1985 05 06
I
I
I
REGULAR CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MEETING
May 6, 1985
Acting Mayor Geving called the meeting to order. The meeting was opened with the Pledge
to the Flag.
Members Present
Councilman Horn, Councilwoman Watson
and Councilwoman Swenson
Mayor Hamilton arrived late
Members Absent
None
Staff Present
Don Ashworth, Barbara Dacy,
Bill Monk, and Mary Vujovich
APPROVAL Qf AGENDA: Councilwoman Swenson moved to approve the agenda as presented.
Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Acting Mayor
Geving, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, and Councilman Horn. No negative votes.
Motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilwoman Watson moved to approve the following consent agenda
items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendation:
a. Approve Construction Plans and Specifications for Pioneer
Hills Improvements
b. Approve Contracts for Compliance with Right-to-Know
Statute.
Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Swenson. The following voted in favor: Acting
Mayor Geving, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilman Horn. No negative votes.
Motion carried.
MAPLE LEAF AWARD: Acting Mayor Geving presented a Maple Leaf Award to Mr. Court
MacFarlane in recognition of dedicated public service for being on the Lake Study
Committee from 1980 to 1982, and on the Environmental Protection Committee from 1982
to 1984.
PUBLIC HEARING
METES AND BOUNDS SUBDIVISION Qf ~ PLATTED LOT
2961 WASHTA BAY ROAD, DAVID MENEFEE
Acting Mayor Geving called the public hearing to order with the following interested
persons present:
David and Gail Menefee, 2961 Washta Bay Road
Randy Herman, 6035 Cathcart Drive, Shorewood
Barb Dacy: The property is located at 2961 Washta Bay Road and is zoned R-l, single
family residential. The applicant is proposing to split the 1.6 acre lot into two
lots. The new subdivision ordinance allows a metes and bounds subdivision of a
platted lot if the division is created by a parallel line and one that creates a
simple legal description. However, involved with this request are two variances.
This is a part of a registered land survey and the subject parcel is tract C. Tract
A, Band C are served by a private easement that extends from Washta Bay Road inward.
Tract D is served by a private easement or a driveway along the east side of Tract B.
Council Meeting, May 6, 1985
-2-
With the creation of this second lot, the applicant is proposing to extend the
existing easement across the north property line and down the west property line. A I
utility easement is proposed to be located along the east property line. The varian-
ces that trigger this are 1) a newly created lot does not abut a public street, and 2)
there is a provision in the ordinance that does allow a private drive if it serves up
to three lots. As pointed out in the report, while Tract B abuts Washta Bay Road, it
functionally is served off of that easement. The parcel to the west, with the chan-
nel in there and the northern part of the property, is designated as class A wetland,
it is hard to tell if that could be built upon. However, you have a potential for
five lots served off of the easements, being 0, the new one, the existing house, the
parcel to the west and Tract A. Tract B is served by the private easement. In order
to grant a variance, there are certain criteria that have to be met. Staff is recom-
mending denial of the request being that the applicant is now enjoying reasonable use
of the property by virtue of the existing house. Although the lot area is substan-
tial and meets the shoreline management regulations, the intent of the requirements
is that all lots abut public streets to insure safe and immediate access. There is a
potential to serve up to five lots. The section allows private drives up to three
lots.
Councilman Horn: Isn't Hesse Farm Road a private drive?
Barb Oacy: They are private streets. As opposed to a private driveway, it is a
small gravel road. Private streets are improved to a certain width.
Councilman Horn: So private streets are not included in this, only private
driveways?
I
Barb Oacy: Correct.
Councilman Horn: What would it take to make a private street rather than a private
driveway?
Barb Oacy: It would have to be a 50 foot right of way with a 28 foot wide pavement.
Councilman Horn:
It has to be pavement?
Barb Oacy: For a standard improved street.
Councilman Horn: We have developments that only have gravel streets. They couldn't
make a gravel street out of it?
Bill Monk: Right now the ordinance says that private streets and private drives are
prohibited. There is a difference between private street and private drive just in
the definition. Right now, I don't think the city would consider a private street
anything less than approved City standards. This is proposed as a private drive,
which is allowed to serve up to three homes.
Councilwoman Watson: My only concern is that it does not abut a public street. This
issue has come up before. Both these lots are in a good lot area and they are nice
big lots and I can certainly understand what they want to do and why they want to do
it. However, I have a real problem with the issue that they do not abut a public
street.
I
Councilwoman Swenson: Actually, our ordinance does allow private drives for two to
three units, is that correct?
I
I
I
Council Meeting, May 6, 1985
-3-
Barb Dacy: Yes, it says up to three units.
Councilwoman Swenson: We don't know what is going to happen on the adjacent piece of
property. I feel that is a mute subject and should be dealt with when the time comes.
This particular piece of property on this proposal should be taken on the merit of
the proposal and not on what mayor may not happen somewhere down the road. In which
case, if a private drive is put in there, as you say, Lot B can be served by Washta
Bay Road. The request here is for two lots. If the subject would come up at a later
date as far as B or some other property is concerned, I think the Council at that
time could deal with it. So, I would have trouble denying this on the basis of the
private drive. I think, however, that should staff feel that a 25 foot drive is not
sufficient that it should be specified. If the applicant wants to build a house down
on that half of the property, it seems to me that he should be allowed to do so.
Acting Mayor Geving: Barb, could you give me the elevation and the size of these lots.
Barb Dacy: The one to the south, the newly created lot, is going to total 33,140
square feet.
Actinq Mayor Geving: What is the elevation?
Bill Monk: It is relatively flat, and where the house is there is a plateau.
Acting Mayor Geving: Would he be building in the middle of that lot?
Barb Dacy: He would have to maintain a 75 foot set back.
Acting Mayor Geving: I would have a difficult time denying this also, if there is a
suitable access. What is your feeling, Bill?
Bill Monk: The lowest floor elevation would be two feet above the water level, so
it would be 946.5. You might not be able to build a full walkout without doing some
grading, but the existing house functions, as would another one on the lake side.
This situation does represent double loading on the lake, but again this type of
approach can work.
Actinq Mayor Geving: I too, would have to agree with Councilwoman Swenson in that
respect, because I think it is a very nice piece of property. My only problem is
that I don't want to set a precedent with this particular application.
Councilman Horn: I think we understand what the ordinance says, but what is the pur-
pose of that and what are we trying to protect?
Barb Dacy: It is always better to create lots that abut public streets, because in
that manner you are insuring safe and adequate access for every lot. I believe the
private drive allowance came about in regards to the rural subdivisions. The
Planning Commission wanted that up to three lots, which could be served by a private
driveway situation and they set three as that limit. So the intent is just to pre-
vent haphazard development; an easement here an easement there, three lots here,
three lots there and then you don't have a coordinated subdivision if it came through
the normal process.
Councilman Horn: There is no legal risk to the City is there? For instance, say the
house burns down and you can't get a fire truck back there.
Council Meeting, May 6, 1985
-4-
Mary Vujovich: I don't think so. You have easements allover the City. Depending
upon on how well they are maintained, a truck may not be able to pass. It is the pro-
perty owners responsibility to maintain the road for such emegency vehicles to pass
through.
Councilman Horn: I have a problem with the government trying to protect people too
much from themselves. It seems to me that the people are adults and can assume the risk
for this type of thing. I understand we have an ordinance, and it is a general type
of thing, but I think we have to look at each one of these on an individual merit. I
don't think that it is a hardship on the property, it improves the City's tax base
and obviously it is a piece of property that can be usable.
I
Councilwoman Swenson: This lot, as I understand it, would be subject to all of the
established assessments and connection charges, etc., is that correct?
Bill Monk: Yes it is.
Councilwoman Swenson: The second thing that I am concerned with is the access and
the easement that is now servicing Tracts A, Band C, when crossing Tract B, this
property belongs to someone other than the applicant, so he already has his access
through the courtesy of another party. What responsibility, if any, does the City
have in establishing that access never be cut off to either one of these lots.
Mary Vujovich: If you have a permanent easement, to get across Tract B you either
have a permanent easement of an exclusive nature or an unexclusive nature. If you
have a non-exclusive easement, you as the beneficiary of that permanent easement can
allow as many other people as you want to come along with you on that private ease-
ment. If it is an exclusive easement granted only to you or to the person who owns I
that particular one lot, then you would have to approach the owner of the subject
property once again and ask for another easement. In either event, the upper hand is
held by the person with the subject property. So it is really not a responsibility
of the City because that is more of a title question. If someone were to buy that
property, they are going to check the title and see if they have access.
Councilwoman Swenson: So if Mr. Menefee were to build a house on parcel 2 and sell
the lot on parcel 3 and he is now having this access across Tract B, and the owners of
Tract B decided that they wanted to withdraw that easement, if he does not have a
deeded easement, which is just a courtesy easement, this is still not our problem.
Mary Vujovich: No.
Councilwoman Swenson: So they can never come to us and say, hey, you should have
never let us have a building permit on that lot because you knew there wasn't an
access.
~ Vujovich: It seems to me when you buy that property you better be aware of the
buyer beware situation. When you buy a lot you better have access to a public road
and as you look at the map you can see that Washta Bay Road is the only one there
available as a public road.
David Menefee: Just to clear up a point here on how I was looking towards the
future, the owner of Tracts A and B is the same owner. His father owns the access I
around the channel. The man that owns Tracts A and B may at some time want to deve-
lop that. Our individual family goals have different escalation cycles. Mine is a
little bit faster than his right now. The idea that we came up with once we bought
the entire plat was once we were there we discovered that the front portion of this
I
I
I
Council Meeting, May 6, 1985
-5-
huge lot would really blend itself to a beautiful IDt on that lake. So through conver-
satiDns with the City Planner, we had pretty much discounted the fact that maybe a
public drive would not be the total answer and we might have trouble getting that
approved. In looking ahead to A and B at some point in the future wanting to develop
thDse tWD pieces, I then on the RLS had the surveyor include a 25 fODt access across
the nDrth and western portions of my boundary. Should at any time Tracts A and B or
anybody around that channel, if they ever discovered that they build near that chan-
nel, then at that time should the City CDuncil demand that there be a public road,
you have your 50 feet. I have already come up with my 25 feet surrounding our prD-
perty. I have made this known to the owner of Tracts A and B, he CDncurs. There
will be no problem for him giving me a second access across B. In fact, I am pretty
sure that his future plans on Tract B is 1) either finish the house that is currently
on there or 2) knock is down and make tWD out Df it, which he wDuld then have them
both on Washta Bay Road. The City ordinance requires not mDre than three homes, and
this comes out at exactly three with the current proposal. Should at any time Tracts
A and B are developed and you need a public road, then the neighbor has to come up
with his 25 feet. I think that I have satisfied my share of whatever maybe required
in the future.
Don Kelly: What would the length of the public rDad be? The reason I am curious is
because there is a 500 foot limit on cul-de-sac rDads.
Acting Mayor Geving: That's a public street I believe.
Don Kelly: He's saying that he is providing 25 feet so if the adjacent property
owners then wanted to provide 25 feet, a public rDad could be put in then.
Acting Mayor Geving: I think we have to deal with the facts that we have now and not
what may happen in the future and some question that may come before the Council to
consider that cul-de-sac. I don't think that question is germain.
Councilwoman Swenson: Perhaps the comment should be made that if and when a public
street is put in, they shDuld be aware that there would be an assessment Dn that
street.
Mr. Boyer: I am the Dwner of Tracts A and B and my father Dwns the parcel to the
west, and we don't have any problems with Mr. Menefee develDping the property. The
only thing that I am concerned about is, now Mr. Menefee gets his deal and the City's
ordinance is maxed out and you have three dwellings Dn there. I sympathize with
somebody that would buy that lot down by the lake because in three years time if I
decided to develop the property on the channel and the highway, that person will have
a big mortgage, he will spend the dough for the lot, he will spend the money for the
mortgage and might not have thought about the rDad assessment that is not normally on
most lots and we come in and sDck him for the assessment for the road. He's not
going tD be a happy man. I am wondering if we should do something fDr a buyer beware
situatiDn, sDmething that will make the buyer aware that there would be a minimum of
a $10,000 assessment for the road to be put in there. Maybe there cDuld be something
attached to the building permit, or something to make sure that he is aware that this
certain type of situation cDuld occur. Another thing is, Dave may have wDrked
out the IDgistics of the easement across my property. I don't believe the
road follows the easement. If we are going tD put Dn another traffic situation
onto one mDre house, I think we should relocate that and make some improvements
because right now it is quite muddy. We have yet to talk that over, so it's not
all settled. The idea of having a house down there and getting one more access
tD there, is agreeable to me, but it is not all settled. I like the idea of deve-
loping that. I just heard about this Sunday afternoon, and I have really not had an
oppDrtunity to talk to anybody as to what I can do and what I should do to protect my
rights to make things run smoDthly.
Council Meeting, May 6, 1985
-6-
Gail Menefee: My husband has gone out of his way to talk with the Boyer's about this
situation and I think that all of us as homeowners are in a buyer be aware situation.
If we were to sell that property I think that the buyer would be on us because I
someone is not going to buy it from us if they are worried about those situations. I
think this is something the buyer should look into when they would be buying the pro-
perty.
Councilman Horn moved to close the Public Hearing. Motion was seconded by Acting
Mayor Geving. The following voted in favor: Acting Mayor Geving, Councilwomen Watson and
Swenson, and Councilman Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried.
METES AND BOUNDS SUBDIVISION QL A PLATTED ~ 2961 WASHTA BAY ROAD, DAVID MENEFEE:
Councilwoman Watson: In listening to Mr. Boyer I get the feeling that access isn't
as iron clad as we would like and he said that it hasn't been settled.
Mary Vujovich: If they want to sell that lot to someone else, and as an attorney
representing a buyer that is looking at a lot, I would always ask the question: "What
is the access?" This is a simple matter. We take a look at it and we see that we
don't have an access. That lot is going to be unsaleable without the access
questions being determined. You can split it and you could do a subdivision of a 100
acres of a buildable lot, but they can't get out and they can't get that on paper or
get it recorded at the county somewhere. It is not going to do them any good. You
have got to have the right to get out because at any point where someone did not have
the right to do so, the person who is in control of the road could shut it off
arbitrarily. No buyer is going to go into that. I don't think that the City Council
has to be concerned about the buyer's problems.
I
Councilman Horn: I think there are certain situations where I am concerned with the
buyer beware attitude. 1) it looks like an existing street, it is very obvious that
it is not an approved City street and 2) the other case is in the developments where
we hate to put certain restrictions on the developer so the people don't come in with
buyer beware situations. I think it would be pretty obvious if somebody missed that.
There is not a lot we can do to help. Second sentence amended 5-20-85, Page 5.
Councilwoman Swenson: As I understand it, and I asked the question earlier, is the
City liable? My understanding is that we would not be.
Councilman Horn moved to approve the metes and bounds subdivision of a platted lot
into two lots: 38,998 square feet and 33,140 square feet, 2961 Washta Bay Road with
the following City Engineers recommended conditions:
1. Connection to the municipal utility system shall be required for
Parcel 2 and the owner shall be responsible for securing the required
utility easement across Parcell.
2. Payment of a connection charge for the structure placed on Parcel
2 shall be required pursuant to City ordinance provisions.
3. A 25 foot wide driveway easement shall be granted across Parcell
to provide perpetual access for Parcel 2.
Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Swenson. The following voted in favor: Acting
Mayor Geving, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, and Councilman Horn. No negative
votes. Motion carried.
I
Mayor Hamilton arrived at this point in the meeting.
I
I
I
Council Meeting, May 6, 1985
-7-
PU8LI C HEARING
VACATION OF UTILITIES AND DRAINAGE EASEMENTS, PARK CIRCLE
CUL-DE-SAC ON LOTS 1-6, BLOCK 1, PARK TWO, CHANHASSEN LAKES
BUSINESS PARK, JEROME CARLSON
Mayor Hamilton called the public hearing to order.
Barb Dacy: This item goes hand in hand with item 89 on the agenda: Preliminary and
Final Plat approval to Replat Lots 1-6, Block 1, Park Two into one Lot in Chanhassen
Lakes Business Park, Jerome Carlson. As you know, a vacation requires a public
hearing process. What the applicant is intending to do is replat the parcel at the
southwest corner of Highway 5 and Powers Boulevard into one lot and in order to do
that, the street has to be vacated as well as the drainage and utility easements
around the lot lines. The staff is recommending approval of the vacation subject to
the conditions that when the final plat is filed that the certification for the vaca-
tion is filed at the same time so that we insure that the old easements are erased
but new easements on the replatted lot are in place.
Julius Smith: This was initially platted for six lots, but now the property is going
to be held by Frank Beddor or Jerome Carlson. That is why the platting went ahead of
putting in the sewer and water and putting in Park Circle. We have already filed
a preliminary and final plat all in one, which keeps the easements from the creek and
plus all the easements around the outside are identical to the ones that are there
now. We just take away the road and the lot line easements so we can build over
that.
There being no more public comment, Councilwoman Swenson moved to close the Public
Hearing. Motion was seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor:
Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No
negative votes. Motion carried.
VACATION OF UTILITIES AND DRAINAGE EASEMENTS, PARK CIRCLE CUL-DE-SAC ~ LOTS ~
BLOCK lL PARK TWO, CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK, JEROME CARLSON:
RESOLUTION #85-17: Councilman Geving moved the adoption of a resolution approving
the vacation of utilities and drainage easements, Park Circle Cul-de-sac on Lots 1-6,
Block 1, Park Two, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park. Resolution was seconded by
Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen
Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried.
PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT APPROVAL lQ. REPLAT LOTS ~ BLOCK lL PARK TWO INTO ONE
LOT !! CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK, JEROME CARLSON:
Councilman Horn moved to approve the Preliminary and Final Plat Approval to Replat
Lots 1-6, Block 1, Park Two into one Lot in Chanhassen Lakes Business Park. Motion
was seconded by Councilwoman Swenson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton,
Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes.
Motion carried.
MINUTES:
Amend the April 15, 1985 Council minutes by changing the first sentence under
CHANHASSEN PIONEER CEMETERY, Councilman Geving, page 2:
Councilman Geving: On item 86, having to do with Maintenance and Perpetual Care
Funds, at the bottom of that section, I would like to include a statement that says
an annual report be submitted to the City Council each year describing improvements
that have been made and the annual expenditures from the previous year be made a part
of our regular budgetary process.
Council Minutes, May 6, 1985
-8-
Amend the April 15, 1985 Council minutes by changing the first sentence under FRONT
YARD SETBACK VARIANCE AND ACCESSORY BUILDING SETBACK VARIANCE REQUESTS, 20 HILL
STREET, WES ARSETH, Roger Knutson, page 3:
Roger Knutson: The applicant's attorney indicated to me that he wasn't overly opti-
mistic on what you would do with it, but he wanted the Council to consider.
Amend the April 15, 1985 Council minutes by changing the fourth sentence under DALE
GUNDERSON, 815 CREEKWOOD DRIVE, A. APPEAL DECISION TO DENY BUILDING PERMIT & B.
STREET FRONTAGE AND LOT AREA VARIANCES, Councilman Horn, page 5:
Councilman Horn: I know that we have known cases of 2! acres, but in cases of other
lot sizes, we have looked at what is consistent with the area.
Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the City Council minutes dated April 15, 1985
amended. Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in
Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving.
negative votes. Motion carried.
as
favor:
No
Councilwoman Watson moved to note the Planning Commission minutes dated Arpil 10,
1985. Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Swenson. The following voted in favor:
Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No
negative votes. Motion carried.
GENERAL REVIEW QI PROPERTY VALUATIONS, CARVER COUNTY ASSESSOR:
Scott Winter was present at this evenings meeting to provide the Council with
answers to their questions regarding the Board of Review Meeting to be held on May
13, 1985.
Scott Winter: There has been very little philosophy changes in regards to residen-
tial-seasonal type properties, and commerical properties. The only real change that
we have had is in agricultural. In that respect we have gone to a grading system of
a farm rather than going total A at so many dollars and total B at so many dollars
and total C. We are grading the entire farm and going with a flat rate over the
entire farm. Also, when there is more than one house on a farm, in previous years
that second house was residential, non-homestead, this year that is combined in with
the agricultural part of the property.
Councilman Horn: Even if the person on the second residence does not actively
pursue farming?
Scott Winter: Yes,
that second house,
are only different
in that respect they would still be agricultural in regards
if the main house is agricultural then that second house is.
classifications if it is a commercial type property.
to
There
Councilman Horn: What if it is rented?
Scott Winter:
It will still go agricultural.
Councilman Horn: So a farmer could put several houses on his farm and rent them out
to people who commute to town and they would pay agricultural taxes?
Scott Winter:
Yes, at this point.
I
I
I
I
I
I
Council Meeting, May 6, 1985
-9-
Councilwoman Swenson: Has this been resulting in a lower dollar assessment?
~ Winter: We won't know. The market value is going to be the same, but that is
just classification. We don't know what is going to happen because the Legislature
hasn't finished revising their assessment calculations. The only thing that was
documented was a Bill stating that all houses, being agricultural or residential
would be calculated. So actually, it would have made an increase in value because
the former houses that were agricultural would actually be calculated like a regular
residential property.
Councilwoman Swenson: Are you saying that nobody is going to know what their actual
tax bill is until January or February of next year?
Scott Winter: Whenever the Legislature comes up with how things are calculated which
is around November 15. Also when the Legislature gets done passing it, it still goes
to the state and they make their interpretation of what the law actually says and
that is when we get it back.
Councilwoman Swenson: So this round is only dealing with classifications.
Scott Winter: Yes. What it was is simple findings and administrative time for us in
the office. It is administratively helping us in that cutting down the time for in-
vestigating those types of properties.
Councilman Horn: Is that a state or county ruling?
Scott Winter: It is a county administrative policy.
Mayor Hamilton: With the tillable A, B, and C, it seems like it is going to be more
difficult to determine what you are going to assess a farm without using calssifica-
tions. You must have to use someting to determine what the value of that farmland is
going to be.
Scott Winter: We use the A, B, and C to determine what the grade of that plat was.
So if you have 40 acres and it was all grade A tillable, it was graded a 10 farm.
If it was 50/50, A and B, B being grade 8 and A being grade 10 you would end up with
a grade 9 farm. We are averaging everything out to a per dollar for the entire acreage.
Mayor Hamilton: Are you going to be able to tell each farmer how the value of their
land is arranged?
Scott Winter: Yes, we still have the acres and the breakdown of those. For the
markets for Chanhassen, we did not see a decease in the market value. The green acre
value was the value that would pertain to as a farm.
Councilman Horn: What about the rest of the county?
Scott Winter: For Chanhassen we saw a rise in market and this was because of some
---------------
transferring of properties that were into the agricultural classification. In other
words they were larger sites that were residential. The market value for agri-
cultural we saw almost a $1,000,000 increase. The green acre values stayed the
same. Over all for Chanhassen, we saw new construction of $12,800,000, a total
increase value of about $16,000,000. The total for the city at this point is
$247,500,000. County wise they saw agricultural (also green acres) at a $14,000,000
decrease in market value. County wise, new construction was up $28,000,000. Total
Council Meeting, May 6, 1985
-10-
value is up $21,000,000, which $16,000,000 belongs to Chanhassen. This is only the
estimated market value and again you don't know what that is going to do to your tax
liability because we don't know what's going to happen to the assessed value calcula-
tions.
I
Councilman Geving: Based on the number of telephone calls that you have received in
your office, what kind of homeowner can we expect to see here on May 13th?
I really don't know. We have only had about six calls.
Scott Winter:
Mayor Hamilton: Has there been any changes in regards to the lake shore?
Scott Winter: No, there hasn't been any changes to the lake shore at this time.
Mayor Hamilton: Has the County Board given the Assessor any new direction since he
has been hired on the roles that they are trying to reconcile the valuations?
Scott Winter: Not to my knowledge at this time. The state has and that came through
because of a lot of special legislation that they were attempting to pass at first,
especially going with the current sales ratio on agricultural, bring agricultural up
to current market because of the decrease in the agricultural values. The state,
therefore, tried to establish an agricultural market value.
Mayor Hamilton: What I am trying to get at is the percent of market value are we
trying to reach or satisfy. Comment amended 5-20-85, Page 5.
Scott Winter: Within 10 percent of the market. So we are trying to be as close to I
100 percent. We are working on an average and if you have three homes that are
exactly the same and one sells for $110,000, one for $100,00 and the other for
$90,000, they average out, with the $110,000 one being under and the $90,000 one being
over.
Mayor Hamilton: Who establishes this 10 percent?
Comment amended 5-20-85, Page 5.
Scott Winter: The state does.
Mayor Hamilton: Doesn't the individual Assessor of each county have some leeway?
Scott Winter: They use an established schedule and I don't know what percentages
they were established at.
Councilman Horn: Is that 10 percent an average county wide or for each type of pro-
perty? Last year it worked out in a way that residential and commercial were up at
90 percent of their assessed valuation, where as agricultural was somewhere around 70
percent. Is that the same ratio this year? First sentence amended 5-20-85, Page 5.
Scott Winter: I do not know for sure.
received a sales analysis at this time.
before the meeting next week.
I cannot say yes or no. We have not yet
I will try and see if I can get this for you
Scott Winter:
~
be beneficial
who are there
The county does own a film strip on the assessment process. This may
to show this film at the beginning of the meeting next week for people
for basic tax questions. The film is 12 minutes long.
I
Councilman Horn: I think that time would go much easier if those ratios were equal.
People do not like to see that obvious disparity in the assessed evaluations.
I
I
I
Council Meeting, May 6, 1985
-11-
WHITETAIL RIDGE, PUD QI EIGHT TOWNHOUSES ~ THE ~ CORNER QI LAKE LUCY ROAD AND
GALPIN BOULEVARD, PAUL PALMER:
Barb Dacy: At the March 18, 1985 meeting the request was tabled until the developer
can prove that a majority of the people who signed the petition against the develop-
ment are now in favor of the development. The applicant has submitted several peti-
tions. The first petition identifies 17 persons from the surrounding neighborhood
who are in favor of the project and I determined that approximately 8 of those 17
signed the original petition against it. The applicant submitted a peitition listing
18 not in the immediate neighborhood, but who would be interested in purchasing a
townhome unit in Chanhassen. The third petition identifies 7 persons who have no
opinion either way. The fourth peitition identifies 8 persons with written comments,
all of which oppose the development. Each of those eight stated that they would
prefer single family development at that particular intersection. Also at the last
meeting, we had just received that day a letter from Carver County stating their
recommendations about access to the project. It is the staff's position that if the
request is approved tonight that the proposed access be located across from West 65th
Street along with the additions that the existing access now used to serve the seven-
plex be physically removed upon completion of Melody Hill Circle and that this lot be
accessed from that street. Also that trees and shrubs in the vicinity of the new
intersection across from West 65th Street be trimmed back to allow maximum visibi-
lity, but not entirely removed so that the vegetation can provide a good highway
screen.
Mayor Hamilton: I think we should keep in mind that we are here not to decide if the
neighbors do or do not want to have townhomes in there, but whether or not the pro-
posed use of the property is in fact the proper use of that property.
Councilman Geving: On the assessments for that property, I am slways concerned about
that north service area and how the access to that water and sewer will be made and
whether or not adequate assessments will be made against this property if we go
with something other than the single family homes.
Bill Monk: No matter how the property is developed, sewer and water must be brought
down from the Pheasant Hill addition, mainly Melody Hill Circle and the Melody Hill
Road extension. That will have to be done either privately or publically and at this
point it hasn't been decided one way or the other. But as that is extended down,
regardless of how it is put in, those improvement costs will have to be picked up
exclusively by this development along with any access drive costs. The projections
for the sewer and water alone sre up in the $9,000 - $12,000 range for single family
homes. That would be reduced slightly under the proposal of eight. There is no
question that they are going to receive assessments.
Councilman Geving: They would still be charged for the trunks that we put in, right?
Bill Monk: Yes, there would be trunks for all units.
Councilman Geving: So if we had originally determined that the land would hold five
units, we would now get eight assessments and that would be equivalent to or greater
than the original north service area charges, is that correct?
Bill Monk: Yes, it will be higher than what we are now charging in the north service
area for connection charges, I am sure of that.
Councilwoman Swenson: What is the estimated cost of these townhouses?
Barb Dacy: I believe at least $100,000.
Council Meeting, May 6, 1985
-12-
Paul Palmer: The base range is from $85,000 to $90,000 and other extras that we
want to make available for them can easily run them into the $lOO,OOO's.
Art Partridge: My feeling is that this piece of land is zoned as a PUD and now it is a
residual. There was never anything proposed for that particular piece of land
that we are talking about tonight. There was a sketch plan map that we examimed at
the Planning Commission and it did have five lot lines on it and Waldrip drew it up
only as a means of suggesting that this is something that could be done. He was
unable to develop anything, he was not proposing anything, and there was no planned
subdivision. It is an outlot unserved by any utilities and outside the MUSA line.
Staff has seen fit to move the MUSA line so it is now serviceable. It is being added
onto the existing utilities. If this was not a PUD, you could not begin to think of
putting townhouses on that property. Because it is a PUD the applicant can ask to
have townhouses put on there and I want to correct Ms. Dacy again, townhouses are a
permitted use in a PUD area, they are not necessarily desireable. My feeling is that
if you go for this proposal and it is your personal decision to do what you are doing
to the neighborhood. The developer has the right to ask for anything, he could put
the IDS Tower up there. The permission comes from you and you alone. The Planning
Commission did not see fit, as far as I know, to examine the property, to look at it,
or think about it, they just said fine, go for it. We were even told at the public
hearing that the public hearing was not the proper venue for questions from the
public, and that we should have been at the sketch plan and I bitterly resent that.
All I am saying tonight is that if you go for this, it will be on your heads. I do
not feel that it is an appropriate use for the land. I think that picture should
just about say it all. That's the own developer's picture and what he wants to put
up there. Until you have the building permits in you hand you do not know what is
going up there.
Don Kelly: Mr. Partridge's comments about the public hearing are accurate in that we
were not notified and I don't believe that there was proper notification of the
public hearing. In any case, when this item was tabled the last time it was
discussed, it was tabled with the suggestions that it be considered if the developer
did bring in a petition indicating that people that had signed the petition against
it had changed their mind. We didn't take much additional action to help you folks
make up your minds, we just assumed that tonight that you would take a look the per-
centage of people who changed their minds and make your decision based on that. The
other thing is the driveway throughout the development. I have not been in favor of
additional entrances onto Galpin Road. That is a dangerous area. The driveway that
is being proposed, the County is saying that we are moving an existing driveway.
That driveway was a temporary driveway, which never really existed. In any case, it
has been moved to be across from West 65th Street with the suggestion that the
greenery be trimmed to provide visibility. Anybody who has visited this site would
see that the greenery that is on the lot is so close to the highway as to block the
visibility for the people who are on the highway. To trim that to provide visibility
to cars that are on the highway will remove any screen of the lot from the highway.
Peter Lytle: We have the corner lot that intersects right at the top of Galpin
Boulevard and meets with Melody Hill Road. One of my primary concerns is the fact
that at one of the previous Planning meetings they were going to take a look at the
speed limit on Galpin Boulevard and in that particular area. I don't believe
trimming the greenery will do much good. I don't know that if you are aware of it,
but going from the south to the north it is a 25 mph speed limit, however, going from
the north to the south it is a 40 mph speed limit. I go out and fill holes in my lot
quite frequently because people run up on our drive and run over our trees and run
into our brick pillars. They generally drive allover the place. It is real tough to
I
I
I
I
I
I
Council Meeting, May 6, 1985
-13-
even to get your mail. I am really concerned that the speed limit has not been iden-
tified. Seven years ago when this was put into affect, there was not as much resi-
dential area. The area now is developing very quickly. By adding townhomes you are
rerouting some of the traffic that is in the back section, there is a building back
there with a number of tenants, they are going to be coming through a new development
onto a high speed area and then taking a bunch of people from a townhome complex and
you are going to try and dump them out, there is way too many people and it is not
safe. My second major concern is that we bought our home I! years ago. We moved out
of the cities because we wanted an area where it was single families and there was
not the density of housing that you do have in Minneapolis. I see that changing very
quickly. I am not so sure that it is a positive change and I think that needs to be
readdressed to the Planning Commission.
~ Ryan: Our property line is about 2/l0ths of a mile from that proposed road or
drive that they want to make. My main concern is the safety aspect. The Carver
County Traffic Department has just recently changed the sign right along where that
road is going to be and where the townhomes are proposed. They have put in a sign
that says end 40 MPH Speed, instead of a 55 MPH speed limit that was there, because
there is an incredible amount of accelerated traffic right there after that driveway.
The same goes for the other way going north up towards the proposed site. There are
people who ride their bikes up and down there, there are children, horseback riders,
joggers, and people who walk their dogs. I am really concerned about that much
added traffic going in and out on top of that hill with the amount of big trees that
are there. That many cars going in and out of that area seems dangerous to me.
Councilwoman Swenson: Do you feel that eight townhouses, probably accommodating
adults, is going to create more traffic than five individual homes where there will
probably will be children?
Mary Ryan: There maybe children in these townhomes too. They are single family
attached units. If there are just adults that live there, that could possibly amount
to 16 working people with their own vehicles. They may create more traffic than just
single family homes.
Ruth Olson: My lot comes right up to the county road. My front door step is about
20 feet off the road. I have a real thick hedge that if I didn't have, I would have
cars in my front porch. My concern is what would happen to my privacy? Would I
lose everything in the clearing out to make sure there is visibility from the highway.
I don't want to lose them. We are looking at density here. Lots 8, 7 and 1, that
is 16 units in that area. I am concerned about that density.
Bill Monk: One of the concerns that the City has had since the earlier meeting, the
reason I wrote a letter to the county was because I was concerned about an earlier
comment that was made in an earlier county letter that all the vegetation be ripped
out. So I did go up there and I walked the site, I looked at the access and there is
no question that it has to be moved to the south. But the recommendation is now that
extensive trimming take place with the county right-of-way, but the intent would not
be to take away the existing screening. That is one of the reasons that letter was
written.
Mayor Hamilton: Isn't that a county right-of-way?
Bill ~ Yes, I believe it is, and it would be trimmed only if necessary.
Don Kelly: Any trimming of the hedge would permit a driver to look over the hedge,
which would be considered non-existent from the stand point of seeing the units and
Council Meeting, May 6, 1985
-14-
increasing it from five to eight units. When we were here several years ago we
thought we were seeing the correct use of the planning and development of the public
hearing process, which the developer came and presented some plans that were not
unreasonable. When Mr. Waldrip started to develop this he did not plan to put in
300 houses. He started with something reasonable and worked with the neighbors to
come up with something that the neighbors were comfortable with and the developer was
ready to go ahead at that time. One of the proposals was to develop additional lots
and to have additional driveways on Galpin Road. The understanding then, at the time
they were considering developing those lots, one proposal was to bring a road to
Steller Circle through lake Lucy Road, which would have no additional entrances onto
Galpin Road. This is a compromise solution. This compromise is in turn being
compromised again. I am a little concerned that we will come back and find that
maybe Mr. Palmer isn't going to be able to develop exactly this way, and then we will
compromise again after this has been approved and then pretty soon we are going to
have the $62,000 townhouse development.
Mayor Hamilton: We are trying not to deal with "what if's".
I
Paul Palmer: I would like to show a sketch of what we are investing as far as the
driveway goes. I too, agree with the neighborhood in that it would sure be nice to
get that speed limit down. I was out talking with one of the neighbors and they
indicated to me that they feel that a lot of people are going down to the industrial
park and using Galpin Boulevard off of Highway 7 to go along the back side. So what
we are having is a lot of traffic in the morning and a lot of traffic in the evening.
This is one of the things that concerned a number of the people that I had talked with
is try and slow that traffic down. Bill Weckman said it takes a process of figuring
out how many cars, and metering it. Either way we should start that process and try I
to get that speed limit down to where it belongs. We want the driveway to come in
from the north mainly because there will be cars parked there and we want a driveway
in from the north, so it blends in a nice natural way into the hillside. .We will be
putting screening in along with the berm and then along Mrs. Olson's property to
block it off. As far as her vegetation, we hope not to have to it cut down, just cut
it back a little bit so the site view is a little bit better. We want to keep it
natural around the outside to preserve the wildlife that does enjoy this area. We
want to create a very natural setting and tuck the homes into the hillside. That is
basically where we are at. What I am proposing as far as the quality, and I am sure
everybody has a doubt that "is it really going to happen, what you are proposing".
The process that I am going to bring in is a property that is going to be at a base
price of $85,000 to $90,000, and I have no problem with you saying that if I bring
something in of lower value than that, you can say "no" to my building permits. I
have no problem with that. That is what I am proposing and that is what I am
shooting for. I don't want to bring anything in that is going to detriment the
neighborhood. I feel that Chanhassen does not have this quality of a townhome, and
that is what I want to provide.
Councilwoman Swenson: Mr, Palmer, in your letter to the Planning Commission and
Council Memebers of February, 1985, you mention that the neighbors are worried about
townhouses on this piece of property, and I have a little trouble there.
You say, "I can understand their concern and agree with the fact that parcels on low
traffic streets that are surrounded by single family homes be kept single family.
This parcel has a number of negatives, though, from a marketing standpoint for single I
family lots. First, it is bordered on the west and south by major county roads with
considerable traffic flow, secondly, to the north is a seven unit, efficiency style,
apartment building and thirdly, it has a
I
I
I
Council Meeting, May 6, 1985
-15-
sloping hillside with a minimal amount of trees."
multiple dwellings that are there are negative to
more single family homes, would it not follow that
to have an adverse impact of the existing homes?
I guess if you feel that the the
the marketing to the development of
with more of the same we are going
Paul Palmer: The reason I stated that was because that was one of the first things
that people brought up when I went around and passed out the original material after
the petition had been passed around. The things that they were bringing up to me
were, "Paul, we thought we were told that these were going to be $60,000 - $70,000
cheap units." Well, that is not what I am proposing. They had that worry. They had
the worry that there were going to be a whole bunch of them, a whole bunch meaning
more than one dozen. Again, there are only eight of them. Those were the concerns
that they brought up. As far as the seven unit and the county roads, the thing that
I am talking about with the single homes is that most likely the accesseS then are
going to have to come off of Lake Lucy Road. We want to keep this area as much
natural as we can. We want to tuck the homes up into the hillside underneath the
pines. We want to plant plantings around it to tuck it all away. When you have
individual homes, you can't do that. Each homeowner wants to do his own thing. So
you can't control it like we are going to control the townhomes association.
Councilman Geving: One of the things that bothers me a little bit, Mr. Palmer, do
you feel that you are in a financial position to extend sewer and water, put in the
streets, and build this development yourself?
Paul Palmer: I will not start construction unless I have at least 50 percent of the
homes sold. I do not believe in building spec homes. I have seen too many people
who went down for building spec homes. I have talked to the bankers and they agree
with me. They want to see 50 percent sold. This is the reason why I am not looking
to start this year, I am looking more for next spring. I have been a real estate
broker for the last three years and I came from a marketing background. My father-
in-law is the builder. I helped to build Waldrip's second addition, so I am getting
the background for training in those areas. The critical thing for the whole project
is after the sales of the units. From going out and visiting people, I was happy to
meet a number of people who said "I am real interested in the property, Paul, come
back to me when you get your numbers together."
Councilman Geving: What kind of clients do you think will be attracted to these
units?
Paul Palmer: An example is an elderly couple that live on Stellar Circle and have
lived there most of their lives, their children are gone, and they are having
problems maintaining their house. Their comment to me was "Come back to us, Paul,
when you have your numbers together. We are interested in these units because we
want to stay in the area." People who have lived there all their lives that want to
stay in the area is what I am doing this for. There are only eight of them and it is
not a huge project.
Councilman Gevinq: If your request is denied, would you still carry out the project
with the single family development?
Paul Palmer:
accesses from
shame to lose
I am not sure. I don't think it is right to develop that property with
the south. Because of the passive solar setting there, it would be a
and not take advantage of it.
Vivian Lytle, 6410 Galpin Boulevard: The concern that we have is that part of the
area that has been developed has not yet been cleaned up, and as I came to the
Council Meeting, May 6, 1985
-16-
meeting this evening and I read the warnings on encephalitis of a neighborhood, it
makes me wonder. There is still a dump area in that property that hasn't been
cleaned up. That is a concern additional to the other concerns that have been
brought up.
Paul Palmer: The developer or the construction people out there are going to be
moving the scrap trees and the things that they have cut down to put the roads in
over there and will be covering it up and that has all been projected to be done by
July 25th.
I
Larry Johnson: I am a resident of Chanhassen and I have lived here for about a year
now and I have known Paul Palmer for about the past four years or so. I also have a
real estate license and Mr. Palmer has been my broker for the last three or four
years and I would just like to say something regarding Mr. Palmer's development and
also in terms of his basic reputation. I live in the New Horizon development on HWY
17, Pima Bay and the development there, in my mind, is not the kind of quality
construction that Mr. Palmer is proposing. The development that Mr. Palmer is
proposing is only two miles away from the New Horizon development, which' consists of
156 quad units. I am sure that several people that want to stay in the area, that
want an improved townhome, much better quality townhome, would also be interested in
up-grading and moving to that development.
Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the Whitetail Ridge Final Plan Amendment Request with
the recommendations from the staff, items 1 - 4. Motion died due to a lack of a
second.
Councilman Geving moved to table this item directing the City Attorney, Roger
Knutson, to prepare written Findings and Facts and a conclusion denying the Whitetail I
Ridge Final Plan Amendment Request 884-3 and bring that information back to the next
City Council meeting so the Council can vote on the Findings and Facts. Motion was
seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Councilwomen Watson and
Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. Mayor Hamilton opposed. Motion carried.
The above motion waa amended 5-20-85, Page 5.
Councilman Geving: I feel that the original PUD is a reasonable use of that land,
there is a potential for more hazards in that area, for potential of increased traf-
fic. I also believe that it intensifies the area in that it is essentially a single
family development around this Whitetail Ridge area, and the proposal was out of
character.
APPEAL DECISION lQ DENY BUILDING PERMIT AND STREET FRONTAGE AND LOT AREA VARIANCES,
815 CREEKWOOD DRIVE, DALE GUNDERSON, FINAL DISPOSITION:
Councilman Geving moved to deny the request to appeal the decision to deny a building
permit and the requests for street frontage and lot area variances, 815 Creekwood
Drive, Dale Gunderson, based on the Findings and Fact and Decision submitted by the
City Attorney's office. Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following
voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and
Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried.
Councilman Gevinq: I would like to know if I could ask for a subpoena, rather than
just appearing as requested by their attorney.
I
Mary Vujovich: You don't have to appear upon request. If you desire a subpoena, you
can be served a subpoena.
Councilman Gevinq: I would rather do that.
I
I
I
Council Meeting, May 6, 1985
-17-
PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT APPROVAL lQ REPLAT LOTS ~ AND 1L BLOCK lL CHANHASSEN
LAKES BUSINESS PARK ADDITION, OPUS CORPORATION:
Councilma~ Horn moved to approve the Preliminary and Final Plat to Replat Lots 4
and 5, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park Addition, Opus Corporation. Motion
was seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton,
Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes.
Motion carried.
ECKANKAR DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL, 100 ACRES LOCATED ~ THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF HIGHWAY
2. AND CO UN TV ROAD 17:
Barb Dacy: The sketch plan went to the Planning Commission on April 24, 1985.
Basically, what they are proposing is to separate this property into three parcels.
The middle 100 acres is designated as the applicant's campus business site. The
north 25 acres is designated as single family residential and the southern 50 acres
is designated as commercial. What the applicant is intending to do is to rezone the
middle section to P-3 to account for the campus business activities, that being an
administrative office and a printing building along Powers Boulevard. There is no
proposed rezoning action if this is to proceed on the north 25 acres or the south 50
acres. It is intended to remain the existing zoning as P-l. We did, through the
review process, ask the applicant to come up with some type of scheme where we could
try and evaluate the whole site and how one parcel would relate to another. As you
all know, the middle portion is designated as campus business and the comprehensive
plan created that category to allow for a single entity to use the site for the
quoted "urban-type developement", which maintains the city's rural qualities. What
they are intending to do is to create a private drive and allowing them enough space
and area for possible future expansion, such as a retreat center and other accessory
activities. As far as the staff's and Planning Commission's concern that was
reiterated, is that the applicant should proceed through the process. However it was
requested that the graphic arts and publishing building be moved to the west and the
applicant is now in the process of revising the plans and also that the buildings
meet the stipulated height restrictions as deemed by DNR, or that any amendments or
future phases in the area go through a site plan review process and that the private
drive, that the applicant is proposing to create, meet the City standards. In
conclusion, the staff found that the proposed use meets the intent of the campus
business and land use designation of the proposed P-3 district, but will also be
appropriate by the waiving of the north and the south acreage as P-l. The City could
still retain the control if these two lots were ever sold. They would have to con-
form to the land use plan and apply for the appropriate rezoning for the reuse of
those parcels.
Peter Beck: With me tonight are two representatives of Eckankar, Jerry Leonard,
their General Manager, and Bob Majewski, their operations manager. I addressed a
letter to the City outlining who Eckankar is, why they have decided to move to
Minnesota, and why they have selected this particular site in Chanhassen. The
planning considerations that we have gone into with planning this site are extensive.
Eckankar selected this site because of its rolling hills, vistas, and vegetation. The
primary goal of the site planning is to preserve that site with the existing con-
tours. The buildings will be put in using the existing contours to the maximum
extent possible. The campus site is a little over 100 acres. Your comprehensive
plan shows campus business in this location and requires that campus business uses
use 100 acres. Eckankar therefore selected the center 100 acres in the piece of pro-
perty that they were able to acquire. They are preserving approximately 25 acres on
the north as a residential buffer from the current residential community. On the
north parcel, at Bill Monk's request, we have shown a road to demonstrate that the
parcel could be developed. That road will not be platted. The north portion is
Council Meeting, May 6, 1985
-18-
being platted as an outlot, and before it could be developed in any way, it would
have to be rezoned, replatted and it would have full City review. In fact, we would
suggest that the City may want to look at the zoning on that in connection with the
overall rezoning of the City and Eckankar would work with you on that. There is no
preconception as to what it should be or what it shouldn't be. likewise, in the
southern portion, the comprehensive plan does designate most of the south right now
as commercial uses. Therefore, the south 40 acres or so have not been included in
the campus site. They have been platted as and outlot for future commercial uses.
In concern with the campus site, the attempt has been made to use the site to the
maximum extent possible. The administrative building will be located in the north-
west corner. The refined site plan moves that building off further to the east,
which it will be approximately 400 feet from lake Ann and over 1000 feet from the
residential neighborhood to the north. With this it fits into the existing contour
better and it makes use of the current vegetation around the farm. As far as the
administrative uses in the building, there will be general typical office use. The
top floor will be offices, and the bottom floor will be storage. The graphic arts
design, audio/visual, and publishing building will be located in the southeast corner
of the campus site. At staff's recommendation and the Planning Commission's request
also, this building will be moved further to the west as requested. The edge of the
parking will be approximately 115 feet from the road and the building will be
approximately 200 feet from the road. The landscaping plan will show heavy
landscaping between the parking and the road, screening those uses from County Road
17. The truck traffic as it is, and it will not be extensive, coming into the
graphic arts building will be loading and unloading in fully enclosed bays that will
be located on the west side of the building. There will be no truck traffic other
than UPS van sized vehicles at the administrative building. It will not be designed
to handle semi trailers and it will not have any traffic of that type. Right now, in
the current facilities, they have just one building that serves all the functions.
They have gone with two buildings in this area so that the heavier uses can be
further away from the housing. You also see a concept for a future ring road. If
the campus is developed further, the ring road would be installed with utilities
placed under it to tie the campus together. Eckankar is in agreement with the
staff's recommendation that any future development on the campus be subject to City
Council site plan review. It only seems reasonable that you should have a chance to
review future uses on this setting. The utilities are proposed to come up from the
south to serve the graphic arts building and to serve the administrative building
temporarily. The sanitary sewer would go to the north to an existing lift station.
If the campus developed extensively and that lift station would exceed its capacity,
then this building would be tied into the south through sanitary sewer under the pro-
posed ring road. Water would come up from the east side of the property and each
building would be served by lines along the driveway. We are requesting, in addition
to the sketch review, that the Council authorize the City Engineer to have the feasi-
bility study that was done for public utilities for the Sunny brook proposal, have
that modified and brought up to date consistant with the utilities plan that we are
showing for the Eckankar International Campus. I am very enthusiastic about this
development. It is an excellent use for this site, both from Eckankar's point of
view and from the City's. It will be much less of an intense use than anything that
was proposed in the long history of the development for this site. The total
employment will be about 50 people. The traffic will be very minimal.
Councilwoman Swenson: In previous developments we had discussed a road going from
County Road 17 into lake Ann Park. Is there any possibility of that?
Peter Beck: A frontage road has been designed 50 that is comes into County Road 17,
straight across from West 78th Street and is located on the property line.
I
I
I
I
I
I
Council Meeting, May 6, 1985
-19-
Councilwoman Swenson: That is what worries me, because the compilation of traffic at
that corner right now.
Peter Beck: We had Jim Benshoof look at that question and look at both of these on
the internal system as we were creating the plan. He felt that spacing between this
intersection and the lights was more than adequate. We can have him do a more
detailed study of that when we come back.
Bill Monk: When Barb Dacy and I met with the developer, we went over this and origi-
nally all they had shown on the plan was the center campus area. We said that as a
part of the sketch plan we wanted to see some preliminary layouts for the north and
the south sites and that was important to us for the overall planning. The existing
road was to follow this all the way up. It is important that this intersection be
maintained. It is right across from the existing Park Drive. It allows for a tie-in
with our park plan. From this point on, there are basically three options. Those
will have to be looked at quite extensively as this property develops. 1) To do
exactly what is shown. This bothers me also, but again, this is conceptual. 2)
Swing the frontage road up to the north and connect up at this point. 3) There is a
possibility that a road could be rerouted even farther north spacing between the pri-
vate drive. This hasn't been shown to disturb anybody. There are facets about it
that may be of concern, but the intent is to show that this is a feasible piece of
property to use for commercial or some other use. Where this road goes will require
some traffic engineering when we get to that point. This use and the access road are
very feasible. All we are trying to show is that these pieces are compatible.
Peter Beck: When the City planning gets that far and the planning on this goes that
far, which could be a considerable amount of time from now, it would make more sense
to bring that up, and I don't think there would be any problem with that at all.
There is nothing that is going to be done with that land in the interim. One thing
that they would like to do is keep the campus itself on private roads throughout.
Councilman Horn: My only concern with this property is that I hoped that the whole
thing would be developed with one proposal. It seems to me that it will be quite
some time before any of the rest of this developed and we would have our alternate
access to the park.
Peter Beck: I think the development of this commercial land involves a whole lot
more than Eckankar is ready to step into now. I think the City has to give some
thought to how much commercial use they want to be encouraging down on this end of
town and there are a lot of issues there that I don't think need to be resolved for
this campus to go ahead, but that Eckankar would be more than happy to work with the
City on once they get in here and are here on a day-to-day basis.
Councilman Horn: Do they have any plans to develop commercial acres or are they just
planning to sell it.
Peter Beck: No. They don't have any plans to sell it. The fellow that has proposed
the Sunnybrook development has been in touch with them a number of times about his
project. Eckankar are not developers, but they will look at that proposal and
others. Once they have resolved their own problems, but right now, no. They haven't
made their mind up about selling, but I think long-term leasing may be appropriate
for commercial uses.
Councilman Geving: I am primarily concerned with the taxes that this land would have
brought to the City. This land could be possibly used for single family and multiple
dwellings, and commercial enterprises. Now we see 175 acres being taken out of our
Council Minutes, May 6, 1985
-20-
tax base. I would like to pursue that and what committments this organization can
make with the City of Chanhassen paying property taxes to the City. If we are going
to provide services, such as police and fire protection, I want to know what our
position is in terms of recouping some of those funds and paying its way. I know
that we can't bind them to this as a tax-exempt organization, but I do feel that
there is a moral responsibility of any organization this large taking 175 acres out
of our tax base. I feel that we have to get something out of this.
Peter Beck: They are committed to paying taxes, precisely because they do feel a
responsibility of contributing to the community. I was hoping to come here and tell
you that they had to pay the taxes, but that is not true. I did research and I have
talked with Roger Knutson and I believe they qualify to be exempt, but they have no
intention of doing that. They have made that committment and I have put it in
writing. In talking with Roger Knutson I asked what else we can do to provide a
higher comfort level for the Council on that subject. Jerry Leonard, General Manager,
is here and would be happy to put that on record if you would like.
Councilman Geving: I would like to have that.
Jerry Leonard: It is our full intent to pay the taxes. We can't support any kind of
community without paying taxes. We realize that and we pay taxes in Menlo Park,
California. We intend to be a part of our community. How could this community ever
build hospitals and so forth if everyone didn't pay their part. We want to live here
and we want to be a part of this community. I would not have any part of this if I
thought that we were going to come in and be a sponge off the community. We want to
carry our fair share and we want to live here and we want to participate here.
I
Peter Beck: That is a committment that they made before anyone had told them that it I
would be an issue. I feel that they will stick by that committment. Roger Knutson
and I talked and it is going to be difficult to put it in writing, because it is a
constitutional right.
Councilman Geving: Is there any intention to have any kind of live-in dormitories or
facilities that would appear to be living quarters?
Peter Beck: Absolutely not. We will come to you next time with full floor plans
showing every square foot of use in both of those buildings. There are no residen-
ti al faci Ii ties.
Councilman Geving: How about eating facilities?
Peter Beck: There is a cafateria for lunches. They won't be serving food. It is
merely for their employees. They also hold small seminars in this administrative
building and they will be housing people, hopefully, at the Chanhassen Inn and those
people will be contributing to the businesses.
Councilman Geving: In regards to the road system, I was always very fond of us deve-
loping that road that we would share along with the eastern edge of park line with
this site. I really want to make sure that this happens.
Councilwoman Swenson: As I understand it, the staff has indicated that this is a P-3
district. There is one thing in the P-3 district that disturbs me a little bit in
conjunction with this particular piece of land.
Peter Beck:
this campus.
There are a lot of things in the P-3 district that would never happen in
But keep in mind that you have to approve each use.
I
I
I
I
Council Meeting, May 6, 1985
-21-
Councilwoman Swenson: The permitted uses under 16.02, item 7: industrial uses
complying with the standards of the P-4 plan industrial development district. I find
this totally unsatisfactory. Can we eliminate that particular item in the P-3
district in a specific case?
~ Vujovich: I am not sure that you can do it in a specific case; you already
have an ordinance here. It is permitted. It is not necessarily reasonable in a par-
ticular area. You may wish to discuss that as a part of your site plan. At this
point in time, I don't think you want to change it.
Barb Dacy: That provision would allow the printing operation.
Peter Beck: The graphic arts, audio/visual, and publishing building has several sets
of offices for these various functions and it does have a printing room.
Councilwoman Swenson: As I understand it, you are not going to be using this
building for printing other than your own particular material.
Peter Beck: That is exactly correct. The internal discussions that Eckankar have
had, is that it is not out of the question that they would go into the commercial
printing business. However, if they did, they would not do so on their campus.
That's not why they are coming out here to build a campus. They would go into the
industrial park if they stayed in Chanhassen.
Councilman Horn: My concern in this case is under development of the site. I would
hope that any development on the south side would be kept open because I would hate
to see that kept out of the market. I would like to see someone develop that so we
could get our road to the park.
Peter Beck:
--
posals. As
is not being
forever.
I think, initially, that people will have to come to Eckankar with pro-
I have said, Eckankar are not promoters and they are not developers. It
taken off the market in the sense that they are going to hold it
Councilman Horn: What happens in that effect, and we run into the same kind of thing
that we do by releasing a large tract for an industrial park, that anybody who comes
in there suffers under your covenants. In effect, we take it out of a public review
and we put it in a private review in what kind of developments go on that site. That
is what concerns me about it. The owner can say "I don't want that in there" and he
doesn't have the same kind of restraints that we do as a public body. It could
impede development in that area.
Peter Beck: I guess that is a possibility, but Eckankar has over 100 acres and I
can't see why they would be overly concerned about what is happening in the south
area.
Councilman Horn: There may be any number of reasons why they wouldn't want certain
type of establishments to build next to them.
Peter Beck:
But of course that would hold true for any owner.
Councilman Horn: True, but most people would buy that piece of property for an
investment. There is no way that you could buy just that one piece of property?
Peter Beck: No. The bank wants to sell it in one lump sum.
Council Meeting, May 6, 1985
-22-
Mayor Hamilton: I would like to ask Mr. Leonard to make a few comments. I met with
Mr. Beck and Mr. Leonard a couple of weeks ago and we talked about how they decided
to select Minnesota as their home and how they selected Chanhassen. I felt he made
some good comments and I would like him to pass them on to all of you.
I
Jerry Leonard: We looked allover the United States. We are looking for stability,
and this country is very stable. The human resources and the natural resources are
the things that we looked at also. There is a lot of this country that is in a hurt for
water. There is a lot of country that is in a hurt for stability. Out in Kansas you
can't depend on your neighbor because you don't know him, even though he is next door
to you. Part of our teaching is that we become co-workers with God and our fellow
man. This means taking a part in the community that you live in. You have to par-
ticipate in a community to appreciate it. This part of the country is clean. That
says a lot. We want to raise our children up in a very stable background. All of
these families that come here will be taking a part in the community in all of the
activities that there are here. Each family that comes in will be subject to buying
goods and paying taxes. What we want to do is take a part of this community and make
it grow and prosper. We like this community and we have looked allover the United
States and there is a lot of country out there, but this is the area we like. We
looked allover the Minneapolis area and this is where I felt our campus should be,
where the area is pleasing.
Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the Sketch Plan Review for the Eckankar Development
proposal. Motion was seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor:
Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. Councilwoman
Watson abstained. Motion carried.
RESOLUTION 085-18: Councilwoman Swenson moved the adoption of a resolution approving I
the request to update the feasibility study for the Eckankar Development proposal.
Motion was seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor
Hamilton, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. Councilwoman Watson
abstained. Motion carried.
Councilwoman Swenson: I am assuming that, regardless of the tax department, any
development like this is still liable for the assessments.
Peter Beck: Yes, we are going to be acquiring the entire cost of the utilities
except for the cost of oversizing your water main so it can serve others in the area.
I would also like to mention that we have filed our preliminary and final plats to
meet the staff's filing schedule and we will be in front of the Planning Commission,
we hope by May 22 and then back here on June 3rd.
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION ANNUAL REPORT:
Mayor Hamilton: Perhaps I could ask Richard Wing to give us some highlights of the
year and answer any questions that the Council may have.
Richard Wing: I think the report is quite basic. I don't think I have anything to
add to the report, but I will answer any questions if there are any. I guess the
only comment that I would like to make is that I think we have watched the dollar and
the attitude behavior of all the departments. I think since 1982 when the Mayor
kind of clamped down on things a little bit and as a member of the commission, we I
got the communication rolling and I think that communication has continued. I am
assuming that the Mayor and the City Manager are pleased with the report they have
between the various departments. I have nothing negative to say. I am very pleased,
in speaking for the commission, with the attitude behavior of the deputies, the ambu-
lance service does everything to please the City and I think the Fire Department is
functioning as well as any volunteer department that I have ever known.
I
I
I
Council Meeting, May 6, 1985
-23-
Mayor Hamilton: I would like to add that with the addition of Jim Castleberry and
the staff have certainly improved that situation this year. You can see the changes
taking place.
Richard Wing: I almost hesitate to make any comments, because with a professional
staff person, I don't know if it is appropriate for a late comment unless I am asked
a direct question, which would be an opinion at this point. I think Jim Castleberry
is doing an excellent job. We are really pleased with him.
Councilman Horn: Do you think this overcomes the concerns that you addressed in your
letter about the fact that the deputies are not attending meetings and you don't seem
to get a lot of feedback. Do you think Jim Castleberry fills that gap?
Richard Wing: I think he is aware of it too and I believe if he was here tonight he
would address that as strong as I would. I think that the administration at the
Sheriff's Office has dug themselves in a hole and it has caused some enemies now and
I think it was a bad move on their part. I think Jim Castleberry has filled this gap
very definitely, because he has forced the issue and he has called the deputies in
and they have been attending the meetings, but upon a specific request. They have
come in and have talked rather freely and this kind of boasted our position. Things
are running rather smoothly in Chanhassen. The individual deputies continue to do an
outstanding job.
Councilman Horn: Do you think this has something to do with Mr. Hendrickson's propo-
sal to talk with the deputies within the county?
Richard Wing: I think that he was threatened by the commission a little bit, I think
we were aggressive, I think that we were putting demands on him, we wanted things for
the City that we had to have and if we didn't get them, and we knew that it was going to
force the position of a Public Safety Dirctor. I think we would have liked to have
avoided that. It was another cost, and another staff member. We were hoping that he
would step in and fill this administrative void, which he didn't. In fact, he
withdrew even more. I think that hiring Jim Castleberry was a good move and a real
progressive move to the City.
Councilwoman Swenson: I really miss the knowing of the deputies like we used to. I
don't like to see this shuffling around and seeing somebody new in a squad car all
the time. I think we should know who they are.
Richard Wing: For the size of our contract, we do too. But I think there are reali-
ties here and it is his department and he is paying those deputies and they are
contracted through the city. If there is a concern about the contract, he will hear
what you are saying and react to that.
Mayor Hamilton: We are taking some steps at the time to help that situation by
having an open house and meeting these deputies.
Councilwoman Swenson: Do you have any suggestion as to why this personal injury
count should jump from 49, 61, 42 and 53 to l22?
Richard Wing: That is referred to as motor vehicle accidents.
Councilwoman Swenson: Are a lot of these accidents happening on Highway 5. Will it
help when Highway 5 is repaired?
Council Meeting, May 6, 1985
-24-
Mayor Hamilton: It is not all attributable to Highway 5. We have been working for
the past two months with the people in the Highway 7 area up in the Minnewashta
Shores in the Heights and the Lows because they have a really bad traffic problem up
there. So a lot of accidents occur up there. We have had the State Patrole in
talking with us. So it is not just Highway 5. I also know there is increased traf-
fic on Highway 41.
Richard Wing: One thing that Jim Castleberry is doing is increasing the traffic
enforcement. It has fallen off considerably less from 1983. So he is pushing for
more tags, more radar and more traffic enforcement. I think that we are going to see
a subsequent decrease next year.
Mayor Hamilton: Just to make sure that the Council is aware that through Richard
Wing and Jim Castleberry's efforts, the Highway Patrol has been invited to use the
office upstairs. We are happy that we asked them to come and be a part of our com-
munity and use our facilities.
Councilman Horn: I tend to think that a way to reduce the traffic accidents is not
through traffic enforcement, but through improved transportation to get the traffic
moving so vehicles are spending less time on the road.
Richard Wing: We agree with that, but to improve Highway 7 to 41 west it was
something like 2! million dollars just for a half mile stretch to put in the proper
shoulders and turn lanes. So We are saying as a first step we have to increase the
police enforcement so that on these roads they are seeing regular marked squad cars
and knowing that they have to watch their speed. I don't know what other choice we
would have financially right now.
Councilwoman Watson: In the letter to Dr. Robert Welsh from Jim Castleberry, under
minimum training standards: "the current policy requests that all personnel
responding on the reScue squad be required to have a first responder card. However,
as Captain Wing alluded, several of the older members have refused or have been
unwilling to maintain this standard. Some discussion did occur then as to whether
this policy should be strictly enforced for neW firefighters and that present person-
nel should be grand fathered in with specific limitations put on their ability to
respond to rescue activity." I think that is absolutely ridiculous. If they refuse
to maintain standards, I don't want them on the reScue squad.
Mayor Hamilton: When the older fellows joined the fire department, they went on
there to be firefighters. They only go on the fire trucks. They refuse to meet the
standards to get their first responder card. Consequently, they are firemen. They
don't respond to emergencies and they don't go out on any calls.
Richard Wing: The Fire Department and the Rescue Squad are separate. Without the
first responder card, they do not respond to a rescue call. Some of the firemen do
not want to go to the rescues and medicals and personal injury accidents. They don't
like it and they just want to be firemen. With the limited number of man power that
we have, that has to be addressed. The question in this letter is we would like to
have the doctor set a new standard that all members will have this training, because
the fact that you go on a fire sceen, and one of our members may get into touble.
PIPER RIDGE FEASIBILITY STUDY:
Bill Monk: The Council was aware of the Piper Ridge subdivision several weeks ago.
A feasibility study was approved and has now been done. I think the report is quite
I
I
I
I
I
I
Council Meeting, May 6, 1985
-25-
straight forward. It addresses all of the phases of the project. The total cost is
listed, the assessments per unit are listed, and it goes through the sanitary sewer,
watermain, storm sewer and street construction. Again tonight, the action is recom-
mended to:
1) Accept and approve the feasibility study for Piper Ridge Improvements
as prepared by McCombs-Knutson Associates and dated May 1, 1985.
2) Waive the public improvement hearing as requested by the developer in
his letter of March 22, 1985.
3) Authorize preparation of construction plans and specifications.
In an effort to introduce representatives of the various consultants to the Council,
this is about the only chance that I have to do that. Tom Colbert is here from
McCombs-Knutson Associates, and I would like to ask him to make a brief presentation
of the report, just so that the Council can get a feel for Mr. Colbert and
McCombs-Knutson Associates because I feel that is important.
Tom Colbert: For the past seven years I was the City Engineer for the City of Eagan
before just recently joing the staff of McCombs-Knutson in their Municipal Engi-
neering Department. As head of the Municipal Engineering Department, I was quite
excited, as one of my first projects, to work on a subdivision development feasibi-
lity report. That is a nature that I have been dealing with for the past seven years
with Eagan, so it is really a lot of fun doing this report. I will certainly answer
any questions that you may have or if I have left anything out in the report, or if
you would like anything expanded further in the report, I would be more than happy to
do it now.
Councilman Geving: On page one under the feasibility recommendations regarding the
street surfacing being delayed until 1986. Can you comment on that please.
Tom Colbert: We took some soil borings of the material out there and found that it
was very unstable and there was a very high moisture content, which makes it very
difficult to compact to a specified density. The best way to have this material
settle and compact is let it go through a freeze/thaw cycle. When it goes through
that freeze/thaw cycle it expands with the frozen material and then thaws out, com-
pacts, and fills in some of the air voids. You really get the best settlement at
that time. It won't disturb or have any problems with the utilities underneath
because that would be placed on good stable material and won't be disturbed. Through
that freeze/thaw cycle, you then come and put on the bituminous surfacing and the
curbs, you won't end up with eroding pattern.
Councilman Horn: I was curious about the request to not have the public hearing. Is
there really any impact for that?
Bill Monk: The only way that can occur is if the petition represents 100% of the
assessment. That is the case here and he has the right to waive the public hearing
and he is exercising that right. Really what it does is saves about 30 to 40 days in
the process. The City has no problem with that as long as no other property owner is
involved.
RESOLUTION 085-19: Councilman Horn moved the adoption of a resolution approving the
following:
1) Accept and approve the feasibility study for Piper Ridge
improvements as prepared by McCombs-Knutson Associates
and dated May 1, 1985.
2) Waive the public improvement hearing as requested by the
developer in his letter of March 22, 1985.
3) Authorize preparation of construction plans and specifications
based on the improvements detailed in said feasibility study.
Council Meeting, May 6, 1985
-26-
Resolution was seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor
Hamilton, Councilwoman Sw~nson, and Councilman Horn. Councilwoman Watson and
Councilman Geving abstained. Motion carried.
I
AMENDMENT lQ ORDINANCE 9-B, FIRST READING:
Councilman Geving moved to place on first reading an amendment to Ordinance 9-B,
excluding Raguet Wildlife Management Area, and amending Section 8. b., item (2) to
read: That the City of Chanhassen and DNR are successful in approving a new
agreement governing hunting within the Raguet Wildlife Management Area at the ter-
mination of the current agreement. Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The
following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Watson and Councilman Horn.
Councilwoman Swenson and Councilman Horn opposed. Motion carried.
HIDDEN VALLEY ESTATES, SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAYS 2 AND ~ NEW AMERICAN HOMES,
SET DATE FOR COUNCIL REVIEW:
---
It was the applicant's request to meet with the City Council on an informal basis to
discuss the aspects and details of the Hidden Valley Estates development. The appli-
cant felt that this session was needed in order to move the development along more
rapidly.
The Council discussed this matter and felt that this could be accomplished in a regu-
lar Council meeting and that having a special meeting would delay things longer. It
was also felt that the public should be able to attend so they may have some input
also. It was, therefore, decided that this item would be put on the agenda for a
regular Council meeting.
INSPECTION SERVICES:
The Council discussed this item and mutually agreed that there is a definite need for I
another person to help out with inspection services and zoning issues. It was agreed
that this new position would be considered a temporary/full-time position, should it
occur that the inspections start to slow down.
The following is a list of the City Manager's recommendations based on the City
Council's tour of road improvements projects on Monday, April 29, 1985, which brought
out various inspection questions:
1) Old Instant Web Building: That the City Council approve a motion to
sign the existing parking lot "No Parking 2:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m.".
2) RESOLUTION D85-20: Paralegal Services: Amendment of the 1985 Budget to
reallocate approximately $3,000 to $4,000 in attorney monies for paralegal
services.
3) RESOLUTION D85-21: Inspection Services: That the City Council amend the
1985 budget to delete existing outside plumbing services and reallocate
such monies for the employment of a second building inspector.
Councilwoman Swenson moved to approve the City Manager's recommendations as stated
above. Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Watson. The following voted in favor:
Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No
negative votes. Motion carried.
CHRISTMAS LAKE BOAT ACCESS:
--
Mayor Hamilton: Councilman Geving will now report on the meeting with the DNR on the
Christmas Lake Boat Access.
I
I
I
I
Council Meeting, May 6, 1985
-27-
Councilman Geving: My first question was to find out whether the access at Holly
Lane was to be a consideration. They assured me immediately that it was not a con-
sideration and it never has been and it won't be in the future. They told me that
the Chanhassen location is just too expensive for them to pursue. I think that this
is something that we have to stay on top of and whenever there is a meeting like
this, I think someone should really attend. They are very concerned about this in
Shorewood. They have a legitimate donation from a homeowner that lives on the lake
and he is willing to make a donation with some trade-offs. The DNR is not willing to
make those kind of committments. They do not want any strings attached to anything
that they are involved in. The bottom line is that the access has to be public, it
has to be open to the public, there is no discrimination of any kind and what the
donators want to put into this is the restriction on boat sizes, motor sizes, and
horse powers and things like that. The DNR is not willing to buy that. So they are
looking for willing sellers along the lake rather than this particular donation.
Councilwoman Watson moved to adjourn the meeting. Motion was seconded by
Councilwoman Swenson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen
Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried.
Don Ashworth
City Manager