1992 12 14CYII~dqHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
DECEflBER 14, 1992
Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.. The meeting was opened
with the Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCIL EtERS ~EEMI: Mayor Ohmic1, Councilman Mason, Councilman Workman,
and Councilwoman D£mler. Councilman Wing was present through £tem 2.'
STAFF PRE~NT: Don Aehworth, Roger Knutson, Todd Gerhardt, Charles Folch,
Paul Krauss, Kate Aanenson, Todd Hoffman and Scott Herr
APPROVAL OF P~GE~: Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to
approve the agenda amended by Councilman Mason to include a comment under
Council Presentations. All voted in favor and the motion carrled.
PuBI,-]~G /g~JouNGEI'EN.T$- tL,~LE LEf~F Mkq~DS:
Mayor Chmiel: Thls is a sad time .for me to have some of these people leave our
respected commissions, only because they have done an exceptional job for the
city. The time that they've dedlcated. The hours that they have really put a
lot of thought into. Many of the different things that we've done and because
of that, they have made this a better place to llve and I really appreciate that
from each of you. And the Council as well. Ltke. I say, I hate to see any of
thee leave but due to circumstances and tlme commitments, I. understand what
those are. So alth that I'd like to make the'first presentation at this time.
have one here for Uictor Mallberg, ¥ic, would you like to come forward please.
Vic was one of the founding fathers of the Recylcing Commission. He~s been the
Chairman since it's initiation in 1989 and he's been ~nvolved in the following.
One which [s the drop off center, ah[ch we have set'up here. Curbside collectLon,
compost site and the compost demonstration site, purchase and delivery of
recylcing bins and survey of res[dents and businesses to determine who recycles
and what they want to be recycllng. Uic..has been-'very.valuable and has. given a
lot of his personal time to our recycling program, which [s the most. successful
in Carver County, and that,s not~.just saylng it. That. means, it as well.
like to present him w[th. the Maple. Leaf.Award'wh[ch is one of. the highest awards
we can present to an indivldual. .We can't give. any~cash, but'we can give you a
plaque because it does mean something to us:to give. th£s to you,*and let mm. read
it. The City of Chanhassen Maple Leaf Award presented to Victor Hallberg,
Chairman, Chanhassen Recycling Commission. in recogn[t£on of dedlcated, publ[c
service to the City of Chanhassen.. Chanhassen. City. Council. hereby presents this
award to you. Thank you for your,time...,We really appreciate, what:you've really
done. Steve Emmings was next. on my hlt list but because, he's not able to be
here th£s evening. There's a death in his-family:and.so I wilt'present that to
hlm at another time. At this time ['.d like 3oan to come forward. :3oan:ahrens.
it's a real pleasure for me to do .th[s, to present, to you with~this Maple Leaf
Award. [.know you've given many hours'and many:tlmes that you'd rather probably
be home with. your ch£ldren and your husband,.but you:did give that-time up for
the City and I really do appreciate it. So. with that./..would also llke to'read,
The City of Chanhassen Maple Leaf Award, which is presented to 3oan Ahrens,
Chanhassen Planning Commission from 1990 to 1992 in recognition of dedlcated
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
public service to the City of Chanhassen and this is endorsed by the Chanhassen
city Council. From all those members behind me. It's their appreciation and
mine, thank you very much. I appreciate it. The next individual I'd like to
come forward is Tim £rhart. Tim, we tried to reconvince to up for at least a
couple more years but not a very good salesperson. But anyway, I really do
appreciate al1 the time that you have put into this Planning Commission. I know
you too as well have your children first at hand and that's where it should be.
But I do appreciate all the time that you've extended to the city. Have given
thought to the needs of the City...with the Planning Commission. ~nd with this
I'd also like to read, the City of Chanhassen Maple Leaf ~ward is presented to
Tim Erhart, Chanhassen Planning Commission i986 thru 1992. In recognition of
dedicated public service to the City of Chanhassen and this is too signed by all
the Council people behind you and I, and with that I extend their gratitude and
thank you very much for all the time you've given. It's really appreciated.
Thank you very much. This next one I would like to present is to Ursula Dimler.
Ursula, Tom and I came onto the City Council 4 years ago and it has been fun.
I've enjoyed it. We've learned many things. We've gotten to the point where it
becomes almost like a small little family amongst the 5. Staff too. I see that
look on your face. But seriously. It has been a lot of time that's been
extended, not only just Council meetings but meetings that we have had to have
within the City on many different varied projects. They're probably too
numerous to mention so with that I would like to extend my gratitude to you for
serving on this Council for the past 4 years and providing us your words of
wisdom. And with this I'd also like to read this. From the City of Chanhassen,
Maple Leaf Award presented to Ursula Oimler, City Councilwoman from 1989 to
1992. Also, the Southwest Metro Transit Commission from 1990 to 1992. And in
recognition of dedicated public service to the City of Chanhassen the Chanhassen
City Council, and that includes just the people behind you because your name's
not on here. $o with that, thank you very much.
Councilwoman Dimler: Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Oh Ursula, would you come over here and stand on my left.
Thomas, 4 years have gone by quickly. I remember when we were ail running for
this back in 1988 to 1989. I was looking, or hoping to try to entice someone to
run for Councii. And with that, one day I was driving through Chaska where Tom
happened to be working and I saw him walking on the street. I zipped in real
quick and I said, Tom. Have you ever considered thinking about running for
Council? He said, I don't know. I look awful young. Well I want you to know
Tom, you haven't aged much, although I have. But anyway, it's been again a Iot
of fun for me to serve on this Council and there are many things I thought about
saying tonight but I chose not to. But I really want to extend a thank you from
me, and the Council as well, upon serving your 4 years. And I know you've got
bigger and better things to go and it certainly will be a great thing for me to
present your next Governor, excuse me, the Maple Leaf Award. With all
seriousness, this is presented to Thomas Workman, City Councilman from 1989 to
1992 and also on the Housing and Redevelopment Authority 1989 to 1992, and
there's also one that they forgot to put on here with the RTB. But maybe we can
squeeze it in...but I'd like to recognize that as well. In recognition of
dedicated public service to the City of Chanhassen, the Chanhassen City Council
and your name's gone but Ursula's back on. So with this, I would like to thank
you very much. Appreciate ail your support that you gave and ail the effort
that you extended to the City.
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
Councilman Workman: Thank you very much Hayor.
Mayor Chmiel: This is the second time I've had a cake here. The first was Don
Ashworth's birthday, whlch was not too long ago. So I thought to carry on
tradition just a little bit more. We have a cake here saying, Thank you Ursula
and Tom. With this we're going to serve this cake and for those of you'who are
sitting here £n the audience, as well as you Council members, we're goiog to cut
it outside and any of you who would like to disrupt the Counctl chambers for a
few minutes, that's more than welcome. But one more time,'thank you from all of
us as well as staff for the time that you've dedicated to the City.
Councilman Workman: Mr. Mayor, if I could maybe take a couple-seconds and maybe
Ursula wants to too. Z know I've roasted Ursula before and I won't do that
tonight but it has been an honor and a pleasure. I do move on to another
office. Some would say a higher office but. really I don.'t know that.I'll ever
be able to represent the people of Chanhassen as well. Maybe I'm saying this
wrong. As closely as I have on the City Counctl. You really do get close and
people get close to you and you're able to make those decisions. I cannot
believe where 4 years.have gone slnce election day. I have learned that the
City is in good hands with the staff we have. The City Attorney, Roger and
not going to start naming department heads because I got in trouble on election
night leaving people off. But. the new Counc£lmembers coming on, I.'know we're in
good hands. I'm golng to st111 be around, as ! know Ursula is to continue to
help the City however I can. I now have 6 other parts of 6 other cities and a
little bit blgger job but I do want to say thank you to Don Ashworth and.the--
Mayor for tricking me tnto running back in 1988. When I was a 28 year old-
person. Because it has been an experience and an honor. You do learn an awful
lot. I think I told one'of our new Councilmembers, one'year on theCity Council
is like a 4 year degree in itself. You learn a lot about people and policy, and
what's good and what's wrong and what you like and what you don't like. But it
has been fun and an honor and I'm. going, to still be around here a 11ttle bit,.if
they don't change the locks on me. So thank you very much for the honor.-'
Appreciate it.
-.
Councilwoman Oimler: Yeah I too would like to say. thank you to all the. staff.
agree with Tom wholeheartedly. They are very capable and I've always trusted
them. I know sometimes we've challenged them and that's what we're-here to do
because we do want to protect the citizens, the taxpayers as well so,-It's been
fun. It has been a challenge. I've grown personally. I've learned to be the
only woman there and hold my ground, which is a challenge for-you out there
Colleen. ! am very pleased that we will have another woman on the Council and
I'm sure you'll all work well with her as well. And [ know that we are in good
hands and I'm very, very comfortable. And thank you agaln for all your
kindnesses in working wtth me throughout the year. ..
. .
Councilman Mason: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes Michael.
Councilman Mason: I'd like to make a quick comment about the two Council people
that are about to leave. When I ran I figured that there would be a certain
amount of disagreement between me and the Council people that are here, and
that's true. The ntce thing about it is, I never once felt as though I was
I I
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
being attacked personally. I thought ail of us maintained an extremely
professional attitude if you will, about the whole thing. The gavel went down
and the arguments would start and the gavel went down and the arguments would
end. At least on the surface. I've appreciated the relationships I've
developed here. I've learned a lot from both of you. I hope that we as a
Council, with the new people coming in, will work as well as I feel that we have
the 2 years that I've been here. I appreciate it very much, both of you.
Mayor Chmiel: So with that, I'd like to move the agenda forward.
CONSENT AGENDA; Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Hason seconded to approve
the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City flanager's
recommendations=
b. Approve Settlement Agreement with MnDot on Burdick Property.
c. Contract Amendment for Surface Water Management Program.
d. Preliminary Plat Approval to Subdivide 3.9 Acres into 4 lots, Gateway 1st
Addition, Brad Johnson.
e. Resolution 4)92-140: Accept Public Utility Improvements in Ithilien, Project
92-13.
f. Resolution $12-14l: Accept Street Improvements in Kurvers Point 2nd
Addition, Project 92-11.
g. ResolqtionJ~2-142: Approve Change Order No. 2 for Upper Bluff Creek Trunk
Utility Project 91-17.
h. Approve Storm Drainage Improvements by City Forces for the Minnewashta
Parkway Improvement Project 90-15.
j. Consider Request for Extension to Delay Parking Lot Improvements for guattro
Club Garage, Lot 1, 9uattro Addition, Frank Beddor
k. Request for an Extension of a Wetland Alteration Permit for Thomas Kordonowy
South of Tanadoona Drive and West of Dogwood Road.
1. Approval of Accounts.
m. Approval of Minutes.
n. Authorization to Contribute $500 of Surface Water Management Program Funds
to the Urban Wetland Management Coalition.
o. Approval of 1993 Chanhassen Senior Center Advisory Board members.
p. McGlynn Tax Increment District, Confirmation of desire to see School siting
occur in Chanhassen.
q. Appointements to Public Safety Commission.
C. ity Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
r. Approve Oevelopment Contract for Parking Deferment, Market Square.
voted ~n favor and the motton carrted unanimously.
CITY CODE AflENDMENT REGARDIN~ WETUWIDS. FINAL RE~DIN~ ~ /hoPROU~, OF
SUflH~RY OROIN~NCE FOR PUBLICATION PURPOSES.
..
Councilman Workman: Mr. Mayor, we have a good, everybody's said what a great
ordinance we have here and congratulations Paul. We do. I'm taking this
ordinance with me down to St. Paul and at the appropriate time I'm going to
spring it on everybody down there. One dilemma that Z have ts, we have
different wetland types. Pristine, natural-, ag urban utilized and utilized. We
have a very large utilized wetland near the north side of the Saddlebrook
development. North side off of Powers Boulevard.. Are you aware.where that
south of Butte. You know what I mean? .We have a large wetland there.
Paul Krauss: North of Saddlewood?
Councilman Workman: Saddlebrook. And a utilized.wetland is deceiving in that
it's, well it's got some utility. It does something is apparently what it got
it's name from and it's used to'catch the things that we. don,t want moving
downstream. And we created that.large wetland. The reason I bring that.wetland
up is because It's a very obvious wetland that somebody has now built a shed
almost in the wetland. ! mean within feet. We have no setbacks to those
wetlands. My desire would be to actually, if,not tonight, because I'm not going
to waste everybody's time this late in the game, but would'be to.actually make
this tougher, and maybe we cannot by law, make it tougher to create setbacks on
utilized wetland. But everybody that talks to me about setbacks and.wetlands,.
setbacks points to that shed and says, that shed is 2 feet from the edge of the
water. People are putting white rock, red rock. They're mowing up to the
water's edge. I think people-feel we're giving-or we-have a'double standard
with our wetlands. If they did that, why can't-we. Are we going to get .in
trouble by having that standard? " ..
-
Paul Krauss: Well, in essence what we try to do is create a hierarchy of
wetlands and by definition utilized are not going to be classified as protected
wetlands. They're manufactured water bodies. They were created for a purpose.
We're still going through the map to make sure that we have them designated
correctly. But basically they were created to impound-storm water or to make
sure that water quality standards are being met. Because of that you have to go
in there every 3 years and excavate out the sediment that you. were trying'to
trap and we don't want to have to go through a wetland alteration permit to
maintain what was created to serve a function. One of the pieces of language
that [ managed to get written into the State rules is that by definition those
things are not wetlands~ If they were created for a specific .purpose, it may
walk and talk like a wetland but it-really £s-'not one;. To'-allow'you..to.-do what
you need to do. One of the things that we tried.to:do with the~,ordinance, new
ordinance was give a little more flexibility to property owners in exchange, for
offering higher levels of protection for wetlands and that was one of the trade
offs honestly was diminishing the setback standards tn some cases,-.in:some of
the lower valued wetlands. ! don't know if that explains it al! but I'd be
happy to go through It with you and if you think.
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
Councilman Workman: Paul, I'm shocked to hear you thought that that would be a
good compromise. It's a confusing example to people. Maybe the setbacks
because the developer's required to dig this hole to drain sediment, it's a good
compromise. I can understand that. But it would seem to me then that ue
shouldn't maybe allow them to, to be forthright it looks really bad. It looks
like a really bad pond where there are cattails. Maybe, if they didn't mow.
And ducks and geese land on it. And you're right, it looks and walks and talks
like a wetland and it's a signal to people that, it's a very vivid example of
how a wetland shouldn't look so people get a confusing vlew.
Paul Krauss: The problem that we confronted Tom is that you uilI have roadside
ditches and places where a culvert was backed up. Glve it a year or two, it
wlll look like a wetland. Does that mean it is a wetland and deserves to have
the wrath of the State come down upon the head of anybody that trles to tlnker
with it. We thought yes it did. If it was really truly a wetland. If tt was,
the Lord put it there and we're going to protect it klnd of a thlng. But if it
was created, actually manufactured for some other purpose, we may manage it so
that it has wetland characteristics and offers ulldllfe habltat and what not,
but meantime the water level's golng to be bouncing around when it rains because
lt's going to recelve a lot of water. In the meantlme we need to get back in
there utth a backhoe every few years and excavate it out because it is a
sedlment trap. So I'd have to say it was one of those compromises that was
made.
Councilman Wing: But Paul, I'll pursue this on Tom's behalf because whether we
want to call it a small lake or a pond or a wetland, I don't think we want
buildings and sheds abuttlng up agalnst because we don't allow it on any other
water bodies and I'll look at it Tom and pursue it in the future.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah I think, if I can just chime in. That at one time was
Kerber Farm. The Kerber's planted corn right where that moisture is of many
years when we did have raln. The water bullt up and that crop never oame in in
that particular location. And so consequently it was more of a pondtng area
than anything else. Even though it was made lnto what it ls, it had a natural
spring in it as well and that's part of the history behind that that I thought
I'd just throw out.
Paul Krauss: We'll certainly take another look at it and we can brlng it back
up on the SWMP committee agenda.
Councilman Workman: I would move approval.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve City Code
Amendment Regarding Wetlands, Final Reading and Approval of Summary Ordinance
for Publication Purposes. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None.
City Council Nesting - December 14, 1992
PUBLIC HEARING: CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HE~RIN~ ON TRUNK UTILITY IHPRO~NTH IN
SECTION lONg AND 9NE; AUTHORIZE PREP~RhTION OF PLANS ~dqO SPECIFICATIONS, PRO3ECT
92-5.
Public Present:
Name .Address8
Jay Dolesji
Bill Turner
Terry Forbord
Don 3ensen
6961 Chaparal Lane-
3501 Shore Drive
Lundgren Bros, Wayzata HN
Rottlund Homes
Charles Folch: Hr. Hayor, members of the Council. This again is a continuation
of the public hearing for this improvement project in Section 9 and 10. At the
last public hearing the question was raised as to whether either one or both of
the developers petitioning for this improvement project would be willing to
provide security in terms of a letter of credit, cash escrow to guarantee their
commitments to the cost associated with preparing the project-plans and
specifications. At that hearing Hr.. Don 3ensen, representing Rottlund Homes
testified that Rottlund Homes Incorporated would be-willing to secure their
share of the cost but Hr. Terry Forbord representtng-Lundgren Bros was not able
to give a decision on that at the meeting~ :Subsequent to the public hearing
I've had discussions with Hr. Forbord and he has informed me that Lundgren Bros'
willing to secure their share of the cost in preparing the feasibility study or
preparing the plans and specifications for the project based on their fulfilling
their commitment to the development proposal. And I'm sure Terry will want to
speak tonight on some of the conditions and some of the important aspects of
this related to their purchase option that they've secured which is expected to
expire in April. And also the need to complete these improvements during 1993
in order to allow home building to yet begin next-year. One of the key issues
which I think needs to be discussed in association with this is the mutually
agreeing upon a drop dead date for either moving ahead with the project whereby
if the project's not ordered, that basically the two developers would be-
reimbursed, or would not be responsible for the cost associated with the
project. As the Hanager's comments in the staff report have reiterated to very
well that you know that lt's very rare that you will ever have a situation where
all the property owners affected by a project are. supportive of the project and
that typically once the improvements are installed, you will subsequently have
orderly development which wtll occur in that serviceable area. Staff has
presented at the previous hearing and the supporting data are attached again to
your staff report on the expected initial and future ultimate assessment revenue
schedules for the project. Staff continues to.recommend and support-a ! unit
per 10 acre increment trunk assessment for the large-lot, small acreage hobby
farm type properties that are not developing or intending to develop at this
point in time. And that future hook-up charges would.be collected upon
development. However, staff recommends that-full lateral beneflt assessments be
assessed with the project. With that staff believes that the project could move
ahead from a financial standpoint and we'll turn 1t-over to any publlc
discussion.
Hayor Chmiel: Thank you Charles. Is there anyone at-this time wishing to
address this issue? This is a public hearing. This has been carried through
City Council Meeting - Oecember 14, 1992
and continued. Is there anyone wishing to address this at this time? 3ust
please state your name and your address.
Jay Dolesji: My name is Jay Oolesji, 6961 Chaparal Lane. I own a small part of
the Lundgren property as well as some property in the '95 Study Area. I've been
coming to these meetings for many years, starting with the Comprehensive Plan
where the discussion and effort and time was spent by the people here on the
questions of how this area is going to develop and what's going to happen with
it. And those decisions were made back then and it seems as though now we've
gotten to the point where they need to be implemented. It seems as though that
some of the property in that area was omitted. I mean the '95 Study Area for
somewhat arbitrary reason that the City had. I guess I personally would like to
see that the Council approve the continuation of this project and the orderly
development of that part of the town. Another thing I'd like to point out is
I've been attending the Highway 5 Task Force on the development of Highway 5 and
right now they're in the process of planning for a collector boulevard to go
through that area. The entire length of Highway 5 or the western portion and
this is planned in a timeframe of only a year or two later than what this
development's going to be. So it seems that this is a timely and appropriate
point to be putting these utilities in and opening that area up for development.
And that added development's going to benefit the town. It has more benefit
than just a few people in the area. The new businesses that Market Square and
Target and the existing businesses will benefit by the influx of new people into
the town as well. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Jay. Is there anyone else?
Bill Turner: Gentlemen, I'm Bill Turner. For the past almost 20 years I've
been running a business on TH 41 on a portion of the property that's being
considered for this development. I, of course would like to see this move
forward and I'd like to just mention also that this is an opportunity for the
City to rid themselves of a non-conforming use and allow us to move into a
properly zoned property hopefully in Chanhassen. So those are my interests
regarding this issue. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else?
Councilman Workman: I would move to close the public hearing, if it hasn't been
closed.
Councilwoman Oimler: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: Maybe Mr. Forbord may want to say something at this particular
time, before we close the publlc hearing.
Terry Forbord: Your Honor, members of the City Council. My name is Terry
Forbord, 935 East Wayzata Boulevard, Lundgren Bros. Before I talk about this
project I'd like to thank Counciler Workman and Councller Dlmler for your
servlce to the community. It's been the pleasure of Lundgren Bros to have the
opportunity to work wlth you as Counc11 people. Related to thls lssue,! think
each of you know the position of Lundgren Bros. Know how much we really would
like to develop thls neighborhood community within your city. I thlnk that at
least we've done the best that we can in representing those facts to you. I do
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
not know what at this point in time what the will of the Council is. If the
will of the Council is to not vote in support of this thls evening, then I would
ask that they table it until we can do whatever we have to do to satisfy the
concerns that the Council may have. From my experience in working with you over
the last 2 1/2 years, I have never certainly had the feeling from the Council or
the staff or the Planning Commission that they did not want this project to
continue. But it may not, again I don't know what the will of the Council is
this evening, and if in fact the will of the Council is that they're
uncomfortable with taking action this evening, then I would ask that they table
this until 3anuary sometime. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you.
Councilman Workman: Z would now so move, unless nobody. I'll make that as a
motion.
Councilwoman Oimler: To close the public hearing?
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilman Mason: Second.
Councilman #orkman moved, Councilman ~ason seconded to close the public heartng.
All voted in favor and the motion carr[ed. The public hearing was closed.
Councilman Workman: Really, in short, I think we're coming down to the end
here. Beginning of something. I don't know who's fault it is. It's probably
the Council's fault but we really haven't given this piece of property, either
by restraining our staff or other, any indication that we didn't want to go
through with this. ! know we asked some questions about the feasibility and
everything else long ago. It appears as though things do change obviously but
1'11 re-emphasize what I said. That we talked about that exact MUSA line 2
years ago or so and it was a lot of work and a lot of pain and to me that's when
the argument was won or lost. And so we open it up and to now not go ahead with
this in an orderly fashion, Z think Jay said, to me seems a little bit wrong.
And so I'm going to support it and I'm looking forward to hearing everybody
else's comments. -.
Mayor Chmiel: Michael.
Councilman Mason: A couple of comments, and I wonder if Phil could answer this
one. A number of people have asked me why It can't be gravity flow sanitary
drainage in that project and not being an expert, I had no idea. I know there's
been a lot of concern over that. A lot of people feel it could be and if Z
could just get a quick synopsis from you on that perhaps, then I have a-couple
more things to say. I'll be back.
Phil Gravel: That property can go.
Mayor chmiel: Would you like to come up to the microphone?
Phi1 Gravel: I'm Phil Gravel from Bonestroo Engineering. Part of the project
area will, as part of this project, would go gravity to the Lake Ann Interceptor
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
and the Lundgren Bros property is in an area that can go either towards the Lake
Ann Interceptor as we're proposing, or in the future it could go to the Bluff
Creek Interceptor. It's in an area that could flow either way. And the reason
it couldn't go to the Bluff Creek at this time is because that sewer won't be
built for 3 to 5 or 6 years because it's still got to come up from down on Lyman
where it's currently being constructed. So to answer your question, the project
area could conceiveably go either way and it's more appropriate to bring it the
way it's proposed at this time due to timing.
Counciiman Mason: What's the cost difference Phil, just out of curiousity?
Phil Gravel: It's pretty much a wash. Not having the Bluff Creek sewer to that
point now, we weren't able to go lnto a detailed enough analysls to glve us a
real accurate decision on that.
Councilman Mason: I was really pleased to see that kundgren Bros and Rottlund
were able to come forth with sharing the cost on the proposal. Or the
feasibility study. My concern ls, if it does, to use our Clty £ngineer's term,
go drop dead, the City then is still responsible then? We would bear the cost?
Mayor Chmlel: I don't sometimes agree wlth that position. That the City should
absorb those costs but...
Councilman Mason: I share Councilman Workman's concern about the fact that this
has been in the hopper for quite some time and I don't know that we've ever
though that we were going to stop the project. I think there have been some
questions that needed to have been answered. I would, knowing how this city is
growing, I would be hard pressed to, this is maybe kind of a back handed way of
supporting this. Z would be hard pressed to vote against it at this point. ~
have some reservations just because of how quickly things are happening but it's
here and it's coming and ~ think we've done a fairly good job so far.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Ursula.
Councilwoman Dimler: I have some mixed feelings about this one. Of course I
like what Lundgren Bros has done In our city. They've been excellent. They
always have excellent developments and they cooperate well with our ordinances.
The main thlng that I'm concerned about on this one is that I would like to know
what the progress is that has been made in purchasing of the Song property,
because to me without the Song property the project really isn't feasible. And
if you have major, I mean this project tsn't feaslble without the Song property.
If you have major loopholes like that, I'm saying that we're not quite ready.
I'm uncomfortable with the feeling of belng told that the Clty Councll here ls
pushing the project or not pushing the project. I don't think that's our job.
We're just here to okay or not okay what you brlng to us. And so far I'm not
comfortable with that big loophole in there of what you've brought to us. Does
anybody have an answer to where we are on the purchase of that? Is there any
progress being made on purchasing the Song property?
Mayor Chmiel: Is staff aware of anything as yet or?
Charles Folch: No, we have not been made aware of any changes on the status
that Mr. Carlson presented to the Council at the last hearing.
10
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Terry, would you like to say something?
Terry Forbord: Your Honor, members of the City Council. Terry Forbord with
Lundgren Bros. As reiterated to you at the last meeting, Mr. Carlson and
Lundgren Bros are working together for hopefully the final closing to
acquisition of the property formerly known as the Song property. These types of
transactions don't happen overnight. The three properties that recently were
approved referenced as the Johnson-Oolesji-Turner property of which you approved
a preliminary plat and what this project is for, were probably in negotiation
for, oh I'm guessing 6 months. At.a minimum. They take a lot of time because
there's a lot at stake for people and just the way that Lundgren Bros likes to
conduct their business. We don't like to force things down people's throats. We
like to work with them. Find out what is it they're trying to achieve. Maybe
they have some tax ramifications. There's always a whole lot-of things not even
related to the City issues that are very important in a transactions. It's got
to be a very comfortable situation. Mr. Carlson's situation is not unIike those
and in fact it's a little more complicated. He has a very.nice, brand new home
very close to the southern boundary of his property. And we've taken a great
deal of consideration to that and not trying to rush things. We spent a lot of
time analyzing the wetlands there. The wooded areas. 'The rtdgelines of the
trees that are within his view corridor of his'home. The-future center line of
the collector road that goes east/west as'well as other factors that are
important to the Carlsons and'the decisions, so they may continue with the quiet
enjoyment they currently have. Mr. Carlson'has indicated to Lundgren Bros that
he would like to sell his property to us and we are trying to work to that-end.
However there's all these things that we need-to accomplish in order to give him
that ultimate satisfaction because we owe that to him. I guess that's the way
we look at it as part of a partnership in going through this acquisition
process. And obviously he has a great concern too. So in my opionion I think
that we're moving forward in a very professional, diligent manner. We're not
doing anything that we would regret later on. We want to make sure that the
city's going to be happy. We want to make sure that the'seller's going to be
happy and obviously from an economic feasibility standpoint; it has to work for
us. So again, in my opinion those things are working very positively. If he
did not want to sell, Jerome would make that very clear and he would say go
away. That is not what he has said but there are a lot of things yet to be
answered. In my opinion, I believe that that property will develop and I
believe that that property will develop faster if this project is ordered.
There's no doubt in my mind because that's the way the system works.
CouncilwomanlOimler: Okay. And my other concern is then if we go ahead and
authorize the preparation of the plans and specifications and this doesn't come
to pass, then we bear the cost so I'm a little uncomfortable. I feel like we're
putting the cart before the horse here.
Mayor Chmiel: Richard.
Councilman Wing: I think the variety of subjects have been covered. I guess
I'd just go back to Tom's comments. When I came on the Council the
Comprehensive Plan and the MUSA line were brought up and accordingly because
staff stated or the City stated that we're out of developable land and we had to
move the MUSA line, which was a thorn to me because as Terry just said, once you
move the MUSA line and you open up for sewer and water, you are going to develop
11
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
faster. And I don't know why we want to develop faster. And I couldn't
understand why ue were so concerned about being out of developable land just so
we could develop faster. But it's done. When we moved the MUSA line, we opened
this area up for development and I think the day that was done ue really,
whether we liked it or not, approved this project. That's why we moved the
line to develop. So there's no one here speaking against it. Everybody's seems
to be speaking for it and I don't have any reason not to with one exception.
we're going to start running across open country to provide sewer and water to
outlying development, and I realize they aren't going to happen all in order.
just want to make sure that we're not forcing developable. We're not forcing
someone to sell their land. That we're not forcing out seniors and that we're
just not creating hardships for people that would prefer to be left alone.
We're done that with the 1 unit per 10 acre so I guess it's hard for me to vote
against this. I think we've sort of already made the decision to do it. The
issue comes down to some very fine points. Who's going to pay for what studies
and when and I'm assuming these things are going to roll. $o maybe it really
isn't a point to argue about at this point.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess I see two different things here. One is sort of a major
issue with the Council being as it is now. Two going off and two additional
coming on. I'm not sure what position they may take or could possibly put this
particular project down. And I'm not trying to speak for them but I'm just
trying to cover some of those aspects of it. And the majority may be different
than what it is right now. They may favor the project or maybe not favor the
project. But my own thinking on this would be to have had the new Council on
board to come up with that kind of decision making and I was going to, Tom's
giving me the smirky smile there. I was going to bring the issue forward to say
tabling of this at this particular time. But here again I'm not sure. The
other concern that I have is one of the things too that Richard picked up on.
don't want to see the forcing of this but more of less the hardship that is born
by the other people in and adjacent to that particular area, and I do have
concerns for those people and I've indicated that the last time that I had seen
that take place. The other thing too is that, my understanding is that
Lundgren's are willing to put up the $40,000.00 plus, or whatever it was.
don't remember the total dollars right now but the additional dollars for doing
the plans and specs. And yet if the so choosing is of the developer not to
continue with this, then the City turns around and eats those costs. Terry?
Terry Forbord: Your Honor, I did not interpret that in the staff report and
that is not the position of Lundgren Bros. The position is that if the City
renigs, the City should pay. If Lundgren Bros renigs, it should be solely our
responsibility. Excuse me for interrupting.
Mayor Chmiel: No, I appreciate you. Normally I wouldn't allow it but I do
appreciate you getting up and doing it at this particular time because that is
something that I wanted clarified. And I think by just saying it the way I did
caused that little bit of flame to come up and that's good. But anyway, that
part of some of my concerns for this. So that was one of the thlngs that I had
mentioned or that I'm stating of tabling this for the next.
Councilwoman Oimler: I will second your motion to table.
12
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
Mayor Chmiel: Well, I won't entertain a motion as yet because I do want some
discussion.
Councilwoman Dimler: Oh, I thought that was your motion.
Mayor Chmiel: I do want some discussion. Tom.
Councilman Workman: I agree with all the discussion and Mayor and Ursula, I'm
going to respect you guys to the end. I think we have a unique situation here
in that we have in the path of any kind of development, maybe things we didn't
really, we talked about them during the Comprehensive Plan update but I don't
think we really recognized the im~act of a large 175 acre Eckankar property. We
didn't, who knows what Prince Roger Nelson's going to do. The Song property.
That large tract that they don't care if they develop it in 20 years maybe.
Jerome Carlson. Not your average property owner. He doesn't need to develop.
Probably won't. All these big tracts out in. the middle that potentially would
never have to develop so we have the Oolesji's and the Turner's and people on
the other side who are going to be, could be trapped. Now is that our problem
or is that our worry? I guess it doesn't have to. be. If we were thinking
about, Eckankar was thinking about developing. If the properties on the way
were kind of in a gradual 5 year, we're thinking about doing it. We're on our
way to thinking about doing it. Not that I want to force them to ch> it. I
think it would be different. But those properties are now out there and within
the MUSR line and want to take advantage of that and are not because of, not
what is our problem or our fault. You know Jerome Carlson has some of the most
successful businesses in town as the memo states, and we did the exact same
thing to get his businesses in there. So he understands what's going on here.
I think everybody does. The frontage road that was mentioned from Powers Blvd.
all the way down to TH 41 is going to cause some problems. Eckankar doesn't
have any desire to develop the bottom portion of their parcel. They don't want
a road through there. So do we lose the opportunity for that road to. go all the
way to TM 41 from Powers Blvd if Eckankar won't allow us to at the very
beginning of that road? I think we,re taking, action to make sure that it does
happen for safety reasons, etc.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I don't disagree with some of your analogy but the City has
a right for condemnation to take that property, of which we more than likely
will do. But yet the road in itself is a necessary evil for the access into
Lake Ann and also for the safety of the residents within the community. To have
a parkway or a service road in and adjacent to that. To Highway 5.
Councilman Workman: Rnd that's necessary for us. What's necessary for the
property owners further to the west is something different. We just happen to
have the power of condemnation.
Councilwoman Oimler: But then they have paid. We won't pay them for...pay to
have it done when they don't want it.
Councilman Workman: I'm just trying to make the point that we're never, ever
going to have every parcel from Powers Blvd out to TH 41 in agreement with this
Council or the next one or the one after that as to when's a good time to do
this. And it's a tough decision but I'm prepared to make it and that's why I'm,
this Council did the work on this for 2 years so I'm ready to make the decision.
13
City Council Meeting - December
Not leave it to people who may not want to make the decision you know in
January.
Mayor Chmiel: Well yeah, but I only introduced that for additional thought into
what the whole matter is. Because they will still come back for the
finalization of what's belng proposed. This ls just the plans and specs.
Councilman Workman: My problem is the last two meetings we've done the exact
same thlng. This will be the third meeting ina row that we've done that and we
maybe shouldn't have gotten it onto this agenda but I'm hearing the same, we're
doing the same tabling to learn more about it and I don't know what else there
is to learn. It's just, I think it's just a tough decision.
Mayor Chmiel: Well it's a tough decision and tabling is the easy part of it but
yet I'm trying to enter in all the things that are our concerns or that have
been concerns over the perlod of time that we've discussed it. I'm just
reiterating again some of the things.
Councilman Wing: I want to piggyback on Tom because everytime we table it, I
keep asking myself why. I mean let's either not develop or let's develop. Let's
either move or not move but we keep tabling it but what's changed. Tom's
comments that lt's the same issues and the same discussion and lt's kind of
almost wasting my time. Let's either move or not move. Tabllng tt, if that's
what we choose to do, let's be up front and simply not develop and let's not go
at it all thls tlme. I'm happy with that. Let's put a 12 month hold on this
whole thlng until we can olarify the alt and see what Jerome's going to do and
what all ls golng to occur. But in 1leu of that, nothlng's changed and I think
that I'd like to see this Council that has the history and the background and
the education, that's worked with thls thing from ground zero to make that
decision to move or not. Now the final plans can well fall on the new Council
but wlth all due respect, I think this is the group that has the background and
history to really make the decision whether to more or not move. So if we're
going to table it, I need to know why and what are we going to accomplish. And
if there's not a specific reason to table, then I'd like to drop this whole
lssue for a few months and look at in the sprtng when the trees start to bud
Mr. Mayor.
Councilwoman Oimler: I guess I'd like to speak in favor of tabling obviously.
Sometimes when you table it gives people a chance to move and I know they want
the Councll to be the lmpetus to get the whole thlng movlng and I don't know if
we should play that roie. I think they ought to come together on their own and
come to us and bring us a completed plan with all the properties a11gned.
Mayor Chmiel: I don't know if Mr. Carlson's out of town or not but I would have
expected to have seen hlm here thls evening and to take a position. And not
being here gives me the posltion of maybe he doesn't care of what way it really
goes. And so I would entertain a motion.
Councilwoman Dimler: I move to table.
Councilman Mason: Why don't I get my two cents in here first. I would have to
concur wlth Councilman Workman and Councilman Wlng. I agree that this has been
on our desks for quite some tlme now and I don't, I've heard property owners
14
City Council Meeting - December
saying they want to go for it. I haven't really heard any real cogent reasons
from the podium at this point to say no...
Councilwoman Oimler: The reason I would like to table it is so that they can
get their act together without having us. Z just resent anyone wanting us to be
the impetus so the whole developments goes.
Councilman Mason: I guess I don't see us as being the impetus here. Somebody's
asking.
Councilwoman Oimler: Obviously somebody's playing games with the land.
Councilman Mason: Somebody wants a feasibility study. It was petitioned. It
is in the MUSA line. It's their right to do that so ! guess ! don't share your
concern on that.
Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, but also bring us what you really want. Don't play
games is what I'm saying. Z think they want us to be the impetus to get the
whole thing going and then they'll all jockey around for best position for
themselves. That's the way I see it. So I think it's premature.
Councilman Wing: The only person that's come in and asked for this has been
Lundgren Bros specifically to develop one parcel and even come in with plans and
[ thought it was rolling. All of a sudden it hinges on giving them sewer and
water but they're in the MUSA line and .I guess I'm kind of surprised we're not
giving them sewer and water. They're not asking for anything except sewer and
water to their land in the MUSA line. My only question would remain, is there
anybody enroute that's getting clobbered and I don't see anybody.
Councilwoman Dimler: Well they're not here tonight but obviously with the huge
assessments.
Councilman Wing: But see on the assessments, I don't see any. There's a
$1,600.00 one and an $830.00 one. I don't see anybody getting hit. If I saw a
$32,000.00 assessment against some family or somebody that owned 10 acres, and
Rottlund is.
Councilwoman Oimler: Have the assessments come down since last time?
Councilman Wing: They're all here and the highest one I saw was about, maybe
you can address that Charles. I'm not going to explain that.
Charles Folch: Yeah the assessment roll that is contained in your packet' is the
same roll that was in your last packet at the previous Council meeting. There
have been no changes. You have one roll or schedule that shows the predicted
initial assessment revenue schedule and you also have one that predicts an
ultimate condition. In the initial schedule basically have used the policy that
you established on similar projects for the large lot, small acreage. 10 acre
increment hobby farm type properties were only assessed I trunk unit per 10
acres and that's what you'll see accordingly in that initial assessment roll.
Laterals, the full benefit of the lateral assessment has also been incurred in
that schedule and that primarily effects the properties that are intending to
develop.
15
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. What is this Brett Davidson for $4G,000.007
Charles Folch: Is that, you may be looking at that under an ultimate condition.
If potential unlts that oould be generated.
Councilman Wing: Total assessable.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay...is that initlal conditions?
Mayor Chmiel: That's Appendix B, Initial Conditions.
Councilwoman Dtmler: But that seems rather hlgh for me to put on somebody.
Phil Gravel: Councilperson Dimler. Staff asked us to prepare three difference
lnltial scenarios and I thlnk you're looking at page 12. Are you?
Councilwoman Oimler: Wherever these, it says $46,416.00.
Phil Gravel: Right. That is a scenario where we assumed that Mr. Davidson's
property would also develop. I'm sure you're aware that the Rottlund Companies
ls in an agreement to develop the Klingelhutz property ad3acent to the Davidson
property and it's our understanding, and staff's understanding that they're also
talklng to the Davldson people about developing their property. So one of the
three scenarios we looked at was to include the Oavidson property. I think if
you would look at say Sheet 6. I'm sorry, Sheet 9 has a scenario where
Davidson's property does not develop and tn that case the assessment there is
$3,868.00.
Councilwoman Oimler: Okay.
Councilman Workman: Can I make a motion7
Mayor Chmiel: Sure.
Councilman Wing: There's a motion out to table lsn't there?
Councilwoman Oimler: Nobody seconded it.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, nobody seconded it. I see that I think we should move on
with this and I agree with some of the analogies that we've had here on changing
at least my mlnd. I see that we have to come up with a conclusion as to how and
what direction we're golng to go. And I think we've sat on this long enough.
We either approve it or not approve and I would entertain a motion.
Councilman Workman: I would make the motion simply as stated in the December
1992 staff report. Charles' letter to Don Ashworth on page 3. Do I need to
read that?
Don Ashworth: Basically what you would be doing is ordering the pro3ect and
requesting that plans and specifications be prepared.
Councilman Wing: Could I clarify that? The sewer and water will be runnlng
south on Galpln to pick up the Klingelhutz/Rottlund proposal? There's two
16
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
separate issues here. Is that the one we're looking at where we're going to run
south on Galpin and pick up that area and west to the Lundgren?
Charles Folch: At this point that's correct, yeah. It's the full project.
Councilman Mason: I'll second the motion.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Motion's on the floor with a second. Any other
discussion?
Resolution ~F)2-143: Councilman #orkman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to
authorize the preparation of plans and specifications for Project 92-5 as a
429 public improvement project with the costs of the project assessed back to
all lateral benefitting property owners and s[multaneously-requiring that
Lundgren Bros and Rottlund Homes put in place a letter-of credEt or other
security to guarantee the costs of the plans and.specifications. If they decide
not to move forward with their development plans or ask that the city not a~ard
the construction contract, the letter of credit #ovid. be.cashed. All voted
favor and the motion carried.
(Councilman Wing left the meeting at this point.)
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSZDER APP~I~ ~OOIFTC~TIO~ tO. 12 TO THE REDEUELOPtENT
PLAN AND TaX [NCREHENT FZNAflClN6 PLAN FOR THE CHANHASSEN DOWNTOWN REDEUELOPflENT
PRO3ECT.
Todd Gerhardt: Mr. Mayor, Council members. Included in your packet is a public
hearing notice for Modification No. 12 to the Redevelopment Plan. Under. this
plan you have approximately four mod/f/cations that exist. One, is for land
write down for the Target store. Two, is the acquisition of Taco Shop and Apple
Valley Red-E-Mix. Three is.
Mayor Chmiel: Can I have it quiet in the Council Chamber please?
Todd Gerhardt: Three would deal with the conference center/recreational center
land acquisition and development. And four would be that the HRA commit certain
dollars for additional expenditures which will be the mutual benefit of the HRA
to Carver County and School District #112 for roadway improvements and.land
write down for future school site development.~' This is a public hearing under
State law. -''
-.
Mayor Chmiel: This is a public heartng. Is there anyone wishing to address the
Council at this particular time? This is-your opportunity'
Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor. We did receive today a letter from the School
District supporting the plan amendments. [ distributed a copy of those to all
Council members. It should have been in your separate pile of handouts.
Mayor Chmiel: If I see no one wishing to address this, can I have a motion to
close the public hearing?
17
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
Councilman Hason moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to close the public
hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was
closed.
Councilman Workman: I would move to approve.
Mayor Chmlel: Is there a second with discussion?
Councilman Mason: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: Oiscussion?
Resolution ~92-144: Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Hason seconded to
approve the resolution approving Hodification No. 12 to the Redevelopment and
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Chanhassen Downtown Redevelopment Project.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
AWARD OF BIDS: NORTH LEG TRUNK HIGHWAY IO1,..PRO3ECT 88-22B.
Mayor Chmiel: Charles. Where is Charles?
Councilman Workman: Mr. Mayor, understanding that he's out probably setting up
sewers or something. I thlnk it's fairly simple. I had a question for Charles
today about how do we award blds and recognizing why we're awarding them. How
do we award bids when we don't know how South Shore Orlve is going to be treated
and he told me that MnDot has declded to leave that lnterseotlon alone as the
plan stated, which is a right-in and a right-out. And it would leave West 77th
Street alone whlch means for those Council members remaining, less polltics in
the coming year. So I've been keeping an eye on this. Obviously I live nearby
and it seems to be a most satisfactory way to go. I would move approval if we
want to by-pass Charles a little bit.
Councilwoman Dimler: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Motion on the floor with a second. Thank you Charles, we
appreciate that.
Resolution.~92-145: Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Oimler seconded to
award the bid for the Trunk Highway 101 North Leg Realignment Project No. 88-22B
to C.S. HcCrossan Construction Inc. in the amount of $1,488,449.04. All voted
in favor and the motion carried.
UTILITY BILL APPEAL, STATEWIDE AUTO SALVAGE, LAVERNE VASSAR.
Mayor Chmiel: Who will cover this for item number 5? Charles are you going to
cover 5?
Don Ashworth: I can. This item had been tabled from the last meeting as Mr.
Vassar had questions of billing associated with a few other parcels. I had Oave
Hempel revlew each of the parcels that Mr. Vassar questioned and the Councll has
a copy of that report. I continue to find his property being treated equal as
others and would recommend that the bill as established contlnue in place.
18
City Council Meeting - December
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Mr. Vassar.
LaVerne Vassar: I'd like to know what the City of Chanhassen is furnishing ee
for $1,200.00 last year and $900.00 this year? and I'd. like a letter to that.
What you're furnishing me for what I'm paying for. Because you're furnishing me
blue sky is what you're furnishing me.
Don Ashworth: Paul, would you go through some of the objectives that are trying
to be accomplished through the storm water plan? Or potentially cite the
documents that Mr. Vassar might come in and review to basically respond to the
question he just posed.
LaVerne Vassar: That's not what I asked you. ! asked you what you're
furnishing me. That's what I'm asking you. What you're furnishing me. Not
what your plans are. What you're furnishing me at today.
Don Ashworth: But a plan represents what it is this city is attempting to
accomplish.
LaVerne Vassar: Well that might be lO0 years from now.
Don Ashworth: I don't think it will be quite that long. Paul, could you.
Mayor Chmiel: Paul, would you like to address that?
Paul Krauss: Well, to put it in context. I've been asked by several
homeowners, or a number of homeowners, where does my $3.22 every quarter go to
because [ want my improvements now. You often find that there isn't a specific
improvement, certainly not one that $3.22 a quarter buys but what we've done to
date with the Surface Water Management Program. You saw one of the results
tonight when we developed our new wetland protection ordinance. That's now in
place. We have the entire city drainage basins modeled. We are now having
development install appropriate on site ponding and water quality control
improvements. We are developing and have. developed a lake protection plan.
We're going to be doing some construction projects this winter and spring to
improve lake water quality in a series of lakes like Lotus Lake, Lake Riley.
We've developed an educational program. Our planning effort is going to be
completed later this spring and from there on we'll be doing a series of
projects all around the community having a direct and beneficial impact on water
quality and storm drainage.
LaVerne Vassar: .You still haven't answered, me, what you're furnishing
You're charging me a usery fee for something I'm not getting. Blue.sky. That's
exactly what it is.
Mayor Chmiel: Do you have a response to that? You needn't but.
Paul Krauss: Well, you know the only response I can give is there are going to
be improvements all around the community for the betterment of the entire
community and all it's residents, and corporate citizens-as well. Not everybody
is going to have a specific construction project tn their front yard but the
entire community will benefit. The. Minnesota. River will benefit. Our lakes and
wetlands will benefit. And I think the idea behind this was {hat this is a
19
City Council Meeting - December 14. 1992
community wide program. The purpose of this program was not to show individual
benefit for each person, each household, each business contributing. But in
total everybody benefits.
Mayor Chmiel: In the long run basically is what you're saying that everybody
within the city directly benefits from the assessments that we're putting to
with the proposals that we've had running with our respective positions that
we've taken with the group. Okay. So with that Mr. Vassar I'm going to call a
question on this for discussion with Council. Hike, do you have anything to
say? Thomas?
Councilman Workman: No I don't.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, nor do I. In looking and reading what I've seen within the
memo, I do concur wlth what's here. And with that I would call a question or
motion to accept the surface water utility bill for Mr. Vassar and the Statewide
Auto Salvage PW2OTB.
Councilman Workman: Is that a motion?
Mayor Chmlel: I will make that a motlon.
Councilman Workman: I'll second it.
Christine Haut: Can I ask a question?
Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Yes, I'll give you the floor at
this time. Would you please come up to the podium and state your name and your
address please?
Christine Haut: Christine Haut. I'm the other half of him. How is Chanhassen
benefitting from this program from an auto salvage place? That's what I'd like
to know.
Mayor Chmiel: I think as Paul has indicated, not only with the auto salvage is
doing and what's benefitting from that but the entirety of the community is
benefitting from what we're doing to clean the lower watershed district as to
what we're proposing.
Christine Haut: Okay, I still don't understand how the community is going to
benefit from an auto salvage dealership with water runoff.
Mayor Chmiel: Paul, maybe you can go into the Minnesota River water proposal
which has come forward on the clean-up portion of that. And this all ties in
together wlth that as well.
Paul Krauss: Well, yeah. One of the underlying goals of the program is
virtually all our water that runs off the community and off your site, winds up
in the Minnesota Rlver. Minnesota Rlver ls the most, it's the worst polluted
river in the state. The Governor has set a program to clean tt up. The Fedearl
Environmental Protection Agency ls suing the Metropolitan Waste Control
Commission to clean it up. The long and the short of it is, if the river does
not wlnd up appreciably cleaner by lgg4, everybody living in the Minnesota River
2O
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
basin and the metro area is going to suffer and there will be direct costs
attributed with very expensive improvements to the BLue Lake and Seneca
Treatment Plants that won't accomplish a darn thing but will satisfy the Federal
suit. They may well shut down business and development in the southwestern
suburban area. There's any number of calamities that really are serious.
mean this is the Federal Government-suing State and Regiona1 Government. Z mean
they've already thrown down the gauntlet. Chanhassen's water quality program is
one of the best in the region. We in Eagan have had pioneering efforts in the
Minnesota River. Everybody is going to do that. 'Be doing that. Either
voluntarily or by force, one way or the other, in-the very near future., We're
way ahead of the game. Now that's, If you want to know, that's going to be
direct costs born by every residential and commercial property owner in the
Minnesota River basin. We're doing. It much cheaper, much easier and a much
better plan.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. Tom.
Councilman Workman: Mr. Mayor maybe, I'd like to maybe ask a parcel specific
question and that being Mr. Yassar's specific parcel. Do we know to what extent
Mr. Vassar's parcel is polluting wetlands and the Minnesota. I know his
property's surrounded by Federal land. Has the Federal Government taken steps
to assure us that his saivage yard isn't in fact a potential super fund site?
Paul Krauss: Well, unfortunately kind of for me it gets into the area of
conjecture and hearsay. We know that, well I've had conversations with Tom
Larson who runs the Minnesota Wildlife Refuge. He is concerned about potential
runoff from this site and it's Impact upon wildlife habitat in the vaIiey. But
there's no specifics that we're aware of at this point in time, and frankly our
program isn't designed to deal with super fund type Issues. We've also heard,
well the County has inspected the site. The County Environmentalist. Scott, is
that the position? Has inspected the site in the past. They found no direct
violations, [ think tt was 2 years ago. So while there may-be some suspicions,
there's no.
Councilman Workman: What would be the City of Chanhassen's liability in this
situation.were it to be found to be a super fund site?
Paul Krauss: Perhaps that's something the City Attorney can respond to. ['m
not sure of the answer.
Roger Knutson: You probably have no direct financial responsibility unless some
of our cars were there. If they are, potentially...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. And with that I'd like to cai! the question. Motion's
been on the floor with a second.
Councilwoman Dimler: What is the motion?
Mayor Chmiel: The motion is that Mr. Vassar still is required to pay the amount
as indicated for the surface water utiltty bill, referencing PW2OTB.
Councilwoman Olmler: The rate stays the same you're saying?
21
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
Hayor Chmiel: That's correct.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, thank you.
Hayor Chmtel moved, Councilman Workman seconded that no credit or adjustment be
made to the surface water uttlity bill is warranted at this time for the
Statewide Auto Salvage. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
APPROVE AGREEHENT WITH CITY O.F SHOREWQ~J~, TO PROVIDE UTILITY SERVICE FOR A
RESIDENTII~L SUBDIVISZ_ON, NORTH OF KOEI'INE:N CIRCLE. 3EFF I,I.,TLLIAttS.
Paul Krauss: Thank you Mr. Mayor. In 1987 the City approved an agreement to
serve three lots off of Koehnen Clrcle in Shorewood on thls subdivision slte for
an earlier property owner. At that polnt in time the City was going to provide,
originally water and then, I'm sorry originally sewer and then ultimately water
service. Access was going to be provided by a private driveway to these three
lots. The development was never built. I've asked the City ~ttorney for an
oplnion and we believe the original agreement is still in force. It was
endorsed by everybody but the development never took place. Mr. Willlams
acquired the property, or is in the process of acquiring the property and
lnquired as to the possibility of revlslng the plat. The plat would be revlsed
to allow 5 lots, all agaln in the neighboring city, which would be served by a
public street to Koehnen Circle. It raised a number of lssues for us in terms
of intercommunity cooperation. In terms of fees. In terms of possible
annexation. In terms of a number of things and what we ultimately did ls
Chanhassen staff, the developer, met with the $horewood staff to try and iron
out the issues. Frankly we went into that meetlng thlnklng that annexation was
appropriate since we're going to be providing on the face of it, access, sewer
and water and utilities. Then lt's only reasonable to thlnk that slnoe we're
providing most of the services, we should reap most of the benefits. However,
we dld have a lengthy discussion and it seems that there are a number of
instances back and forth across the Shorewood city line where in cases we have
developments that use thelr parks. We have properties that draln their way.
The reverse is true and that since the principle was already established of
having a cooperative agreement to handle thls, that we should work along those
lines to develop a new 1992 cooperative agreement to handle this. What we came
to terms with is outlined in terms of potential set of resolutions that are in
the staff report and briefly, basically as we discussed, Chanhassen would
provlde sewer and water services and we would maintaln them. The developer
would be responsible for all construction in a normal manner subject to a
development agreement, ge would b111 the residence in $horewood dlrectly for
those services. We would also bill them for a surface water management fee
because the water's dralnlng down into our community. $1nce the slte does drain
south, we do have some concerns because we don't, at present we're not convinced'
there's sufficient ponding provided on slte. One of the thlngs that's st111
needs to be resolved and it's more of a technical matter, is to have their
englneer work wlth our englneer and Bonestroo to figure out how much on slte
pondlng is needed to meet Chanhassen standards or volume and for quality and to
the extent that that can't be provided on site, we're going to want the
developer to pay into our $WMP fund to build those facilities downstream and we
may need to build those facilities immediately, ifa potential floodlng problem
would result and then that needs to be worked out. But again it's more of a
technical problem and it ls outlined in the proposed agreement. We agreed that
22
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
we would seek a park dedication fee since there are numerous s/tuat[ons where
our residents use their parks and it was really unclear as to, you know [f there
was any preponderance of benefit one way or the other. The new street would be
built to meet City of Chanhassen standards. The new street would be maintained
by Shorewood. That sect[on that's [n Shorewood. Shoreuood, in kind of a unique
twist realized that they'd have to send a snowplow down there anyway so they are
agreeing to plow our street [n the process of getting to this street so there's
a little bit of a cost advantage for us. As with the earlier agreement, Koehnen
Circle's a pretty inadequate street and built to an old standard and not in
terribly good shape. [t needs to be upgraded at some point tn the future. We
will have institutionalized the fact that those 5 lots in Shorewood must
contribute towards the improvement of Koehnen Circle. So [ mean there ts an
advantage here. Yes, there will be-more traffic on this street but on the other
hand, when the dollars need to be expended to [mproveKoehnen Circle, there's
more homes to distribute it against so the cost per household would be less. The
proposed plat exceeds, [ mean if it were in our community; tt exceeds our.
standards for lot size. These are fairly good sized lots. One of the reasons
we wanted to get this agreement onto the Council tonight Is first of'all to get
your review of it and input on lt. But-also to prov[de-'an opportunity for any
neighborhood residents that were concerned with this, to be given an opportunity
to speak. To the best of my knowledge the neighborhood residents really'haven't
been involved In this since 1987 when the original:agreement'-was made.' This Is
2 more lots than the original'proposal and a lot'of time has:passed since then
so we did not[fy all the residents. Now [ don't know if any are here tonight. [
haven't been contacted by them'but we.did notify them.-. : :'
...
Mayor Chmiel: Let me ask the question Paul. Is there anyone here regarding
this item this evening?
Paul Krauss: Well good. With that we are recommending that the'Council
authorize entering into an agreement with the City of Shorewood based upon the 8
principles established here. If you do approve tt tonight, what we would have
the City Attorney do is draft [t up, put it tn legal language for your signature
Mr. Mayor and the City Manager's and then we'd get it over to Shorewood.
Shorewood has told us that they are awaiting-your action before they take act[on
on the plat but they have every reason to believe that the plat will be
approved.
Mayor Chm[el: Thank you. Sitting here and thinking about some of these things
that we've got. I'd like to put one more condition on there. [ know that we
have had discussion with Shorewood staff indicating that they are not in
agreement to expand our boundaries. I'd like to offer a sacrificial lamb as our
City Manager to go before the City Council and what I'd like to do is to put the
additional condition. Not to stop the project but an appeal to the City of
Shorewood Council to acquire just one lot of those 5 and I'm going back again to
those CBDG funds that we are toying with back and forth. With the Federal
government as well as the Secretary of HUD. Because of the elimination of our
homes on Highway 5 which were in Hennepln County. This then would give us one
residence and possibly would, without going through additional legislation, be
introduced by the Senate and House. Maybe we can work out some kind of an
arrangement with the City. So I'd like that as one more condition [n there.
Councilman Workman: Motion to approve?
23
City Council Meeting -Oecember 14, 1992
Mayor Chmiel: Any discussion? Anyone wishing to address this at this time?
Councilman Workman: I'd move approval.
Mayor Chmiel: And a second?
Councilman Mason: Sure. If he moved, I'll second. Sure.
Mayor Chmiel: Any discussion?
Councilwoman Oimler: I think it's well thought out.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Nason seconded that the City Council
authorize entering into an agreement with the City of Shorewood and the
developer to provide utilities and access in a manner consistent with the
guidelines outlined in the staff report and directing the City Attorney to draft
the agreement for the appropriate signatures. The developer will be required to
enter into a development contract with the City of Chanhassen concerning public
improvements. Resolution of matters dealing with storm drainage shal! be
resolved to the satisfaction of the City of Chanhassen prior to issuance of any
building permits in the proposed subdivision. Also, that the City Manager go
before the Shorewood City Council with an appeal to acquire just one lot of the
5 to qualify for CBOG funds. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
OAK PONDS/OAK HILL, LOCATED NORTH OF WEST 78TH STREET BETWEEN KERBER BOULEVARD
AND POWERS BOULEVARD, LOTUS REALTY:
A. PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR 112 RENTAL UNITS AND
105 TOWNHOMES AND A CLUB HOUSE/OFFICE ON 27.04 ACRES OF PROPERTY,
B. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR A SEOIMENT.~.TION BASIN AOJACENT. TO A CLAS~ B
WETLAND; AND MODIFICATION OF AN .EXISTING SEDIMENTATION PONO.
Public Present:
Name Address
Brad Johnson
Arvid Ellness
Kirk Willette
Kay Halla
Bill Oolan
Dave Callister
Tim Anderson
Bob Bohara
Lotus Realty
Arvid Ellness and Associates
Arvid Ellness and Associates
Halla Nursery & Landscaping
Engineer
7540 Canyon Curve
7550 Canyon Curve
7510 Canyon Curve
Kate Aanenson: On November 4th the Planning Commission recommended approval of
the preliminary plat and the site plan as well as the PUD approval. This item
went before the Planning Commission. Took a couple hours of lengthy discussion
with the neighbors and they certainly have a lot of concerns. I handed out to
you a letter addressed with today's date that identified their four areas of
concern I would still like to see addressed. Just to go back and revisit this,
when this project first came before the City, it is zoned R-12. The staff
worked with the applicant to proceed with the PUD zone because we felt with the
24
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
development contract and the PUD agreement there were certain things that we
could assure to make sure £t got put In the project. I'm going to go through
those specifically but what I'd like to do at this time is just revisit the
original concept plan so I can show you where we moved as this project has moved
along. If you'll recall back in July when it went through conceptual approval,
this was the original project. It had three 16 unit buildings and I think the
staff would concur and you certainly did and the Planning Commission did and
I know the residents did, that the L& unit buildings were too big in their
massing and their view from the residents. So the developer did eliminate
those. In addition, some of the other things that were taken out of the
original proposal was the trail along the backs of the oak trees. The neighbors
felt that this was an intrusion into their privacy. There ts deer in the area
and they wanted that left in a natural vegetative state and that's again one of
the things that we could put into the PUD agreement. And we agree with too that
that area below the line of the oak trees should be left tn a natural area.
Again some of the other Issues was the orientation of the buildings here and
those have been reoriented. And then the other major issue was the buildings up
in here. The most northerly ones. Again, too large and too close to the
neighbors and then the fact that they were rental. Having-said that, the plan
that we're putting forward today has been revised to reflect a different
configuration. Those 16 units were revised and are now a series of 8 unit
buildings and this area up in here was revised to be single family and again the
face of those have been broken so they have a singular townhouse look to them.
What I'd like to do is Just go through. Again, the total number of units has
been decreased. It originally had 240 units. It's now been decreased to the
single family, I mean the rental units were 72. Excuse me. The owner occupied
was 72 and 168 rentals. That was in the original proposal. It has now been
reduced to 217. A total of 23 units have been eliminated since the original
proposal. The owner occupied has been increased from 72 to a total of 10S so 33
more units are now owner occupied. Again this directly reflects a concern that
the residents have. Again, that also reduced as this project went along the
total units per acre. The net, which is 9.6 which is significantly less than
what she could get under the development proposal. So the staff feels that the
massing of the buildings, the smaller type units, plus the fact that he's way
under the density is all positive as far as the changes that have been made.
Again some of the concerns that the neighbors have is the proximity to, this is
really the critical area now. The orientation and ! know that the developer has
to try to reconfigure those but again that's a concern and I'm certain he will
address that specifically but again that's a factor.of the grading. And one of
the concerns that the staff had when this first came'forward is.to look at
preservation of the topography and the trees itself. One of the things that the
residents asked for was concern about lighting in the rears of the buildings.
Certainly that's something that will be put into the development contract and
that lighting plan has been shown on the site plan. Staff feels comfortable
that meets the neighbors concerns. In addition, the residents were concerned
with the roofline and these two buildings in here and then 1/3 portion of this
will have a different roofline look to it trying to reduce the massing of the
building and give it a more residential, or similar look t.o the homes in their
neighborhood. Again as I mentioned before, the neighbors were concerned about
maintaining that natural look around the wetlands and that's certainly something
we would put into the PUD contract that that be preserved and that a minimal
area behind the units be maintained and the rest would be left in a natural
area. The other concern was screening and the timing with the landscaping plan.
25
City Council Heeting - December 14, 1992
Behind the buildings, again what would be ideal was to leave the existing trees.
In addition there was concern that they wanted some high growing, deciduous
trees. Some fast growing deciduous trees to do some blocking but in addition
those would loose their leaves so there was additional conifers put in. In one
of our meetings with the residents, the idea was put forward that some trees
should be left out and then when the buildings went in, let me back up. The
landscaping should go in first, even before the buildings go in so they have a
chance to grow. Because that would be in Phase 2, we would recommend that the
landscaping go in with the first building in Phase 1. But then some trees be
left out and at the time that the buildings are put in, the neighbors would have
the opportunity to look at the sitings and see where the trees would be put in
specifically to do them the most benefit as far as blocking views so they can
enjoy the privacy of their backyards and that's something again we would put
into the PUD contract. In the most recent...reflected changes since the last
Planning Commission meetlng. We met and we looked at how these could be pulled
forward. They were both pulled forward approximately 5-6 feet to try to get
them further away and save some exlstlng trees. One of the oondltlons that
the Planning Commission had that has been met was a traffic study, and I put the
recommendations of the trafflc study and those certainly can be met by the
developer. One of the things that the staff has requested that the residents
give consideration to put in the PUD agreement ls the color of the buildings and
we'd 11kw to hear thelr comments on that. And I mentioned the trail being taken
out. Again that was a concern of the residents. I'm not going to go back
through the whole of the PUD zoning but I would just like to say, reiterate the
fact that the staff feels that under the PUD agreement we feel that thls ls the
best way for this project to go forward and we would recommend approval, as dld
the Planning Commission, of the preliminary plat, the PUD and the site plan
approval.
Hayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you Kate. Is there anyone at this time wishing to
address Counc117 Brad.
Brad Johnson: Hr. Hayor, members of the Council. Hy name is Brad Johnson. I
live at 7425 Frontier Trail. I'm the developer. I'd like to introduce the
other members of the team that are here tonlght. Kay Halla, who is the
Landscape Architect. Bill Oolan who is the engineer for the project. Arvid
E11ness of Arvid E11ness and Associates who ls doing the plannlng of both the
units along with Kirk Willette and Klrk will be speaking for the architectural
group. What I'd 11kw to do ls just briefly summarize for you where I thlnk we
are on thls project but go back a 11ttle further to 1986 when this was
originally zoned to R-12. I don't know why it was but as part of both the then
existing comprehensive plan that the city had and also as part of the zoning
ordinance, it was zoned to be a R-12 unlt. I think as all part of the James
acquisition, for those of you who remember. When he bought all the property he
declded that the back portlon of it should be R-12 which is the old Kerber Farm.
And then later on when Saddlewood was done, or Saddlebrook, Rick Hurray had one,
about 5 or G acre parcel that was remaining that was north of what is now, south
of what is now is the ponds and so at that time that also was zoned R-12. The
property to the west ls zoned R-12. The property directly east of thls ls zoned
R-12 and the property south of this is our highest density, commercial property.
So at that time I belleve they felt that that was the proper way to go about lt.
I believe at the time, in talking to Rick, why he dtd it the way he did. He
felt that at the tlme the ponds that are now there but the previous flelds and
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
things like that, and the wetlands would be the buffer which is probably
anywhere from 150 to 200 feet between this particular project and the land
there, in 1989, or 1988 and '89 a previous project vas presented. ! had. the
priviledge of following that each time at one of these meetings. It was not
really accepted very well by the then Council and basically ! believe it was
tabled and sort of died. That particular project was a for sale townhouse
project. ! believe most people when they looked at that project assumed that
this would be a high density rental project and didn't know how to grasp it. At
least I did. ! remember I was kind of surprised when somebody came in with a
low density, for sale project on what ams perceived to be a high density rental
project at the time. So ! think everybody was a little bit surprised and
weren't quite ready for what they saw. It was turned down primarily, as I
listened, was because it pretty much destroyed the site. It just flatten
everything out and we had townhouses and really very little remaining of the
existing trees and of the existing terrain on the north side of the property.
In 1989, as part of that possibly, and also as part of the 3De Miller project
over here, the zoning ordinances were revisited and this property was identified
as one of those that could be done as an R-16 by a conditional use permit
through PUD if you provided the proper amount of parking. So all I'm really
saying here is that historically it's been focused on as a for rent project with
high density and that's been sort of the trend in this. I'd like now to quote
to you out of your comprehensive plan, which this Council adopted in 1991 with
the guidance of this particular group here. Rnd these are things you probably
are aware that are in this particular document but the first one is that the
goal of the comprehensive plan is to achieve a mixture of development which will
assure a high quality of life and a reliable tax base. Now this is a plan that
you adopted. The plan should seek to establish sufficient land to provide for a
full range of housing opportunities. These opportunities require adequate land
be designated for medium and high density land uses. The City, that's you, will
seek to discourage the conversion of these areas to lower density uses to insure
that the goal of housing diversity can be met regardless of various market
fluctuations. Later on you have also got in here that, and this is probably why
we're using the PUD. Housing development methods such as the PUD, cluster
development and innovative site plans and building types should be encouraged to
help conserve energy and the physical resources of the site. Then we talk about
what is high density. The high density category, which includes units with a
maximum net density of 16 units per acre accommodates apartments and higher
density condominiums. Within this category an average gross density of 8 units
per acre has been used as a recommendation for projects. This particular
project by the way, at this point, has exactly an average gross density of 8
units, and then for those of you that are concerned about us aging seniors.
Individuals in the empty nester segment represent &~ of Chanhassen's population
in 1980. Typically empty nesters desire higher quality, smaller housing units
once they decide to leave the single family homes which they raise their
children. It is not unusual for empty nesters to consider attached fores of
housing which eliminate the need for continuous exterior maintenance. At the
present time there is a need, this is 1991, for housing to accommodate this
group. At the present time there is a need for housing to accommodate this
group high quality, high amenity townhouse type, condominium type, or one fore
of housing which may help satisfy the empty nester demand. I guess I'm just
reading this to remind you that this Council wrote this book encouraging this
type of development as recently as one year ago. With regard both to this and
the fact that the last project probably did not take into consideration the
27
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
environmental aspects of this particular project, we have basically said well,
whatever happened last time ue don't want to do it again. So ue decided that
we'd try to preserve the oak trees that are on the site. Presently I believe
we're eliminating 2, at the most. And at the last Planning Commission they said
we could eliminate 1 or 2 more if it helped the neighbors. You know to try to
move some units around. So far us're trying not to do that because I think much
of the, and I'm just trying to balance it out. Much of the discussion so far
has been done based upon what people wilt see when they look at this. And we
also have to remember from the architect's point of view, what will you see when
you're in there because this is where the people will live. $o ue have to kind
of maintain some of the trees and things that are there. Another thing that
we've tried to do is not to disturb the hills to the north. And in doing that,
we have come up with three types of units. One type is the standard townhouse
unit that's being developed successfully throughout the community, and that fits
nicely on flat property. We have a row townhouse which is now on the northeast
corner which is designed to fit on a hilly slope. The reason we haven't had a
lot of those types of units in there, as we get up and try to build a tounhouse
on a hilly slope, it gets pricey. It gets kind of expensive to develop and we
don't know if the market's here for that and that's our risk. And then finally
we've designed a shared entry dwelling which fits nicely on the hills to the
northwest. And we think we've tried to accommodate the site and the unit type
in order to achieve that. We also feel that at the present time in today's
market that this site is marketable and it's possible for us to predict that
we'll be done with the project within the next 3 to 4 years. And that's what
we're really comfortable with. Combining in our case the units to the north
and the units to the south. Each one is different. Each one ue feel will fit a
particular market. That there's a need at the present time. I would like now
to ask our three, three of the people Just quickly review where we're coming
from at least on the site plan and the landscaping, just to bring you up to
date. So Kirk Willette wilt review briefly, the architectural plans and if you
have any questions of him while he's going through that, Kirk.
Kirk Willette: The overall plan is very similar to what we started with as far
as the buildings themselves, although ue have, as Brad mentioned, created a new
type of unit to the northeast corner in order to provide some for sale units up
in this corner as the neighbors were concerned about the rental units. The open
area. The changes to the site plan have occurred as we've dounsized from 260
units in the original plan to 217 units that ue have currently. As Brad
mentioned, the shared entry units that go along this ridge are a size that are
much smaller than these row homes and also the townhomes. One, in that they
have a single car garage which does have less space. And the units themselves
are a little bit smaller than what these respective unit is. The reason that
they are located on this side is because this side has the most...on the site
and ue wanted to work the buildings so they would sit and work with the natural
topography of the site as much as possible.
Hayor Chmiel: Could I just interrupt you for just a quick instance. You
mentioned something about single car garage.
Klrk Wlllette: For these units.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Accommodating one vehicle? One car garage?
28
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
Kirk Willette: Yes. For each unit. And then additional surface parking across
the street from that... As I mentioned, we were trying to maintain the
topography and follow.the natural hillside because these buildings sit high. At
the peak of the hill and then step down the site as the hill steps down. And
that whole tree line follows very close to that sase hillside and buildings as
they've been placed. The buildings, there are three. Three types of buildings.
This would be the shared entry buildings. They are 8 and 12 unit buildings. On
the street side, they have garages and a unit above them. On the backside they
have three units. The units that are closest to the neighbors to the north are
this type of building where it's mostly a 2 story building with a third story
dormer in order to lower that roof line and be more compatible with the
neighbors. These are the townhomes that step along the south side of the site.
They are an 8-plex type building. Four units on each side. Each unit is
approximately 1,400 square feet. They have each one has their own two car
garage. They also have a basement area. Rnd then this building, these are the
row houses that are occurring on the northeast corner and they are about the
same size. 1,400 square feet. They each have a two car garage. Host of the
work that's been done Just recently has been in this area as we've worked with
the neighbors and tried to pull these buildings down so we get more distance
from their units as well as preserving the trees that have been surveyed in this
area to save those trees.
Mayor Chmiel: How much further down did you bring that?
Kirk Willette: These two buildings actually came down. This building came down
about 10 feet. 10 to 15 feet. Thts one came, we t~pped the corner end probably
about 5 to 7 feet and by doing that we did, we were able to save another
existing tree.
Councilman Mason: So the stakes that are there now don't reflect that change,'
is that right?
Kirk Willette: Right. The building has moved away from the trees.., any
questions?
Mayor Chmtel: Yeah. The single car garages with additional parking facilities.
What total number of units is that going to consist of? How many units totally
with single car garages?
Kirk Willette: With the single car garages? That's going to be 112 units. And
then there's I 1/4. The total parking is 2 1/4 cars per unit...
Mayor Chmiel: Paul, were you going to say something?
Paul Krauss: Well Mr. Mayor, I'm sure you recall that we amended this ordinance
specifically because of concerns that were raised the first time this came up on
this slte. What we have here ls kind of an amalgam of a couple of different.
The ordinance was developed specifically to deal with zoning, you know R-4, R-8,
R-12, R-16 districts. And what it says is efficiency units must have 2 stalls,
1 of whlch must be enclosed in a garage. One bedroom and larger, 2 stalls, 1
1/2 of which must be enclosed in a garage. And what we've actually got is an
amalgam where you have all the owner occupied ones with 2 car garages.
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
Kate Aanenson: Plus some visitor parking.
Paul Krauss: Plus, well yeah. Plus exterior visitor parking and rental ones
have.
Kate Aanenson: 2.25. I just double checked.
Paul Krauss: So the ratio with enclosed? In the rental.
Kirk Willette: Is 1.
Paul Krauss: 1 to 1, which is pretty much what we've had. If you look at the
typical, you know a more typioal apartment building, they've only got the one in
the basement. Remember we went through the analysls that showed there was no
way to get more than 1 on a footprint of a typical 3 story building. So in
essence it meets the intent, which if you distribute it across the board, I
think we pretty much met the intent of the ordinance.
Mayor Chmiel: My concern is total number of units. Those are going to be
rental. You may have maybe 3 people within each of those rental units. You
could concelveably have sharing those costs. Therefore you're golng to wind up
with three vehicles. Automatically. What does that do with the congestion
wlthln that area? And I don't know if parking ls golng to be allowed on the
street for the emergency vehicles coming in.
Kate Aanenson: The average is, including the single car garage and the visitor
parking, would be 2.25. I think that's what Klrk 3ust satd and so there are,
bedroom unlts and a number of 2 bedroom and 3 bedrooms so I think the
distribution works out that with the
Mayor Chmiel: Looking at the worse scenario, you'd wind up with 117 more needed
parking spaces and you'd only have 2 and a 1/2 you said?
Kate Aanenson: 2.25 average.
Mayor Chmiel: 2 1/4. And how does the rest of that fit in looking at a worse
scenario, if it were to happen?
Kate Aanenson: I think the distribution works out because you've got 1 bedroom
unlts too.
Mayor Chmiel: Davenports that fold down and make into daybeds and I say this
because I know it's happening with some kids that I know that are in apartments.
Where they have a i bedroom apartment and there are 3 people living in lt.
Kate Aanenson: Well frankly the ordinance doesn't address, and the owner
occupled doesn't address havlng even vlsltor parklng. I think that's why we
felt it was important to put additional parking in.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I'm just concerned about parking uithln the area.
Kate Aanenson: Right, so we did make them put additional parking in the owner
occupied area too.
3O
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
Kirk Willette: In the apartments that we've done, and we've done thousands of
units in the metro area, typically we've been 1 l/Z to ~ cars per un£t for
rental and there's not been problems with parking and that has been...
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, that's always the statement that comes forth but once it's
put in, we have to live with it and that's my concern.
Brad Johnson: Mayor, as you'll recall, we did the Heritage Park Apartments...
we're running at about 1 1/2 cars...you can go over there anytime during the
evening and you'll find...
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, except you're talking 82 units with the Heritage, is that
correct? Total numbers? And we're talking totally on this 112 units.
Brad Johnson: Right. So we've got, we've increased the numbers. We're way
over the standard. Right Paul?
Paul Krauss: Yeah, I think so. But Mr. Mayor, additionally.
Mayor Chmiel: Assure me.
Paul Krauss: You can trust me. What we have is each rental unit here will be
given a garage. I mean £t's not optional llke tt is in many buildings where you
decide I'm not golng to rent this so everybody parks outside. So we have a
pretty good comfort level that we will have excess parking. Surplus parktng.
That ratio also only applies to the rental units. The owner occupled have a
greater perponderance of stalls because they have two car garages. You can park
out in front of them and then there's visitor parking as well. So there lsa
lot of flexibility in this plan.
Councilman Mason: I'm not sure if this is the ttme for thts question, so if
it's not.
Mayor Chmiel: Try lt.
Councilman Mason: And I understand there's some grading constraints but as I
look at this plan and as I see where the owner occupied units are and what their
view w111 be of downtown and I see where the rental units are going and what
their vlew will be, I think if I was going to buy something, I'd rather buy
where the rental unlts are going to be. If that makes any sense. With that in
mind, why can't some of those units be flipped around?
Kirk Willette: The reason is the land is such, the topography is such, the hill
starts right in this area...and it basically is having to flatten this site out
in order to get the type...to be built on that area. Because these buildings
need a much larger, flat pad than what this type of building needs. And this
worked on this side because of a gentle slope, fairly even slope that goes...
Brad Johnson: We've been asked this question about a thousand times.
Councilman Mason: I'm sure you have Brad. I haven't been privy yet to that so
go for 1001.
31
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
Brad Johnson: Originally we would have liked to have done what you've suggested
okay. But we did not plan...in order to live by your comp plan, the city's, and
not reduce the denslty, we have to, in addltlon to maklng the slte financially
...we have to keep, the type of plan that the townhouse plan is a one floor and
lt's not stacked...llve up and down. In the total plan for the shared entry
unlts, they're stacked units. We can go 3 unlts and they...and we've trled to
work it out and maintaln some type of density on the slte, which ls what people
have asked for and it just doesn't work. Because the type of unit that sells
needs a flat surface. We haven't been able to flgure out...and by putting any
of those types of units over here, I think that's...get back to where we were in
1988 or '89. Took all the oak trees on the hi11.
Mayor Chmiel: How many oak trees are there really? Two? Three?
Kirk Willette: There's a cluster here of...which are on a high point of the
site. There's several, 5 or 6 that are in this area...and then there's one, a
couple...
Mayor Chmiel: How about the major area that we're concerned with? The upper
portion?
Kirk Willette: There are not oak trees along this side. There's some scattered
down here. These are large trees.
Hayor Chmiel: I guess I'm just to ride a little bit on your...your discussion.
I see those rental unlts to me would make more sense abutting to the residential
development with the 8 unit sales and 10 or 12 that we have being proposed in
that particular area. The other aspect I look at it from havlng the rental
units down below whlch wlll be faclng some of Charlle James' property. We're
going to be getting the same kind of discussion coming back again to Council at
a later tlme whereby what's going to be golng ln, in front of them, towards 78th
Street. I can see us in the discussionary thlng. Maybe we won't be here but
it's golng to come up. But lt's golng to come up, no question in my mind. Be
it abutting something to residential that's there would have been more loglcal
in my position, even though the topography, you're saying doesn't allow lt.
Brad Johnson: What I'm saying is the topography and financially, it won't work.
We can't put enough units over in here to sell them. Thls unlt ls probably a
$90,000.00 to $110,000.00 unit, which is higher than the current standard in the
marketplace. The ones that are selling are in the under $90,000.00 range for
this type of unit. Now all I'm saying is last time this project was presented,
this type of unlt was on thls slde and you turned it down. Flat.
Councilman Workman: One car.
Mayor Chmiel: No, that was not the issue at that time, and I remember that.
Brad Johnson: The topography.
Mayor Chmiel: It was some of the trees but it was the single car garages
without the additional parking that was there.
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
Brad 3ohnson: But it turns out that we have tried, and Z don't know how else to
explain this, to try to put this here and here to here. We dropped another 50
units in the process. ! think that the risk that we're taking is, first of all
the developer takes the risk. Not the City. and the developer feels that this
type of unit is equally sellable in here with trepidation. He's going to build
some up, or we're going to build some up in here. We're not sure they'Ll sell
because of the price and we don't want to be stuck with a bunch of thee all the
way through here. We want to complete the project.
Mayor Chmiei: Yeah. One of the other things in selling those units, contained
in the sales clause, they indicate to the south of those proposals that
commercial is going to be developed.
Brad Johnson: We went over that this morning with the attorney and he indicated
yes, and that we should have full disclosure, we probably would do it, put full
disclosure much as what was done with Saddlebrook. You know you give them a
plat. You show them a plan and you show them the use there. You don't know
what's going to happen here but yeah, after going through...have happen is' that
later on there are people who discover that this is what it will be. What will
really happen if we don't have these units here, we probably wouldn't shift.
You still have for sale over here but ! don't think you'd solve the problem.
Mayor Chmiel: How can we resolve that corner up there Brad? Can we eliminate
one of those 8 units?
Brad Johnson: Yeah, I think so. As a matter of fact we have a plan for that.
Remember we've been working with the neighbors and this is sort of like a, first
of all we eliminated all the for sale and for rent that we had here. Then we
eliminated the for rental that we had here, and that was decided at a previous
meeting. You guys don't remember that we negotiated that. We did that...and we
met with the staff here and we're concerned. So we can plan around it. The
only thing we don't foresee that we can do is shift, so simpily shift. I really
question in the zoning process, and Roger can address that, that you. address for
sale or for rent. I don't think there's anything in your zoning code that
allows that.
Mayor Chmiel: Unless it's going tolpresent a problem for a later time for the
Council.
Brad Johnson: Yeah. I agree with your comments. I would be more than happy to
assure you that a full disclosure would be made to every owner exactly what's
going to happen down there, if we knew. You know, and we can say, it could be
like, we've got how many plans? We've got quite a few plans for this area,
right?
Mayor Chmiel: None yet.
Brad Johnson: Oh no, we've got the conceptual plans that we did as a part of
the Target presentation... What we can show you, Kirk why don't you Just show
them. This particular area seems to be the sensitive area. We would prefer
that this site...into obilivion. We know, and Z think arvid will verify this,
very little activity happens out in the back of a rental unit. Just go walk
around Heritage and see how many people... They just aren't there and we have
33
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
ail those houses in my neighborhood and Ursula's neighborhood for years. I
don't see any activity anyuhere, in those areas. $o I don't think you get the
rental activity, but go ahead and show what we can do now. What we're trying to
do is manage the process and do what the...
Mayor Chmiel: I've got another question, I think Tom has. Tom.
Councilman Workman: Well I want to be home before 8:00 a.m. I think we're
spending a lot of time focusing on what is the south side of this project. That
isn't going to change. I have my own conceptual of the south side and down
below is Chicken Friendly, Taco Bowl and your Pizza and Lube place and those
people are going to have that problem no matter what. And it's going to smell
and it's not going to look pretty and I don't think we're going to be able to
worry about that tonight.
Mayor Chmiel: But that should be thought about is all I'm saying.
Councilman Workman: Right. And you and I have different perspectives this
evenlng. But it's golng to happen. I'll tell you what, the people in Chart
Estates fought and fought and couldn't believe that somebody would build a
McOonald's on the corner of Highway 5 and of course they knew that something
commercial was golng to be built there and these people, there's no way that
Brad's going to be able to convince us that he's going to tell everybody that
buy those units that there's going to be a Pizza/Lube joint down below. It
doesn't matter anyway. I don't thlnk it matters. In the context of a PUD,
which I think this lsa PUD, we can ask a lot of those questions. If you guys
want a PUD. I thlnk what we should do ls spend our tlme, what we should do ls
be focuslng on this grassy knoll, as we'll call lt. That is the focus of the
neighborhood that's really here tonlght. And so not to rush anybody along
prematurely, I just think that's where the problem is. The rest of the project
slopes away and faces Eckankar and Hlghway 17. And so what I thlnk, we met on
Friday, good heavens. A meeting at 5:20 on a Friday afternoon. I mean we're
worklng overtime wlth the neighborhood and Brad to try to figure out that plece
and I think we should focus on that. Maybe the neighbors can start to input on
that.
Brad Johnson: Why don't me just show you what we've...implement certain things.
And I went into that meeting saying the only thtng I can't do is switch the end
unit type. This could be a condominium. Thls can't... If we put these kind of
units, they would go downhlll...so what we did is change it and basically from
their point of view...
Kirk Willette: We've eliminated one building. We've eliminated 4 units ina 12
unit building through here and then changing this 8 unit building, whioh pulls
the buildlng back from thls corner whlch ls the closest to the north property
line, approximately 30 feet at least from the property itself. And it also
provldes more open space on the site...
Councilman Mason: Put that up again will you?
councilman Workman: You're pulllng one out and it goes from how many units?
Mayor Chmiel: So you're eliminating 4 units.
24
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
Councilman Mason: Eliminating 4 units by making one a 12, okay. And that pulis
that 30 feet back from those stakes then is what you're saying?
Kirk Wiliette: Right. Well actually this is pulling it back even more because
what's underneath here is what we've already pulled down.
Councilman Mason: Okay.
Kirk Willette: From this corner, or it's 25 feet down...30 feet from where this
building stuck out here.
Councilman Mason: Where does that put that in relationship to the top of the
hill?
Kirk Willette: Are you talking in this area?
Councilman Mason: Yeah.
Kirk Willette: This is the flat area of the hill right here. Right now right
here. And these buildings, the first floor would be located just about on that.
What is the...
Brad 3ohnson: And in addition to that...shield it so Kay, if you want to talk
about landscaping. Because that seems to be the concern. A lot of things that
have gone by and we're trying to address. The only way we can sort of soften
this landscape so Kay, you can talk a little bit about what we're doing and
then...
Kay Halla: Generally that...make it quick. When ! first started the project,
so the oaks were...and also that Highway 5 corridor, that view. And the north
view with the neighbors I think came... Anyway...saw the site what ! tried to
do is keep the species that grow with the oaks and the lindens. Use general[y
species that are found...that are found in the same areas...and also to get a
good mix of evergreen and shade trees. And not use too many ornamentals because
you get more for your buck with shade trees. More screening and more shade.
Also, with all the parking lot, our priority was to use deciduous trees in the
parking lot areas and try to use the evergreen trees to screen within the site.
To screen buildings and with the...screening on the north end so that they...
And on the Highway S corridor...use sumac to form a natural...and then also to
make sure the deciduous and evergreen trees along the south end of these units.
A concern was snow removal and so ! tried to keep deciduous more toward the
parking lot area so that snow can be dumped underneath them and the evergreens
more in front of the units themselves. And then again around the north end
where the homeowners are concerned, it kind of progressed. Originally I had a
lot of evergreens back here and then after the last meeting they were concerned
that the evergreens, they grow slower and they're shorter to begin with. A 2
1/2 inch deciduous tree will be 14 feet or so...so they asked to get a mixture
so I tried to provide that. And also in this area, these are existing linden
and elms and the ones that look like little flowers, those are the oaks. So
where there were deciduous, I tried to go ahead and try to put some evergreens
inbetween so that in the winter you have some screening. I didn't want to do
·
too many areas where the shade was real heavy just because I was concerned how
the plantings would take over and if they would survive. There have been some
35
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
concern even after this plan from the neighborhood to get more, maybe some more
deciduous in behind these evergreens and possibly go ulth some larger trees...
with the, I suppose we could propose that but there's...I don't know what
exactly those...can do. I know there are certain residents... I think we need
to get a machine operator and maybe see if that would be posslble...these trees
are a lot more defensive so that is something for that developer to consider, if
lt's in the budget. Basically that's about it. Are there any questions?
Brad Johnson: I think our proposal for landscaping is, this is the preliminary
plat and prlor to...prior to the flnal plat we would move the, you know change
this corner around and bring it back up another 35 feet. Switch the unit, and
secondly come in wlth a new landscape plan for not only thls area but relook at
the knoll. In talking to the neighbors tonight, they're not even quite sure
what should go in there so it would be for Kay to focus on that and come up wlth
a plan that does what you can...throw in trees but they may all die when they
plant them so...and that type of thlng. We are willlng to try to flgure out how
to put in some larger planting trees when the pad probably is built...and get in
there at that time. The questlon ls when can you get in there wlth a tree
spade. We're willing to say yeah, we'll do that. Kay says they have access to
a 12 and 14 foot pines, you know everyone wants to throw plne trees in there but
there is access...within reason we're willing to try to do that...but we can't
have a tree every foot...The only concern that we have ls if we plant them too
prematurely down here, they have to be watered and until somebody's here to
caretake on the slte...
Kay Halla: ...you have to do it at different times of the year. Not when
they're...at this polnt Brad expressed to me at the last meeting if I could try
to get faster growlng deciduous trees behind these units so these are mostly the
red maple which is faster growing than sugar maple and the oaks...
Brad Johnson: And the other one was...llndens and whatever are down here. The
big trees that you see. We could come back with another row farther down the
hi11...so I think we're willlng to come with sort of a forest back there if we
can figure out what ls necessary. In addition to that...Are you interested in
learnlng about the storm water end of lt? I would guess you are, slnce that's a
major topic. If so, Bill Oolan...
Councilman Mason: Is the City comfortable with the storm water issue?
Kate Aanenson: Well we have the WAP on as the next item. We were prepared to
do that seoondly. We're certainly comfortable with the way lt's been handled.
We hired, they contacted Bonestroo to.
Paul Krauss: Yeah, it's being taken care of.
Mayor Chmiel: Being addressed?
Paul Krauss: It's being addressed and I know early on the residents ralsed
concerns of introduction. Well, altering the ponds substantially in front of
thelr homes and I thlnk we've basically avoided all that and are taklng the
water a different way.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Maybe we can just.
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
Councilman Mason: Yeah. I mean just from my experience from the surface water.
Mayor Chmiel: Comfortable with that.
Bill Dolan: Unless you have additional questions why. We've read all the
reports and worked with all the engineers. As a matter of fact, we were meeting
rlght up untll last Frlday to iron out all the details.
Mayor Chmlel: Good. Thank you.
Brad Johnson: So with that we'd be glad to answer any questions as this goes
on. ['m sure there will be some concerns from the neighborhood but our point is
that we're trying to address as much as we can. We have reduced a lot of units.
We have changed a lot "for sale". From rental to for sale. [ don't know how to
handle the political problem on the south side but I think we can do that
through disclosure. But that's going to be for sale anyway. I don't really see
ourselves.
Mayor Chmiel: Get something down.
Brad Johnson: And I think you're right. I mean I thlnk the neighbors here
would like to have had better disclosure at the time. It's up to us to do that.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. So with that, is there anyone wishing to represent the
group?
Dave Callister: My name is Dave Callister and I live at 7540 Canyon Curve.
Since everybody seems to be referring to the comprehensive plan, I guess I'd
just like to point out one of the key words that Brad Johnson pointed out in the
comprehensive plan was quality of life. That's why my wife and I moved here.
That's why probably, that's probably the number one reason why people move to
Chanhassen is because of the quality of life. It's certainly a nice place to
live. The reason that we're here tonight is to, because we all want to maintain
that quality of life that we have currently and also we want, or we'd like to
thlnk that we are stakeholders, not only in our own properties but in our
neighborhood and our community. And we all realize and we've said this numerous
tlmes before, we realtze what the property is zoned for. We know lt's hlgh
density residential but the reason that we are here is we want to see the best
posslble project come out of this so that the City can live with it. So that
the neighborhood can live with it and so that each one of us individuals can
1lye with tt. Our objective is to mlnimize the lmpact of such a large scale
project on our neighborhood and our own properties and the city as well. With
that said, Z'd like to refer to a letter that you received, you should have had
passed out to you this evening from the neighborhood. We did have a chance to
have most of the neighborhood get together last evening and to kind of come to
some sort of a consensus as to what we felt were the major issues with this
proposed development. And the result of that meetlng is in front of you thls
evenlng. First of all the ftrst concern would be an effective and orderly
transition between high denslty residential and low density residential. Given
that this is a unique situation where there is no gradual transition from R-12,
R-8, E-4, this is a unique situation and we would still like to encourage the
developer and the City Council to explore the possibility of switching all or a
portlon of the units as proposed. I know you've had a lot of discussion on-that
37
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
thls evenlng and I'm sure you'll have, you may have a 11ttle blt more of that
tonlght. The area of most concern ls the 4 apartment buildings that directly
face the slngle family homes or the knoll, as has been referred to earlier.
That's the first concern. The second concern is to reduce the denslty on the
north side of the development. Neighbors are concerned with the clustering of
buildings. In some cases it almost looks 11ke a train. They're so close
together and they weave in and out. It's a concern of the neighborhood that the
denslty is so high wlth those buildings in that particular area. If we would
lose, or if loslng one of the buildings would be a problem, we would suggest
that the developer most that loss of unlts or transport it to another less
sensitive portlon or less sensitive area of the project. I reallze we've had a
change proposed tonight. I think that's a good step. I don't know, I can only
speak for myself as to whether that's a solution to that problem or not. Thlrd
concern is to increase the distance between the single family homes and the
buildings. As you probably know, if you've been out to the site or been by the
site, both the proposed buildings and homes are both located on facing slopes.
And belng on faclng slopes, there's an lnherent problem because you don't have
the natural visual and sound buffers. Wlth a flat surface you have trees and
buildings that tend to soak up the nolse and that sort of thing but when you're
on a facing slope, you're looklng straight across and that distance seems much,
much smaller. The last lssue or fourth lssue here would be with screening. The
neighborhood is extremely concerned with the number, size and location of the
trees located on the proposed landscaping plan. In fact, just for an example on
one of the bu£1dlngs, one of the 8 unit buildings that's faclng the slngle
family residential area, there were three 6 foot spruce trees and two 2 1/2 inch
dlameter American Lindens. Screening that building from the neighborhood. The
neighborhood feels that that ls inadequate and we've had some discussion on that
this evenlng. But another thing to keep in mlnd is when you put a 6 foot spruce
tree on a slope below a building, you're really only screening probably 3 feet
of the buildlng itself. So you're puttlng a 35 foot high structure up and
you're screening about 3 feet of lt. $o you know, that's very 11mired screening
as I see it. Another point that I don't know if everybody's aware of it. If
you've been out to the site, you're probably aware of it is that the trees are
much more dense on the western or northwestern area of the property. In the
north central area they are much more sparse and there are not a lot of trees.
In fact there's a bald spot when you go rlght up, you could see all the way
through to the top of the h111 wlthout any existing trees. These are the major
concerns that we came up wlth and that we would 11ke to have the Council and the
developer focuslng on. Many of the other concerns are outllned in the staff
report, which you have in front of you. The neighborhood only wants what's best
for the neighborhood, the city and each of us. Not only now but I think lt's
important to keep in mind that we want what's best for us in the future and we
need to take a look at that. One point I wanted to make, and when we were
talklng about single car garages on the rental buildings. I used to live in
apartments 11ke that and I can tell you, a lot of people who move lnto a one
bedroom home or a two bedroom home for a 6 month period of tlme, they don't use
thelr garage for a vehicle. They use it for storage. And so that could be a
problem wlth the number of parked cars up there as well so I think that needs to
be taken into consideration. Is that people do use those for storage,
especially when they're moving from one place to another. Or such as we did
when we moved to town. We moved to an apartment for & months before we built
our house and I think a lot of people do that and they use those areas for
38
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
storage. So with that I'd like to thank you for taking my comments, and I don't
know if anyone else has anything to say but thanks.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. I know what you say when you say storage because I
have two of my sons with their davenports and snowmobiles and it leaves very
little room for my car. It can be a 3 car garage but I doubt it. Is there
anyone else wishing to say anything more?
Tim Anderson: Hi. My name is Tim Anderson. I live at 7550 Canyon Curve and !
am standing up here just to reiterate what Dave said about our concerns.
Especially about setbacks and buffers and the effect that the facing slopes have
on the distance or our, what seems like maybe a 300 foot buffer on a flat map
seems much less when you're looking out your dining room or living room window
and I hope that's considered in further discussions tonight. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else?
Bob Bohara: I'd just say a couple words, concentrating on that eastern knoll.
I'm from the western part of it. Maybe I should be Saddlebrook West or
something. Not all concerns have to do with that knoll. Some of them have to
do wlth the wetlands that are below my property and how they're handling the
runoff. Some of the thtngs that the ctty are requiring like a bith path on the
slde of Powers there, whlch is going to have to be built up very heavlly there
close to the wetland and the sedimentation pond on the property, which the last
time I saw it was also real close to the wetland and kind of cut into the back.
Once again you've got to remember that this is not flat land and there's a lot
of hillslde there. I thlnk sometimes we just look at these top views and say
everything is alright. We can put an extra pond here or build a bike path here
and lt's not true rlght along CR 17 or right along Powers I mean. It's quite
steep. You're going to have to do a lot of digging and a lot of building up.
The same would belng cut for any sedimentation pond near that wetlands. So I'm
concerned about those areas too. And in general, we are always going to be at
cross purposes because we have an amenlty there. I'm probably the oldest
homeowner in the neighborhood, being there about 3 years and seeing all the rest
of it build up around me. But in those 3 years we had the amenity of that open
area and tt's a very good amenity. One of the reasons, quality of life to live
there ls we bought the house because of the way it looked. It's a large lot and
it has that on the back. Naively we didn't ask what could be butlt there.
Perhaps naively we thought that such a nice stte would be protected and left in
the condition it was in. It's next to a school. It's next to downtown. Next
to other parks. In fact, if you look at Eckankar, lt's pretty much open too and
we lived through that part too. Next time we'll ask. Last time we didn't.
That's on our burden but it is a nice site. We'want to make sure that the best
possible is done with it. We will never see exactly eye to eye but I think that
for the good of the community we'll have to come up with what's the best we can.
I'm Bob Bohara from 7510 Canyon Curve.
Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else?
Kirk Willette: Could I just, I just wanted to say one thing. I understand the
concern, especially about the concern of the buildings and looking over what is
a valley created with the ponds and I think one thing that we've tried to do to
help that is that the building's closest to the north property line, dropping
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
those down to the two story buildings and trying to make those buildings set
lower as they're viewed from the neighbors to the north.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you.
Arvid Ellness: I'm Arvid Ellness and I've been listening tonight to see if
there's any gaps that we could f111 in our presentation and I thlnk most of the
thlngs have been argued and positioned from previous meetings and in some of
those presentations I made them myself. I don't know in looklng at the plan,
and I guess we've all struggled in the course of the last 6 months as we worked
on thls development, what to do about some of the lssues that have surfaced. I
don't know that we can place the buildings and configure them in any way that
will lose the lmpact of thelr presence to the neighborhood. I think that large
open space and the land down there maybe should be defined as, in conceptual
thinking, as an outlot because that would be the buffer. I think that we always
thought that space represented the change that was appropriate. I think that in
placlng in the consideration and I defended it in one of the earlier meetings
with the Plannlng Commission, the idea of keeplng the ownership on one slde
versus the other. It was prlmary because of the bulldlng types and I think that
it would be much more objectionable architecturally to place those larger
buildings wlth a configuration of the flat plan that they have to have in the
large space over on the other side. And if we did, they wouldn't be any farther
away from the neighbors and I think they would represent a lot larger space of
bullding in terms of mass and shape and slze. They are a bulkier building. So
I think from the standpoint of all our considerations that we've heard and the
arguments that we made, that open space, preserving the trees is about as good a
development as we can percelve for that site. The only other alternative that I
can think of would be to fall back into some plans that were done back in the
80's where we develop apartment buildings. Where we develop a much more dense
development than what's been characterized here. So in defense of what's been
done to date, I thlnk there's issues ralsed by the owner and I thlnk we've tried
to respond to them as best we could. 8ut I think we've come up with what I
thlnk ls one of the best plans for that particular development that seems to
work not only for the city. The best it can for the neighbors, but it's also a
project that can sell, be marketed well in the lines of the developer and the
contractors that are going to be involved in the project. So I think we've done
what we can and I hope that you'll look on it on a favorable way. Thanks.
Mayor Chmlel: With that I'd like to bring it back to Council for discussion.
Michael.
Councilman Mason: I met with some of the residents on Saturday and had, I
thought a very pleasant discussion. I understand thelr concerns and I shared
with what happened to my neighborhood in Carver Beach when I was gone on
vacation and came back and found 4 lots with trees on their sides. It seems to
me that most of the issues, ulth the exception of perhaps number i on this sheet
that we got today, it sounds to me like these issues are being addressed. And
for my feellng wlth thls explanation here about what would have to happen to
move the owned units to the other slde, just doesn't seem workable to me. Just
as I think it would totally destroy that h111 and then you folks would end up in
a lot worst place than you have the potential to be in right now. My personal
feellng ls I wouldn't be happy looklng at that. Certainly I klnd of wlsh we
would have seen thls new plan rlght away and I thlnk I would have saved some of
4O
City Council Meeting - December
my questions. Certainly things have been moved back. ! think that's a real
positive thing. The distance has been increased. I am concerned about the
screening. I think the point that was brought up over here, if you're on a
hill, a 6 foot tree doesn't cover up 6 foot of home and I, with the problems
with the spade truck and what not, I think the screening needs to be pursued but
I don't think that that in itself is enough to hold up a preliminary approval.
But I'm by no means done with the landscaping yet and I guess in a way I know if
Councilman Wing were here, he'd be talking about that too so I'll try to fill in
his shoes a little bit. This may not be the time or the place but I'm going to
do it anyway. This issue of density and diversity I think is something that we
as a Council need to look at and need to address. We don't have diverse housing
in this city. And somebody making $7.00 an hour working at some of the
businesses in town, I don't even think could be able to live in these rental
units and I think that's something we do need to address down the road. So I
guess I'm throwing that out for now. I think we're moving in the right
direction with this. And it becomes, sitting on Council it becomes increasingly
difficult for me to balance people's concerns that already live there to
concerns about a building that's going to be going up because 3 years down the
road, they're going to be in the same position as the position I'm in living
here for 8 years as a position that somebody lived here for 20 years. I mean
that's an ongoing battle and it's a real tough one sitting up here. It's that
old balancing act thing. I feel like this is moving in the right direction.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Thomas.
Councilman Workman: So let's table it. Second on that? You know I mentioned
when I was accepting my award this evening for whatever it is I did for 4 years,
that I was a young lad when I ran for Council and now I'm still young but old.
And the faces in the audience of the residents kind of match my face and my
family and they have new homes and not, some of them aren't all so young but
people who do have and want to have a vested interest. If I lived there and I
put myself in their place, if I lived there, would I want to look at this?
Would I have any control? Probably not. I want to thank Arvid for his not so
subtle threat that, we'll build all apartment buildings on the top of this hill
if you push us too far. Not that long ago when I was a very young person and I
ran around the hills of Chaska up on 17, they ran into the same thing. One of
what I would call the most beautiful hills in Chaska, bluffs, full of oak trees
is now a mobil home park because a Planning Commission didn't want to do what
they wanted to do so the developer said, well we're going to do what we want to
do under certain rights and that's what they have now. Albeit, it's a fancier
mobile home park than most but it's a regret that the city has had ever since.
So the bottom line comes down to dollars and who needs them now and who can
wait. What can sell on that hill doesn't mean it's in the best interest of the
city. And so you try to give and take and you try to move and you try to get
what you can. Do we want this hill full of all apartment buildings? I don't
think our public safety department can afford it. I don't think the developer
would do it. I don't know if I'm willing to push him but, I think they have
Swede's working for them. So that's why I kind of said, let's try to work on
this knoll. It sounds to me like, from a meeting that I had, the conversations
that we had in a small group on Friday afternoon, it sounds like we're kind of
coming in to focus with that. I think somebody's going to make an awful lot of
money off this hill. If they can't afford, well and I'm not ignoring that
they're removing some buildings and moving some things back. But we'll have to
41
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
screen these buildings. I think that's without question and I think it has to
be done properly and it has to be shown in the plan very accurately in how it's
going to be done. I don't think these people care if it's done 6 or 9 or 12
months after the building's in there, just so it's done and it lives and it
stays there. It will be a refreshing relief to not see the building but as long
as it lives. Our city is lacking, you know I thought as I leave the Council
about ail the things that I wish could be and should have been and maybe I'll
still provide that list to the City and then they can throw it away and do what
they want with it. But ue do, and I've seen on the Planning Commission docket
blending and mixing and those kinds of issues for 4 years and I don't blame
them. I know we're busy and there's a lot of things going on. What with us
promoting and ramrodding growth, right Ursula?
Councilwoman Dimler: Right.
Councilman Workman: So it does come down to what I call the smaller things and
not on a grander scale. There's going to be future Counctl worrles with the
south end but very difficult to work on those tonlght. I'm not gettlng a
feeling from the neighborhood whether or not what the developers have proposed
ls what they're willlng to accept or not. At risk ls throw the plan out. No
planned unit development. Let's develop it the way we want to. Cut down all
the trees. Level the hills and put all apartment buildings up, right? So how
far do you push the goodwill of developers who are only trying to do the best
for the clty and hopefully shleld the people who already 1lye there. I know
that these people, the developers, as professional as they are, know exactly
that this ls always golng to be thelr btggest problem. Deallng wlth the people
who are already there and that's what Chicken Friendly and Pizza and Lube are
going to have a problem ulth down the road too. And they're going to be
required to build a big fence on the bottom of a hill that doesn't make any
sense elther. So if the neighborhood ls in any way acceptant of removing one of
the unlts, or in aggregate removing or reducing it on the knoll, 4 units, I
don't know how much further we can go. It sounds to me 11ke ln' Mr. Calllster's
comments he's proposing of the two 8 unit rentals out front, to remove one
completely and move the one back. I guess it's down to that. I thlnk it goes
without question that we're going to ask for screening. And so it comes down to
whether or not they lose 4 or 8. I don't know how that sits wlth the Council.
As a side note, it would appear Paul that the ponds are utillzed ponds?
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes they are.
Councilman Workman: So the neighbors could mow down to them, build a dock?
Paul Krauss: Well, there's an interesting history to this.
Kate Aanenson: Actually when that Saddlebrook subdivision went in, the wetland
in the most, was actually caused by one big wetland except for the pond that's
adjacent to Kerber. That was not classified as part of the wetland but when
they went in and dld the mitigation, somehow it got converted to storm pondlng.
It was classified and the neighbors were always treated, when they came in for
variances and the 11ke, that as a storm retention pond. So we considered it as
an ag urban to malntain those setbacks. And when we vtewed this proposal, we
treated it also as an ag urban and malntaln certain setbacks. But technically
under the NWI maps way, way back when Saddlebrook went in and prior to that, it
42
City Council Heeting - December
was not technically the most, the one, the most easterly one adjacent to Kerber
was not a protected wetland. It was treated as such when Saddlebrook went in.
But the other two, yeah.
Councilman Workman: So if one of the neighbors wanted to build a deck, they
aren't going to have a problem with the 75 foot setback?
Paul Krauss= Except that the new ordinance decreases the setback.
Councilwoman Dialer: If you count it as urban.
Kate Aanenson: Right. So it does.
Councilman Workman: 20 feet?
Kate Aanenson: 40 feet isn't it?
Paul Krauss: It's 40 feet if you...
Councilman Workman: Nobody's going to have a problem?
Kate Aanenson: No.
Paul Krauss: It gives them move flexibility in essence.
Hayor Chmiel: Any other comments?
Councilman Workman: Well I guess we're leaning towards which plan, as I laid
out, I guess I would lean towards taking the density out of that knoll and
making it the...
Councilwoman Dimler: Can you make that part of a motion? It's really tough to
say anymore than what has already been said by either Hike or Tom. I guess I
share the concerns as well wlth the screening and I think we can deal with that
at a later time and taller trees, or whatever. I think because this is a
preliminary slte plan and plat approval, that there w111 be many more
opportunities to amend it and therefore at this point I'd be willing to go with
it. I support the PUD because I think that gives the city more control. I
think staying with R-12 could yield ever worst problems for everybody concerned
so at this time I think that a lot of the bugs have been taken out. ! see the
two sides coming closer together and I know there will be further negotiations
in meetings to come but I think at this point we're at a good point to go ahead
and approve this.
Hayor Chmiel: Thank you. I have three things. Landscaping, landscaping, and
landscaping. Wlthin that specific sensitive area. I think that's going to have
to be done. I don't want to take a positlon now of saying landscaping be done
when we can lean back on a machine operator and say no, we can't get one in
there to put it ln. I want a definite. No maybe's. No guesses. Somehow with
the single car garages, that still bothers me some, even though we're meeting
all these things.
Kate Aanenson: Can I interrupt for a clarification on that?
43
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
Mayor Chmiei: Yes.
Kate Aanenson: That came up at the Planning Commission meeting and I think what
they had recommended, and we certainly can put that in the PUD agreement is
that, and this is included in the owner occupied units, is that there be a
statement that said no storage could be allowed in the garage facilities.
Mayor Chmiel: That was going to be my point. I'm glad you brought it up.
Thank you. And I'd iike to see that contained within that as welI. How do we
poIice it? It's going to be a probiem. Poiicing wouId be areaI concern. I
don't think you can do it and I don't think we're going to do it, even though we
couId have a police person around. But anyway, rather than reiterate aiI the
other things that everyone eIse has said, I think that some of the things are
getting cIoser. And yet I see some of the concerns of the neighbors and I too
met with them Iast Saturday and iooked at this from their decks and there is
some of those concerns there. So with that I wouid bring it back to CounciI for
any other discussion. If no other discussion.
Kate Aanenson: Can I make two clarifications? Todd Hoffman pointed out to me
that on the conditions for preliminary plat approval. Number 7. It says park
and trail dedication fees. Trail dedication fees shouid be struck because
they'll be constructing a trail so it should just be park fees will be paid.
Mayor Chmiel: Item, which was that again?
Kate Aanenson: Page 14, number ?.
Councilman Mason: So it's just the park?
Kate Aanenson: It would just be park. And then to follow through with that.
On page 15, number 4. It says a 20 foot wide trail easement shall be dedicated.
And you'd want to add, and construction of an 8 foot wide bituminous trail.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussions? Can I have a motion?
Councilman Mason: Before we get that.
Mayor Chmiel: We have two things to go on with the motions. One is for that
preliminary review of the planned unit development. For those numbers now. If
those numbers are going to be changed, then that has to also be changed. And
then with the wetland alteration, I don't see any problem with that other than
what staff has contained within the condition.
Roger Knutson: This is also approval of the preliminary plat.
Mayor Chmiel: That's right, yes. And preliminary plat.
Councilman Workman: I'll make a motion. Preliminary review of a Planned Unit
Development for 104 rental units and 105 townhomes and a clubhouse/office on
27.04 acres of property with staff recommendations. I'm not sure how we want to
address.
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
Mayor Chmiel: Well each of those changes. With additional screening required
in the northeasterly portion of the development in the Phase Z rental area.
Would that clarify? Now we're not saying total numbers elther because we don't
know total numbers. And I would say that under those conditions, leave that up
to staff determination of maklng sure aesthetioally lt's going to resolve the
problem.
Councilman Workman: I'll make that my motion. Just as a sideline, the
townhouse development that abuts my property was asked to put evergreens in and
they did. I was on the Council when we asked them to double the number of
trees. This was before I had an interest in my property. And if that was
doubled, I'm amazed.
Mayor Chmiel: Maybe you want to put total heights of trees to be contained in
that area. I don't know if you want to get specific and name species.
Councilman Workman: It's hard when you get to caliper inch and height and type.
I guess I would want to leave it so that Council could still review it.
Mayor Chmiel: They'll have that opportunity as it continues.
Roger Knutson: Mayor, maybe I could suggest that if you wanted to say bring
back before the final plat or with the final plat, a landscaping plan that will
be subject to your approval and that will leave it open.
Councilman Workman: And as a final note to the motion, the reduction in rental
units to be...
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? Have we covered that in the entirety now? Do
you understand what he's saying?
Kate Aanenson: You reduced it to 4?
Paul Krauss: By 4.
Mayor Chmlel: By 8. He's saying 104 rental units and 105 townhomes and a club
house. Is there a second?
Councilwoman Oimler: I'll second it.
Mayor Chmlel: Okay, discussion? Mike, do you have some discussion?
Councilman Mason: I'm curious as to the from 4 to 8 reduction. Councilman
Workman.
Councilman Workman: Well because of the building on the east is enlarged and
I just don't think you're really gaining what you want here to break it up by
doing that. If you're looking for some relief, I don't think you're getting it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, we have a motion on the floor, as so stated previously with
the, that's wlth also the bituminous trail to be added into that one. The 8
foot wide as an additional condition. And the elimination of what was the other
ltem you mentioned?
45
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
Kate Aanenson: The trail fees be eliminated.
Mayor Chmiel: Is that acceptable to the motion and second? The additions. Any
other discussion?
Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve Rezoning to
PUD #92-3 and Site Plan Review #92-3 as shown on the plans dated December 2,
1992 and December 7, 1992, and subject to the following conditions:
A "No Parking" restriction shall be designated along the entire north side
of Oak Pond Road. Appropriate "No Parking" restrictions/signs shall be
placed on the private service drives and northerly side of Oak Pond Park.
2. The grading and drainage plan shall be modified to include erosion control
measures in accordance with the Clty's construction slte handbook.
3. The appropriate drainage and utility easements shall be shown on the final
plat for all utillty and drainage improvements. A conservation easement
shall be dedicated to the Clty over the wetlands on the parcel. The flnal
plat shall indicate all wetlands located on the site.
4. The entire public street (Oak Pond Road) from Powers Boulevard to Kerber
Boulevard shall be constructed with Phase I of the development.
5. A trafflc study on Powers Boulevard, as requested by Carver County, shall
be conducted by the developer prior to requesting final approval.
Apply for a wetland alteration permlt for th elocation of the trails and
possible locatlon of sedimentation pond before flnal plat approval.
7. Park fees shall be paid in lieu of parkland dedication.
8. Number of parking spaces, including handicapped, must meet the parking
standards as requlred by the zonlng ordinance.
Fencing shall be placed around the oak trees to minimize impact during
construction. Protected trees lost due to construction must be replaced on
a callper inch basis in accordance with a plan approved by staff.
10. A lighting plan shall be submitted for the interlor private roads. A 20
foot manicured area shall be maintained along the north, east and west
property 11mlts, anythlng beyond shall be left in natural (non-maintenance)
state.
11. Compliance with the Building Official's conditions as shown in his
memorandum dated October 19, 19~2.
12. Compliance with the Fire Marshal's conditions as shown in his memorandum
dated October 21, 1992.
13. The applicant shall enter into a PUD agreement and development contract and
submit the necessary financial securities.
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
14. Compliance with conditions of preliminary plat and wetland alteration
permit.
15. Rdditional landscaping .ill be required in the northeast corner of the
property to be submitted and approved with the final plat approval.
Removal of an 8 unit building with the Phase 2 construction.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilman ~orkman moved, Councilwoman Dialer seconded to approve the
Preliminary Plat PUO ~92-3 as sho~n on the plans dated December 2, 1992 and
Oecember 7, 1992 and subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and
provide the City with the necessary financial security to guarantee proper
installation of the public improvements and compliance with the conditions
of approval for final plat.
2. The applicant shall obtain and comply with the appropriate permitting
agencies, i.e. Watershed District, MPCA, Health Oepartment, MWCC and Carver
County.
3. The developer shall construct the public utility and street improvements
within the right-of-ways or easements to City standards and dedicate upon
completion and acceptance to the City for permanent ownership and
maintenance responsibilities. The remaining utilities outside the easement
and right-of-way shall be privately owned and maintained by a homeowners
association. Detailed constructin plans and specifications including
calculations for sizing of the utility improvements shall be submitted for
formal approval by the City prior to final plat approval.
4. A 20 foot wide trail easement shall be dedicated to the City, and
construction of an 8 foot wide bituminous trail, along the westerly portion
of the site adjacent to Powers Boulevard. The applicant shall dedicate to
the City the necessary easements to provide for the extension of Oak Pond
road to Kerber Boulevard.
5. Construct CSAH 17 to provide for a southbound left turn lane and a
northbound right turn lane at the intersection with Oak Pond Road. Both
CSAH 17 turn lanes should be a minimum length of 320 feet in order to meet
MnDot design standards.
Compliance with conditions of site plan, rezoning, and wetland alteration
permit.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilman Mason: I will move approval for wetland alteration permit for
sedimentation basin adjacent to a Class A wetland and modification of an
existing sedimentation pond.
Councilwoman Oimler: Second.
47
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
Councilman Nason moved, Councilwoman O~mler seconded to approve Wetland
Alteratin Permit ~2-11 with the following conditions:
1. The 11mits of the sedimentation trap shall be 11mlted to the 944.0 contour
adjacent to the Class B wetland.
The existing two storm water ponds shall be limited to modification as
proposed including the weir and outlet structures.
3. Type III eroslon control be in place around the construction boundaries of
the wetland.
4. A cash contribution to the Surface Water Management Program Fund, as
determined by the city.
All voted in favor and the motion carrted.
APPROVE THE 1993 PARK ACOUISITION AND DEVELOPHENT,CAPITAL INPROVEH~NT PROGRAH.
Todd Hoffman: Park and Recreation Commission developed the attached proposed
1993 Park Acqusition and Development CIP over 2 meetings in August of this year.
On lt's completion the Commission unanimously approved a motion made by the
Commissioners mentioned to recommend the City Council approve that park
acquisition and development fund totallng a $150,000.00 as ltemized on the
attached sheet. I am comfortable with the improvements proposed in the CIP and
the expenditures they represent. One caveat to that statement however is that I
I will not hesitate to recommend a reduction in expenditures if I see that we at
all fall behind in revenue forecasted for 1993. Upon saylng thls, it is staff's
recommendation that the City Council approve the 1993 park acquisition and
development capltal improvement program presented by the Park and Recreation
Commission. If Council has any questions on any specific improvements or on
park development in the city in general, I'm prepared to answer those. One
additional note is that as you know, we are now charged sales tax on these type
of purchases so we're loslng purchasing power in thls fund of about $10,000.00
on that $150,000.00 which essentially means we do not buy one neighborhood
playground in 1993, unfortunately.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. The only questions that I have is, on the $65,000.00 that
we're looklng at for Lake Susan. Is that a fairly accurate cost?
Todd Hoffman: I hate to say it's a ballpark cost. It is fairly accurate. The
119hts at Lake Ann Park, the baseball field lights uhlch were constructed there
were in that $60,000.00 range. Although they've been existing for some ttme.
The standards whlch we have at Lake Ann are top of the 11ne and we can reduce
those somewhat to try to cut some costs.
Hayor Chmiel: That's a concern because I thlnk it seems llke a low figure. And
in order to get the proper amount of lighting, I think there can be some
standards cut too still to provlde the proper amount of 119htlng for that field.
Todd Hoffman: Certainly. We don't want to get down to telephone poles but
something adequate.
48
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions?
Councilwoman Oimler: Yes. I'm going to do something different than I normally
do. Rather than ask for a reduction, I'm going to ask for an addition. And
this can come out of the contingency fund. I have been asked by certain
residents that walk the trail on Kerber, on the east side, that they're
overlooking the pond, the Chanhassen Pond Park. There's a nice sign there.
we could put a bench there so that they could stop and rest and overlook the
pond. On the Chanhassen Pond Park.
Mayor Chmiel: We do have one of those benches sitting down here. I don't think
it will cost us anything.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. Because that's a beautiful spot for it. People can
sit down. They can overlook that pond. They can rest. They can meditate.
They can do whatever they want and maybe it won't cost us any more or it could
come out of the contingency fund.
Mayor Chmiel: We do have a bench here.
Councilwoman Oimler: Can we do that?
Todd Hoffman: We sure can. There are plans, not for benches but for acceptable
picnic tables so they would serve the same purpose in that area.
Mayor Chmlel: I like a bench. Okay, any other discussions?
Councilman Nason moved, Counc/lman Workman seconded to approve the 1993 Park
Acquisition and Development Capital Improvement Program as presented by the Park
and Recreation Comm[ssion, ~ith the add/tional of a bench being placed along the
trail on Kerber Boulevard overlooking Chanhassen Pond Park. All voted in favor
and the motion carried.
APPROVE 1993 POSITION CLA~S~TT~ATION NiB MY COIIPE~TION PLAN.
Mayor Chmiel: I would so move that.
Councilman Workman: Second.
Councilman Mason: Wtth one question. How can anyone understand that cube on
page 67 Boy I tell you. I mean I actually made an attempt to figure that
blankety blank thing out.
Mayor Chmiel: It's not too bad really.
Nayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the 1993 Position
Classification and Pay Compensation Plan as presented. All voted in favor and
the motion carried.
CONSIDER LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR SHOKE-FREE o~YC~RE FACILITIES.
Don Ashworth: Council requested this item in the packet. I belteve you
distributed a second.
49
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes, this is actually the sample of the resolution that
we'd like to have passed with filling in the name of the body of Chanhassen City
Council. This has come up last year and I believe you saw that Senator
Hottinger introduced it. It did not get any hearings. He's like to reintroduce
it this year and he'd like to have cities send in their support.
Councilman Mason: I'm ail for it. Z think it'd be great.
Councilwoman Dimler: I support it as well. Tom, you said you were going to
call some people. Did you have any family daycare providers?
Councilman Workman: I talked to two of them and they already basically
instituting it and they are smokers.
Councilman Mason: I'm in the same situation. Ny daycare provider does smoke
but does not smoke during.
Councilman Workman: It's real terrlble walking through the garage but.
Councilwoman Oimler: Okay, this is basically so they don't smoke during the
hours of operation only.
Councilman Mason: Absolutely.
Councilwoman Dimler: Good. Thank you. I move approval.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Councilman Workman: I'd just like to commend Mrs. Oimler for her solid
leadership on issues just like t hls.
Resolution ~92-146: Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Hason seconded to
approve a resolution for a Smoke-free Family Daycare Bi11. All voted in favor
and the motion carried.
UTILITY RATE ADJUSTMENT, CONSIDE~ SECQND HALF INCREASE,,
Mayor Chmiel: I looked at this and I really started thinklng about it and
when I looked at seeing what's happening as far as our charges are concerned.
As much as I detest seeing us lncrease costs, the costs have to be born back to
the residents but I feel that lt's really a necessary item to pursue and I would
11ke some additional comments.
Don Ashworth: I should note that the Council is asked to approve this. We do
have the abillty to put a few lines on each utility bill and we wlll put in
there that thls, that the entlre amount of thls lncrease ls attributable to
additional payments from MWCC.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. With that as a condition I would so.
Councilman Mason: I don't think it would placate too many people but good.
5O
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Because we don't know where that's going to go and that
think has just been jumping up, jumping up, jumping up. And before you knou
we'll be at $900,000.00. Before you know tt, we'll be at $1 million.
Councilman Workman: Is this a first reading?
Don Ashworth: Utility rates are done by resolution.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a motion with a second?
Councilman Workman: $o moved.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion?
Resoluti-on ~t92-147: Councilman #orkman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to
authorize the second half utility rate increase w/th notification to residents
that the increase is due to M#CC Increase. all voted tn favor and the morton
carried.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
Councilman Mason: Very quickly. And ! wish there were more people here. With
the meeting coming up tomorrow at Chanhassen Elementary for information on the
referendum. I am not a resident of the B/strict ~112 part of Chanhassen but as
a teacher and as a parent and as a concerned citizen, [ hope a lot of people
show up at that meeting and ! hope a lot of people push the issue of a
referendum. Because I'm afraid if there isn't one, the kids that go to school
in D/strict ~112 will be in unfortunate straits. So ! hope a lot of people show
up tomorrow night, 5:00 to 6:30.
Councilwoman Dimler: Where?
Councilman Mason: At Chun Elementary.
Bob Bohara: Mr. Mayor, could I say something...under Council Presentations?
was here earlier as you may remember. [ have a related by separate issue
like to just mention to you, and this is more for you Mr. Mayor and Councilman
Mason, since the other two of you are lame ducks. During this Oak Pond thing
it's been kind of an education in local goverrment. I've been through lots of
Planning Commission meetings and lots of City Council meetings and one thing
that concerns me is that at the last time, the preliminary review of the planned
unit development that occurred at the Planning Commission meeting, I feel that
and the rest of my neighborhood was ill used by the Planning Commission. They
took the last part of the meeting to lecture us one at a time on our
responsibilities, duties, when to do homework and when not to. This is the same
committee that members admitted during the meeting they hadn't attended the
previous time that this came up, nor had they read the notes. The tone was
condensending and arrogant. ~ don't think that it's appropriate for a committee
of this type. As a homeowner and a resident of Chanhassen, [ expect not just
empathy from my local government but a great deal of sympathy. This is not my
job, as you probably realize. Whenever we go up against developers, it's
51
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
usually a David versus Goliath situation and somebody like a developer comes,
maybe every other meeting. Whatever, and they know you. They know the
procedures. They know ail this. So besides a fair hearing of us, I also expect
empathy and even sympathy because you are all residents. You know what we're
going through to do thls. And I feel we did not get either empathy nor sympathy
from it. From these people. I'm not even sure about the fairness because they
proceeded to vote on it admittedly not havlng read the notes or attended the
meeting. As I say, it's for the two of you. I understand that the members of
that Commission u111 be up for re-appointment I guess ls the rlght thing to say
and you ought to look into what's going on there. The other thing I noticed is
that a lot of tlmes it came up, what we deolded 10 years ago. Okay, we'll go
wlth what we did 10 years ago. Well this is a fast growing community in the
fastest growlng edge of a large metropolitan area. You have to look at what you
did 10 years ago but you have to look at what reality is today. And when you
don't do that, you lock yourself lnto mlstakes that you're golng to pay for
every year after this. So I've used my 2 minutes. I just want you to think
about the people you appoint to these positions, because they represent you as
well as deal with the public.
Councilman Mason: A qulck comment on that. I, after reading through the
Minutes, some people on the Planning Commission did comment about the demeanor
of some of the other commission members and how they agreed wlth what you had to
say.
Bob 8ohara: It was the worst public hearlng I've been at.
Councilman Mason: And with the people I met with, this would have come up at
some point anyway, but as long as we're talking about it now. I believe it was
Mrs. Callister, but I'm not sure, was so angry after that meetlng that she went
home and wrote a letter and put it ina drawer somewhere and I encouraged her to
send it to the clty and address it to the Mayor and Clty Council where it would
get put in the Administrative Packet. I thlnk your concern ls belng addressed
already and I share it with you.
Bob Bohara: I don't expect to come out of one of these meetlngs more
sympathetic to 8Fad Johnson than I do to the representatives of my community.
Mayor Chmlel: Appreciate it.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: DISTRICT 112 YOUTH COMMISSION.
Councilwoman Oimler: Did anyone apply7
Todd Hoffman: A person applled today...
Councilman Workman: Mr. Mayor, maybe this is a decision that ought to be left
until the next Council.
Mayor Chmiel: No, I thlnk you'd better act on it. I think we want to get
somebody there right now.
Councilwoman Dimler: She's working with youth already at St. Hubert's.
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
Mayor Chmiel: I would so move.
Councilwoman Oimler: Susan Hurm.
Mayor Chmiel: As an appointee for the District 112 Youth Commission.
Todd Hoffman: Again just to clarify. That would be a recommendation. The
Youth Commission actually makes their own appointments.
Councilwoman Oimler: Yeah, that's a recommendation. Second.
Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilwoman Dialer seconded to recomnd the appointment of
Susan Hurm to the D/strict 112 Youth Commission. Rll voted tn favor and the
motion carried.
Councilman #orkman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to adjourn the meet/rig.
~11 voted tn favor and the motion carried. The meettng was adjourned at 11:00
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
53