have read what's here
and from what I saw, it took probably about 2 hours plus at the Plannlng
Commission meeting. I hope I don't carry that for 2 hours here and I'd like
each of you to, whoever's golng to approach it after staff's report, to come
forward with any additional new information that you may have in regard to this
proposal. So wlth that, Paul are you going to do this?
Paul Krauss: Yes Mr. Mayor. I'll be very brief. The beachlot's origins go
back some 80 odd years. In 1914 it was originally acqulred as a property right
of an older subdivision. It does not meet the minimum standards of today's
beachlots by any way, shape or form but then agaln, many of those non-conforming
uses don't. The survey, the original /g81 survey.shows that there was one dock
45 foot in length, i boat on shore. There were no boats dooked...beachlot.
That's the best available information we had and we've been using it throughout
but wherever applicants can provide more accurate information, we've generally
accepted that since we acknowledge that we're not in a posit£on to verify the
survey that's now 12 years old and nobody that dld that survey works for the
city. The Association requested continued use of the dock with 1 or 2 boats
being docked, 1 canoe rack, 2 boats stored on land and continued use of parklng
28
City Council Meeting - June 28, [993
at the beachlot. This item was heard several times by the Planning Commission
because of problems with notifying all of the applicants. The ONR also
exercised some jurisdiction because if you've been out there, the creek outlet
for Hinnewashta basically is this beachlot~ It's adjacent to the high ground..
There are a lot of issues that ! ~ould deem exterraneous that have been raised
from time to time and I'm sure you'll hear them again tonight. There's some
basic disputes over who has rights to the property. We've never thought that
that was something the. City was in a position, to regulate or administrate one
way or the other. The only purpose in doing this was to define what level of-
useage should be... The Planning'Commission ultimately recommended, that the
Association have one dock, no boats docked overnight, one boat on land and one
canoe rack. They also raised some questions about security and although it's
not...consider this is something that we can't require because all you. are doing
is trying to establish the level of useage. What we've done in the past .is
recommended that fencing and signage be' placed on the. beachlot as a good. will
gesture. We have requested that on other beachlots and that was done here as
well. With that Mr. Mayor I'l! turn it back. over to. you and hopefully answer ·
questions as they come up.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay~ thank you Paul.
Councilman Senn: Don, could we ask a couple questions first before we .go?
. ..
Mayor C hmtel: You bet.
Councilman Mason: Yeah I was just, I read through this very thoroughly. I was
down at the site today and I guess I'm wondering a little bit if we need to go
through the repetition of the presentations again. I do hope that any-
information that is shared, I mean quite honestly I could make a motion on it
right now but I don't want to cut people off-'either.
Mayor Chmiel: What I'd like to do is to give probably about 10 minutes'for each
side to come forward with any new information that they have and whoever would
like to start,-they have that opportunity at tflis time..
...
Councilman Senn:. Can I.ask Paul a question, first, just real quick?
Mayor Chmlel: Yeah.
:.
Councilman Senn:- Paul, under the Planning Commission recommendation that's in
here okay, you have motor vehicle access yet no off street parking. Can you
give me a little better definition there'as to what-, what does that mean? .Does
that mean that motor vehicle access is to launch boats? I mean what does this
mean? "
Paul Krauss: Yeah, that I found intriguing when I read through that this
afternoon as well. Apparently the Planning Commission originally when they
first looked at this did consider allowing some parking on'site as has been
maintained by some that it's gone on for some tlme. When they ultimately did
approve it, they satd no parking on stte but that people should have the abillty
to drop off people. Orop off a canoe or whatever, which meant vehicular access
but the parking's not supposed to be there.
29
City Council Meeting - 3une 28, 1993
Councilman Senn: So does that mean that they can go ail the uay doun?
Paul Krauss: Presumeably. Once you're across the curb, it's a straight shot
right down there.
Councilman Senn: But I mean that goes a lot way to defining what this is going
to look like. I mean is it going to be a street? Is it going to be a nice
landscaped area for everybody's enjoyment? ! mean that particular issue to me
goes a long way in defining what this thing's going to look like. Yet there is
public accesses on the lakes so that's why I'm asking.
Paul Krauss: Yeah, I'm sorry. I really can't define that for you any better.
I was not at the Planning commission meeting. I don't recall that that came up
specifically. It's all hard packed dirt once you're out there. There really is
nothing to stop it from going any further to the lake. Clearly it's not, it
wouldn't meet our design specifications for a parking lot and a driveway. The
lot's only 50 feet wide at it's widest anyway.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other questions? If not, who'd like the floor first?
(The microphone at the podium was not working properly and therefore not picking
up all of the discussion by the speakers.)
Gary Carlson gave his presentation to the Council and then stated he had
pictures if the Council would like to see them.
Mayor Chmiel: I think maybe you can just pass them through. Okay, thank you.
Tom Owens: Ladies and gentlemen, lawyers are known for long winded oratory.
Your comments at the beginning of this hearing took the wind right out of my
sails. Unfortunately, I'm going to have to look to your guidance as to what to
do with this because the rules of the game here were established by the City,
specifically by the City Council and establishing...passing the 1982 ordinance
and then coming back a year ago and requiring every beachlot to come to the city
and obtain a permit for a legal non-conforming uses. In an ideal world
everything would be simple and straight forward and there'd be 1 or 2 facts to
go over and we could all go home. But the facts here are not simple. There are
not 1, 2, 3 or 4 of them. Let me give you an example. If you're...with the
Planning Director's statement about the 1981 survey, and Mr. Krauss has not been
involved in this very much. Kate Ranenson has...at the staff level. The
description of the 1981 survey is incorrect. There was not a dock in the 1981
survey. It's in your packet and it is also in the materials that have been
circulated previously. 3une 4th of 1981 someone on the city staff went to this
reservation at Schmid's Acres Tract and did a page and a half survey of the then
existing uses. There was no dock. There was also no dock that was 45 feet in
length. I've just given you what I thought...summary of our key points with 1
1/2 pages. It's not something that we can get through in 10 minutes so what I'd
like to do is run through and ask you what you'd like to hear tonight.
Mayor Chmiel: Let me, can I interrupt you for Just a moment.
Tom Owens: Yes sir.
3O
City Council Meeting - June 28, 1993
Mayor Chmlel: In looking at the recreational beachlot inventory, which is in
the packet, it shows 1981, approximate length it says no. [n i986 it shows it
at 36 feet in length and in 1991 it shows it at 45 feet in length. 3ust to
clarify some of the statements.that you had made previously:·
.:
Tom Owens: ...is incorrect.
Mayor Chmlel: Right, but there ts also clarification on this chart that shows
it. :
Tom Owens: Yeah, and it clarifies that there was no dock tn 1981.
· .
Mayor Chmiel: That's correct.
Tom Owens: And that, as I understand it, is what this proceeding Is about. What
it was in 1981. Now my client has gone through the trouble of assembling a
couple dozen aerial photos which are not, we proposed to show you three from
1980, '81 and '82. Set up .the projector,, show-them to you and for all of us to
huddle around and look at those is going to.take a couple of a minutes. But It
seems to me that the City has set up this proceeding as one In which .you are
acting basically as a court of law. The ordinance calls for satisfactory proof
of legal non-conforming use In '1982 or.before and I.Just don't know of any other
way around this than'for the City Council.to.listen'to the.testimony and to ·
consider the physical evidence. Things like aerial photographs. Things like
the turn around ability on..that site and to weigh these in light city
ordinances.
'.
Councilman Wing: Can I Just interrupt here Don?
Hayor ChmIel: Go ahead. I was going to.
Councilman Wing: Some of us were at the Planning Commission. We've read
the Minutes and heard ~.he.testimony and these pictures show that the tree root
was cut out that was there for 4'years and there's been small boats launched but
not with trailers and .c&rs and so on and so f~r.th: Can' your client Mr.-Ourr,
can you 1lye with the PI'arming Commission recommendatio~ that's in our-packet?
Which allows for a dock-and a canoe rack.
· .
Tom Owens: No. Our preference ts,,'Hr. Ourr can certainly give...change one
part of their recommendation to you and~that's.to eliminate the motor vehicle
access. That's point number 3, the. second page o'f my summary outline.
Counc£1man Wing: Well okay. My Intent of a motion would be to go .along with
the Planning Commission recommendations. No vehicle access. No parking. And
we somehow have to come up with · gate-.and a sign so that.we have privacy for
the neighbors and hours restricted, which ~outd mean there would be a small dock-
and a canoe rack. No overnight boat storage.~ No parking. No vehicle access.
There's no curb there;. There's a curb. There's no driveway there now anyway.
It's a curb.
,..
Someone in the audience .m~de a statement.
3[
City Council Meeting - June 28, 1993
Paul Krauss: That's basically true. I mean depending on what you decide, an
entrance would be saw cut or just the curb would be left.
Councilman Wing: But we can be real hard nosed and we could listen to testimony
and go on and on. On the other hand we can tend to compromise because of the
differences of oplnlons here so we could go wlth your recommendation of
absolutely nothing or go along with the other party of absolutely everything or
go along wlth Planning Commission recommendation. The understanding that
there'd be no parklng or vehicle access and request the gate and sign be up and
I'd be happy to make that motion at thls tlme.
Mayor Chmiel: I have a motion on the floor first of all. Let me get a second
and then we can have discussion. There lsa motlon on the floor. Is there a
second?
Councilman Mason: I'd like to hear that motion again.
Councilman Wing: The motion takes the Planning Commission recommendations from
thelr June 2nd meetlng whlch specifically has a canoe rack, dock. Let me get on
here. The Planning Commission recommends that the Association have one dock, no
boats docked overnight. One boat on land and one canoe rack. I would also
specify also that there be no parking or vehicle access and that we request a
gate and the proper slgnage be placed specifying private and hours.
Paul Krauss: Could I ask for a clarification of Councilman Wing? Motor vehicle
aocess. The presence of cars onto and off the property. The Planning
Commission recommended that you allow that but no parking. Are you then saying
no access, no parking?
Councilman Wlng: Yeah, because there's golng to be no boat launching so there's
no need for cars to go down there as I see it, and why drlve down there if you
can't park there so we might as well, and then the gate would be placed to stop
public access which has been a problem, uhtch can be documented if we want to go
on here. And then the lssue of the snowmobiles and so on and so forth. There's
a trail that clearly needs to be blocked off from public access because they're
used to having lt. The partles and the vandalism haven't been Schmlds Acres
people I'm sure. It's been the public coming in there and so I thlnk
considering that we now have neighbors on elther slde of this very narrow
parcel, we now have a responsibility to either enforce thts at '81 levels or be
a ltttle more compromising and fair and go along ulth the Planning Commission's
recommendation which I think lsa good one, which again, gate it. Stgn. No
vehlcle access. No parking. One dock and one canoe rack. The overnight boat,
I'd leave that to.
Councilman Senn: And Dick the, you know if we're really going to kind of put
columns together and say here's '81 and here's the Plann£ng Commission's
recommendation. I mean you're talking about alterlng that as the motor vehicle
access goes, and don't get me wrong because [ agree with'you ZOOX. I think the
motor vehlcle access should be taken away. I thlnk the boat launching should be
no but I think they should be able to walk a canoe down there or a boat that
they can carry down there and launch it so I don't know if that needs
clarification or not. I'd really much rather see you eliminate the motor
vehicle access and allow I or 2 boats at the dock and eliminate the boat on
City Council Neetlng - 3une 28, 1993
land. I think that's to me what causes eyesores and growths.and I mean usually
more problems than a couple of boats not on a-.regular basis but I mean you know,
to me it gets.back to common sense again. If'you haven't, what's wrong with
letting them kind of utilize their dock to pull in and keep it for a weekend if
they get that worked out or whatever. -. -':~
..
Councilman Wing: That's the Issue on almost all of these and that would be very
inconsistent tf we did that. They had no boats.
Councilman Senn: Oh I see what you mean. Well, but also on the survey they did
have motor vehicle access and they did have a boat on land. What I'm saying is
do a trade off. Get rid of the boat on.land and allow, I'd rather see it at the
dock then sitting on land. That's my own bias from living on the lake and what
you see. What happens when the people leave them on land.
Councilman Wing; The more issue here is boat counts on. the lake and the.
overnight storage and that tends to be the biggest problem for the neighbors
sometimes too. And with their narrow area, boats on the dock and they're not
going to have any swimming. So I'm going to stay with no overnight dockage and
storage of boats. That would be the one.
......
Roger Knutson: Hayor? I would suggest under the circumstances, a.motIon should
be to direct myself to prepare F~ndings of Fact to br£ng.back to ·your next
Consent Rgenda consistent with the way that you decide. We'd have it all
written up tn one package.
Hayor ChmIel: Good Idea.
Councilman Hason: 1'11 second the motion.
Hayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion with Council?
Councilman Hason: Yeah. A quick point. The thing about crossing the street'
there. Walking a couple of blocks. .I'live 6 blocks from Lotus Lake and we
regularly walk down there. Now no, it's not as busy. However, my children were
there today as I was looking around and they were very careful and looked both
ways and there wasn't a problem.
........
Councilman Wing: Weil there are signs going In and there's a trail going in.
You know tt exists.
Mayor Chm£el: Good. Okay, counsler.
Brad Solheim, an attorney representing Gary Carlson and Schmid's Acres Tract
made a comment regarding the Findings of Fact.
Councilman Wing: Were you on the site prior to the bulldozing of the shoreline?
.....
·
Brad SoIheIm: I was not...
· . .
Councilman Wing: Well I'm saying, the last month. You couldn't have been on
the site In the last month and tell me with a 4 wheel drive you could have
gotten a boat in there and.that tree limb, that.tree root has'grown across there
33
City Council Meeting - June 28, 1993
for years, if not decades. That didn't just occur and this access was just
bulldozed in there. So the use since 1981, I mean we can challenge these things
because there's pictures. I mean we were at the Planning Commission. There's
pictures. We can show '79, '80, '81, '82, there wasn't a dock at all. I mean
should ue get into that tonight or should ue stick with the motion?...I happen
to live there and I disagree with what you're saying. I'm not going to
disqualify myself. Or these other neighbors that have lived there for 25 years
who would like to challenge you also.
Mayor Chmiel: Mr. Carlson, Mr. Carlson, you're out of order. And I don't
normally like to do this but Mr. Wtng is a Councilman, whether he lives on the
lake or wherever. He st111 has an opinlon whlch he can do.
Gary Carlson made a comment from the audience.
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, this is cut and dry enough that I'd be happy to bow
out of this.
Brad Solheim made a statement at this point.
Councilman Mason: I'd like to make one qulck comment and then planning on
calling the question. I saw some before and after plctures today of the
offending root across that and if one believes in those photographs, that root
was removed thls year. I know enough about trees to know that that was not a 2
year old root. I would in no way ever take a car, unless it was a 4 wheel drive
vehlcle, over that root. Mysteriously thls root disappeared and that troubles
me a whole lot so I think obviously some altering was done on the shoreline and
I guess I would even question the legallty of some of that but that's neither
here nor there. I seconded a motion and I support it and I guess I'd like to
call a question.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. auestion is called. All those in favor to allow, Richard
do you want to reword what you had before. I have it here but I want to make
sure that lt's exactly as what you indicated.
Councilman Mason: Now does this include then the Facts of Finding7
Mayor Chmiel: Including the Findings of Facts, correct.
Roger Knutson: What you're doing is directing me to prepare Findings that
incorporate whatever you're going to say. You won't officially do anything
until your next meeting other than direct me to prepare Findings of Fact.
Councilman Mason: okay, good enough.
Councilman Wing: I'm going to just go without the recommendation. The Counctl
then the motion w111 be, approval with the dock, with clarification of the dock
setback zone ordinance be included in the final of facts so that the 10 foot
setback ls maintained. The dock. The canoe rack. No parklng. No vehlcle
access. Recommendation that a gate be installed. ~nd a sign specifying
prlvate property and hours of use. And I'm going to leave it at that. I'm
going to delete the, I'm going to go along with the canoe rack and I'm not
including the boat on shore, although I'm w1111ng to take that as a frlendly
34
city Council Meeting - June 28, 1993
amendment. If you want to keep it to one boat on shore. That would be a
rowboat or whatever. Then I'll stay with the.
Councilman Senn: He said it was a canoe earlier anyway so now you've got it in
the canoe rack.
Councilman Wing: ,lright. z'ii stay with the canoe rack then.
Councilwoman Oockendorf: and no other boats?
Councilman Mason: Well they do have a boat on land there~
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, they do have one boat on land.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, but they had no canoe rack so.
Councilman Wing: They had no canoe rack.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, they had no canoe rack.
Councilman Wing: Okay. Then I'll go along with the Planning Commission's
recommendation with clarifying. The Planning Commission recommended that the
Association have one dock, no boats docked overnight, one boat on land and one
canoe rack. 1'11 go along with that. Also requiring then that there be no
parking, no vehicle access and the gate and the sign. Is that clear Paul?
Councilman #ing moved, Councilman Hason seconded that the City Council direct
the City Attorney to prepare Fln(Ltngs of Fact consistent uith approval of the
Non-Conforming Use Permit for a Recreational Beachlot at Schetd~ ~cre Tract
allowing .one dock, no boats docked overnight, one boat on Land and one canoe
rack. Also requiring that there be no parking, no ~h~cle. acceaS, a gate
installed and slgnage stating private property and hours of u~e. All voted in
favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Councilman-Wing: Hay I make;~Just.one clarifying~comment. -The~e Issues have
been emotional and they've been a real problem. Consistently. I was very
active and Involved in the process through 1981 and the lake useage study in
1983 and subsequent opening of the park..Whether this has been Lake Riley or
Lotus Lake or Lake Minnewashta, I have strongly supported the 1981 ordinance and
we've been pretty flexible. More than I think we should have been. We've cut-a
lot of people back. We've done some real, we've Impacted some neighborhoods and
we haven't made a lot of friends on this but my fervored opinion has been the
same level whether it's been on my lake or any other lake. And I haven't
changed my opinion or direction. I simply want to enforce the '81 ordinance
and I think we've been pretty fair and generous considering the documentation
that's been presented here.
Mayor Chmlel: Okay. Counselor?
Tom Owens: May Z ask for a clarification on two points. One is the canoe rack
and it's intended use. My home is near Lake of the Isles and you have a canoe
rack there for 20 or so canoes...number of canoes on the rack to 2. The second
is, the length of the dock. We were prepared tonight to show aerial photos
35
City Council Meeting - June 28, 1993
demonstrating that the dock was 30 foot out. It was a very short length. Two
or three dock lengths...that the length be limited to 25 feet.
Councilman Senn: How about 6 canoes and 45 feet.
Mayor Chmiel: I don't have any problem with that.
Councilman Senn: Okay, let's do that.
Councilman Wing: I tell you, when ue talk height though, 4 considering that
you're in a neighborhood here. 4 is boom boom. 6 is getting high.
Councilman Senn: Well 6 is, I mean all canoe racks are generally double sided
so I mean it's 3 on each side. You're not talking more than 6 feet really.
Mayor Chmiel: No. That's about it. The ones that ue have at the Park and Rec.
Councilman Mason: I can't get upset over 6 canoes.
Don Ashuorth: Clarification then is 6 canoes.
Mayor Chmiel: As he said with canoe racks, a total number of 6 canoes contained
on the rack.
Councilman Wing: And what is the existing today as it is? Sitting there right
now.
Paul Krauss:
Councilman Wing: The existing dock today I can accept without any problem,
including the T's, as long as-it meets the dock setback requirements.
Mayor Chmlel: Okay. Thank you.
PROPOSED CITY CODE ANENDNENT, SEXUALLy ORIENTED BUSINESSES, FIRST R~AOI~.
Mayor Chmiei: We're going to table the next item which is the sexually
orientated business ordinance and the reason we're going to table that is to put
it over to the Planning Commission. They've not had an opportunity to review
this.
Paul Krauss: No, they did.
Mayor Chmiel: Huh?
Paul Krauss: They dld.
Roger Knutson: They did? [ thought they didn't.
Mayor Chmiel: Well, I've been misinformed here. Yeah, I thought that they had
done this.
Councilman Senn: It was a long time ago. 1992 if I remember reading right.
City Council Meeting - June 28, 1993
Mayor Chmiel: Have they had the entlrety of what's here, do you know?
Roger Knutson: Did they hold a public hearing on this?
Paul Krauss: They did not because it wasn't gotng to be in the zoning
ordinance.
Roger Knutson: But the separation requirements tn here are zontng ordinance
like anyway. They take our authority to do it comes from State Enabling
legislature for zoning.
Paul Krauss: The Planning Commission did hear it. I don't recall if it was.
Mayor Chmiel: It has to be a pubIic hearing is what he's saying.
Paul Krauss: ...maybe at that time it was more philosophical...
Mayor Chmiel: Well, rather than be safe and sorry and go according to what
Roger is saying. Let's table this back to the Planning Commission having a
public hearing with it and we'll go forward.
Don Ashworth: We'll table it to allow staff to work with Roger to find out if
it needs a public hearing.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Alright. 1'11 go along with that.
Councilman Senn: Could I make one comment though?
Mayor Chmtel: Yes.
Councilman Senn: We ought to be charging more money. A lot higher fee.
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor could I, before we throw this. Mr. Harr, our Public
Safety Director. He sat down in the staff position and started to go like
this...
(There was a tape change at this point tn the discussion.)
Mayor Chmiel: Why not?
Roger Knutson: Because in many communities It lsa permitted use. For example
we regulate.
Councilman Senn: A bookstore.
Roger Knutson: I'll say it, short time hotel.
Councilman Senn: A bookstore is a bookstore. A fllm place is a film place. You
can't attach the descriptive word.
Mayor Chmtel: I thought I'd ask the question just in case.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, it's too late to eliminate it. It's not permitted.
37
City Council Heeting - June 28, 1993
Councilman Mason: What's not permitted?
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. So this w£11 be worked out between the 3 or 4 of you and
then we'll take it from there and maybe my suggestion to save that, if we have
to. Don. Item
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
NISSION STRTENENT/[~93 GOALS.
Don Ashworth: The Councii asked that I submit both CoIIeen's and the Mayor's
mission statement, ge're going to spend, and my recolIect£on was, the Council
reit that we couid comblne the two in a reIatively short period of time.
CounciIman Senn: ghen did we do this?
Mayor Chm~eI: About 6 months ago.
Oon Ashworth: Yeah, a Iong time ago.
Counc~Iwoman Oockendorf: It actuaiIy was 6 months ago.
Oon Ashworth: Oo you want to save this for some upcoming work session type of
thing?
Mayor Chmiel: Let's do that.
Councilman Senn: ! mean Z'd rather handle it in there than.
Mayor Chmiel: Yep, let's do that tn a work session.
Don Ashworth: Okay. And similarly then.
Mayor Chmiel: Or whenever we have our next work session.
Don Ashworth: 6oals for the City Council, should we do that at the same tlme?
Mayor Chmiel: Right.
Councilman Wlng: And do we have to do this?
Councilwoman Oockendorf: Well I think we decided that it was someth£ng that we
wanted to do. We all had ideas about what was Important and.
Councilman Mason: Ithtnk that's okay. I just wanted to make one point here
about on the cover about low lncome houslng. I'm talking affordable housing
not, and there's a real big difference there. I'm not, when people that are
maklng $30,000.00 a year are having trouble flndlng a home in Chanhassen, you
know I think that's something. So I'm not ruling out low Income but my main
concern ls affordable housing for anyone that works In Chanhassen.
Mayor Chmie1: Okay.
38
City Council Meeting - June 28, 1993
Councilman Senn= Before we jump into administrative things, could I bring up a
couple things?
Mayor Chmiel: No. Go ahead.
Councilman Senn: Well, I'll do it anyway. One thing was, is cable.
Mayor Chmiel: Cable television?
Councilman Senn= Yeah.
Mayor Chmiel: We are in hot discussions with that right now .... communication,
regulations that are just coming out.
Councilman Senn: No, I understand that but ! also understand that our cable
company is using that as an excuse to not going ahead and doing anything and
Z think this Council ought to make a real strong statement back to the cable
company which says, live up to your franchise and get cable in the areas where
you're required to put it in or we'll get another cable company in that will do
it. This is ridiculous. I'm tired of getting phone calls on it all the-time.
Mayor Chmiel: I think he was going to address that and he has not.
Councilman Senn: He has, no, no. In fact I talked to the regional, new
regional head. That's the other interesting part. Every time you talk it's a
new one.
Mayor Chmiel: He's just living in town.
Councilman Senn: Yeah,.but he lives in Chanhassen and he says he wants to do
right by Chanhassen but he said, well you know about, the only way I'm ever going
to pull this off is if you guys give me the ammunition to do it. And Z said
well to me that's kind of a scapegoat. Go do your job and live up to your
agreement. But if that's what it .takes, then I think.we ought to give it to him
and I think we ought to give it to him hard, between the eyes and say, put up or
get the whatever. Because this is getting absolutely ridiculous. I mean we've
got neighborhoods that are half served and other halves that aren't served and
we've got new areas that have been sitting there beating on people to get it
forever and to sit there and say we're not expanding because we don't know what
the new federal legs are, sorry our contract doesn't say that guys.
Mayor Chmiel: I didn't see any of those letters that I have given back to
staff. Maybe we can get copies of those letters that I think I provided.to Todd
on that. So what Council ts aware as to what they're really saying and if I
remember correctly by legislation, they do have a certaln timeframe. I can't
remember the date.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, Todd's given them nottce and I think they have &O days
is my understanding to get at it but I think.
Mayor Chmiel: What the feds had just made that increase for a period of time.
They moved it from one date to another. They allowed them...
39
City Council Meeting - 3une 28, 1993
Councilman Senn: Again, that should have nothing to do with it though Don in
our eyes.
Mayor Chmiel: No, and I probably don't disagree with that. The availability
there. They can plow that in and run it in and I'm amazed that they don't.
Councilman Senn: Well and I think we should reafflrm Todd's letter to them
which is saying, you know get in compliance with your contract in 60 days.
We've given you notlce. I thlnk they should be put on notice that if they're
not then dang it, as far as we're conoerned, hey. It's open season again which
means we can go start talking to other cable companies about getting service to
our residents who want it. Like I say, I don't mean to beat it to death.
Mayor Chmiel: The only way you'd be able to do that, if I'm not mistaken, with
the franchise that we have presently. This franchise gives them the right to
provide the servlces wlthln the community and I don't thlnk we have the right to
go back out and get another franchisee to come in.
Councilman Senn: But they're in violation. We can cancel their contract.
That's the end of it.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. But specifics in that franchise, I'd even have to look at
to even know.
Councilman Senn: I'd just like not to be put in the situation where 60 days
from now we're sitting no different than we are sitttng today, which is nowhere
with those people.
Mayor Chmlel: I think they have some concerns because their costs and also the
position that the cable company can be directed by their respective franchisee
or the city in itself to dictate what the rates would be. So there's SoRe.
Councilman Senn: Well there's fear but at the same time again they have to
provide servioe. And I guess ny polnt ls, if they're fearful of it and don't
want to provide service at that cost, then maybe we should find out if there's
another company that w111.
Mayor Chmiel: Maybe what we should do is have him come in here again.
Don Ashworth: I think we can do that. I also think though that it's not a bad
ldea to direct the Clty Attorney to notify them that they are in non-compliance
with the franchise agreement. They've done a number of...past the mile. They
have to take and provlde that service and they're not doing it.
Mayor ChmieZ: Can you write a short letter?
Don Ashworth: All of Roger's letters are short.
Mayor Chmiel: I know but the price is high.
Don Ashworth: Well, I mlght wrlte the letter and have him slgn. lt.
4O
City Council Meeting - 3une 28, 1993
Roger Knutson: I think my letters are known for being short. I will also say,
it often takes a lot longer to write a short letter than a long one.
Councilman Senn: Okay, my other second quick item, and I don't want to take too
much time here, is Saturday afternoon [ got a not[ce in the packet for the first
time about a meeting Wednesday.night. ! have really, that makes me mad. I mean
my schedule £s such that I can't sit there with 3 days not[ce for gripes sake
and clear an entire evening and the issues that are scheduled for that meeting
are important issues. And I just really object to, like I say, getting that
stuff and telling me ['m supposed to be there at 5:30 on Wednesday.
Mayor Chmiel: I don't have any problems with
CounciLman Senn: weii you're retired Oon.
Paul Krauss: If I could add to that too. I don't want to sound, this came out
of staff and ! actuaLLy didn't know about it until I actually got through my box
this morning. I've already got the Planning Commission.
Councilman Senn: Well good Paul. I wasn't last then. Thanks.
Paul Krauss: I've got the Planning Commission coming [n for a special meeting
on Highway lO! and the pedestrian bridge at 7:00 in the morning. Then I've got
some of them coming back at 5:30 in the evening to talk on the Highway 5 Task
Force subcommittee.
Councilman Wing: Then there's something else going on at 7:00 and 7:30 and ho~
many meetings are you going to have?
Councilman Mason: There are 3 other meetings...
Councilwoman Oockendorf: Who scheduled it? Why is it happening then?
Don Ashworth: Todd Gerhardt, Todd Hoffman and myself and I'll be darn that we
did this I would say at least, 2, 3, 4 weeks ago and [t was based on direction,
Z don't want to lay it off on a group but I can't remember if that was right
after one of the HRA.
Councilman Senn: Don, there's no reason to lay it off. Let's just tell us 4
weeks ahead of time and then it's easy to schedule. That's all I'm saying.
Don Ashworth: Could the Council look at their calendar and maybe see an off
Monday that might work, because you're right.
Councilman Wing: Well there's so many meetings on Wednesday we can't attend
them all and I'd like to be at two at the same time.
Don Ashuorth: Well how about a Monday? Hopefully 3-4 weeks from today.
Councilman senn: That's fine with me as long as we can pick one that works.
Don Ashworth: We meet on the [2th and the 24th don't we?
41
City Council Meeting - June 28, 1993
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, we meet the 12th.
Don Ashworth: $o that leaves the lgth.
Mayor Chmlel: The 19th?
Councilman Senn: 19th is fine wlth me.
Councilman Mason: As long as lt's after 5:30. Well, I'll be a little late but
that's okay.
Mayor Chmiel: Would you drive your car lnstead of your bike and you'd be here
on time.
Councilman Mason: Well I don't know, I'm going to be negotiating so I mlght
have to walk.
Mayor Chmlel: You mean your tires are golng to be flat.
Councilman Hason: Could be.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. HRA and City Counc11 and Planning.
Don Ashworth: And Park.
Councilman Mason: Is that ?:00 in the mornlng?
Counci[man Wing: Now that's cancelled?
Mayor Chmlel: The one for this Wednesady ls oancelled and it will be the lgth.
Councilman Wing: July lgth?
Mayor Chmiel: Right.
Couno£1man Wtng: At what time?
Mayor Chmlel: 5:30 p.m.
Paul Krauss: Fred Hoisington wanted to come In and talk to them abo~t the TH
101 real£gnment study and the pedestrian bridge to get Planning Commission
input. So we were going to have the Plannlng Commission come for breakfast here
at 7:00 on Wednesday morning and some people who are on the Planning Comm£sston
have to come back at 5:30 in the evenlng for the High~ay 5 Task Force
subcomm£ttee.
Councilman Mason: Yeah, and then there's another. Isn't there a Eecycllng?
Mayor Chmiel: There is a Recycling.
Councilman Mason: That ls an important one.
Mayor Chmiel: That's one I was concerned with too.
42
City Council Meeting - 3une 28, 1993
Councilman Wing: Mark, are you done with all your unlisted Council
Presentations so I can start mine?
Councilman Senn: Your unlisted ones? Well, I'll defer for the moment. No, go
ahead.
Councilman Wing: Letter to Don Ashworth, 3une 2nd from Todd Hoffman, Dale
Gregory, Dean SchmIeg. I think that, these are significant events and I'd like
this in the Minutes and recognized whether we acknowledge this at a meeting or
Council sends, the Mayor sends a letter acknowledging th[s. Whatever. 'If we
choose to acknowledge this. I just pulled this out of the Adminstrative Packet
because when I see these, I like to see them get recognition. ! think it's
significant. The people are working hard.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. I Like that.
Don Ashworth: So you would like under Visitor Presentation section, maybe
should.
Councilman Wing: Ah, I don't know if we want to go that far. Maybe just a memo
to them saying it was acknowledged and the Council appreciated your, with the
Mayor's you know. Okay. The other th/ng that I didn't want to, plan to bring
up but frankly the phone calls are very lengthy. I can't take them. I don't
have the time to let them settte down and explain the facts. Is a letter going
out to these people? Where are we going with this? We're all in the saJme boat
here?
Councilwoman Oockendorf: That is it.
Councilman Senn: How many phone calls did you get on this?
Councilman Wing: Four. Only four. Which is very few.
Paul Krauss: What's happened is In the construction...
Councilman Mason: I've had a couple more.
Councilman Senn: I've had many more.
Paul Krauss: In discussions with the Mayor and City Manager, we talked about
trying to get a memo out to residents to do two things. To tell them when
things are actually going to be discussed, which is at your next City Council
meeting. On a visitor presentation I think it was scheduled. The information
that went out to everybody was talking about having everybody come down to the
next Planning Commission meeting where I supposed they were supposed to beat up
on this plat that was supposed to be on. But I pulled that plat off the agenda
because if the Issue is where's the road going to go, how can we define where
the plat's supposed to be. The second thing was, there was frankly a lot of
incriminating and misinformation that was distributed and in as non-partisan a
way as possible ! felt it might be reasonable to try to relate what the
Council's action have been for the last 4 years and why and what is actually
been consldered. I think it's fairly reasonable and easy to explain. I mean
there were even accusations that the Minutes were altered.
43
City Council Meeting - June 28, 1993
Councilman Mason: Rosemary lives.
Paul Krauss: Yeah, so we can kind of see if I can stretch from here to there
you know like she did but we actually, we dug out the videotapes of the meeting
so if people want to watch it on TV, they can come down here and we'll turn it
on for them.
Councilman Wing: Can I, did we not. I have watched tapes. Did we not, as a
Counoil after looking at numerous options, make a decision that the road would
go through?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Councilman Senn: And I'm not even sure why we're reconsidering this.
Paul Krauss: Many times over the last 4 years.
Councilman Wing: But it wasn't finat.
Councilman Senn: Then why is it being brought up again?
Councilman Wing: Yeah, how can it be brought up again? It obviously wasn't
final.
Mayor Chmlel: We brought it back and said...
Councilman Mason: Why is this being reconsidered or is this not even the
appropriate place to discuss it?
Councilman Wing: It apparently wasn't platted, is that right?
Mayor Chmiel: Well, yeah it's platted. I had discussions with Mr. Beddor at
h£s office one day. And I said if you want to come in on a Vis£tor Presentation
to do this, that you can come in and do that discussion. But at the same ttme
you're going to do that, I want to make sure that the property owners who are
belng affected by thls are fully aware as to what you're proposing to do on Lake
Lucy Road. And he is proposing to sort of put in a U and extending closest to
County Road 17 for the exit. And I said, if you can get concurrence from those
people, then I see no problem with us making that specific change. But if they
object, then there's no way are we going to make that change. So that's really
what happened.
Councilman Wing: What these people are really pointing out to me is that
Pleasant, they start out angry and then.
Mayor Chmiel: I adamantly oppose.
Councilman Wing: But they're talking about the dangers.
Councilman Senn: The letters are ali form letters. They just sign them...
Mayor Chmiel: If you look at the last sentence in there, as a property owner.
44
City Council Heeting - 3une 28, [993
Councilman Wing: But every person I've talked to is emphasizing the danger.
The hazards. The SO mph speed lt~mtts. The roll overs, etc. If it's that
·
dangerous, independent of this thing, maybe we've got to do something about that
road.
Councilman Senn: Well, but what's in that information as I understand it is the
information going around is that we're going to widen Pleasant View.
Councilman Wing: Well they're almost asking us to if it's that dangerous.
Councilman Senn: No, they're not. That's the problem..
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, I think we'll just move on to the Administrative
Presentations and I'd-like to move through these rather quickly. We have a
curfew here by 10:30.
ADHINXSTRATXVE PRESENTAT~Ot6:
PROPOSAL TO LOCATE THE 'CORN HUT" aT THE SOUTHWEST CORPER OF KERBER BOULEVARD
~ND #EST 78TH STREET. CTTY PLANNER.
Mayor Chmiel: Paul. I think we all read this.
Paul Krauss: Okay. Then there's not much more to add.
Councilman Wing: I move approval.
Councilman Hason: Second.
Paul Krauss: I don't know if it's anything to formally approve or otherwise. I
just need to be directed one way or the other.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Go for it.
Mayor Chmiel: I don't think there's a problem. The only reason why I say I
don't think there's a problem is I know that corn if being grown in Chanhassen
so if it was.
Councilman Senn: In downtown Chanhassen. Say that right. Downtown Chanhassen.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, you have direction.
T~HpORARY DIRECTIONAL SIGNAG£ D~E TO HIGH~AY CONSTRUCTION. C~TY
Paul Krauss: 8(b) deals with temporary signage due to all the road construction
that's going on. We've been approached by several parties who are finding
access very difficult. One of them was Eckankar. The other one was Lotus Lawn
and Garden and we've got to believe that there are others on tap like residents
in the office building. Charlie and I sp~ke about it and he said, well I'm glad
you happened to come in because ! just got a memo from HnOot as to how they
propose to handle that on state highways. This was a very big issue up on
Highway 12 and 394...construction there lasted many years but it was a big
disruptions to businesses. I think If we use a little bit of common sense and
45
City Council Meeting - June 28, 1993
allow the Clty Englneer to say what's appropriate and make sure they come down
in October when construction is done, then we can help out the business people
and the institutions without too much grief.
Mayor ChmteI: I think that can be handIed by staff with some of those concerns.
I know when they came wlth Eckankar I dldn't see any problems because it was a
big weekend and they needed direction on how to get to where they're at because
they couldn't get there from where they were. So okay.
Councilman Senn: One other question. What's the s£gniftcance of a 1992,
February memorandum that was put tn our administrative packet with nothing
before it or after it pertaining to it?
Mayor Chmiel: Regarding?
Councilman Senn: 1991 investment interest allocation.
Don Ashworth: It must have just gotten picked up off of my desk by mlstake.
Mayor Chmiel: So you're just lucky you had additional things to read.
Councilman Senn: I was trying to put it into context and I couldn't flgure out
any way to put it into context.
Councilman Nason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to adjourn the meeting.
~11 voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjlourned at ~0:30
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim