Loading...
1991 08 26C~SSEN CZTY COUNCZL RE6~ tEETTNG NJ4~T 2&. 1991 Mayor ChmteL called the meeting to order at ?:53 p.m.. The meeting was opened ,lth the pledge to the FLag. COUNCIl. flEflBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmlel, Councilman Mason~ Councilman Workman and Councilman Wing Lq)UNCXL~RSNISENT= Councll,oman Dtmler ~T~FF PRESENT: Don Ash,orth, Roger Knutson, Todd Gerhardt, CharLes Folch, Paul Krauss, Todd Hoffman and Scott Hart RI)PR~ OF ~GEJ4M: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman #orkaan seconded to approve the agenda as presented. '~Zl voted in favor and the motion carried. PUI~LZ¢~S: None. CONSENT N]ENiM: Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the folio,lng Consent Agenda /tams pursuant to the City Hanager's recommendations: a. Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Define/Clarify Bed and Breakfast EstabLishments, Final Reading. e. Approval of Accounts. f. City Council Minutes dated August 21, L991 PLanning Commission Minutes dated Rugus~ 7, 1991 Park & Recreation Coeeission Hlnutes dated 3uLy 23, 1991 g. Re~olutLo, 191-79: Ackno,ledge State Estimated 1992 Levy Llm/t, Set Official PubLic Hearing Date, November 18, 1991. All voted In favor and the motion carried. H. ~ F~_K_ ~_cr~_ _u g FOR ~___~ UIGT _~_U~T NaPL~CATZOMS. CounciLman Mason: On l(h). I'e Just reading through-this' ,hole deal on the -- deveLopeent fee schedule. What thought vas given to, in .the report .Paul sobs clty has an eecro, ,here you dray off of it on an hourly rate. Was any thought given to that? Paul Krauss: Yes, quite a bit. We found a couple of d/stressing things, though. First of all that's probably the most equitable ray of doing Lt. But froe an accounting standpoint, it gets rather difficult because you need to account for aLL your hours and basically b/iL somebody, the sm as you ,ovid a8 if you ~ere a consultant. Zt's kind of cumbersome. Frankly our financial folks kind of hit the ceiling ,hen ! suggested it. But more /aportantLy, ! checked ,ith a number of communities and some communities had experienced sign/f/cant problems ,ith it. I think Eagan is several hundred thousand dollars Ln the hole because they 1 City Council Meeting -Rugust 2&, 1991 '; forgot to bill tn a timely manner and some of the developers were e~ther approved and the developer's gone already and they can't collect or they spent a lot of time on a project that was ultimately reSected and the guy never paid his bill. HavEng talked to a number of communities and found out that there were some problems with it, that it was an administrative headache and that we probably were not trying to reach parody. You know bill all our time, we took the approach of kind of walking the middle of the road which was raise our permit fees to cover more of our expenses. Not all of them and Just accept the flat fee. Councilman Mason: That's fine. My only concern, you know all these thlngs with user fees and what not are trickling down. I mean license fees and what not are trickling down. I mean license fees to fish and that keep going up and up and I hope that the City ts getting what we should be. I guess If you're comfortable with that. Paul Krauss: ['m comfortable that we made a whole lot of progress over what we did last year. I guess I would like to use it for a year or two and see how It's working and then we can make some more changes If need be. Councilman Mason: With that I. Councilman Workman: Paul, this addresses only PUD's right? Paul Krauss= Yeah. Everything else was already included. Councilman Workman: #here do you pay taxes Paul? Paul Krauss: In a community that's several hundred thousand dollars [n the hole. Councilman Mason: Yeah, with that I'd move approval of Item Z(h). Councilman Workman: Second. Reaolut%on J9%-80: Councilman ~lamon moved, Councilman Iiorkman seconded to approve to amend the fee schedule for Planned Unit DeveLopment Rppollcat[ons. All voted in favor and the motion carried. UZSZTOR PRESENTATIONS: None. PUBLIC IEN~INO: ~)OPT ASSE$$HENT ROI__L FOR LqKE DRIVE. EAST. PRO~IECT Public Present: NaMe /~ddre~l David Berg 12125 Technology Ortve, Eden Prairie Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. Limits for this project began at Dakota Avenue and extended east to 184th Street or Dell Road. One of the pr/mary Impetus for this project was the interfacing of the overall roadway system Improvements associated with the upgrad£ng of TH 5. The project City Council Heet[ng - August 26, 1991 Improvements consisted of the lnetallat/on of sanitary sewer, watermaln, storm sewer fac/l/ties, the reconstruct[on of the weeter[y 1,000. feet of the. ex£st[ng roadway and new construction of approximately 2,400 1[heal feet of non-existing roadway. The cost associated with these tmproYements were to be financed by a combtnat[on of MnDot, State Funds; T/F and Special Assessments. The majority Of the [mprovoments tmpacted the Sun[Ink Corp/OataServ property. DataServ personnel thus have been Intimately involved with the project from it's inception Including providing Input on the actual road al[gnment and uttl[ty needs. The feaslb[llty study estimated a total project cost of $928,800.00. The actual total cost came [n at $956,987.00. Your packets conta[na prelim[nary assessment ro11 for thts project and I.iould eBphaslze the roll as being prelLe[nary. We have recent[y recetved a Letter from Sunlink Corp, the sole entity proposed for the assessment of these tmprovements stattng the[r object[on to the assessment and to some other extenuating ctrcumetances related to the project. They also provided some terms that they and DataServ ~ould be agreeable to. Rt this point [n time staff ts not totally clear on the specifics of the[r proposal and !bel[eve more t/me ts needed to a11o~ staff to fully Investigate the issues Involved and conduct at least one more meeting with the Sunl[nk/DataServ representat[ves. ! would therefore recommend that the City Council continue this public hearing to the September 23rd City CouncLl meeting. Mayor Chmtel: Okay, thank you. TS there someone here from Sunlink to discuss thts st[ua[ton? Rs I said, this ts a publtc hearing. Dav[d Berg: My name is David Berg. I am General Counsel of DataServ and speak£ng for both SunlLnk and OataServ. ~e would s~mply concur wLth what has just been said. We have f[led our wrLtten objections which were served on the City CLerk on Frtday, Rugust 23rd. We'¥e been engaged wLth some dLscussLons w[th the folks of the City of Chanhassen try/rig to resolve this.matter. We would apprecLate the opportunity to have another Bonth to try to get that done. Mayor Chm[el: Good. Thank you. Oared Berg: Thank you. Mayor Chm[el: Rnyone else? If no one else, could I have a motion to continue the public hearing to September 23rd for .the adopt[on of that assessment roll for Lake Dr[ye East, Project 89-6? Councilman Hason: So moved. Councilman Workman: Second. CounciLman Hason mo~, Counc].Lean ~orkman eecomJed to continue the Public Hearing to adopt the ~8seeement Roll for Lake [~lvo East Project 89-6 unt]/ the September 23, 1991 City Counc].t meeting. /Ltl voted In favor and the motion carried. City Council Heeting- august 26, [991 PUBLIC HE~IRIN6: f~OPT fISSESSI~ENT ROLL FOR CHfiNH~$$EN LPJ(ES BUS/NESS PI~RK FZFT,u, i~:gI]:TZON (P~%RK PL~E P/MSE I]:),_PRO3ECT Publ/c Present: Roman Roos Richard C. Potz 10341 Heidi Lane RCH & associates Charles Folch: Hr. Hayor, members of the Council. at the time the .Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 5th additton was platted in 1986 the developer alscor Investors petitioned the City to Install some needed capital Improvements and entered into a development contract with the City to insure payment for the cost of these Improvements. Thus in 1986 the City conducted the petitioned improvement project which included the construction of the cul-de-sac, Park Place, and sanitary sewer and storm sewer facilities. Due to the poor soil conditions in this area, a two phased approach was implemented to complete the overall improvement project. The concrete curb and gutter and bituminous wear course were to be placed following a closely monitored soil consolidation period. Qua to the uncertainty of the exact building site locations and grading, the watermatn portion of this project was also delayed. The cost for these Phase II Improvements were shown as a pending assessment to be levied against the 5th Addition parcels when the construction of the remaining improvements occurred. The project feasibility report estimated an assessable project cost of $2,526.68 per acre for the street improvements and $4,896.42 per acre for the watermain Improvements. The actual assessment rate was $2,790.90 per acre for street and $4,356.38 per acre for the watermaIn. The net result is a decrease tn the combined assessable project coat by $275.00 per acre. The project consultant engineer, Hr. Richard Potz of RCH ts present tonight to address any specific project questions you might have. at the close of the public hearing, if there are no outstanding Issues or questions to be resolved, it would be appropriate for the Council to adopt the assessment roll for the Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 5th addition, Zmprovement Project 85-13B and that the assessment rate and term be set for 8~ on an 8 year term. Hayor Chmlel: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone wishing to address this particular item. This Is a public hearing. This is your opportunity. Roman Roos: Good evening. Roman Roos. I'm the owner of Lot 1, Block 3 of Chart 5th Addition. I'm not here this evening to contest any of assessments. I only want a clarification as to how the allocation came about. I bought Lot 1, Block 3 in 1989 and when [ went back and looked at the records, there were Lots Chan Lakes Business Park original that was replatted into the new 5th Addition comprising of 7 Iota and one outlot. When I saw the assessment roll I saw it was broken down into 6 lots are sharing that total cost. The question is, what became of Lot 7 and the outlot? That's all I have. Thank you. Hayor Chmiel: Thank you. Haybe we can address that at this specific time. Charles? Charles Folch: at this point I'd have to do some research on that particular question. Basically the assessment roll followed the feasibility report's .. City Council Heet[ng - august 26, [99[ recommendation on the assessment area and that Lot 7 uas not Included tn that original assessment proposal at the feastbitLty stage. Hayor Chmiel: It was not Included? Charles FoLch: It was not Included as a part of the asssesaent area. Hayor Chmlel: alrIght. What about the outlot? Charles FoLch: The outLot was not Included either. Only the Lots ! thru 6 of Block I were /ncLuded in that original assessment or at the feastb/I/ty time. Mayor ChmLel: Does that answer your question? Roman RoDs: ! guess the question again, this happened prlor to the sale of some of the Lots In the Sth addition. My question was why was It not Included 1nit/ally In the first phase which was 8S-13R. ! don't understand that why tt should not have been because one of these 9 lots was effected tn the repLat. But again [...and I'm very comfortable with lt. I Just didn't understand why tt was eliminated... Don ashworth: I think we'I1 end up, to answer the question, we'll probably end up tabl/ng this. There's an original Plat of property and the remaining ownershlp under Opus, there was a request for a rmplat which I think encompamsed then your property, correct Roman? Rs a part of that, as Opus was really the primary benefactor. They had come back to the City ask/rig how that would then be assessed back to them. Charles' comments, are correct.. It has been cons/stent with those early agreements but sitting here I can't recall the configuration of the old plat versus the repLat. What.Lots were encompassed in the old plat versus new plat. I think there's a number of questions that need to be answered that I don't know that we have the answers for tonight, Charles Folch: Haybe I can put thls up on the overhead. Hr. Potz has pointed out that this OutLot a here was not included In the original feasibility assessment roll because of tt not being...through this existing pond and wetland area, It's not really a bulldabLe Lot. This Lot here, Lot 1, Block 2 Iea parking lot for this lot here. So It's not again a true developable.piece of property. Roman RoDs: Charles, that's a I acre lot. Richard Potz: That's butLdabLe. Charles FoLch: Lot I ts? R/chard Potz: Lot 1, BLock 2... The agreement at the time. Mayor Chmiel: Richard, would you like to come up to the microphone? Richard Potz: at the time the feasibility study was done tn 1985 and presented in 3anuary of 1986, the agreement with alscor was to assess the sanitary seuer, wateree/n, store sewer and roadway through for Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. Siecor at that flee [ believe also owned Lot 1, Block 2, which te on the corner. It ts . $ Council Heettng - August 26, [99[ a butldable lot but [t was being used as a parking lot. [t was a paved parking lot for a building that's located over on the corner of Park Ortve and Park Road. Outlot A ! am not sure if that is an ow[lot because It's In a ponding area and the city has that or not Todd. So the agreement at that time when the original feasibility was presented for for sewer, water, storm sewer, was to assess by an acreage basts through those 6 Lots. And of course as Charles mentioned, the original feasibility Indicated that there were some soft soils under there. We did a lot of surcharging, compressing the soft soils under that roadway and made a decision to go with a rural type roadway rather than Installing curb and gutter and end up with a lot of dips tn there. And we pushed through the cost for the curb and gutter at that time and tried to est[mate at that time and delayed [t and showed [t as a pending for that future street work which ts the second blacktop and curb and gutter. And I've got an overlay for the waterma[n too which eventually went under the Phase II. Originally there was not anything proposed to be built in back in 4, 5, and 6 so with nothing pending, we decided to delay the watermatn at that time rather than push it through. After the project was built and the settlement occurred, there were some people that were Interested tn building on Lot & back in the cul-de-sac. There was some stuff on Lot 3 so at that time the Phase II then was ~nlt[ated. Settlement had occurred sufficient and most of [t had been that we felt we could put the curb and gutter and the blacktop [n and run the watermain in. So following the procedure of Phase I, we again went back through and did on Phase II, put them through on the same & lots. Not the seventh one which is the Lot 1, Block 2 because they were shown as pending under the original one. That was the agreement with the Developer's Agreement. It does not specifically say give me this much on 6 and this much on 5. It Just says spread them out over the lot and the agreement with Alscor Investors which was acceptable to them to spread them over those & lots. And that's the way we did it tn Phase II. Followed the same procedure. Hayor Chm£el: Sounds reasonable. I think that probably answers your quest[on. Roman Roos: Right now they're spreading the assessments on five lots. Xayor Chmiel: You say they're spreading assessments on five and not six lots? On Lot I thru 6 they're being assessed from what I understand. Roman Roos: OLd they recently combine...? Paul Krauss= Actually yes. You're correct. The PHT expansion that was approved l&st year, Lots [ ~nd 2 sere replatted and comb[ned. Richard potz: The overhead you see up there ts from the Phase I, showing Lot 1, 2, 3. If you can see those down tn the bottom left hand corner. Currently Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot 2, Block has been Kepis[ted into one lot so the combined acreage from Lot 1, Block 2 and Lot 2. Or I'm sorry. Lot 1 and 2, Block I down in the corner is now one lot. The acreage is still the same, however it is one lot. Roman Ecoa= Are you...Opus/Alscor...? Richard Po[z= Well there's Is no Lot 7. You're referring to Lot 7. There's Lot 1, Block 2, yeah. Alscor Investors was acceptable and was willing and City Council Meeting - august wanted to know, wanted to do it the slx ways. The combining of Lot I and Lot 2 into one building I think was because the bu£1dlng locations and stuff forced the replattlng of those two lnto one. The dollar value and the acreages for those two now is one which wouldn't be any different than taking and combining 3 and 4 or 5 and 6. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Ia there anyone else wishing to provide some _ testimony for this public hearing? If hearing none, I think the questions were answered. Can I get a motion to close the public hearing. Councilman ~orkean moved, Councilman Mason seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing ~as closed. Mayor Chmlel: Any discussion? Councilman Workman: Have the quemttons In fact been answered? Roman Roos: ...yes. Councilman Workman: I'd make a motion to adopt assessment roll for Chart Lakes Business Park 5th Addition, Project No. 85-13B. Councilman Mason: Second. ResoLution ~91-81: Councilman Norkaan ~, Counc]J~an ~n second,rd to a~k~t the Chanhaseen Lakes Business Park 5th ~klttion '~eprovenont Project No. 85-138 assessment roll and that the aseesenont rate and tern be set for 8 years at an 8~ interest rate. All voted in favor and the notion carrLed. ~RQ OF BZDS: H~ET SO~ STO~ $E~R. F~ECT 90-13. Charles Folch: On Tuesday, August 13th bids were opened for the Market Square Storm Sewer Extension Project. The scope for improvements on this project were increased by addendum to include the right turn lane on West 78th Street at Market, the turn lanes on Market Blvd. and the bum shelter relocation. The reason for adding theme work items to the original project was the result of the necessity to try and meet some time schedule deadllnem with the Market Square development project. Low bidder for this project was Schafer Contracting Company at $176,983.00. This is approximately $15,000.00 leas than the engineer's estimate of $~92,000.00. In relative terms, the storm em~er portion of the work ts approximately $9,000.00 Ieee than the bid that was received last year. Same work. Schafer Contracting has performed favorably in other contracts within the city and Is capable of performing the work items required of this project. It should be noted however that the actual closing for the properties associated with the Market Square developmsnt will not'occur untl! sometime around the first part of September. Until this closing has taken place and the city has received an executed development contract and the necessary securities, the City has no assurance or guarantees of being reimbursed for the costs associated with this improvement project. I would therefore recommend that the City Council award the Market Square storm sewer project and road improvement project No. 90-13 contingent upon receiving the executed development contract and necessary securities for Market Square Oevelopmsnt project. city Counc£l Meeting - Rugust 26, ~99~ Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. 3ust one question. Schafer Contracting, are they the same people working on TH 57 Charles Folch: That's correct. The same General Contractor. Mayor Chmiel: [ want to make sure that somehow we contain in there that the road be cleaned at all given times and not like the problem we're having down on 78th and 17. That was supposed to have been swept as well for the weekend. Cleaned off and they never did do that. It Just bothers me and Irritates me a little bit to see the amount of dust that does fly in that particular intersection. It was so heavy one day that there could have been an accident. It was good and-dry and it hadn't been swept as it should have been. I want to make sure that they understand the importance of making sure these roads stay clean so there's not cause for an accident. Charles FoIch: That's a point we will highly emphasize at the pre-construction conference. Mayor Chmtel: Thank you. Councilman Workman: These costs will be assessed back to the benefitting properties or...by HRA? Mayor Chmiel: This is probably an HRA project. Don Ashworth: A portion of each is the answer. Included in the contract is some bus shelter work which is being carried out by the HRA. The turn around loop, the widening of a lane so there would be a right turn lane where the bus pull out. Councilman Workman: Wait a minute. We're going to that now? We are going back to that curb cut? Don Ashmorth: No. Off of Bowling Center Road. Pauly Drive I guess is the correct term at this point. The turn around that you had seen. The storm sewer, typically storm sewer is 50~ assessed and 50~ general obligation. In this case tax increment so it's a combination of both. Mayor Chmlel: Okay. Any other discussion? If hearing none, can I have a motion? Councilman Mason: I'll make a motion to award the bids for Market Square Storm Sewer and Road Improvements, Project 90-13. Councilman Workman: Second. Councilman Mason: Should ! have added contingent upon the necessary property transactions? Mayor Chmiel: Well I think Charles phrased that in his recommendation. City Council Meeting - august 26, 1991 Resolution ~91-82: CouncL]~an Haaon rowed, CouncJJJan gori~an seconded to a~ard the bid for Harket Square Storm Sever and Road :~]prow~t;, ProJect 9o-13 to schafer Contracting In the a~ount of $17&,983.00 contingent upon noce~sary property transactions and ~ecurltle~ of the Harket Square I)evelop~ent taking place. /tll voted ~n favor and the ~ot/on carried.. FRONT Yd~O SETBtBiCK q/d~RZ~ REgIEST FOR CONST~TTON OF /i PQROJ d~D DECK. 180 FOX flOLL~ DRZVE. STEVE ~ ~ PETERSOff. Paul Krauss: Mr. Hayor, the applicants are appealing a denial of a variance request from the Board of adjustment. The request calls for a 12 foot front yard setback variance from 20 feet do~n to 8 feet for a lot located in the Fox Hollou area. This area was developed as a PUO and we've frankly had a long history of problems with the residential PUO's relative to undersized lots and variances that stem from build[rig on undersized lots. Z'd add that us're looking at reappraising the question of residential PUO's from the Planning Commission and looking at fy[rig up the loose ends so ue don't have problems uith this [n the future but unfortunately we're left u[th a legacy of some difficult situations. No# the normal front yard setback in single family districts Ks 30 feet. This is a corner lot and the ordinance provides that corner lots have two front yards. [n reality there's only one door-but'from the ordinance standpoint there's tuo front yards, ghat they did tn the PUO Ks, in recognizing that we had smaller .lots they louered the setback from'30 feet to 20 feet. The applicants are looking to construct a porch and a deck into that 20 foot setback. Zt's outlined tn red on the west side of the home. There would be an 8 foot setback from the ne~ porch to the right-or-#ay line. [t also intrudes a little bit into, there's a 10 foot ut[ltty easement, that dashed line over there. Near as we can tell, and ue haven't been able to locate the-final documentation on this plat, there are no city utilities in that easement area. The sewer and the water run doun the street, ghat we're not sure of Ks ue don't know [f there's any gas or electric or telephone lines in there. There probably are. They typically bracket the area. [f there's any favorable action on this tonight, we'd ask that you make it contingent upon using.that, having the owners call up that Minnesota One call and verifying where these utilities are because obviously we don't uant to build into a gas main or uhatever else happens to be there. Rs ! said, this is one of those situations that becomes rather difficult, ge do have probably $ or 4 residential PUO's'where these sorts of things...Further compounding this Ks the fact that the patio door ts facing this area. Now for the last year and a half or so us'ye been revteuing building permits and refusing to allou patio doors where there's no Likelihood of getting a deck, and this ia something that ue probably would catch today but nobody did back when the hone was built, i've heard the ounere speak before. ! believe that they were led to believe by the builder that they could get'a deck [n this place which has also happened before, gith that, again tm had recommended denial to the Board of adjustments. ~e didn't find a neighborhood precedent for this. The Board of adjustment did recommend dental, ge're carrying that recommendation forward. Z'd also add too that Brian Batzli from our Planning Come[ss[on wrote a letter of support for this. That ~as Intended to get into the packet and ! don't believe it did but he uae tn favor of granting the applicant's request, gtth that ~e are recommending dental. Mayor Chmiel: Is the applicant proposed to address the situation? ! uae out there and ! looked at this home. actually from the edge of the house to the City Council NeetIng - August curb there's approximately 30 feet. Setback requirement is, well Paul maybe you can explain that. I sat down and discussed this with Paul and I felt that there was some potential in seeing this go in. It's a little different situation. It goes into a cul-de-sac. It's not a continuing on street so the blending of the appearance ! don't think would be quite as bad either. But maybe with that Paul why don't you just. Paul Krauss: I sketched his up after having a conversation with the ~ayor just so [ could lay out for everybody the way this thing lays. In this case north is that way. The cul-de-sac exposure is right here. Mayor Chmiel: Show them the front of the house. Where's north? Paul Krauss: North, yes. I'm upside doan. North is this way. ! pointed in the right direction. It just came out backwards. I knew where it was. The existing building wall ts this black line here. There's a 20 foot setback to the property line. The property line is this red line with the PL next to it. Again, this 20 feet Is consistent with the ordinance. The PUB ordinance that was approved here. Normally It's a 30 foot setback. In this case It's 20. The new deck that wants to be added, they are looking to build Is out here. What this red area is the utility easement and I'll highlight that a little better. That area is that 10 foot utility easement and it's the deck and the porch actually protrude Into it a little bit. The outside of this red line here Is the right-of-way line. It's the property line itself. Now the Hayor was specifically asking me, where is the curb line here. The curb line is 8 feet beyond that. So effectively right now it's 30 feet from the closest building wall to the curb line. Normally we have an 8 to 10 foot boulevard in the street. We use it for utilities and snow piling and everything else. ! don't know hoa much this clarifies It. What we would have remaining from, if it's built as proposed. Here's the outside building wall. Here's the curb 11ne. There'd be 18 feet. 8 feet to the property line. It's 18 feet to the curb. So visually when you're looking at a street and you're looking at the curb and not where the property line really is. Is there anything else I can add on that? Hayor Chmiel: No. I guess what I look at ts the total amount of distance to what the city boulevard section is to where basically utilities go in. They don't go in on a private property per se. With that maybe I'd best let the property owner can [nd[cate their concern. Councilman Hason: The deck would be 8 feet from the curb or 18 feet? Paul Krauss: The deck will be 18 feet from the curb. 8 feet from the property line. Mayor Chmtel: Right. Which is well within the requirement of the setbacks. Right? Paul Krauss: The required setback is 20, yeah. Councilman Workman: That's kind of confusing. Paul Krauss: It's the best I could do. 10 C~ty Council Meeting - ~ugust 2&, 1991 .. Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Please state your name and your address. Sharon Peterson: Sharon Peterson, 180 Fox HoLLo~ Drive. Z Just have a couple of things to say. ! had a big long speech at the other hearing. The minimum lot size in Chanhassen is 15,000 square feet but because ue live £n a PUO, RottLund Construction uae alLoued to put our house on a 10,S00 square foot lot. We don't feel that It's fair to relax the rules for the builder and then impose the setbacks for a 15,000 square foot lot on us. also, the amount of house that the City alLoued Rottlund to build on that Lot uouLd not accommodate a walkout. The only other place for a second exit to our house ts on that side of the house, ge don't feel that ,e should be penal[zed before the City's only been checking the plans for sliding glass doors for 2 years. Our house uae built In [98& and us're not builders. We had no Idea about any of these rules. [ also have a petit[on signed by all of the immediate neighbors saying that they have absolutely no objection to the deck, or the porch. The immediate neighbors being anyone who ulLL have to Look at It every day or drive by tt every day. ! also have pictures of the house for those of you uho tmren't able-to go past the property. Was anyone but the Mayor there? councilman Mason: ~ drove by Sharon Peterson: ! also have a copy of the letter that Brian Batzlt urote If you uouLd Like to see that. Mayor Chmiel: Yes, I've seen it. Maybe if someone else didn't get it in their packet. Oo you uish to say something sir? Steve Peterson: No. I'm just saying everybody kno~s our problem. I have nothing to say. Mayor Chmiel: You're there for support.. Sharon peterson: [ think we're done. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Any discussion? Councilman Mason: I've got angry notes written all over this aonder£ng hou, let ee backtrack a little bit. When Lundgren Bros. uae in here talking about what they do, didn't Terry Forbord say something about they give a packet to each homeouner about what they can and can't do? This comes up so often that builders, In my humble opinion are clearly trying to Jack people around In some instances. Not all builders. I'm not going to make a blanket comment. Before [ get Into this specific issue, uhat can the City do so ue don't have to put up uith this kind of stuff? ! think us're starting in the rlght direction by revIeuIng that. and I'm not yelling at you Paul or even asking necessarily for an ansuer from you but these things come up all the time and ae sitting up here [ feel Like ['m damned if ! do and damned if [ don't. !uant to knou, should ~e be, as a Council, considering some kind of action to force bu/lders to be a Little bit sore responsible? and If Mayor Chmiel: ! think ue tried that and unfortunately ~e can't be there on each closing of the property. [t gets to be difficult policing but some Instances Z think through may be our inspection department can advlee and oftentimes maybe City Council Meeting - August it's consummated. ~ deal's consummated between a builder and the proposed buyer where that house £s already going and ae don't kno~ shat the requirements are. Make some kind of a commitment to a property owner is rather hard for the city to take a position on. ~s you say, all builders with£n the c£ty, most of them are all reputable really but you do have a few who try to sneak a faa things in and more spec£ficaLly with PUO's and I think that's something that we can probably look at ~hen we're looking at those proposals and make sure that those requirements are there. ~nd if not, maybe have tt as a condit£on that that builder is responsible for whatever. Paul? Paul Krauss: Over the years I've tried many times to get developers to be up front and it's kind of antithetic to the trade ! guess but we're not there when they're negotiating w~th the buyer. We don't know what anybody's saying to whom but what we certainly can do is ~n PUD's, if we are going to allow residential PUO's In the future, and In fact one's being processed right now but ~t's not a small lot PUD. Zn fact it's a very large lot PUB for Lundgren but where small lot residential PUO's are considered in the future, we can tie down these loose ends. We can have development contracts. We can record the development contract to ~ndividual Lots. Yhere's lots of things we will be doing to avoid some of the more direct problems that we've been having with this. On the other hand, property owners are going to have to be somewhat responsible too. Let the buyer beware is really meaningful. We are here as a resource for people. When you're going to plop doan $[00,000.00, $80,000.00, ~hatever it is on a house, If you have some questions about the ability to expand that home tn the future, you really have something of an obl~gation to pursue it yourself. Nos when ae tel1 a builder that we won't allow a patio door where we think it's not legitimate to put a deck, we're probably overstepping our bounds. Z mean the builder has every right to put that patio door tn and we've sort of administratively said tf you're going to go ahead and do that, as're going to require that you put a notice in the chain of title saying you can't put a deck there, ge're trying to protect the property owner, future buyer from themselves. We're not doing this because we have to or because if we don't then they're automatically entitled to a variance because I don't think that that's necessarily the case. Everybody needs to take some responsibility for learning what they can do. Llkewise we don't tell a builder what model house they can put on a piece of ground. If ~t meets the setbacks, walkout, 2 story, 1 story, ranch, we don't care. ~t's not something that we get involved ~ith. ~s long as tt meets the setbacks and sometimes the type of house is a bearing on whether or not you'll have flooding problems, ae got involved aith that. Beyond that it's indtvidua~ choice. Mayor Chmiel: Well anyaay, as I really looked at this thing rather closely ~ith the existing 20 foot setback that's there to the building, totally goes out to the easement ~hich is the 30 feet and I'm not sure that easement is really on their property for that ~0 feet. Paul Krauss: Yes it is. Mayor Chmie[: It is? Paul Krauss: Yeah. It's like, it shows up here. Mayor Chmiel: ~ell that should be incorporated in the 30 feet. 12 City Counc£l Meeting - Rugust 26, [99[ Paul Krauss: This is the 10 foot easeBent. The property line is over here. Here's the inside of the easement. So uhen [ say that there's 18 feet to the curb, it includes 8 feet of this plus 10 feet of this. Councilman Hason: So it ~lll be into the easement by tO feet? Paul Krauss: Yes. Mayor Chmiel: Now, if the property owner were to cut it back to lO feet, it wouldn't be a/thin it? That would be from this? Paul Krauss: No. [t'e better that it's not in the easement but then it would require, what are we? ge're at a [2 foot setback variance so it ~ould require a [0 foot setback variance. Sharon Peterson:' Can I ask a question? ~hat if there is no utilities where we're proposing to put the deck? ~ould that be different? Mayor Chmlel: I think it probably ~ould because I don't knou what would be needed there. Your area is underground is it not? and I see no need for that cable I would assume is also tn there, and telephone, and that area is completely developed. On that side street there is not any extensions that would be made through that area. It'd be utterly impossible because of the cul-de-sac off on that aide road. So I think that if there's not those requirements maybe we could stipulate that as a condition as well. That one say be required to contact Gopher One and call to find out what's within that area. Two, if their utilities is not going to be that encroachment because that easement ia not going to be needed, ae I see ti.' And three, if there is, there could be that [0 foot deck cutback from the 12 to the 10 and carry it through but if there isn't, then I think we can go with the~e other conditions. I think that appearance wise it's not going to cause any problems. If you've seen those petitions that have come through here, all the neighbors have really basica[ly signed that. Have to meet those specific crtterta as I see lt. Counc£lman Hason: isn't one of the reasons ~e have .setbacks is to keep things away from the road and universally do that? If' this is granted, what kind of milestone Ls it? I mean I understand that it is Just on a cul-de-sac and I appreciate that but someone that wants the same kind of variance who isn't on a cul-de-sac. Mayor Chmiel: Well that's the difference between the t~o then. Councilman Nason: They're not going to see it that way. Mayor Chmiel: No, that's probably true. But I think you have to look at it from the use of that particular property that that individual has. I'm not ail for giving all variances up. But in this specific case I think it has to be a case by case situation. ~t least in what Z have looked at and what I have seen. ! feel comfortable enough. Rny. other discussion? Councilman gorkman: My comments were a part of the Board of ~dJustaents and next year when Mike or R/chard are on that Board, elected official beware. Because boy, you put up and look at these things and you always look for an out. 13 City Council Meeting - August Z6, [99[ The one that I thlnk of most recently In this regard and Judy and Lelgh Colby on Laredo. Go aLL the way down Laredo where Lt ends £n a c£rcLe w£th a cul-de-sac. They had kind of a ple shaped lot and we had this same thing. What was their front yard and what was their s£de yard and they .were probably Less into Laredo, they weren't into the easement. Paul Krauss: No. Councilman Workman: And there was a big pine tree situation there and everyth/ng else and we said no. So [ don't know what solutions. [ did drive out there before the Board of Adjustments meeting last time. It does really, and I Just remember what the CoLby one we discussed this side yard, front yard issue at very great detail and for us to make this a side yard and not a front yard or whatever Lt is, it's reaLLy tough. It's a whole Lot of house and a whole lot of deck and a little lot. Very obvious place. That Is very difficult for me to approve Just because of everything that is backed up. and I know people hate to hear that because it doesn't sound like you can be flexible but. Remember the Colby's? Mayor ChmieL: Yes. I remember the one you're talking about. CounciLman Workman: You know 'I don't know that the Peterson's could build something smaller because an 18 foot wide deck, and I used to Just always hate that when some past Council members used to teLL people how to build their garage and decks and everything else. That's not my place. However, ! Just did Lt. [ don't know Lf it could be smaLLer. ObviousLy tf the deck were smaLLer, then the screened room would maybe have to be smaller and that might make it not worthwhile for the Petersons. [ don't know what the soLut[ons are. i'm not prepared again after the Board of Adjustments to discuss to put that thing that close to the road. Hayor CheieL: Well, Richard. Do you have anything? CounciLman Wing: I also went out and looked at it and I noted that It's been denied by staff. Recommended for denial by staff and the Board of Adjustments. Ooors have Long been an issue and i'm conv£nced that we've dealt with that issue through inspections. And this is kind of a leftover where we have porch doors going nowhere. [ guess [ didn't like Brian's Letter. [ think that he discusses the intent of the PUD and the PUO is to allow variances and alLow us to be lax on the variances. [t kind of says we're going to go from what's normal and put 8 pounds of potatoes into a S pound bag which is okay. That's the intent of the PUD. And this particular one, if I can stay with Layman's terms, I k~nd of see us trying to go with 10 pounds of potatoes into a 5 pound bag. So to me the project exceeds the needs created by the doors. Had there been an Intent to come Ln here and get some access from those doors into a deck and a & foot deck coming out of the atrtum doors and then tucking back into the house as we were shown earlier and cutting the deck back down to 6 and 4. Oown to lZ foot along the house area itself. ~ think Lt's a major project that exceeds the needs. I think it's appearance is going to have a major impact on that street. ! look at Lake M£nnewashta where they aLLowed someone to put tn a swimming pool and a tennis court. To this day I'm wondering who allowed that. I think this project cLearLy exceeds the needs exLst£ng by those ex[sting doors so I guess I would tend to uphold the Board of Adjustments. I would have been much more 14 City Council Meeting - August 26, [99[ comfortable had this been a small .deck 5ust to get access free those doors. But not a major 12 x [2 screened porch going to a L7 foot deck. [ think that exceeds the needs and clearly impacts that corner and that lot beyond it's Limits. Mayor Chin[el: Okay. What I would like to do is to make a motion to approve the front yard variance request and appeal the decision of the ~ard of ftdjustments and Appeals. [s there a second? Without a second the motion falls. Councilman Wing: I'd like to make a motion denying this particular request. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? Councilman Workman: Second. Mayor Chmiel: Any discussion? Roger Knutson: Mr. Mayor. So the record is clear. The basis for your motion of denial is the Planning report and the H[nute~ of the Board of ~dJustments and Appeals. Councilman Wing: Would you repeat that Roger? Roger Knutson: Is the basis of your ~otion the Planning report and the recommendation of the Board of Adjustments and ~ppeals? So the record is clear. Mayor ChmieL: Okay, clarification. It does include staff's report. Councilman Wing coved, Councllean Workean seconded to deny Variance ~191-7 baaed on the reasons outLLnod in the planning report and the tlinute~ of the Board of Adjustments and ~ppeala dated 3uly 8, 1991. al! voted in favor except tlayor Chelel who opposed and the eotion carried uith a vote of 3 to 1. CONDITIONAL USE PERttZT /gtENDtlENT RE6~RD/N6 THE FENCJ~ ~ENZNG If. ZGHT FROtl 8 FT. TO 15 FT.. 7851 PfLRK DRXgE. I./tl(E~ EgU~T. STEgE W]].LETTE. Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, in 1988 the City issued a conditional use permit for Lakeshore Equipment. Outdoor storage was a part and parcel of this request and it was an issue at the time it was approved and there was a fair amount of testimony and emphasis placed on it. As a result an 8 foot high wooden fence was required and ultimately was installed. The City Council a[~o required that no stored materials be placed higher than 8 feet to keep the visibility of materials down. Zn 1990 my staff was doing regular s/re visits for conditional use permits, which we've begun to do on an annual basis and we noticed that this fence had fallen in one area. ! believe it was the result of a fairly heavy wind storm. We did ask the owner to restore the fence and ~ed[d notify him of the 8 foot height limitation. The applicant obtained a building permit and we put not[ce of the limitation on that. [n October the building inspector went out there to update the project or do the final inspection, ! don't recal! which, but he noticed that the fence had been constructed as high as 15 foot in some places. Staff then requested that the fence be cut back to. the allowable height that was a condition, a stipulation of the conditional use permit. #e also indicated that one option for the owner would be to petition the city to City Council Meeting - Rugust 26, L99[ change the condition. We didn't indicate one way or the other what our preference would be and we did Indicate that that would be an alternative and that if they wanted to do pursue that, we uould delay action untll that occurred. The applicant ks asking that request to repeal that condition, or to codify that condition. We belteve the issue here ts more than one of slepLy the height of the fence. [t basicaLLy revolves around the visual iepact of outdoor storage, and particularly a fence of that eagnttude and our belief that it detracts froa the overall quality of the Industrial park. We note that because of problems with this site, prlearlly probLees with this site and some others around the city, when we're reviewing the Landscaping standards to change the zoning ordinance, we're actually looking at banning the use of wooden fences for outdoor storage areas. They Just haven't worked weLL. This one predates or this one was part of the learnlng curve but knowing what ~e know now, ~e sure wouldn't do It again. That doesn't have any particular bearing on this request. It's just that we're trying to rectify what's happened ~n the past. The P~annlng Comelsslon d£d review this in Noveaber and on a split vote, we didn't have all the Planning Comeiss~oners there that night but ! believe they voted 4-~ to allow the ~arge fence to reeatn contingent upon the applicant ~orklng a revised landscaping plan. Basically to break up the sassing of the fence. The Landscaping p~an was subeitted and frankly It's not reaL~y the applicant's fault that this was Noveaber ~hen th~s occurred and we have it now. ge thought ~e could get this done by spring and we tried to work with hie to do that. There's been some delay s~nce then but the revised landscaping plan that's been subattted would add an additional 8 spruce trees and 20 pots of ~vy ~htch presueabty would cl~eb up the wall and break it up ~ith some green. ~e think It's an iaprovement but frankly we don't believe that It's reaLLy going to serve the goal. It's very tough to screen or to break up a ~alL that b~g. We're therefore continuing to recoeeend that the fence, or the ~odlflcatton to the fence be denied and that the fence go back to it's original height and that the storage of eater£aLs Inside the fence also go back to the original he£ght. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. ~ould anyone like to address the s~tuation? Steve ~lLLette: I'm Steve ~i[[ette, the o~ner of the property. I'm President of Lakeshore Equipment Company. [ think Paul has got some misinformation in reference to this. The PLanning, or what do we caLL It? The City PLanners? Hayor ChmleL: Planning Commission. Steve W[LLette: The PLanning Commission also felt that there was probably some prejudice or problems within the Planning Director's office. First of all he's got a lot of facts that, since he wasn't here probably are not his fault that he doesn't have clear but he doesn't have them clear. First of all the conditional use permit was granted on conditions that the outside storage area be totally screened. And an oversight on the Planning Commission and ey part and the City Council and the contractors and everybody did not take into consideration the hieght of the road and the height of the storage area. We did build the fence at 12 feet and it was approved by the old city, what do you caLL, BuiLding Inspector. By the old BuiLding Inspector and was approved by hie at [2 feet. He did see It. There were several PLanning ComaIssion people that case out that day. ~aLked around the fence ~ith ce. The fence. Part of the fence did down. Part of the fence was reconstructed. Part of the fence that goes towards the road was reconstructed at [5 feet. Rt ~4 to [5 feet eaxi~ue height along City Council Heeting - August 2&, ~HgL one small area which faces the highway. Because of the height of the high, ay being 20 feet higher than the storage area, at the storage area'e highest point there's no way that it can be done any differently other than a 15 foot high fence to keep It so you can't see inside. I think that's what we're all after is to try to keep the product so you can't see it. I now have a building that is built specifically for Lakeshore Equipment Company and Lakeshore Equipment Company ts reliant on that building. My source of income is reliant on having that building and having this company. I am trying to do what is right to try and keep the city nice looking. I look at the building north of me and there are several tenants there. Instead of having any kind of storage area, all they do is park all the vehicles and equipment outside. I looked at the buildings to the south of me, because we're in an industrial park. Same thing happens. There are vehicles stored outside. 3unk cars. Heavy equipment. Walls. Gas tanks. Same thing to the north and I'm right inbetwsen these two people and everytime I look either north or south I see this stuff. When I take a look at our area, I see a cedar fence. Cedar fence that cost me over $35,000.00 to construct so I could try to keep it so it looked nice. I also exceeded all of your Planning Commission's or all your ordinances in reference to landscaping when I first did it. I said I have no problem with trying to come up and make it look a Little more presentable by putting in some more landscaping again. When ! did the original trees and shurbs I exceeded what was required of me by almost $0~. I am willing to put more tn. I'm willing to spend more money. I do think that it does have to be screened. I want it to look nice. It is part of my business too. I don't want to look like I'm running a 3unk yard. I want to make it look like I'm running a nice reputable bus, ness. We're are the largest in the nation of docks and boat lifts. We pull people in from all over the 5 state area. We have a dealer network. We sell to dealers as well as sell to retail consumers. We sell lifts as far away as Alaska. Oown in arizona. So we do do some things for the community. We pull people in. and all we want to do ts get by in the community and I think that I'm willing to spend some money to try to sake it look a little bit better by putting in the extra shurbs and the vines. The fence is well constructed now. It's not going to blow down again. There ts some areas that haven't been complete because I'm not going to spend any more money until I get final approval on it. There's some boards missing that didn't get put back on. Call the contractor out as soon as Sharmin started raising her voice and getting mad and so I just sald well Sharmin, let's go through the process so I put a hold on all the remaining parts to the fence as far as fixing and making thee look nice. The fence will look nice. It will weather. It will fit into the area. ! have taken a btg portioo of ey a 1/4 acres and left it into the wild to go with the green strip for the river. really trying and I Just don't know what the problem with the Planning Oirector and his staff is. But it seems like the Planning Commission did say well if you put some more shurbs In or some more trees in and did something, if I could come to terms with Sharmin from the Planning Commission, it would be taken care of but it just seems like it's kind of like pushing a pencil with your nose or something. It's kind of tough. Hayor Chmiel: Okay. Thank you. Don Ashworth: Hr. Hayor? Hayor Chmtel: Yes. City Council Meeting - August Don Ashworth= Can ! respond to some of the points brought up by Mr. Willette? Hayor Chmie1: Sure. Don Ashworth: I do not believe that the Planning Commission made a mistake in the review and original conditions. The sight line from TH 5 is very minimal. You cannot observe the fence if you are heading easterly. From anywhere along TH 5. If you're heading westerly you will have obtained SS mph. You will potentially see that for 3-4 seconds. I mean you just don't see it from TH S. The contention that it needs to be tS feet in height because of TH 5 is, in my own mind, not a concern. The area that is a concern ts if you're in the lower portion of the business park and you have one of the abutting properties. Willette's property is like It's up on a hill and you then put a 15 foot high fence on top of that hill and it's Just kind of mind boggling to anything below it. It's not solely the Planning Department. I think any of the departments have referred to that back area as kind of Fort Apache and it looks like it. Mr. Willette brought out some of the neighbors and there's no question but that some of the illegal conditions have continued to mushroom around him. The Oayco property. Merit property to the north. The RODS property to the west. But to allow one violation. To say yeah, that's okay. You can go ahead and violate what it is you had agreed to do ts sending the wrong message to Merit. To Dayco and to RODS. I really believe that the issue was debated at significant length before the Planning Commission with Commissioner Emmings saying, you agree that it will be 8 feet. You will not see anything and Mr. Willette said, I'm going to make It even shorter than the 8 feet. I mean thts is not something that no one really thought about. I mean it was questioned and requestIoned and requesttoned agatn. I don't think it has anythtng to do with the Planning Director. Staff recommends denial. Mayor Chmtel: Okay. Any other discussion? Paul, did you have anything more? Paul Krauss: Only on the matter of Merit and Oayco. I've had my staff going out there trying to document what's there so that we can start working with them to clean up those problems. We are aware of them. It takes some time to get people to comply but we are beginning to work with them on those matters. Councilman Workman: The reason that Mr. Willette wants a[S foot high fence is to potentially store things higher in there correct? Paul Krauss= That's our presumption, although I think Hr. Willette disputes that. Now my staff has been out there on different occasions with the Building Inspector and measured materials of 11 feet, LO foot & inches, 9'3", 8'6" and 12 feet. I don't know what the real intent was but tt sure seems to us that that is the case, yes. Mayor Chmiel: Steve, would you like to come up here? Steve Willette: That is not the case of what we're trying to do. One of the big things that came up in the meeting was to keep things out of sight. Okay, whether it be 5 seconds or [0 seconds, I didn't know that there was any clarification on that as far as. As far as the 8 foot high fence goes, that would not have screened it. That wouldn't screen a pair of tennis shoes sitting on the ground inside the storage yard. There were berms built to try to keep L8 City Council Heeting - August 2&, i99i the height to a minimum. What with the difference in elevations. There's no way you could do it from that area. As far as the height of the fence from looking down and looking up, as you look into the skyline going towards the north from the south part of the road down south of the property, you'll see in the skyline above the so called Fort or whatever you want to call it. It's not really a Joking matter to me. It's'a livelihood but you'll see in the skyline a whole bunch of vehicles and i'm not Just pointing my finger at HerIt. i'm pointing, ['m saying that in the skyline If you look up above this 15 foot high fortress, as Don calls it, you'd see a whole bunch of vehicles, equipment, signs, mobile signs. Ail kinds of different things as well as sticking and protruding above that you would see the complete building to the north. So as far as it hurting the skyline, ! can see that. Eventually the pine trees and so forth that are screening that fenced area will grow to this height of 24 to 30 feet. They have grown a couple of feet now since we planted them. There are some that are missing and that's what those I'm going to put back in but like I say, the Planning Commission, whether they were all here or noti did see that we could probably come to terms and figure out a way to make it work so that it looked nice. ! wanted it to look nice and ! maybe want it to look nicer than what you're recommending because if we have an 8 foot high fence in there so you can see a pair of tennis shoes on the ground, it Just doesn't make sense to me. ! want to get it so you can't see in there. It's probably better advertising for me if ! could have an 8 foot high fence and for that 5 or'lO seconds you could see a bunch of docks and boat lifts stacked in there, yeah. Councilman Wing: That wasn't the Issue here. ! think Don was talking about the issue that we're worried about the low area. You're talking about the higher elevation. That's not the issue here. It's the lower area that's the issue as Oon pointed out. And it's true, an 8 foot fence won't hide a pair of tennis shoes from the majority of that area. From the lower area. Steve Willette: From the upper area? From the road? Councilman Wing: From the lower area. Steve Willette: An 8 foot high fence, yeah. Councilman Wing: We're really discussing the lower area. I agree with Don. TH $'s not the issue. Nayor Chmiel: Okay. I'd like to start from one end to the other. It's your turn. Councilman Wing: I came on right as this was being discussed I think last November and on the recommendations here in our packet, the current fence was constructed in disregard to previous actions by the Planning Commission and City Council. I believe that to have been true. I think the discussion I walked in on at my first Planning Commission meeting was wondering how it went from 8 to [5 feet. Nobody was in agreement and ! don't think it's fair to take light or make light of the appearance of your fence. Fort Apache was frankly my first, to be honest with you, it was kind of my initial reaction. I said it kind of looks like a stockade. I don't say that sarcastically or to be flippant. But I also noticed the difficulty with the terrain and that troubles me. The terrain at that point looks difficult to fence. It goes down and I guess I tend City Council Meeting - ~ugust 26, 1~1 to support the staff's recommendation here only because ! think it was constructed tn a way that it should not have been. [ think they were aware of the fact that it should not have been put to Z5 feet. That there was the 8 foot and I think it does currently visually detract from the area but I am concerned about the terrain and can that terrain be fenced properly. And very frankly I'm Just really looking for a solution. I don't think the [5 foot fence is necessarily the solution. I think it's an excellent business. I happen to be a customer and I don't wish to put a hardship on this. If we want an 8 foot fence and that makes people happy and if that seems to go along with staff recommendations, would that 8 foot fence requirement cause a hardship? A severe hardship. What's at stake here Paul? What's involved here correcting this? Paul Krauss: Would it create a hardship? I don't know if tt creates a hardship on the business or not. I think Mr. Willette would have to get at that. The fact is ks that's consistent with the way the project was approved and I guess if there's a hardship we didn't create it. I'm more concerned I guess with the visual £mpact here. We've got a fairly high quality industrial park. We've got a couple of sites, particularly some of the older ones and old ts 4, 5, & years and beyond that aren't up to the standards of the newer ones and somewhat detract from the newer ones. And you know Industrial parks are like residential neighborhoods. If you have a house that ts starting to look shabby in a residential neighborhood, it devalues the others and you can have a neighborhood go down hill. We'd like to maintain and where we can Improve the quality in there. As I said, we're beginning to work with some of other property owners to get at those same issues. We're aware of them. Mayor Chmtel: Steve. Steve Wtllette= Can I address it from back here if I speak up? Mayor Chmiel: Sure. Steve Willette: Okay. Richard, as far as going ahead with the height that was approved. Your building inspectors were out and we discussed the matter of an 8 foot high fence and what it would do. You would be able to see materials inside the area. They told me to go ahead at that point and they approved it after they had looked at it. So tt was your building inspectors that told me to go ahead and do it. I didn't just all of a sudden say let's automatically have a 12 foot high fence. I didn't take tt out of the top of my head and say well we won't worry about the City Hall people because they don't mean anything. I asked the people at that point, I asked your building inspector when they were out on the site what did they th~nk and they recommended that I build it higher so it would be totally screened. So I said the problem ts that you're asking for it to be totally screened. The only problem is you're asking me to put an 8 foot high fence. With the terrain and the way things are, there's no way you can totally screen anything with an 8 foot high fence. Councilman Wing: Do you see a solution to this? A compromise, may I ask? If I were to say that I'm uncomfortable with the 15 foot high appearance and the break from your use permit. Steve WiZlette: Richard, if you went with solid pine trees along there...pine trees tn 2 or 3 years, those pine trees will be up to the height of the fence 2O City Council Meeting - August and you'll see very little fence and you can put some ivy on there. According to the landscape people, there's no fix it you're going to get for next year. There's no fix for next year but tn the future you'd have all these gorgeous pine trees and that's all you'd see. Councilman Wing: So your solution is landscaping? Steve Wlllette: Yeah. Mayor Chaiel: That's about the only thing that will really address it. Even with that 15 feet as was indicated at the Planning Commission's concerns. With that there was a 4 to 1 vote on that. Nothing else ts really going to take care of it other than having evergreens. It can't be a deciduous kind of tree because the leaves are gone and It's still open. Steve Wlllette: Can I address one other thing Oon? The 15 foot is at the highest point. Okay? It's not the average height. Mayor Chmiel: You're saying basically what's facing TH 5 ts the 15 foot height. On the back side of that it's less than 15 feet. Steve Wlllette: Right and it goes up in the front. Like the planning people say, they have no problem with any area other than that one area where we don't have any pine trees. Now they address the pine tree issue and now there's another issue because... Well I think the cedar fence looks better than most things around. I don't see anything myself attrocLous to it other than the fact that it's not finished or complete. When it's weathered it will look nice... don't understand. Mayor Chmtel: Aesthetically I really see what you're trying to achieve. 'Plus probably trying to keep some of your equipment there and go up Just a [ittle blt higher and of course ! understand that but ! think the overall purpose for what you're saying, you want to achieve what's best for your business as well as to be tn compliance with the City. Steve Wlllette: I want it to look nice. Mayor Chmlel: Yeah, right. And I think maybe what I would like to see us do is to sit down with staff and come up with a conclusion as to what ts best and it may be one of us to sit on that particular meeting. Councilman Workman: Not me because I know I'm still confused by this issue. This Is kind of a. Councilman Wing: I'd be happy to. Mayor Chmiel: And reach that solution. I think what we're looking for of course and a lot of things that we're doing with TH $ ts looking at how we can have additional businesses coming In to the communlty adhere to what we're trying to establ£sh as an aesthet/c kind of view along TH 5 and not have the kinds of things that are happening in other communities. This being where It ks, and it's set back further as well and it's right at the direction as you're going. If you don't look for it you're not going to see It. And those that do City Council Meeting - August 26, 1991 see lt, does it make that much of an lmpact as well for that short perlod of time. Councilman Wing: But it does from the lower elevation. Mayor Chmlel: Yes. And that's something we have to address from that lower part. And I think what Steve is saying is he's willing to do the landscaping, the additional landscaping to make it look decent because he has pride within his own business as well and wants to see that look good for his clientele coming into his business. Councilman Wing: I'd support your suggestion to table this allowing that to OCCUr. Steve Willette: Don, can I bring up one thing about tabling? The Planning Commission said that I was supposed to work with staff so I've already tried to work with staff. And staff and ! came up wlth the plans that you're presented with right now. Which staff ts also saying that they're recommending. Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Chmiel: Oon. Don Ashworth: ! think your suggestion is a good one. I have not sat in on some of those meetings. Z think the idea of having a Council member sit on some of those or a meeting like that would be beneficial as well. I guess I would like to take and look back at this building permit that Steve had referred to because that's kind of a new issue in my own mind and it's come up tonight. I think that our Job as a committee is going to be tougher in that to the best of my knowledge the only company that was allowed outside storage was Mr. Willette's so where you have Oayco for example who currently has outside storage, that was prohibited as a part of their original permit. Where Herit has outside storage, that was prohibited. My biggest concern is if we grant approval to a firm that right now has more than anyone else within the business park, is it not logical that the Oayco people who are 20 feet below him uil! come back and ask for a fence of whatever height to screen stuff that they have. We'd be more than happy to sit in this type of a meeting and try to come back to some type of solution but understand my concern is I'd like to see all of the businesses in that area working to make that the quality business park that it is. We have some wonderful businesses there. Councilman Mason: [f I could piggyback on what Mr. Ashworth is saying. I agree with that completely. My concern too is what the other businesses around Lakeshore are going to say because if this doesn't get cleaned up satisfactorily to the City, Don ! think it is logical to assume that they're going to come in and say well I get a fence too. I'm hoping that this meeting will work and we can come to an agreeable compromise but if there are people that are violating what's going on now, it certainly adds fuel to their fire. Mayor Chmlel: Well the fence is there. It's been there for years. It was granted. 22 · - . City counctI HeetIng - Rugust 2~, ~99~ ;.. Councilman Hason: Right. and the fence ~tll be there. ! understand that. understand the Issue of height and ! understand the Issue of what la going around on there. I kno~ the fence Councilman Wing: I'd be comfortable serving on that committee utth Hr. Willette understanding that ue could we~l come back and say we agree with staff recommendation. Hayor Chmie~: Okay. What I'd like to do if the Counct%'e tn agreement Is establish a date for them to get together. Sit down and reach that compromise. As ~e're looking at this ~eek and I don't know ~hat staff's schedule Pau~ Krauss: I'd prefer for consistency sake I'd prefer that Sharmin be invo~ved tn the meeting and she's on vacation until Friday. She'll be back Honday. Hayor Chmle~: No, ehe'l! be back Tuesday. Paul Krauss: Tuesday. Exactly. Hayor Chmtel: Steve, is that a~right with you? As It's sitting there nothing's hurting right no~ other than. Steve Wil~ette: Next ueek is a horrib~e ueek for me. Hayor Chmte~: Okay, the ueek of the 2nd? Steve Wil~ette: The week after that ts a better Hayor Chmie~: Okay, let's estab%ish that ~eek and set up a date. Haybe you can get back to Steve and ~et him check hie books and come up ~ith a conclusion on Lt. Counci~man Workman: Not Tuesday or Wednesday. Oon Ashuorth= That's the aeek of the 9th. Counci~man Wing: Are you intending the Counct~ to be kind of a mediator at this point? ~ayor Ch~iel: I think I'd like to have that Councl! representation there. Not that I'm try£ng to take aaay from staff. I Just think by having one more person there to reach that conclusion as well as the City Hanager. Oon Ashaorth: I mould like to do this type of meeting either having the meeting out at the site or at [east starting at the site because I really think that a full 360 degree vista La necessary before we start meeting. Mayor CheIe[: I agree. Okay. Steve WiI[ette: I'll do whatever you people. 23 City Council Meeting - Rugust 26, 1991 Mayor Chmiel: And I get that feeling from you so that's why I'm trying to come up with something here. Steve WilLette. I just want it to be logical... Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. WelI that's something that I think can be discussed back and forth accordingly. So with that Z'd like to just have a motlon to table this. Councilman Workman: So moved. Councilman Wing: Second. Councilman Mason: Second. Hayor Chm£el: Until, does it come back to Council on the 23rd of September? Councilman Wing: And have we ruled out this week? Mayor ChmieZ: Yes. EvidentaLly. Don ~shworth: The 23rd of September. Councilman Wing: ~as ! supposed to be on that committee? Mayor Chmtel: Yes. Councilman Wing: ~nd were you going to be attempting to make that? Mayor Chmiei: If I can. Councilman Workman: I might just try to hook up with Steve here. Paul Krauss: We'll notify aL1 of you. Steve Willette: If any of you would like to come over and take a Look...from my standpoint anyway. CounciLman Wing: ~nd you're...a resolution of this? Mayor Chmiel: I would certainly hope so. We'lL move on to the Lake Rnn Picnic/Recreation Shelter Location, Park and Recreation Coordinator. Councilman Workman: I don't think we voted on that table. Mayor ChmteL: No, we 5ust tabled it. We don't have to vote on it. [ had a motion and a second. Right Roger? On a tabled item it's not necessary to have a vote? Roger Knutson: ! believe that's correct, yes. Excuse me. The CounciL's practice has been to vote on a table. Mayor ChmieL: Have we? It's not needed but let's do that then. 24 City Council Heeting - August 26, ~991 Councilman #orkean moved, Councilman ili~ seconded to table action on the Condit/on Uae permit Rmondment regarding the fence screening height for Lakeshore Equipment until the September 23, 1~1 City Counc~ meeting. R%l voted In favor and the motion carried. AD~IZNZSTRATZUE PRESENTATZON: Li~CE ~ PZCNZC/RECREATI~ON SIELTER LOC~I"J:ON. ~ Rt~ RECR~TION COOROII~T~. Todd Hoffman: Hr. Hayor and City council members. In planning for the construction of the Lake Ann Park community shelter, the identification of it's exactly location is one step. As can be seen'from your attachments, the three locations labeled A, B and C on both diagrams were stud/ed to better understand the implications of locating the shelter at each locat/on. In breaking thee down really three main Issues, attention Issues stand out. Those being the need for overall accessibility to the general public. The Increased cost of construction and maintenance of Options B and C due to the necessity of retaining wall construction. And then as well the proximity to the beach overaLL. The report presented to you ks comprised of three separate suuarles of the advantages and disadvantages of each location prepared by the C/ty Hanager, Hr. Hark Koegler and me. What can be derived from thee ks that there is a consensus based upon sound reasoning that Location ~ as shown should be the Location of the building and as such /t ks staff's recommendation that the City Council approve Location A for the Lake Ann Park picnic/recreation shelter building. Councilman Wing: So moved. Councilman Hason: Second. Hayor Chmiel: ! need discussion before I make a mot/on, or request a Botion. CounciLman Hason: [ think site A Looks wonderful. Hayor Cheiel: The only reason that I asked Todd to bring this back is when we Looked at it and we had the ground breaking, /t was approximately probably where Site B is Located. And I wanted to make sure that everybody ts In agreement with the Locat£on of it if it were to go on Site A. It's a'LlttLe farther from the beach and one of my only concerns ! had was your children having to go to Councilman Hason: They can handle it. It w/Il be a struggle for the little one but. Mayor Chmiel: A little longer. But that was one of the concerns that I had. Site A from a cost aspect is much better. It's Less to run the utlLlt/es as weLL in distance. Cost of the electrical, sewer and the water would be much Less so that's something that I'd l£ke to make sure what was proposed and that those costa, if they were Included tn that, that we be reimbursed back for those. CounciLman Wing: Is this your recommendation? Is this the location you personally are supporting and recommending? 25 City Council Meeting - august 26, 1991 Todd Hoffman= Yes. In catering to the beach it certainly would be nice to have gone with Option C but with the circumstances which present themselves and the layout of the overall park, Site a is the chosen location. Mayor Chm£el: Yeah. And the other thing I thought of was the emergency access as Todd mentioned too. We're close to the proxlmlty...but there are other problems tnvolved with B and C because of the topography of the land. Councilman Workman: Are we going to get a final layout on this before ue go? This is kind of rough because that's what I was a little startled about. Could I go ahead adminstratively with siting this or were we golng to, us or the Planning Commission or anybody else tnvolved tn that or how was that going to be done? How ls this all of a sudden just going to be put down and was there going to be an approval process for that? Mayor Chmiel: We have approved basically. Councilman Workman: The design but will we have. Mayor Chmiel: The cost and design for that particular A locatlon. This la not siting it for the location. Councilman Wing: Considering the amount of money that's into this, was there any consideration given to putting in a roadway to Option C? 8sing the most desireable or first cholce. Mayor Chmiel: It's just more dollars, and puttlng a road in of course would be rather costly. Councilman Workman: I just don't remember ever, ! remember approving the concept of the building and everything. I don't remember approving this speolflc slte. are you saying that we did do that? Don ashworth: That's really tonight. That's what this ts. If you would like to take and have staff put a, from this point on now Mark's firm will go out and they will look at Location a for the spot where you have the walk in from the top and also the ground level from below. We could mark that spot so the Council could take a look at it but right now it's probably a lot of small vegetation In there. Councilman Workman: Is this right here a turn around? Todd Hoffman: Correct. Mayor Chmiel: To your west from that location. Todd Hoffman: The turn around is right here. Thls ls the entry being to the bituminous walkway which runs this way. This is an open area. Open grass area... So as you walk in and if you look to your left there's just a natural opening. Councilman Workman: I guess I would just warn maybe Richard and Hike about how buildings have ended up in this town and everybody kind of says we[1 how'd that 26 City Council Heeting - Rugust 26, [99[ happen and if we don't pay a little closer attention. Councilman Wing: [ was tn that motion being Just a little blt sarcastic. Councilman Workman: ! seen buildings can turn and then all of a sudden after it's in you say well wait a minute. Rnd [ know Scott Harrt and those guys are very competent people. T Just don't know that ! have a full grasp on it from this as to what exactly we're doing and whether or not T would change It [ have no idea. Don ,shuorth: If you would like we could, Todd could put out a memo at the time that they have stakes and we could put stakes In for literally all of the corners. The upper elevation ! think that's going to be back tn some of the wood area but at least the upper, the footings adjacent to the lake would be highly visible and those could be marked. [n other words you say, they're out there. [f you get a chance to stop and take a look at them. Councilman Workman: Are the stakes out there? Are they up? Todd Hoffman: Currently there are two stakes there for borings which ~ere delayed... Don Ashworth: But he could literally put In all of the corners a~d then you'd say gee, this is too close to the oak tree. [ thought it was going to be further back or whatever, ge could do that. Nayor Chmlel: I mean it could shift one way or the other too because of the borings that they find. If the borings are fine and then of course that's the location. But if the soil conditions are such that It does present a problem, then that facility could be moved either to the east or maybe a little more to the west. Councilman Wing: I agree with you. I think this ts too rough to sit here and make a decision on it. There's no dimension that I can come up with. There's no scale. There's no elevations to work with and I'd really have to go and look at it make a decision. Todd Hoffman: If you'd like the schematics which were presented earlier, if you recall. The views. We could overlay those onto a view from the lak~ perhaps Is the most concern or from the [railway or from the front of tt and give you a sight line back. I would caution the Council on slowing the process any further. They're in detailed specifications right now for the shelter with the construction set for the beginning the first week of October so obviously ~e're tn about a month and a half to 2 months construction schedule this fall. Nayor Chmlel: Let me make a suggestion. Naybe what we could do is approve this conditionally or with a condition contained in there that this be brought back to Council for final decision prior to that October date. Or within the next 2 weeks or something. Todd Hoffman: Sure, and if I could ease your concerns at all. If you take a walk down there, Site ~, as you take a walk down there is, it dra~ra your attention to the location where this would fit in nicely. Site B would stick 27 City Council Meeting - August 26, 1551 out fairly abruptly with a large retaining wall behind it and then Site C brings itself right down onto the beach and presents a very ominous type of a looation so Site A, as far as conducive, fitting tn to the natural surrounding of the remainder of the park, it should not be by any stretch of the imagination be an eyesore. Councilman Mason: I like your suggestion Mr. Mayor. I'd also ltke to see some more stakes put in so I could go down there and see what it looks like. I think that's a good idea. Councilman Workman: I guess on the 4th of July when we were breaking ground, I kind of asked. Where's it going to go? Well, it's going to be right here you know. Vote for that. I'm not trylng to delay the thing. Let's get on with it. It's going to get built. I Just would like a little bit more warm fuzzies on this. Mayor Chmtel: On a motion, could I have approval of this with the conditions as I so stated. Councilman Workman: And those conditions are what? Mayor Chmiel: The condition is that we have an opportunity to review this and that we feel comfortable wlth it that they can proceed. But if we don't, we can recall the question and react accordingly. Councilman Workman: So we're approving it unless somebody says no. Mayor Chmtel: Right. Councilman Mason: Did you just make a motion? Councilman Workman: I move that. Councilman Mason: Oh okay. I'll second that. Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Nason seconded to choose Option A as the location for the Lake Ann Picn~c/Recreat~on Shelter with the condit~on that Counct! can brLng the Item back for reconsideration If they do not like the ~ocat~on as staked out. A~! voted ~n favor and the motion carried. Mayor Chmiel: Next item on the agenda is for adjournment. Councilman Mason: Can I just say something? Mayor Chmiel: No. It's not on the agenda. Sure, go ahead. Councilman Mason: I wanted and I thlnk ! may have mlssed my chance when we approved the consent agenda. [ was not at the meeting 2 weeks ago and I just wanted to comment on the sectlon of the City Council mlnutes. Can I do that now? Councilman Workman: It won't make any difference to the approval. 28 City Council Meeting - Rugust 26, [99[ Councilman Mason: I know it won't make any difference. I know that. It will be very quick. As I'm sure everyone Ls continuing to be very concerned about what is going on at Market Square, I was also. I saw that about the median cut and some of Councilman Workman's comment about the ehurbs. Well ! kind of like t he shurbs. Councilman Workman: Oh [ do too. Councilman Mason: I'm concerned, and I don't kno~ if maybe nothing can be done about it at this point but I'm really concerned about a median cut there. also concerned about what's going to happen to West 78th all the way to Powers as it looks like the city Is going to end up grot~ing down that way which was not anticipated. Mayor Chmiel: No, it was. Much of that has been taken into consideration. Extending west on 78th Street. Councilman Mason: Okay, but ho~ the road ts going to lay. ! mean none of that's in cement yet right? Mayor Chmiel: No. It's not tn cement but the road cuts are there. There's going to be a road coming in. Ex[sting 78th, right-in/r[ght-out Is what it's termed as right now. There wi1! also be a road that will extend to the north that will be the road that will go onto CR [7 and also eventually the road that will go onto Lake Ann Park as the service road. Paul? Paul Krauss: We have schematics of how that lays if you'd like ua to. Councilman Mason: Yeah, I'll take a look at that. Mayor Chmiel: That has been a discussionary thing and those people have been trying to sell their property for some time. In fact on the corner of CR 17 and 78th Street, Target has been looking at that. Councilman Wing: Can I piggyback on what Mike sa/d? I think there's some real big things going on. Obviously Market Square is one of them. Development on West 78th Street ts a question we all have and It's HRA and God bless HRA. We have two of our members on It but I am feeling a lack of communication between the HRA and the Council. Can we somehow improve that? Get more tnto the loop of what they're doing. What they're thinking. Mayor Chmiel: Come to the HRA meettngo. Councilman Wing: But if I'm going to do that, then I'm going to have to ask questions and I'd ask to speak and I'm not too sure. Mayor Chmiel: Anytime you have any questions regarding anything, I think you have the opportunity to call Tom or I at any given time. Councilman Wing: Absolutely, I think that's true. Hayor Chmiel: ! think we can address that and if you'd like to know anything, Oon's here. 29 City Council Meeting - ~ugust 26, 1991 Councilman Workman: Maybe we could make Richard a member of the HRA. Don ~shworth: We recently were talking Paul and I, the Planning Commission would like to take and get together with the HRA and the timing is rtght with the update of the Comp Plan and now there are several acitivities that the HRA ts talklng about dolng but they'd sure 11ks input. For example you own the Pauly/Pony/Pryzmus property down there. What are we going to be doing with that In the future? Do you really want to see a library there? The 1dew of the central park. Is that a good idea? Maybe we could expand that meeting and have City Counctl, Plannlng Commission and HRA. Councilman Wing: I'm just concerned that staff, Council, HRA and Planning Commission are paralleling thelr goals and directions and I'm sensing a lack of communication between those groups and I think it's...meeting level. Mayor Chmlel: Yeah, ! don't agree with that fully. I think everybody knows what direction we're all going and through planning, they know exactly what they're looking at. What thelr ojectlves are and I think all objectives are really tied together and that's why we've been having these specific meetings between Commission and Counoll to update everybody. Councilman Workman: In defense of myself as an HRA member and trees, the curb cut I think is important because ! think that business is not viable on that corner unless there is a curb cut there. I enjoy trees and bushes. More in my yard possibly. There's a big trailer, Allied Van Lines trailer sitting out west on TH 5 out there. Is that a billboard now that it's been sitting there way before the U.S. Open and don't we have a billboard ordinance? It's been sitting there forever. Mayor Chmiel: I had that same question. On the farm property just west of Chuck's place there. The next farm over. The old, is that, not a Kerber farm? Todd Gerhardt: I think they're using it for storage. Mayor Chmiel: Well they can't store it where it's on the highway. Councilman Workman: I know in other communities it could be considered a billboard. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, and it is as far as I'm concerned. It's selling Allied Van Lines. Councilman Workman: Secondly quickly, there's a street light out at the corner of Saddlebrook and CR 17. Do you think we could get NSP on this right away? Then I'm dealing with Charles on a request for a sign on CR 17 telling you that here comes Kerber Blvd. Just like we have one for Carver Beach because some people have asked me, you know there's a lot of older people in there and inviting their friends down. Where's Kerber Blvd. so we can get a nice big sign that says this way to Kerber Blvd.. I know you're continuing with the letters and maybe I need to call Roger myself. Voting machines. Rte we going to get some new voting machines? Mayor Chmiel: That wasn't on the agenda. 3O C~ty Council Heet~ng - Rugust 2~, 199~ Councilman Workman: I know. I wanted to bring that up. We did look at them. Those that stopped in. Ithtnk tt's a good idea and woutd give us Instantaneous voting records rather than waiting until 3:00 or 4:00 or &:O0 a.m.. Hayor Chm~el: I'd ltke to see the cost first. Councilman Workman: Right and there's all kinds of deals we can work with Chaska and Carver County and everythLng else. Z'd tLke us to Look into that. That's all I have folks. Hayor Chm£el: Amend. Hot£on for adjournment. Council~anltason ~oued, CouncIl~an#orlman seconded to adjourn the~eeting. voted In fauor and the ~otton carried. The eeetLng was adJourrmd at 9:40 Submitted by Don Ashworth City Hanager Prepared by Nann Ophe[m 31