1986 11 17
I
I
I
227
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 17, 1986
Mayor Hamil ton called the meeting to order. The meeting was opened with the
Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT:
Councilman Horn, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilman Geving, and Councilwoman
Watson
STAFF PRESENT:
Don Ashworth, Barbara Dacy and Bill Engelhardt
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilwoman Watson moved, Mayor Hamil ton seconded to
approve the agenda with the following additions: Councilman Horn wanted to
update the Council on the TH 7 Corridor Meeting, Councilwoman Swenson wanted
to discuss hazardous waste, Don Ashworth wanted to set a special meeting date
to interview engineers. All voted in favor of amended agenda an:] motion
carried.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Geving moved, Councilwoman Watson seconded to
approve the Consent Agenda item pursuant to the City Manager's
recorrmendations:
1. a.
Final Plat Approval, Chanhassen Meadows.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
VISITOR PRESENTATION:
virginia Harris: I would like to report that the street light at the
intersection of 17 and 18 is out. It has been out for about a week. I was
very appreciative that it went in in the first place. It was fantastic down
there. In the morning I don't think about it so I don't think to call so I
was just on my way home and I thought I would stop in and report it.
AWARD OF BIDS: WEST 65TH STREETjCRES'IVIEW DRIVE SANITARY SEWER PROJECT.
Bill Engelhardt: I have a brief report on the bid taking. Bids were received
on November 14th. Eleven bids were received and they ranged from a low bid of
$179,331.86 to a high bid of $218,450.00. The low bid was submitted by J.P.
Norex, Inc. of Chanhassen and Norex is presently working as the utility
contractor on the Lake Lucy Road contract. In reviewing their work we find it
to be satisfactory. The contractor has indicated that due to the frost
conditions that now exist we will start this project in the spring with the
exception of possibly doing a tunneling of a portion of the project this
winter. The bid that was submitted is approximately 18% over the feasibility
study estimate and one of the factors that we feel that contributed to this
cost was boring between the existing houses going into pheasant Hills. I
think when the original report was done it was thought that they would be able
to cut that. A feasibility study included 30% for the project cost to arrive
1
0)(,i)O
/:-1 6~ U
City Council Meeting - November 17, 1986
at the total project cost which would then be reflected in the assessment cost.
Looking over the project we anticipate that the project cost could come into
the area of about 21%. In other words, by keeping our bonding costs down,
keeping the engineering costs down and all of the indirect costs, if we keep a
real close eye on those we should be able to bring those in at about 21% and
if that is the case then the assessments should pretty much stay at
approximately what was presented in the feasibility study. I feel pretty
comfortable that we will be able to keep those costs down. Based on a number
of bids received, we did have 11 bids, we would recommend award of the
contract to J.P. Norex, Inc. for the low bid of $179,331.86. Looking at the
project, if we were to try and rebid it in the spring to achieve a lower
price, I don't feel that we would be seeing any reduction in construction
cost. One thing too to the 18%, that includes the $7,131313.1313 that the City had
looked at off-setting as part of the cost of the road improvements. I feel
very comfortable with the bid. It is higher then what was presented in the
feasibility study but I think if the project is tracked properly through the
course of the project we will bring it in pretty close to what the feasibility
study was.
Councilman Horn: On this bored and tunnel section, is that going to do
anything to alleviate the water problem next spring?
Bill Engelhardt: N:>. That is on the lower end of the job. It is not on the
Crestview and the West 65th Street area. Starting that area this winter, I
think would be a mistake. Even though there is potential for problems with
those people up there, people having septic system problems, what could happen
is that you get in there and rip the streets all to pieces, we're going to
have to try to get them in and out in the spring. Right now the water table
is high and we do have a water problem and I think it would create more of a
problem for those people then the potential of having a septic system problem.
Councilman Horn: I thought our emphasis on doing this was to get it done so
that they wouldn't have the problems in the spring. I am really disappointed
to find out that it isn't going to happen.
Bill Engelhardt: One thing that effected the startup. We could have probably
started but you are looking at frost in the roadway down a foot to maybe a
foot and a half. It is very unusual that you receive below zero weather like
we did last weekend. Just those few days and that week of cold weather really
drove the frost down and that is one of the reasons that he's not starting.
Councilman Geving: The question I have is how would we accomplish the 21%
project cost that you are striving for? What steps would you take to reduce
that 313% to 21% so that we can give to the citizens the assessment that we
told them that it would be approximately? In other words, we don't want any
surprises. How would you go about keeping tabs on this project to keep the
costs at 21%?
I
I
Bill Engelhardt: There are two areas that we can keep the costs down. One is
my fees and we're looking at about a 5 1/2% to 6% total for that project on the I
engineering for the plans and specs. The other thing is that the bonding
cost, we will be bonding that project with a number of other projects so that
2
I
I
I
229
City Council Meeting - November 17, 1986
we're not going to have the legal costs, the bond council cost, selling the
bonds and the discount on the bonds all on that project is going to be spread
through the larger bond issue so that should be...
Councilman Geving: I think that is the key to this whole thing is that the
PeOple aren't going to be surprised by a larger assessment then what we
anticipated. Secondly and I have to reiterate the comments that Clark made, I
would be very concerned about our current heal th problem that we were led to
believe is eminent, it is current and now I see that nothing is going to
happen for several months. What is happening in the meantime for potential of
sewage flowing down the streets and so forth like we had earlier this Fall?
What are we going to do?
Bill Engelhardt: We have basically the same condition that we had at that
time. There is not a whole lot we can do about it. We could instruct the
contractor to start work on it but we've got an existing neighborhood where if
you go in there and tear the streets all up and rock it in, it is going to be
very difficult for them to get in in the spring, in and out and I think that
is almost as great a hazard to them as the heal th hazard that we have been
living with for a while.
Councilman Geving: I guess it doesn't make me very happy but I just don't
know what we can do about it.
Mayor Hamilton: We can have them start in the spring as soon as the very first
opportunity to get in there that they are in there to minimize the problem
quickly.
Bill Engelhardt: . That is one thing we can do.
Mayor Hamilton: How can we be sure that this project is watched to make sure
that the first time that they can get in the ground to start working they will
be doing that?
Bill Engelhardt: I'll just have to sit on them. You have made me aware of
the problen and it is my duty and my job to make sure that it gets done.
Don Ashworth: I think one of the benefits is this contractor also has the
other project so his equipment is in town. It is sitting there. It is going
to fairly easy for him to get it over to this site. Again, with that other
project happening, I think the City has a great deal of influence over
instructing where to go when.
Councilman Geving: Is there something that we can build into the contract
award that would emphasis that very thing that the Mayor mentioned? That the
contract is not only based on the low bid but the fact that he is going to
start working on this at the very earliest moment next spring. Put words into
the contract so that we can force him to get going on it.
Councilman Horn: Have we done anything to inform the homeowners in the area
that this will be delayed until spring?
3
23:0
City Council Meeting - November 17 - 1986
Bill Engelhardt: Not at this point.
I
Councilman Horn: W:! should do that.
Councilman Geving: I think we have the responsibility not only to tell them
that we have a contract that will be awarded to this firm and that work will
start as soon as we can get in there next spring and if you want to, I think
maybe it would even be appropriate to tell them why we can't get in there
earlier. Just for the reasons you mentioned Bill.
Mayor Hamilton: W:! could draft a letter and send it to the neighborhood.
Councilman Geving: And have it signed by the Mayor.
Bill Engelhardt: If they have any questions they can call us.
Resolution #86-83: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to award
the West 65th Street/Crestview Drive Sanitary Sewer Project to J.P. Norex,
Inc. in the amount of $179,331.86 and that it be indicated in their Contract
that they are to begin operations as early in the spring as they can. All
voted in favor and motion carr ied.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Councilman Geving moved, Councilwoman Watson seconded to approve the Minutes
of the City Council meeting dated November 3, 1986 as amended on pages 5 and
11 by Councilman Horn. All voted in favor except Councilwoman Swenson who
abstained and motion carried.
I
Councilman Geving: I have a question regarding the action that we had
suggested the Manager take instructing the City Attorney's office to work with
Mrs. Albee. I know that we had the letter in the Administrative portion of
the Council packet but I didn't see the action item that I was looking for. I
guess I'm looking for comment from you Don as to status of that.
Don Ashworth: I contacted Mr. Knutson. He did get a hold of the Court. The
Court sent him their Findings. He still had questions on those. He
contacted Susan Albee and back to the Court. I talked to him at length this
afternoon asking him if there was some resolution. He informed me that there
was not. That he had anticipated coming back with Findings by this point in
time but he did not.
Councilman Geving: When Ms. Albee was here she had an action date of November
7th. We obviously missed that.
Don Ashworth: We were unable to verify that particular date and the Court did
not lead us to believe that that was a concern. Roger did ask for a copy of
Court action. I don't know if his additional request for a delay is because
it wasn't complete , whether he still has questions on it or did not
receive it. I'm not sure.
I
4
I
I
I
2'31
City Council Meeting - November 17, 1986
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to note the Minutes of the
Planning Commission meeting dated November 5, 1986. All voted in favor and
motion carried.
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE AMENDMENT, SECOND AND FINAL READING.
Barbara Dacy: There are two major issues that remain unresolved or need to be
clarified by the Council. One is as to whether or not specific points should
be established as part of Section 14.03, Subparagraph A(5). Secondly, whether
or not subparagraph 4 of that same section should be deleted or if it should
be retained. As to the first issue, the last time the Council discussed this
there was a lot of discussion regarding whether or not points would be
effective in the administration of the Ordinance. We contacted the City
Attorney. He stated that if the Council wished to establish a specific point
system it would help Staff as far as an administrative procedure. We could
tell developers and applicants exactly what could be expected. On the other
hand, he stated a PUD application is in effect a rezoning action and the
Council has a great deal of authority in determining whether or not that
rezoning is warranted or not so I believe the Attorney is saying whichever way
the Council feels is most appropriate can be upheld. As to 4 in Section
14.03, that was in regards to what the amount of square footage should be used
in calculating the average density. The intent of that requirement was to
prevent inclusion of a one 50,000 square foot or one acre lot at that square
footage compensating for two or three smaller lots. If you say 15,000, 17,500
or 20,000 you are saying even though you have a 50,000 square foot lot only
that number 15,000, 17,500 or 20,000 shall be used in that calculation. Those
I believe are the two major issues in the Ordinance. The other items, numbers
2, 3 and 4 in your Staff Report have been addressed. '!his is for second and
final reading and the Ordinance will become effective upon the date of
publication.
Councilman Horn: I don't see that I have changed my mind over the last time
we reviewed this. I think the key is the useab1e portions of the land in the
PUD and I think that was lacking in the previous one and I don't really have
too much of a problem if we have good, useab1e, buildable area that is in
excess of 15,000 square feet that is included in the overall density. I
really think the problem we had before was when the areas that couldn't be
developed were considered part of the density so from that perspective we
might want to set some limit on there, 20,000 or 25,000, but I don't think it
has to be capped at 15,000. I guess I still have a little trouble with the
point system too. I think we can handle that through the normal review.
Councilwoman Swenson: I think I would like to see at least a maximum of
20,000 square feet, as Barb said, used to calculate the average lot size. with
regards to point system, the only problem I have Clark in not designating that
is that I think we are going to run into in both of those instances into the
same situation that we had in the beginning which prompted me to start the
drafting of this thing to begin with and that was that we didn't have enough
specifics. It was too vague. I think here the point system is so minimal I'm
not sure it is going to have that much influence but at least it eliminates
allowing somebody to come in and do one thing and get the same benefit that
somebody would have if they came in and did them all. I recognize that there
5
282
City Council Meeting ~ November 17, 1986
are instances where there aren't always trees that can get cut down so I'm I
sure the Council in it's wisdom will take those things into it's consideration
when it comes down. I would like to add something else in there though and
that is the preservation of historical sites. I don't know if some of you
remember but when Dunn and Curry were in the process of developing that land
on the west side and east side of Lake Ann we did get a response, there is a
site over there and the problem is we couldn't do anything about it because
the Historical Society, is that who handled it, I think so, anyway we didn't
have any way of buying the land. They didn't have any way of buying the land
and of course there was no way to prevent the developer from using the land
unless we could buy it from him so it occurred to me when I was going through
this over and over again, that this might be something that we might want to
include as one of the things that we would look for as an incentive for
permitting a PUD would be the preservation of any historical, meaning
artifacts, archaelogical sites particularly because once those are gone they
are like the water. When they are gone they are gone.
Mayor Hamilton: Aren't those protected by the State if there is found to be
an archaelogical significance to an area?
Barbara Dacy: I don't know the full extent of State Law reviewing that matter
but I think in some instances they can hold up construction until they
complete their digs but it would be up to the community as to whether or not
they would want to preserve that land on a continuing basis instead of just
doing a dig and closing up the hole.
Councilwoman Swenson: I'm sure the rest of you have to remember when that
happened because I know we have letters in the file that will confirm that
fact and I remember thinking at that time and we all discussed how sad it was
that we really didn't have any way of controlling something like that. This
is at least a step in the attempt. We're not saying he has to do it. We're
saying it would nice if he would and we are willing to make concessions on
that basis. We can't say you can't do it. I think it is really going to pull
together very well and it certainly addresses, other then the fact for the
last time I will say that I lull the idea of the use of the word average and
densities but apparently this was a legal reply. Other then that I would have
to say that I am pleased with the effort that everybody has put into it and I
am pleased to have been able to see it came to it's completion.
I
Councilman Geving: I think we've come a long way in gathering together our
thoughts in this document. We were fairly far apart on a number of issues
when we went through the first reading and I think this is looking a lot
better. I'm still a little bit confused over the minimum, for example using
the 20,000 square feet in lot sizes. I remember an awful lot of plats and one
in particular, Triple Crown Estates for example had an awful lot of swamp area
to the east of that particular plat. The 35,000-40,000 square feet of land
that was included in the overall density and several others like that where
they had large, large pieces of acregage and I think there needs to be a
figure and I would say that 20,000 square foot figure is probably as good as
any that we might come up with. I'm still a little confused personally over
the use of density transfer. I think that we have not really resolved that
issue once and for all. I don't know if this comes close to doing that but
I
6
I
I
I
233
City Council Meeting - November 17, 1986
I'm still not satisfied that there will be some sharp developers out there
that will be able to work their way around densi ty transfer on us. Do you
feel comfortable with this Barb? If we just restrict it to single family?
Barbara Dacy: Yes. '!he advantages to this particular way of doing it is that
you are SPeCifically listing items that you will consider for the density
transfer. You are listing specific items for the developer to prove that he
has, in exchange you are identifying the amount of transfer that the developer
will receive in return. Heretofore it has not been that specific. It has
been handled on a case by case basis.
Councilman Geving: Again, I do believe that we are coming closer to an ideal
city here but as long as we restrict it to the single family area I think we
might be better to achieve the question I have in terms of allowing
percentages to be awarded in the point system. I don't think it will ever
work. I personally think that you can take any number of items and give him
any numerical weight and at some future point they will fail because someone
will say that I have an item here that should be considered as a higher
weighted scale then another i tern and I just don't believe that a point system
will ever really stand up in a long term development issues that come before
us and we try to fare out the importance of housing variety, mixes,
preservation of natural sites and so forth. I think we will all be very
differing on our views of how much point structure we should assign to these
individual items. Personally I would like to see us omit and leave out the
individual points. I like the idea of having issues or items identified for a
developer to be given credit for and maybe they will even come up with
something we haven't thought of but the matter here is to award a percentage
in a manner that I call arbitrary. For example the first one, housing variety
including differentiation of housing types, housing exteriors and floor plans.
Every developer is going to get two points for that. I don't care who he is
so that is meaningless. It is absolutely meaningless but I do believe that we
have hit upon at least the idea and that is to give points or credit for
preserving natural areas. Historical sites maybe more so then an
archaelogical site. There might be a very nice wooded maple grove of an acre
or two that we want to preserve forever in this community and we should give
the developer that opportunity and give him credit for that or wetland or
lowland area or just plain grassland area that kids can go and play and kick
around in. Those are the things that I think will stand the test of time in
terms of giving a developer some incentive as opposed to the point system.
For example again, getting over onto the second page of this issue, page 4,
60% of the lots are designed for solar and energy conservation housing. I
can't believe that any developer is going to meet 60% of all of his housing
units as being solar or energy conservation housing. That would be very rare
but it is a thought more then anything that we can give credit for solar
energy efficient homes and whether the percentage is correct or not I'm not at
liberty to say but those are some of the thoughts that I have. As far as the
minimums are concerned, I do believe I like the minimum, the 12,000 square
foot as being identified here on page 2. Again, Pat mentioned archaelogical.
I will replace her word archaelogical with historical. I tend to think that
we would have more tendency to have historical areas that might be preserved
then potential archaelogical sites that would tie a developer virtually
forever so there should be some identification of the incentive in that area.
7
234
City Council Meeting - November 17, 1986
I believe that I have covered most of the points that I had marked. Let me
just skim through here one more time. I'm satisfied Mr. Mayor that my
comments are taken and we work around them. For example my thought of
throwing out the point systems. I think if we did that we would be much
better off. I don't know how the other Council members feel as far as the
second reading on this, the final reading, but I do believe that we are coming
close to a pretty good document here that probably will be amended in the
future even after tonight so nothing is really perfect but we are getting
closer now then we were when we started this whole project so I am fairly well
satisfied with this whole document.
I
Councilwoman Watson: I too was looking at that 20,000 square foot issue
because we have had those large lots that have thrown off the entire density.
I don't have as much trouble with it when we have a minimum lot size. If they
can't go below the 12,000 square feet then I don't think they can do as much
damage to the system as they have been able to do in the past. I can go to
25,000 or 30,000 square feet if at least 50% of the lot were useable. It
wasn't just a building pad with a swamp around it or a 80 foot cliff behind it
but then I thought that is complicated too and unless 50% of it was useable so
I think just sticking with something like the 20,000 square feet. I would go
with that. I guess I could actually even go to 25,000 or 30,000 as long as
the minimum lot size is maintained. I think the point system is going to be
difficult. I don't know whether points are even necessary. I think there
will always be the need for the Council to use some discretion in allowing the
developer to come in and present something and have the abil i ty to decide that
what they are seeing is what they want to see. If a developer were for
instance to meet 5 of the 8 or something in that nature, outside of the point
system, I don't know that that would be any easier to decide either. I agree
with Pat with archaelogical or historical sites. If there were real
archaelogical sites on the property it could easily be made a park area or
something of that nature. It could possibly be preserved. Like Pat said, you
can't force them to do it anyway. If they don't want to they won't. I wanted
to add one other item to this area and that is a park area be kept in it's
natural state. There is mention of parks as active play areas. I feel
strongly that all parks are not baseball diamonds or soccor fields and that as
we develop our children are going to have fewer and fewer opportunities to
see just places where trees and squirrels live and grass grows and nobody mows
it and those sorts of things. Basically that is my comment except for my one
final comment. I don't think we have ever seen a POD before. I sincerely
hope that this Ordinance brings about a real POD in the strictest sense of the
word.
I
Councilwoman Swenson: I was just going to respond to this point system.
First of all before I forget, Barbara had an excellent idea today when I
mentioned the archaelogical and/or historical site preservation and she
thought that was certainly worthwhile including as is apparently the consensus
here and then suggested that we throw in and Barbara do you want to phrase
that, I mean like a catch all.
Barbara Dacy: It was kind of the other category or a sentence that would say
sanething to the effect or other feature as approved by the City Council.
I
8
I
I
I
C!J3~
~"j f>>
City Council Meeting - November 17, 1986
Councilwoman Swenson: Any unusual thing that might come up. Maybe there is
an acre or three acre section of woods and it would be good for the kids to
walk in and see the wild flowers growing. I would certainly like to recommend
that. Now as regard to the point system and I guess I hate to keep coming
back to this but we really don't have any, we tend to think in terms of how we
are going to handle things when they come up. I've been around long enough to
know that there were a lot of ordinances written and by the time we get to
working with them, we tend to not know what the intent was when they were
established to begin with. I don't think you are ever going to be able to
find a developer who is going to be able to fill all of these particular
points that we have here. If we add another 2, 3, 4 or 5 so it is whatever.
The odds are that they are going to come up with something. If however you
don't have some system, like I said, they are all numbered the same so you
can't say, there aren't going to be any argument among the members themselves
as to which has greater weight because they would all be the same whether we
think they should be or not. That would be a starting point. The second
thing is that it does put some specifics in the Ordinance. I believe Roger
confirmed that it would probably be a little bit easier to maintain or to
enforce this way. I guess that was pretty much it. As far as the square foot
situation is concerned, I think the idea of putting that in was merely to
definitely once and for all eliminate the possibility of the 30,000 square
foot lots being transferred into the density. 17,500, 20,000, whatever it
doesn't matter but at least it does put a cap on it unless you want to put in
a specified statement that anything that is not buildable and then I think you
can get a little questionable because there are people who will say that you
can build on anything as we found out in the north service area. Those are my
only points.
Mayor Hamilton: My comments were the same as last time. I don't really care
about the percentage nor do I care about the minimum lot size not being able
to fall below 12,000 square feet. I think that is somewhat high. Of course I
have always felt there is room and there should be room in our community for
smaller lots for homes that aren't necessarily under $50,000.00 or higher. We
have industry in our town that needs to have housing for the employees that
work there and I think if we keep the lot size too big that it is going to
cost them an arm and a leg to build on there just to build the lot, we're not
going to get those people into this communi ty. I know I'm in the minori ty on
that particular issue. I always have been but I still would feel the same.
The award of percentage I guess I had said last time also that I didn't care
for it and see that it is going to accomplish anything. I like the categories
that we have spelled out here and it would seem to me that rather then being
tied into a specific percentage that we can allow we may want to use our
discretion on some of these and award a reduction not specifically based on a
particular number. The 20,000 lot is an issue also. You could pick any
number out of the air like all of us have said I guess but I also think that
some areas where you have several lots larger then 20,000, in some cases the
buildable or useable area of that lot is going to be very insignificant. It
may be only 5,000 square feet. In others an useable lot of a much greater
portion so I would feel that perhaps we should allow the amount that is
useable. I don't like taking for instance a 37,000 square foot lot when only
5,000 square feet of it is useable and allow 20,000. We're still defeating
the purpose that we are trying to accomplish.
9
611')< ('il; "7l.
~of(U!
City Council Meeting - November 17, 1986
Councilman Geving: I would like to see if Barb could give us a demonstration I
of item 5 on these average lot reductions, how this would actually work for a
developer if there were four, five or six of these items that could be
considered for a reduction by the developer. Could you show us how this could
actually work fram a developer standpoint?
Barbara Dacy: If a developer, in your scenario said I am going to provide
housing variety, going to create an active park, going to install sidewalks
and all of my lots are going to be designed for solar access for that is four
items at two points each, eight points. That is eight points which translate
into 8% reduction in the average lot size below 15,000.
Councilman Geving: For all the lots in the development?
Barbara Dacy: Right, for the entire development so that should work out
somewhere around 13,900 or 14,000 will be the average lot size for the entire
development. Now, out of that entire development 50% of those lots have to be
15,000 square feet or greater, that is number 3 and in no case shall any of
those lots fall below 12,000 square feet or have less then 80 feet frontage so
that is how it works.
Councilman Geving: So basically in that particular scenario, most of those
lots would look pretty much alike. Somewhere between 12,000 and 13,500 if
you are looking at every single lot in that particular development.
I
Barbara Dacy: 50% would be 15,000 or greater and the remaining amount would
be distributed between 12,000 and 13,000.
Mayor Hamil ton: I don't like to be tied into having to have 2% either and if
we did this, I would rather say a percentage not to exceed 2%. We may want to
give 1%.
Councilman Geving: Isn't the maximum though for the whole planned area 10% at
the discretion of Council?
Councilwoman Swenson: If you have number 5, the percentages are probably
moot. The only reason that those were put in was to try to eliminate the idea
that you give some guy some points just for one of these items as opposed to
if he can get 10 points for just doing one there is no incentive for him to do
the rest so that is the only point I'm at.
Councilman Geving: Even the wording though. A maximum reduction of up to
10%. In other words, if the Council, if we threw out all of the point systems
and just arbitrarily decided on a given night that this particular developer
met five of our six or seven items here and we decided that we would give him
a 7% reduction period. We just vote it.
Councilwoman Swenson: You don't feel that there would be a question there of
being arbitary and capricious with each developer?
I
Councilman Geving: Is five people who have agreed upon...
10
I
I
I
2.0..-€; FJ
. JQ.jJ c;
City Council Meeting - November 17, 1986
Mayor Hamilton: I don't think so either because I think you look at each case
on it's own merits and if you think...
Councilman Geving: I think it gives us a lot of flexibility.
Councilwoman Swenson: If you change the reduction of up to 10% maximum, I
would be amenable to that.
Councilwoman Watson: I have no trouble with that as long as 50% of the lots
have to be 15,000 and nothing can be below the 12,000 square feet. What falls
between the 12,000 and 15,000. I don't really have any trouble with that.
Councilwanan SWenson: Sane would have to be 14,300.
Councilwoman Watson: Yes, but as long as I have those two sets, those two
definites, I can deal with more variables.
Councilman Geving: Let's be reasonable though. Let's think in terms of what
the communi ty might look like and what the needs are for the community and
this goes back to the 12,000 square foot minimum that Tom hit upon. I have
hi t this very hard myself over many years but I think we have to be very
realistic of what land is still available in Chanhassen. Quite frankly the
pieces of land that are available are being cut into smaller pieces everyday
and to buy a 10,000 square foot lot might be the most desirable thing that we
can arrive at for a reasonable person moving into Chanhassen. We are going to
acquire an awful lot of new people. We're going to have new people working in
our Industrial Parks. Not everyone can afford 15,000 square feet. I know
that this is a different thought that I am presenting. I do know that we have
worked hard to keep our community looking like a very upbeat and aggresive
community that is on the move and we try to keep the lot sizes large. I think
once we tie this thing together we have to make sure that this is what we want
for our community. I don't have any problem with the 12,000 square feet but
when we make that decision and this sits in copy for a long time, an ordinance
for the community and it might lock out a lot of PeOple from being able to
move to Chanhassen. Tom has got a very valid point. We have seen a lot of
developments that actually end up in the 10,500, 11,000. If they are done
properly they are not all that bad and if they are done on a large scale over
a PUD and there are some 10,000 square footers in there, I wouldn't have a big
problem with that because sometimes the land itself dictates that there will
be some lots that are small.
Councilman Horn: Are you saying that you do or don't have a problem with
12,000?
Councilman Geving: I want to make sure that when we agree tonight that we
agree that if we go with 12,000 that we might be locking a lot of PeOple out
of what we now consider substandard lot sizes but at the same time might
provide for some PeOple who move into Chanhassen the ability of buying a
reasonably priced piece of land.
Councilwoman Swenson: Dale, in deference to that feeling and I know the Mayor
has felt like that and he has a lot of company. I went out and did a lot of
11
O'mQl
~OJUl
City Council Meeting - November 17, 1986
driving around in different cities and I find that some of the builders that I
we have here have smaller si zed lots and they charge just as much if not more
then they are going to be charging out here so I find that actually the size
of the lot is not all that darn important because they are charging just as
much for the pieces of property out there and they have smaller lots. I guess
I have a lot of trouble with a developer coming in here and telling me that
this is going to cost x thousarrl dollars more because we are going to shave
off 100 or 500 feet. We've always had 11,700 so what are we talking about,
300 feet more so I find it extremely difficult to listen to some of these
developers that come in here and say we just can't afford to do this. We
can't afford to come here because you people, your lots are too big and your
houses are too expensive. Then I go out and find that these same houses are
selling for more money and they are on smaller lots so this doesn't wash with
me.
Councilman Geving: f.\bw, this is a survey that you made yourself?
Councilwoman Swenson: Well, I didn't write it down. I just drove arourrl and
looked in Burnsville, Apple Valley, Eagan and these general areas. That whole
southern area which is expanding like this. In fact, most of this is even
true in Eden Prairie. f.\bt the same builders that we have so anyhow that's why
I'm not as concerned about keeping down our population strictly on the basis
of lot size.
Councilman Geving: I just felt it was important to really hit that subject
one more time before we locked ourselves in.
I
Councilwoman Swenson: The only reason I can see for not having one would be
maybe somebody doesn't want to take care of that much land but then we have
different varieties for that too. There are a lot of houses in town that
aren't that big that are for sale.
Councilman Horn: Do we have any realtors here tonight who can tell us the
difference between say a 10,500 square foot lot and 12,000 square foot lot? I
can't believe 2,000...
Councilwoman Swenson: Actually, I think Clark as I recall they base the lot
on width along the frontage foot. There is so much for sewer and so much for
the water and so much for all this.
Councilwanan Watson: We have given thEm the 80 foot frontage.
Council woman Swenson: As I say, we're only talking about about 300 feet more
then we have had in our ordinance for years.
Mayor Hamilton: But we have allowed, we are specifically saying that the
average lot size will not fall below 12,000 square feet.
Councilwoman Swenson: That is exactly why this particular change in the PUD
has come up because I don't think the PUD was 1i ving up to what it was meant
to be.
I
12
I
I
I
239
City Council Meeting - November 17, 1986
Mayor Hamilton: That is true and as I said all along, I think we need these
smaller lots. If you look at Near Mountain 1st Addition, it is one of my
favorite developments in the whole town. I think it has beautiful homes in
there and I like the lots and there are some small lots.
Councilwoman Watson: I agree with that. I don't think with small lots
necessarily get the prices of those houses down so I like the 12,000 minimum
and the 15,000 average. We narrowed the lots down to 80 feet. They always
say it is the cost of running the utilities past the house. The Metropolitan
Council says it, the developers say it, everybody talks about the cost of
running utilities past the houses. Okay, well the lots can be 80 feet wide
now. I can't believe that we are going to see a lot of them over 80 feet when
we say they don't have to be over 80 feet. It is hard for me to believe that
anybody is going to come in with a lot of 90 and 100 foot lots. If that is
the case then, even though the total area may be between 12,000-15,000 square
feet, our old width was 90 feet. It seems to me that we were still providing
a bigger lot but the utilities still should cost less to put by these so it
seems like it almost should be a wash.
Mayor Hamilton: Are we in agreement that we are going to strike the
percentages? The 2% and just put the l0%?
Councilman Geving: The poll that I had on that Tom said that there were four
people were in favor of striking the percentages. I believe Pat was the only
one.
Mayor Hamilton: You suggested that a maximum reduction of 10%.
Councilman Geving: Up to 10%.
Mayor Hamilton: Up to 10% right, so if we do that then we can take the 2% out
of the various categories and it would be our discretion to award up to 10%.
Councilman Horn: I would like to get rid of that 60% out of that solar and
conservation housing too and say a significant portion.
Councilman Geving: I agree.
Mayor Hamilton: Significant is really, I think ...
Councilman Horn: I'm not trying to tie it to a number. I'm just saying where
did 60% come from?
Barbara Dacy: That was from a recomnended State standard.
Councilman Ceving: A significant number of the lots, would that make sense?
Councilwoman Watson: What is significant?
Councilman Horn: That leaves it open. If it is a treed covered lot and he
has three that are in the sun.
13
240
City Council Meeting - November 17, 1986
Councilwoman Watson: Is three significant?
I
Counci~an Horn: That's all he's got.
Barbara Dacy: Are you suggesting to eliminate the column entitled percentages
and eliminate the points?
Counci~an Geving: Yes.
Mayor Hamilton: If we say a significant...
Counci~an Horn: Significant portion of available?
Mayor Hamilton: Of lots available for use of solar energy or energy
conservation.
Councilwoman Watson: That is just a tad ridiculous actually.
Mayor Hamilton: But it is saying what Clark has said before. If he has some
lots that are tree covered, you can't put solar on that but he has three lots
that he can use solar on and those are the only ones he can use and he says
he'll do it, then he is saying I'm going to put on all the available lots.
Councilwoman Watson: And I say he just misses the point if he only has three
lots.
Councilman Horn: It's pretty tough where you lose points on the other ones so
you want to buy bare land.
I
Barbara Dacy: Could you repeat that then, the significant portion of available
lots are designed for solar/energy conservation housing.
Councilwoman Swenson: What about the applicable lots?
Councilwoman Watson: Something that just ties it down a little better then a
significant portion.
Councilman Horn: Do you want all the applicable lots? A significant portion
of all the applicable lots?
Councilwoman Swenson: How about reasonable? That is always a good arbitrary
word. We can get into a lot of problems with that.
Counci~an Horn: A reasonable portion?
Councilman Geving: I think a reasonable number. That's good. That makes
more sense. A reasonable number of the available lots are designed for solar
or energy conservation housing. I think that is better.
Councilwoman Swenson: Barb, when you talked to Roger, when he was referring
to 14.03(3), which section was he referring to?
I
14
24-1
.... --
City Council Meeting - November 17, 1986
I
Barbara Dacy: That was the old, under a former ordinance draft so that was
referring to the point system.
Councilwoman Swenson: So he thought that the point system would be difficult?
Is that the idea?
Barbara Dacy: No, he said in his opInIon that he says, "I believe, however,
that the ordinance is defensible because the PUD is a rezoning and as such the
City Council is acting in its legislative capacity and therefore has a good
deal more latitude then when dealing with Conditional Use Permits and
variances."
Councilwoman Swenson: He also says, "If the criteria can be more sharply
defined ~t would eliminate potential problems." which was the argument for the
point system to begin with. I won't argue the point. I think it is
unfortunate.
Councilman Geving: U!t's go back now. I'm on the first page of the Ordinance
and on 4(b) and it says density transfer in single family so it replaces "is"
with "in" and then using the point system and now we have just eliminated
that, is that correct? So we have to rework that particular sentence.
Barbara Dacy: We will be evaluating using the items listed in second...
I
Councilman Geving: Yes, that was my only comnent.
Councilwoman Swenson: Including the archaelogica1 and/or historical and all
others that the Council may feel are applicable.
Councilman Geving: I like this word here Pat, or any other area that the
Council deems significant. In other words there could be a number of items
that we kind of like.
Councilwoman Swenson: '!hat sounds very professional. I'm not going to get
too many times to do this so I have to get my licks in while I can.
Councilwoman Watson: I want my natural parks thrown in too.
Barbara Dacy: After the passive park use?
Councilwoman Watson: Sometimes we get the feeling that the only thing that is
a park is a soccor field or baseball diamond and it just isn't true.
Councilman Geving: Barb, did we change the item on page 8, item 4 where you
had suggested using the word approximate rather then match?
Barbara Dacy: Yes, that was an oversight on my part.
Councilwoman Watson: Shall approximate in lot size and lot width?
I Councilman Geving: Yes.
15
24e
City Council Meeting - November 17, 1986
Barbara Dacy: Then we need the conclusion on Item 4, the old number 4.
Rather to retain it or are you going to identify 20,000 square feet?
I
Councilman Horn: I like the concept of saying only a portion of the useable
portion. Tom I think had said something about that. Do you remember what
that was?
Mayor Hamilton: I guess I just said the useable portion of the lot. If
you've got a 20,000 square foot lot and only 5,000 is useable, the 5,000
should be used to calculate, it would have to be 15,000 so you could put
nothing more then that.
Barbara Dacy: My comment would be, I guess we would prefer that if you are
going to set a standard that you stay with square footage because one of the
previous comments was what is buildable and we do have a lot of situations,
and one subdivision is going to be coming up before the Council that you have
a fairly steep slope, it is over 25% but it can be engineered so it would be
difficult for Staff to make that interpretation on a lot by lot basis.
Mayor Hamilton: Bluff Creek would be the same. If you look at that and
supposing they had other homes that they are going to build along with that,
there are some rather large lots with almost no useable area.
Barbara Dacy: I agree on one hand but then on the other I am thinking that
for a calculation basis and to be able to tell the developer in an easy
fashion. You calculate the average lot size only up to x amount. That would
be easy to use.
I
Mayor Hamilton: Alright, that's fine.
Councilwoman Swenson: Let's split the difference between the 15,000 and
20,000.
Councilman Geving: I think we should keep it at a nice round figure at
20,000.
Mayor Hamilton: Then we're striking the percentages? Is there anything else
that I'm missing?
Councilman Horn: Item 4 is back in now on 20,000?
Jay Johnson: I did a calculation, I got interrupted in a phone call to
Barbara when I asked her to give all of these to you but the other phone call
had precedence so you didn't get them but here are a bunch of calculations to
show the difference between 15,000, 20,000 and 17,500 and without it.
Unfortunatly, I only have one copy of the three things and they are all
slightly different but they all basically tell the same story of what would
happen without. The first column is just the fictitious lot group and the
second two columns are if we struck paragraph 4 completely which it sounds
like we aren't. The third column would be 20,000 and 17,500 then 15,000. On
the bottom I did the total of the square footage that would be in the
calculation, the average sized lot and how many points you would need to get
I
16
I
I
I
243
City Council Meeting - November 17, 1986
to that point. At 20,000 you basically need to show a variety of housing and
then you can half of your stuff down there. It is amazing if you set that too
high, that they can come in with 50,000 square foot lot that is totally
buildable and in the future sutrlivide that lot back down and have the right to
come back in and sutrli vide their lot. We see it every week am we have a
problem. I personally would not like to see anything over 17,500 after
playing these examples. All three of these are different. The first one is
the most and the one on page 2 is the most extreme and page 3 I put a few less
12,000 square foot lots in. The one on page 4, I took out the 50,000 that I
had. I think if you play some of these games with these numbers you will see
that the developer, this took me about 10 minutes to work up am a developer
can figure these out a lot quicker then I can, and those are all the numbers
on these if we give them too big, if we give them that 20,000. I wanted to
give you all that. Also, on the solar side. You may want to talk about lots
specifically designed for solar access. If they just happen to have a street
that lays the best way is to lay to the south, they didn't actually go out of
their way to do that, why should they get points for it? They didn't go out
of their way to create solar...
Councilman Geving: I think on that issue this is what we did arrive at.
There are a reasonable number of lots that would be available for solar
housing.
Jay Johnson: If they are out in the cornfield they all are.
Mayor Hamilton: Not necessarily.
Councilman Geving: I think this was at our discretion.
Jay Johnson: On the point system, my only comment is because I have to live
with this later, is I would like to see, I like the point system but I would
like to see it as a maximum so they know what they are shooting for. They
know they can shoot for 2 points for this if they do a good job and that would
be at the discretion of the Planning Commission, Council, whatever or at the
recommendation of the Planning Commission and City Staff.
Councilwoman Swenson: I do agree, I would still like to see the point system
but I will concede to the rest of you.
Councilwoman Swenson moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the second and
final reading for the Planned Unit Development Ordinance Amendment as
corrected this evening with a copy to return to the City Council on the
Consent Agenda at the earliest opportunity. All voted in favor am motion
carried .
APPROVAL OF ACCOUNTS
Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the Accounts
Payable dated November 17, 1986 for check numbers 024342 through 024451 in
the amount of $1,303,496.86 and check numbers 027370 through 027535 in the
amount of $720,565.36 for a total of 276 checks written in the total amount of
$2,097,972.79. All voted in favor and motion carried.
17
24Z1
City Council Meeting - November 17, 1986
FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST, 760 CARVER BFACH ROAD, GARY BASS
I
Councilwoman Watson: We granted the variance. There literally was no place
else on this lot for this gentlemen to put a garage. He was going to have it
way up and it was going to be a problem because he is going to try and put a
basement underneath it and it was just going to seem very large. It would
have been well above the house but he is not doing that and actually it is
only like the roof of the garage that is going to be showing. Due to the
significant slope there, there was no place else for him to put a garage and
it was especially desirable because he is parking, technically would be street
right-of-way now right out in front of his house. He is just sort of pulling
off in a gravel area. This will get his vehicles off, down a driveway and off
the street aesthetically as well as from a safety standpoint.
T.F. JAMES COMPANY, NORTHFAST CORNER OF WEST 78TH STREET (CR 16) AND POWERS
BLVD. (CR 17) :
A. REQUEST TO REZONE 43 ACRES OF PROPERTY FROM R-lA, AGRICULTURAL
RESIDENCEDISTRICTINTO 18.9ACRES TO C-3, SERVICE AND 24.1 ACRES
INTO R-4, HIGH DENSITIRESIDENTIAL.- - --
B. SUBDIVISION OF 50.4 ACRES OF PROPERTY INTO FIVE COMMERCIAL LOTS AND
ONE HIGH DENSITY PARCEL. - - - -
Barbara Dacy: I can give a presentation covering both items. The parcel is
about 50 acres in size and it is right next door to us across Kerber Blvd.
between Powers Blvd. and on the north side of West 78th Street just north of
TH 5 and the Powers Blvd. intersection. The first request is for a rezoning
action. TO be consistent with what is shown on the current adopted
Comprehensive Plan, the commercial along the frontage of the property and high
density multiple family on the northern portion so the surveys that you have
recorded in the descriptions are consistent with the existing guide plan for
the City of Chanhassen. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the
rezoning action presented in the Staff Report. The subdivision request is a
little more involved. The major issue in the preliminary plat request is the
realignment of West 78th Street. You heard a lot about that when Mr. Burdick
platted his property across the street. Just to back up for a couple of
minutes, I want to review briefly some of the history about why the
realignment and why the realignment of West 78th Street is important to the
City of Chanhassen. Some of you were on various Commissions and Boards during
the time when development for what was known then as the Highpath property was
being considered. This is a transparency of an old plan back from 1979-1980.
The Council at that time was even considering separating the street
intersection from the intersection of TH 5 and Powers Blvd. and CR 17. This
pond which is in the southeast corner of the Highpath farm and just west of
the first proposed entrance on that proposed preliminary plan so there kind of
has always been a history as far as trying to maximize the separation from the
intersection. In fact, on the south side to the Business Park you have a
similar situation where you separated Park Drive a good way from the major
intersection. Also, the original downtown redevelopment plan, when that was
adopted in 1980 addressed the realignment issue. Again, the commercial on the
south side of Lyman and so on, pointing to a realignment of West 78th Street
I
I
18
I
I
I
0.15
~....
City Council Meeting - November 17,1986
on the north. As you can see, maxlmlzlng the distance and stacking distance
from TH 5. More recently the HRA Commission, the year 2005 Transportation
Study which came to be known as the Broadened Study Area took a broad picture
of the transportation system in Chanhassen and into Eden prairie and
documented the traffic volumes and numbers for the need for a separation
between West 78th Street and that intersection. Based on projections from the
year 2005, that Study showed that that intersection would fail if realignment
is not accomplished. So given those various factors, when the applicant came
to Staff initially there was a lot of discussion of where should the
realignment fall on Powers Blvd. and so on and with the help of the actual
volumes and numbers crunched by Benshoof and Associates with the
Transportation Study, we were able to determine that the amount of separation
should be approximately 600 feet. The next issue was the design curve. How
should West 78th Street flow into Powers Blvd.? The concern being the impact
to the Burdick property to the south. The Planning Commission tabled this
particular plat in October into November to make sure that Mr. Burdick's
concerns were addressed. We had a joint meeting with MnDot, Carver County and
the property owners affected and it was determined that the 35 mph design
curve is the most appropriate design curve through this area and would meet
State Standards, etc.. As some of you know, West 78th Street is a County
State Aid Highway. The queston arises as to how can the realignment be
achieved and as the report goes through what can be done is that the City can
request a redesignation from County State Aid to Municipal State Aid and that
involves a speed limit study, looking at reducing it from 40 mph down to the
recommended 35 mph design curve. Again, the City Staff is recommending this
realignment to improve the overall function of the entire roadway system. At
that joint meeting of the jurisdictions affected and the property owners
affected, the issue was what is the best way to accomplish the realignment and
the purpose that that serves but also fronting for access to existing
properties. What was agreed upon is to make the existing alignment of West
78th Street a right-in and right-out and that would then "~' into the
realignment West 78th Street. What would occur is a vacation of some of that
and that would be up to the decision of the property owners of all or part of
the right-of-way so that you would have a green area around that and a 60
foot right-of-way bending into the realignment roadway. That still allows for
stacking distance from the north and a proper right turn movement into the
area. If you wanted to go downtown you would come to a 90 degree stop. It
would also allow for the realigned traffic to flow properly as well. The
Planning Commission recommended approval of this design per the conditions
that you have in the Staff Report. Also, they recommended a specific condition
as far as the number of access points. It is listed as Commission condition
number 6 and as separation of driveways from the intersection. Once the
realignment is achieved, separation of the driveway can be located 200 feet
from Powers Blvd.. Finally, in regards to the applicant, there is a concern
whether or not the realignment should be accomplished by a right-of-way or an
outlot. Staff's recommendation number 3 is that upon execution and
negotiation of a development contract that the realignment should be platted
as a right-of-way. Again, the Planning Commission recommended approval of
both items as presented in your Staff Reports and as far as the subdivision is
concerned, the eight conditions listed in your Report.
19
24@
City Council Meeting - November 17, 1986
Councilwoman Swenson: I have a question not doing to that but on the I
recommendations Barbara. I don't understand why was the recommendation from
the Park and Rec Department for the bikeway classification not included by the
Planning Commission?
Barbara Dacy: I'm sorry, I should have addressed that. As you can see the
Park and Rec wanted the Council, really they are making no recommendation to
the Council to look at the separated bikeway improvement along that area. A
Class I Bikeway Classification, if you have the roadway separated by sidewalks
and then separated bikeway. The feasibility of whether or not that can occur
will be studied during the feasibility study process to see if we have enough
right-of-way in that alignment to account for that. Also troubled with the
fact that we are going through the downtown improvement feasibility study
phase and the attached bikeway is proposed on the north side of West 78th
Street and the HRA will be discussing that in more detail but my comment is
that it should be coordinated with the downtown effort so that you have a
smooth flow of Pedestrian traffic. The recommendation from the Park and Rec
Commission is to the Council.
Mayor Hamilton: Was there any consideration given to how we are going to
align or how the bicyclers will get to Lake Ann? There are a lot of kids that
use that path during the summer and would we want them to go through the newly
aligned 78th or are we going to want them to go up to the new part? If they
go up to the new intersection, we want to look at having something immediately
across the street so they would cross and get on a path there rather then
staying on the street.
Barbara Dacy: Yes, that is a good point. It was not discussed at the Planning
Commission meeting. Whether or not it was discussed at the Park and Rec
meeting I do not know. The Planning Commission did suggest some alternatives
that we could look into further. Maybe a bike path through the multiple
family area to the north. That might be accomplished. They were kind of
concerned being that West 78th Street was a major road and so on, so those
issues had to be decided and should be during the feasibility study as far as
costs, etc..
I
Mayor Hamilton: How would that intersection be handled as far as stop signs
and traffic flow? Coming from the north especially.
Barbara Dacy: From Powers? There would be no signage or control on Powers.
There will be a stop sign here and down here at the "'1" into West 78th Street.
There will probably be an island in here, a right-injright-out only and the
major stop light at TH 5 and Powers.
Mayor Hamilton: Will there be a left turn lane at Powers Blvd. and 78th so
if there is no stop there traffic can continue to flow? The new intersection
of Powers.
Barbara Dacy: Not that I'm aware of. Bill?
Bill Engelhardt: I would think there would have to be.
I
20
I
I
I
247
City Council Meeting ~ November 17, 1986
Mayor Hamilton: There would have to be a left turn lane because you said
there wasn't going to be a stop sign.
Councilwoman Watson: I guess I'm having trouble understanding why anyone
would come off of TH 5 and go to that upper intersection and I can't
understand why children coming out of Chan going to the park are going to go
that way either. They are going to keep going straight as they go. They are
still going to be in the middle of that intersection. People take the path
of least resistance. They are going to come off of TH 5 and they are going to
go in on West 78th Street into Chan precisely as they are now so I guess I'm
confused as to what we are solving.
Barbara Dacy: So you are questioning why are we realigning it if traffic is
caning up in this way?
Councilman Horn: Or why are we leaving that in?
Barbara Dacy: The primary reason for leaving the existing alignment again is
to provide an access to the Burdick property. If this does not exist then the
two lots down here would have to have access down at this point here. To
answer Carol's concern about why are we realigning this. One of the reasons
is the stacking distance that will occur from the stop light here and that
will block this intersection here for the left turn movement out from existing
West 78th Street.
Councilwoman Watson: I can understand why we want to do it. I have always
known that we wanted to and why we wanted to do it. I guess with the 78th
Street open down there, I just don't see that it is going to solve much. I
think people are still going to use it as they have always used it and nobody
is going to bother to use that nice little road up there.
Mayor Hamilton: Except that when you take a right turn in there on the
existing 78th, they are going to have to come to a stop at the intersection.
If you continue up to the new intersection you just go through it. You won't
have to make a stop.
Barbara Dacy: Traffic coming out of the downtown too will use this to serve
these commercial lots as well.
Councilman Horn: '!hey won't have to stop if they come through there, from
downtown.
Barbara Dacy: You are saying they will come in like this?
Councilman Horn: Sure.
Mayor Hamilton: '!hen they can only take a right out. If they are going to
take a right anyway, they might as well keep going.
Bill Engelhardt: I was going to comment that that is just fine if they do
take that right turn into downtown. Another reason for the realignment is the
potential road to the west for future frontage road then those two would match
21
248'
City Council Meeting ~ November 17, 1986
up and then you would have your major intersection up there but that is just I
fine if they take that right-off right down into your redevelopment area right
downtown. That works very nicely.
Mayor Hamilton: '!hat fits with the Burdick property and for...
Councilwoman Watson:
it to look this way.
of the whole thing.
It certainly is interesting. I guess I never expected
I was nothing short of fascinated by the ultimate design
Mayor Hamilton: I kind of like it. I think it works out really well.
Charlie James: I pointed out to the Planning Commission and I would like to
point out here too that we stop thinking of this sometimes as a public street
because originally what we had done is brought this down and we were going to
provide an easement across through here and making a portion of the blacktop
here sufficient to access Mr. Burdick's property and so then vacate back the
rest of the right-of-way. Right now it is a 150 foot right-of-way and the tar
is only 40 foot wide out there so we are proposing that everything would be
vacated back. Mr. Burdick was very concerned about people making this
movement on TH 5, coming up here like this and then down and around to get
into these properties and he was asking for a right turn into his property. I
wouldn't care if this right hand movement just went into his propety. I could
care less but then we have to get them out of his proeprty again so it is sort
of a right-out or going this way and I think one way to look at this thing is
we are going to have a 80 foot right-of-way up here and you were saying why
would PeOple turn here or whatever. You are going to have a much improved
road, you're going to have medians in the highway here and medians in this
street here with turn lanes and this could have the appearance here of sayan
area like Southdale or someplace where you have perimeter roads and there is
accessory buildings. There is like main road and then at some point this
could become vacated out of here is what I'm saying so this would be like
making a right turn into a parking lot. Maybe Mr. Burdick would have a Lund's
store sitting here or something and people would come here and rather then
appear like they were coming into a street, they would be coming into a
grocery store or something and there could be an integrated and shared parking
lot here so I think, if I can speak for Mr. Burdick, I think what he is trying
to accomplish here is just some insurance that there is some access and in the
future as the properties develop we can sit down and maybe in the future we
will decide we don't need this. Maybe Mr. Burdick and I will sit down and say
wouldn't it be better if both of just vacated this out and we each got 75 feet
back and maybe this becomes a right-in to a joint parking lot that we develop
between whatever building I put here and whatever building he might put there
so I'm sure that this is going to be subject to change in here but right now
it seems to be a solution that allows us to proceed. It seems to be a
solution that gives Mr. Burdick the access. It gives the County and the State
and everybody what they want and still gives us the maximum flexibility to
look at this again in the future and say should we close this, should we
vacate it, should this be a right-in for Mr. Burdick?
Mayor Hamilton: Mr. Burdick did you have any comments you would like to make
in addition to what was referenced?
22
I
I
I
I
I
249
City Council Meeting - November 17, 1986
B.C. Burdick: I like this plan for me. Perhaps it's not as good if you left
West 78th Street the way it is for me but I could live with it and go along.
This came about from the best meeting I have ever been at. Bill Engelhardt
was there, Jo Ann Olsen, Roger Gustafson, the Carver County Chief Engineer and
Evan Green of MnDot. Everyone respected each others ideas and this is what
they came up with, MnDot and Carver County as well as myself and the James
property. This is fine with me.
Councilman Horn: Is there going to be a median out there? What is to prevent
somebody fram making a left turn out there except a sign?
Bill Engelhardt: '!here will have to be concrete medians. '!his is a very
simplistic sketch showing the direction of flow but when it is all done it
will have to be a pretty sophisticated intersection.
Councilwoman Swenson: When we switch to a MSAH, do we have to make an
exchange for that?
Barbara Dacy: We are playing dominoes too. We are evaluating the upcoming
projects and how much will be entailed for each project in the MSA system.
Lake Drive East was removed because of the tax base of the Business Park and
the next project was Bluff Creek Drive so the Council annually approves the
Municipal State Aid schedule and orders improvements and so on.
Councilwoman Swenson: The reason I ask is because Bill wrote to Eden prairie
and to MnDot regarding the fact that the road that goes around Riley, Lyman
Extension, Eden Prairie is working with MnDot to get that road switched over
to MSA and I had worked with Bill in going to the County because we are
getting a lot of County traffic through there with the advent of TH 212
coming in so I know that he contacted MnDot or wrote a letter to them
regarding that. This is something that is going to have to be addressed
pretty soon because we have a major problem there with all the traffic that is
coming through or around to the park across the way. With the potential
increase of housing on the Eide property and along in there, we have a major
problem and I want to make sure that we're not going to scarifice other areas
that have already been spoken for. I think this is something that is going to
have to be looked into.
Mayor Hamilton: Like Bill says it is a very preliminary sketch. I agree with
you completely about how that whole intersection works out with Pedestrians
especially getting to the park but we have two issues at hand. '!hat is the
subdivision rezoning of 43 acres from R-lA and he is also requesting the
subdivision of 50.4 acres into five commercial lots. Are there any questions
about those issues?
Councilman Geving: I'm really not too crazy about maintaining West 78th
Street. I think that was a major concession of Mr. Burdick in that
development. Personally I would liked to have seen it closed off and cul-de-
saced because I think that makes a lot more sense then what is being proposed.
I do believe however that we need to pursue the idea of maintaining that Park
and Rec recommendation to pursue the roadway to the north aligning the
hikingjbiking path, whatever it comes out to be, on the north alignment and
23
250~
City Council Meeting - November 17, 1986
then looking west across the highway, CR 17, in the manner in which it will
align itself to Lake Ann Park. I still don't see how that is going to be done
or where it is going to come out but we want it on the north side of the new
proposed alignment and if need be, I would even go so far as to say that we
should look ahead to a walkover type facility across CR 17 if that should
happen or if the need exists for that. That might be a good spot. We see a
number of those as we go east through Edina, I think there are half a dozen
and something like that might just fit that particular alignment so I would
like to see us pursue that and follow through on it. Secondly, on the County
Road designation moved into a Municipal State Aid Road System, do we receive
funds to build that road as a result of making that maneuver?
I
Mayor Hamil ton: Yes.
Councilman Geving: How much of the road would be paid for by the City?
Don Ashworth: It would be anticipated that the cost would be paid out of
the State Aid Funds.
Councilman Geving: Okay. Then would we have to redesignate that portion of
the County State Aid length somewhere else in the communi ty? Would we lose
that piece of highway? It should be close to half a mile or so.
Bill Engelhardt: I can answer that. Right now or within the near future the
realignment would carry both designations, State Aid and County State Aid and
the reason for that is the County does not want to lose one single tenth of a
mile on their system and when they get another segment of road wi thin
Chanhassen that could be classified as State Aid, then they would switch and
transfer that classification from West 78th Street to that section to maintain
their mileage.
I
Councilman Geving: So the mileage would be maintained and the road would be
paid for out of State Aid Funds not out of any City funds is that correct?
Don Ashworth: That is correct.
Councilman Geving: I have no other comments and now I'm in favor of the
project.
Councilwoman Watson: When we were talking about the bike path and with this
intersection and everything developing into this, I think there should be
a real big consideration to figure out how we are going to get the kids from
downtown because the kids are used to going there. They have Center Street.
This map just tickles me because the village of Chanhassen and Center Street,
it must be as old as the hills. If you come out of Center Street here better
known as Coulter Drive, and you were to come behind Lot 3, which I assume that
single family home that is on that and I realize that that Lot 4, wherever
that building is going to be, could swing down a ways there and come closer to
78th Street and then begin up the north side. If you came through that way you
could avoid having them come down to the main street. If there is some way
that they can come in and run along behim there am then come up here and
make because then they could come up Coulter Drive for one thing which I think
I
24
I
I
I
251
City Council Meeting - November 17, 1986
is what a lot of them do when they come out of town. They come down through
the City Hall parking lot here and if they could come along there, it could be
very distinctly separate.
Mayor Hamilton: I think that needs to be a part of the next step when the
Planning Commission needs to review the Park and Rec Commission Minutes as we
do and I think your point is well taken. I think all of us are concerned
about how that will happen.
Councilwoman Watson: I think that alignment would be a good one since it does
almost approximate Coulter Drive behirrl that area. I don't have any problem
with the street the way it is done here. I think it is a little odd. It's
just unusual.
Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamil ton seconded to approve the Rezoning
Request #86-2 to rezone 50.4 acres into 24.7 acres of C-3, Service Commercial
and 25.7 acres of R-4, High Density as depicted in the legal description
requested in Attachment #6 of the Staff Report on the northwest corner of West
78th Street and Kerber Blvd.. Also, to approve Subdivision Request #86-11 for
the subdivision of 50.4 acres of property into five commercial lots arrl one
high density parcel with the following conditions:
1. The City proceed with the reclassification of CSAH 16 to MSAH 16.
2.
Existing West 78th Street will become a right-injright-out after
completion of the realignment of West 78th Street.
3.
Upon execution of the development contract, the realignment of West
78th Street shall be platted as a right-of-way.
4. Any access from CR 17 receive a permit from the County.
5. A building permit for Lot 2, Block 1 shall not be issued until the
realignment of West 78th Street is completed.
6. Lot 3, Block 1 shall share an access with Lot 4, Block 1, from Kerber
Boulevard and West 78th Street and Lot 1, Block 2 shall have only one
access from the existing West 78th Street arrl the new alignment.
7. All driveways must be at least 200 feet from an intersection.
8. No building permit will be issued until municipal services are
available to the property.
All voted in favor except Councilwoman Swenson who abstained and motion
carried.
Councilwoman Swenson abstained because she wanted to know what is going to
happen the MSA for the street.
25
25~
City Council Meeting - November 17, 1986
REQUEST TO TRANSFER CABLE TV FRANCHISE, DOW-SAT OF MINNESOTA.
I
Mayor Hamilton: Mary Smith is here from Dow-Sat to answer any questions or
tell us why our rates... It appears to be some rather straight forward
changes.
Mary Smith: First of all, it's nice to see you again. I haven't been here
for quite a while and at this point in our history we are restructuring our
company. Basically we are going from DCI, Inc. to a limited partnership. In
that partnership Dowden Cable Investors will actually be the managing partner
so at that point from a local standpoint you will see no difference. However,
the whole restructuring is merely a financing device. OUr company intends to
grow. We intend to get into acquisition of other cable companies. We have a
lot of things planned for the future so basically we are restructuring for
that reason. A number of documents, materials have been submitted to your
Attorney and it is my understanding that he is clear on what we are doing and
proposes that the City Council consider this at this time and recommend that
this is definitely in the best interest of the City to see the cable company
restructure and proceed with it's growth. If you have any questions in regard
to the restructuring, I will be happy to answer them.
Councilwoman Watson: Just a comment. I love cable television. When you
first were going to come in I thought, well, it's alright but I just love it.
Councilman Horn: 'When do you have time to watch?
I
Councilwoman Watson: I don't have a lot of time to watch but when I do have
time to watch I have a choice. '!here is always something to watch.
Mary Smith: people define it as worthwhile TV because as you pointed out, you
do have a choice.
Councilwoman Watson: If nothing else you can watch ESPN and watch everything
that sports ever encompasses.
Don Ashworth: It is a straight forward proposal. I did ask Mary that she
come over this evening because it has been a period of time since the Council
has had an opportunity to meet with Mary. I would like to take this chance to
express my thanks to Mary. She has been very helpful. I do not know of one
citizen complaint that we have received and we can get into an entire array all
the way from the start of construction down through miscellaneous items that
can occur every week. Mary has responded to each of those. Unfortunately,
the microphone system the Council has talked about, Mary has worked over, the
individuals who will be in and trying the gooseneck type versus lapel. I will
be meeting with them tomorrow and I thank Mary for her work. You are also
moving that set up and I honestly think the Council will be happy with the
system.
Mary Smith: I wish your system was working and I'm quite embarrassed that it
doesn't and I'm losing my voice because we service 42 communities in Minnesota I
actually and that means 21 separate franchises so needless to say I have quite
a few governmental groups to deal with. As I say, I am losing my voice.
26
I
I
I
2...5'0
<;..! IGJ
City Council Meeting - November 17, 1986
Councilwoman Swenson moved, Councilwoman Watson seconded to approve the
request to transfer Cable TV Franchise, Dow-Sat of Minnesota as presented in
the City Manager's letter of November 17, 1986. All voted in favor am motion
carried.
Mary Smith: I do have information for you. Just general information. You
really haven't heard from us so for your bedtime reading or something, you
have subscriber statistics here which is rather interesting because we're at
about 46% which is probably the highest in the metro area which is rather
unusual. The systems that are a good deal older then we are like 5 years, 6
years, 8 years are probably at about anywhere from 32 to the upper 30's so in
the City of Chanhassen we are doing rather well. As far as our corporate
health overall in Minnesota for Dow-Sat of Minnesota, our penetration is about
54%+ and for national standards that is also high so our state of health is
generally pretty good.
Councilwoman Watson: You were also sold by the time the rate hikes went
through. We just all kind of thought it was going to happen and paid it while
watching television.
Mary Smith: I don't believe we lost one subscriber as a result of that.
Councilman Geving: Do you see any changes coming? Any significant changes?
Mary Smith: Definitely. There have been changes, legislative changes,
federal changes. As of 1/1/87 the Federal rules have been relaxed. Cable
companies do have the freedom to raise rates as high as they want. Obviously
from a marketing standpoint we wouldn't raise those rates higher then the
market would bear but along with that goes more responsibility for the cable
company as well. We have many of the various program services are scrabbling
so we are faced with adding descrabbling equipment for instance to our
headions and in the next three months we will be spending about $350,000.00 to
purchase, well we actually have already purchased it but to install
descrabbling equipment in our head ions so the industry is constantly changing
and it is just like any other business, you have to meet those demands and
still be able to function. One attachment here aside from the subscribers
gives you information on your public access programing. You will notice that
the City of Chanhassen has it's City Council meetings and Planning Commission
meetings, you should be aware of the fact that this goes out to about 8,000
subscribers so not just the City of Chanhassen. You will see the other
studios there. It is merely a summary page of the programming that we have
and the communi ties that contribute to our programming. The interesting thing
about it is we have about 30 hours of programming on a week and of that
programming, most all of it is area programming right here in our systems and
we don't put on a lot of programming from outside.
1987 POLICE CONTRACT, UPDATE.
Mayor Hamilton: Don will bring us up to date on what's happening and where we
are heading.
27
254
City Council Meeting - November 17, 1986
Don Ashworth: Bringing back to the Council the Contract with Carver County.
I would recommend to the Council that we approve the Contract as presented.
What it does do is to reduce the number of contractual hours that the City
would be purchasing from the County and recognizes that the County is faced
with a suit from the City of Chaska and that there will be an adjustment for
the 1987 rates as a part of that. That increase will be anywhere from 10-15%
and it recognizes that the original agreement as drafted between Carver County
and Chaska stated that they would use actual costs as a part of that. The
state Auditor's office was invited in and they prepared the costs associated
with the contract system. They used a formula that established specific items
and the year under which those items were to be used for. In the past 2-3
years, I'm not quite sure at what point in time that the County moved off of
the agreement that had been reached with the County and the City and with the
State Auditor's Office and really moved back over to aiding it back one more
year for comparisons of those costs. We will have to see how the negotiations
continue with Chaska and the County but I am reasonably assured that given the
format established by the State Auditor's Office that there will be an upward
adjustment in cost for 1987. I am reflecting that in the recommendation being
made here. This recommendation is concurred by the Public Safety Committee.
I see Jim is here.
I
Mayor Hamilton: Anything you want to add to that?
Jim Castleberry: No, I think the only comment I might make is that I think we
look forward to still providing the City with the contract service that it
wants and in effect perhaps be able to retain some of the base level service
by virtue of the signed contract that we may have lost over the last couple of
years.
I
Councilwoman Watson: When should we expect to have our supplement police or
supplemental offices or whatever? When do we expect to have them on?
Don Ashworth: I would anticipate bringing that specific budget item back to
the Council December 1st or 15th. I believe the 15th would be closer and you
could look to putting those people on service shortly after the first of the
year.
Councilwoman Swenson: Are they going to have any certified police officers?
Don Ashworth: They would look to certified police officers, yes.
Counci lman Geving: Will they carry weapons?
Don Ashworth: Yes. They would be 1 icensed in the State of Minnesota as a
police officer.
Councilwoman Watson: They would be just that. Police Officers for the City
of Chanhassen.
Mayor Hamilton: Cliff, you were on the Public Safety Commission. Do you have
any comments you want to make?
I
28
I
I
I
255
City Council Meeting - November 17, 1986
Cliff:
said.
No I don't. I'm just observing. I concur with what the City Manager
I think we should go ahead with it.
Councilwoman Watson: This response time thing is very interesting to read
those figures. Now I realize a bicycle theft may not be top priority but 123
minutes. I'm fascinated that someone kept track for how long it took them
from the call that they went through. Some of them did seem to take an
awfully long time to respond. It kind of surprised me because in any instance
that I have ever known where we have requested assistance of an officer, we
have gotten one but they seem to get to locked out cars quicker then almost
anything else.
Mayor Hamilton: '!he thing they don't tell you on this is what time it
occurred. That is the key ingredient.
Councilwoman Watson: Right because if it were during a peak time.
Jim Castleberry: That was what was intended. I apologize for not being
specific. Each day I get a copy of all the calls that we get receiving data
and it is from that data that I am able to pull up the time of the initial
call and the time that the squad arrived and the time that they concluded. We
do monitor it literally on a daily basis but this information is intended to
show the Council that in our afternoon shift, that has become fairly busy.
It's not that the officers aren't doing the job. Quite the contrary. It is
just that they get backed up and it is taking them that long to respond.
Councilwoman Watson: Most of the cases when you read them, you realize that
immediate response probably was not warranted. You certainly wouldn't put on
your sirens and rush to some but some of them, obviously anyone involved in
the incident was home and long gone by the time any officer arrived at the
scene.
Jim Castleberry: '!he officer is on any particular call, it's a routine call,
he gets an emergency call, he will leave the call he is at to immediately
respond to the emergency.
Councilwoman Watson: Because I have never known where an officer wasn't very
prompt so I guess I was surprised at the length of time because I just never
thought...
Councilman Horn: It looks like barking dog and loud music get pretty quick
responses.
Councilwoman Watson: And vehicle lock out, I tell you they are there like
a shot but 31 minutes for a hit and run accident.
Councilwoman Swenson: When you come back, could we get, in addition to the
information that has been requested a composite where the majority of the
burglaries, felonies, theft, vandalisms occur.
29
Ol5:~
k;d U q)
City Council Meeting - November 17, 1986
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the 1987 Police
Contract with Carver County Sheriff's Department. All voted in favor except
Councibnan Geving who abstained and the motion carried.
I
Councilman Geving: Is it the intent to add a supplemental force to the City
of Chanhassen with the idea that this will be reviewed each year at contract
time and we would either trade our force up to date with the contract and drop
our own supplemental force or would we intend to continue this force that I
would call Chanhassen's initiation of a police force and build upon that over
a period of years. What is the intent of this supplemental group?
Mayor Hamilton: Perhaps I could respond to that. Jim could also.
Councilman Geving: I would like you to respond. I don't know if this is the
beginning of something that is going to get bigger and beyond what we intend
it to be.
Mayor Hamilton: Initially when the Public Safety Commission discussed this
particular item and I think I was the only member of the Commission who was in
favor of it because I felt that we needed the additional coverage and I think
after all the members reviewed where we're at with the contract and where
everybody was going to be and what the cost was going to be, everybody could
see clearly that we needed the additional coverage and it was very cost
effecti ve. Everybody on the Public Safety Commission is still very concerned
about having our own police department so I think you can rest assured that I
there is going to be a great deal of monitoring from that logic which would
certainly send request back to the City Council stating what their findings
are and how they view our services work. Everybody's position, they are
concerned about this review and we very much want to make sure that, in fact I
don't know of anybody on there that was wanting to start a police department.
What we want to do is provide adequate coverage for the residents of this
community in the most cost effective method.
Councilman Geving: I guess I'm still looking for the answer though Tom. Are
we going to invest $48,000.00 in a police force that might next year be taken
over entirely by a satisfactory contract with the County and at that point
would we drop off our supplemental police force? Is that What I'm hearing?
Is that the intent?
Mayor Hamilton: I don't think I can speculate on What the future may hold.
I would guess that possibility exists.
Jim Castleberry: I guess I would be more direct Councilman Geving and tell
you I believe it is the intent of the Commission to weigh dollars and cents
and provide the City with the most effective means and as noted in your
Minutes, they intend to monitor yearly and it says, I believe in the final
sentence something to the effect that they would recommend and they will
report to you at such time that the Contract be amended or be provided
equivalent service at the same kind of dollars as can be arrived by this
program. It is very much the intent of the Commission and I believe the
capi tal...We are solely looking at part-time personnel some of which we
already have on staff to provide some of that extra help we need. They have
I
30
I
I
I
257
City Council Meeting - November 17, 1986
been doing that to some extent anyway but since one of them now is a 1 icensed
and the other one soon to be, we can increase their level of responsibility.
Councilman Geving: I think that was the answer I was looking for. Thank you.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
Mayor Hamil ton: Clark wanted to discuss the meeting with TH 7.
Councilman Horn: Just briefly. We did have a meeting that Barb and I
attended at the Minnetonka City Hall on TH 7. Everything seemed to be rolling
along pretty well with the plan that Staff had presented up until Excelsior
must have gotten some last minute input from some of their citizens and they
did not like the entrance onto TH 7 eastbound from CR 17 that is going to
take out four homes in Excelsior.
Councilwoman Watson: Where are we?
Councilman Horn: We are going on CR 17 and now you have to drive down through
downtown Excelsior.
Councilwoman Watson: You mean Mill Street.
Councilman Horn: Mill Street, yes. You corne back out onto the TH 7. They
thought that was adequate and that the citizens of Chanhassen wouldn't find
that too objectionable to continue doing that rather then have a frontage road
for Mill Street. '!hey didn't really see why they should give up part of their
city just because of traffic problems in Chanhassen. My concern was the fact
that it seemed like the process here was that all of the cities had
representatives at this meeting and that this was a consensus of the
representatives. I guess their feeling was that some of the representatives
didn't agree and the consensus was just from the BRW in presenting it at the
meeting. It was a little disturbing and I'm afraid it may have a negative
effect on the whole plan. On the posi ti ve side of that...on TH 7, we may be
able to get a little quicker action on TH 5, although they didn't promise that
at the meeting. I heard two different conflicting opinions about the slowdown
on TH 5 and you may have heard that was moved out to 1992. One of the reasons
was that the State funding is too short. The other reason that we heard was
that the Staff didn't really have time to work on the plan to make it happen.
I'm not sure what the ruling is but it appears to me that we are going to have
to put some more pressure through this southwest coaltion to get that moving
again. To turn the heat up on the program because it seems to be slipping
away from us.
Councilwoman Watson: It took twenty minutes to go from TH 5 to CR 17 to...to
where I got off. I took Valley View Road which is Eden Prairie's engineering
nightmare and I still got there two hours before I would have gotten there on
TH 5.
Mayor Hamil ton: What is the next step Clark on the TH 7?
31
258
City Council Meeting - November 17, 1986
Councilman Horn: What the next step is that each of the representatives is to I
take the plan to their Council and in effect, the plans have to be approved by
all of the Councils and jurisdictions and bodies. The disturbing part to me
was it appears that the area where there the road is being upgraded, that body
that abuts to that is in our jurisdiction. Now it turns out that the part
that we're concerned most with is totally out of our jurisdiction.
Councilman Geving: The north end?
Councilman Horn: That would be in our jurisdiction but this particular access
that we are looking to get out to TH 7 is Shorewood and Excelsior.
Councilwoman Watson: What do they want to do with Mill Street on that?
Mayor Hamilton: Nothing. Just leave it as is.
Councilwoman Watson: Having grown up on Mill Street, my mother still lives
out there, I'm delighted. It will keep the traffic down.
Councilman Horn: No, it won't. It will just make it go slower but there will
be more of it.
Councilwoman Watson: This 30 mph speed limit which nobody pays any attention
to now anyway.
I
Counci lman Horn: en yes they do.
Councilwoman Watson: It causes entertainment for South Shore.
Councilman Horn: I think that is probably one of their best money sources.
Councilwoman Watson: I had to sit there while an Excelsior officer gets out
of my mother's driveway so I could pull in.
Mayor Hamilton: Perhaps we could talk about the issue here.
Barbara Dacy: What Clark is referring to, this is Mill Street and Powers and
this is TH 7 and the consul tant recommended an eastbound access onto TH 7 then
a westbound ramp off into Excelsior at a grade pretty much following the
existing alignment. The Mayor of Excelsior felt that the removal of the three
or four homes in this area of the on ramp, meaning the eastbound ramp, it
would remove tax base from the City of Excelsior and to account for
Chanhassen's traffic was not fair and they just felt that...
Mayor Hamilton: Did they think no one from Excelsior would use that? They
. would boycott that entrance?
Barbara Dacy: There were concerns from the neighborhood in there that this
would be a major interchange and safety issues and children crossing the
street, etc. which are valid concerns but we will have a tremendous amount of
traffic at this intersection. The Comp Plan has always identified it as a
I
32
I
I
I
ot=:Ol
~OV'
City Council Meeting - November 17, 1986
major point that should be improved so we're building another intersection
along the corridor.
Councilwoman Watson: It wasn't the first time you had seen that was it?
Councilman Horn: No. That was the point I was making. Why are things coming
up at this late date. I said our Staff kept us well informed of what was
going on and we followed the process and have gone along with it am the Mayor
said, well, it is hard to get all of the input and some of our input didn't
arrive to the Council until just late.
Mayor Hamilton: Is there another meeting coming up or do they want it to go
back to each Council?
Councilman Horn: It will go back to each Council and if all the Council's
won't approve it, the project won't go through. It seems like at this stage
at least that it will have a tough time making it through as is where it may
get it down to the point where it really isn't effective.
Mayor Hamilton: When is that going to happen Barb?
Barbara Dacy: The Council has to make comments by January 1st so you can see
the final draft at either the December 1st or 15th Council meeting.
Mayor Hamilton: Pat wants to talk about hazardous waste.
Councilwoman Swenson: '!he idea I'm worried about, I'm mentioning it here
because maybe it can be incorporated into the Zoning Ordinance when we hit
that, I was reading an article the other day and it kind of scared me and that
was they have found some hazardous waste cans am stuff in these storage
units, the place like we just approved, and I wonder if there isn't something
that we can incorporate there. If it gives us the priviledge for an annual
review of those places.
Councilwoman Watson: You mean inspections?
Councilwoman Swenson: Yes. '!his is a major problem because people have gone
in and stored god knows what in these places and nobody knows about it. Of
course, it is stored in a garage too. I didn't bring it up in conjunction
with the Zoning Ordinance because I don't know how it could be administered or
if it is something we can do since I suppose it is in essence would be like
going into a rented house but since it is very definitely in the health,
welfare and safety aspect of the City which is definitely is our concern. I'm
really concerned about it because in this particular instance it caused
considerable damage.
Barbara Dacy: What instance was that?
Councilwoman Swenson: It was quite a while ago Barbara and I have just
forgotten to bring it up but it was a problem with one of these rental storage
uni ts and I don't think I even saved the paper. I just made a note to myself
33
26@
City Council Meeting - November 17, 1986
to bring it up because I do think it is something that we are going to have to
think about. '!hat was all.
I
Mayor Hamilton: I hope everybody knows that there was also a letter in their
administrative section about hazardous waste. I hope you all read that am
notice the innuendos discussed during the election time were totally false as
everybody knew am those of you who worked with it.
Councilwoman Watson: We all knew. Unfortunately there were people who
didn't.
Councilman Horn: I would like to suggest that a copy of this letter be sent
to Mr. Boyt.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: MDIF, CONCLUSION, CITY PLANNER.
Barbara Dacy: One thing that I did not mention in the memorandum was, as some
of you caught in the Appendix in the population and household projections, the
Metropolitan Council has projected our 1990 population as 9,000 in the year
2000 as 10,000. The 9,000 figure represents a 500 person increase since their
first draft last Fall so we have made somewhat of an impact. Needless to say,
we still disagree with those projections and that will be reflected in the
upcoming Comprehensive Plan review process am so on. What I feel is
important is that we did make an impact in combining with the other
communities. As I stated in the memo, unless directed otherwise, Staff
recommends that we continue to participate especially in regards to this
upcoming transportation system plan. We still do have some money left over
which Chanhassen is responsible for keeping track of and so on so I felt it
was a real good effort am we did make some impacts. We may have changed some
thinking at least that will be willing to establish a task force to look at.
I
Councilwoman Swenson: I hate to disagree with you Barbara. I'm glad you've
got that opinion because in reading through this thing, I can't see that we're
one darn bit better off now then we were before. The whole thread running
through this, as far as the support of the economic development and the
maintenance is obviously targeted to the major cities in the downtown area am
the areas in the east which were built up faster probably because of the
geographic location of the Metropolitan Council seat, anything west of the
ri ver doesn't belong in Minnesota I don't think. I couldn't find, I went
through this thing am I can't fim, there must have been a feeling on your
part that there was an improvement but frankly, in reading the text, I can't
see that there was any improvement of accomplishment at all.
Barbara Dacy: The various comments. They did make some changes but they
didn't change the policy statements which are the statements that really drive
the system policies and so on. When we had the Met Council Staff here and so
on, they did responsd to that question by saying that we will analyze the
issues as they arise and interpret housing depending on the tyPe of situation
that we have before us so it comes down to whether or not you want to set that
provision right now but your feeling is shared by a number of other PeOple in
this office.
I
34
I
I
I
2611
City Council Meeting - November 17, 1986
Councilwoman Swenson: I appreciate all the work that was put into it but I
think it was an exercise of futility.
Mayor Hamilton: I think it is an exercise that we have to continue and we
have to do if we are ever going to make any progress with them. At least they
listened.
Councilwoman Swenson: At least they know we're around I suppose.
Mayor Hamilton: They know we're here and they know that we're not going to go
away.
Councilman CEving: You can't roll over and die because that is exactly what
they would like you to do. You have to hang in there and attend every meeting
and bug them whenever you get a chance.
ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW, CITY PLANNER.
Barbara Dacy: I guess the most important thing is if we could establish a
process for the remainder of the year if you were to accomplish adoption by
January 1.
Mayor Hamilton: I certainly agreed with the process myself. I thought it was
good, the time schedule we had.
Barbara Dacy: Since I prepared this, we are anticipating a number of issues
for the December 1st agenda that could take a considerable amount of time and
I guess at this point, if you so agree, that maybe a special meeting on
December 3rd for the first reading might be in order because the public will
probably be attending and have a lot of questions as will yourselves. I
realize it is another meeting in your schedule.
Councilman CEving: [b we have a busy agenda? Are there a number of items?
Don Ashworth: The 1st and 15th are bad agendas.
Councilwoman Swenson: Aren't we going to go through this before we have, is
the next shot the public hearing? We're going to have the first reading
without our having a revised copy?
Barbara Dacy: After tonight I am going to try and get the clean copy from the
Attorney's office by the time of the first reading.
Councilman CEving: Where is the map?
Barbara Dacy: The map was almost ready for tonight but our engineering tech
had to add a few more things so it should be set for tomorrow.
Councilman CEving: When it comes could you give us a copy? I think the map is
the key to the whole thing.
35
2. acli1l..
Ui~
City Council Meeting ~ November 17, 1986
Councilwoman Swenson: I would like to mention a couple of things that I would
like to have considered. In going through a review of the Metropol i tan
cities, I find that 49 out of 78 cities have minimum floor footage on a single
family, 980 to 1,200 square feet per floor and I wonder if maybe that isn't
sanething that we should think about incorporating.
I
Mayor Hamilton: I guess in going through this report that Barbara did, is
everyone canfortable with the process section on page 4, the dates and times?
Okay. How about the process, there were some comments in here I think
specifically about the cross referencing were perhaps the most important that
we had discussed and appears to be...so you are agreeing with the format as
presented.
Councilwoman Swenson: Is it going to stay pretty much the way it is Barb?
The draft is pretty much the way we have it now?
Barbara Dacy: As I said in the memo, I think what we are going to do is add
some general language at each subsection in addition to the requirements below
Article blank shall also apply.
Councilwoman Swenson: Okay, so there would be a cross reference?
Barbara Dacy: Yes. It would be a very general nature to avoid trying to
change every page in order to prevent change.
Councilwoman Swenson: We can't just say also see Ordinance number so and so
and then add the applicable ordinance when the codification goes through.
I
Barbara Dacy: Yes, that is the intent. To try and keep an ordinance number
or a general section as opposed to a specific...
Councilwoman Swenson: So if I were to come in and say, I'm going to look at
the Zoning Ordinance as so and so and I could look at it and it would tell
what other sections of the Ordinance I would have to look at that might
pertain to that particular question.
Mayor Hamil ton: Lot and structure requirements. Does anyone have any
problems with that section?
Councilwoman Swenson: Why would increasing the setback cause a number of
variance requests?
Barbara Dacy: '!he reason being is that we have a lot of lots that if you have
a 100 feet deep, which we do in a number of lots, 30 foot front setback and
maybe a 40 or 50 rear setback, you have constricted your depth for a buildable
area and that would cause the variance request for a standard sized house.
The second reason is that we do have a number of homes that are already built
in that setback so there would be situations of non-conformance. I believe we
had a variance last month with a 100 foot deep lot. '!hey still requested a
variance and that was denied.
I
36
I
I
I
9~Q
",.J ,0 e..P
City Council Meeting - November 17, 1986
Councilwoman Swenson: How often are you going to have a 100 foot lot when you
have 80 foot frontage and we are requiring a minimum of 12,000 square feet?
Barbara Dacy: It's not so much for the new lots however it does effect a
number of existing lots in Carver Beach for example, Red Cedar Point area,
where some of the older, in the old town area and so on, some of those lots
are only 100 feet deep.
Councilwoman Swenson: What you are saying is the undeveloped lots now. Is
that what you are saying that would come in for a building permit would have
to have a variance in order...
Barbara Dacy: Yes, that is correct. As well as some existing structures are
already at a 30 foot rear setback so you put those in a non-conforming
situation.
Councilwoman Swenson: I think I'm most concerned with those lots then I am
wi th the rest of the City which this is going to be applied to as we build the
City.
Councilwoman Watson: Qlr hope is always to improve the situation and not
learn to live with the old ones because they already exist.
Councilwoman Swenson: What did we establish? I think it was 40 feet wasn't
it?
Barbara Dacy: No, it was 30 for the rear setback.
Councilwoman Swenson: When we discussed that? I can't believe that we agreed
to 30 feet on the rear yard on a single family lot.
Barbara Dacy: We talked about it for half an hour and we went back and forth
then we went to it again and the direction I got was 30 feet.
Mayor Hamilton: What section are you at?
Barbara Dacy: It would be the R-SF.
Councilwoman Swenson: As I recall, we switched that to 40.
Mayor Hamil ton: We left it at 30.
Barbara Dacy: It was kind of like the fence discussion. It was four, then
six and then it was five and I seem to recall it going back and forth and the
last recommendation was that it should be...
Councilwoman Watson: The only reason why I think I agree with Barb is because
we decided some consistency was necessary too.
Mayor Hamil ton: Anything else on that? The Additional Sections. Do we agree
there with the way that is being structured? That seems to be as we had
talked about tree cutting removal. Jim, you went through this whole process
37
20111
City Council Meeting - November 17, 1986
. wi th us, do you have any comnents you would like to make or recomnendations?
Peter, I presume that is why you are here is to look at this issue, is that
correct?
I
Peter Beck: Yes, I had a little trouble following it. I'm just waiting to
see if there are issues...
Mayor Hamilton: You will probably be able to follow it more clearly when we
have the first reading.
Peter Beck: If I could get a copy of it.
Mayor Hamil ton: Anything else?
Councilwoman Swenson: '!hat we give more thought to those two garages. I
found that there are eight communities, Andover, Anoka, Burnsville, ErEna,
Golden Valley, Long lake and St. Anthony that have two car garages.
Councilwoman Watson: I have to agree with you there. Require two car
garages. You know when we are seeing variance requests for garages and stuff,
people are tending to build bigger garages because they find even the standard
two car garages doesn't meet the needs for their cars and storage.
Councilman Geving: You should have seen the garage that came in tonight.
They had intended to build a 24 x 34 foot garage so they could have a storage
area and they were going to build underneath it. They were going to build a
floor underneath it. A basement in the garage. I think I would go along with
a two car garage.
I
Councilwoman Watson: '!hey are getting bigger and bigger. '!hey are not
getting smaller and I think a two car garage is just about minimum now.
Councilman Geving: '!he houses I see being built are practically all two car
garages.
Barbara Dacy: Okay, so it is two car garage. en number 17, I had in my notes
regarding the recreational beach lot in the R-12 as Conditional Use and for
clarification, did the Council want recreational beachlot for the conditional
use or for all district?
Councilwoman Swenson: What do we do now?
Barbara Dacy: Yes, they are allowed.
Councilman Geving: I had yes on my comments and I can't give you a good
reason. It just seemed like it was logical.
Councilwoman Swenson: '!hey will have the same restrictions though? It goes
according to frontage?
I
Barbara Dacy: Yes.
38
265
City Council Meeting - November 17, 1986
I Councilman Geving: How about 18? I think 18 is a yes.
Mayor Hamilton: I agree with that. We talked about the height on number 19.
We talked about the heights a lot and it seems like we left that open.
Barbara Dacy: Yes, and I went back and typed it. Castleberry said that you
do have the availability to fight a fire to 45 feet. As he said, a range
between 40 and 50 feet, anything beyond that we have to call for additional
equipment from Eden prairie so we decided that the Industrial Park may need a
little bit of height as opposed to some of the uses that were permitted in the
general business district. 40 feet in the commercial area is going to be the
highest. Right now in the Industrial Park there is no maximum height
requirement.
Councilwoman Watson: Do you see that we will have much opposition to
establishing that height in the industrial district?
Barbara Dacy: '!he closest that we have come to that height I believe was the
recording studio is near 40 feet in height. That is kind of like an
audi torium.
I
Councilman Geving: Somewhere, I don't know where it is Tom but we've talked
about PeOple who split their lots and as long as they have 50%. Do you know
what I'm getting at where if the minimum lot size is 15,000 square feet and
they have enough to split into two equal parts to create two lots, somehow or
another I thought we were going to try to tighten that up so that we could cut
down on the number of lot splits.
Councilwoman Swenson: Where are they now?
Councilman Geving: I don't know where it is in here.
Barbara Dacy: '!he existing platted lots?
Councilman Geving: Yes, Pat had an idea. We talked a long time ago on how to
restrict the number of lot splits so that people couldn't just come in and
split their lot 50-50 and come up with two separate lots. I don't know where
you have that but I would like to discuss that.
Barbara Dacy: We do have that covered on page 23 under non-conforming lots of
record.
Mayor Hamil ton: Which paragraph, 3-what?
Barbara Dacy: 3-5-2. Basically what it is saying is that if it is an
existing parcel of record, for example those lots in Carver Beach and so on,
you have to have 75% of the minimum lot area before it is a buildable lot.
Right now it is 50%.
I
Councilman Geving: '!hat's what we were talking about. So you are raising it
to 75%.
39
266
City Council Meeting - November 17, 1986
Barbara Dacy: So now the minimum will be 11,250 in that area instead of 7,500.
I
Councilman Geving: '!hat's what I was after. I'm happy to see that.
Councilwoman Swenson: That does not include the rebuilding though? If you
have a building there because I think that is in here isn't it? This is
strictly for new buiding.
Barbara Dacy: (Xl the next page under the restoration provision we talk about
if a house did burn down, the Council said they are allowed to rebuild it to
it's original location.
Councilwoman Watson: Barbara, does the moving in of existing structures
covered anywhere in this Ordinance?
Barbara Dacy: Yes, the Moving Ordinance. '!hat is in the supplementary
section and it is basically the same one that we have now. For any new
buildings moved within the city or corning out of the city into the city.
Councilwoman Watson: We have one corning up at the next meeting of the Board
of Adjustments and Appeals.
Councilwoman Swenson: Why are you adding this transmission line thing on 20
here when we took that item out? The transitional uses? That wasn't even in
that section.
Barbara Dacy: (Xl page 69, we had talked about that section too.
I
Councilwoman Swenson: we talked about transitional uses.
Barbara Dacy: And the decision was to eliminate that section so all that
we're doing is just using that same section number to use for the overhead
transmission lines. The transitional uses has nothing to do with it.
Councilwoman Swenson: I thought we had eliminated transmission lines like
that overhead in the R districts. we went to NSP.
Barbara Dacy: No, what you had said was that you wanted to retain control on
reviewing any type of proposal over 69 kv's.
M3yor Hamil ton: Anything else?
Councilwoman Swenson: Yes, what is the definition of a private kennel as
opposed to a commercial kennel?
Barbara Dacy: What needs to be done on that one is, I talked to the City
Attorney on that. There is a discrepency as to the age. A commercial kennel
was identified as having animals more then one year old and a private kennel
was three or more animals having 6 months old. He stated that they should be
consistent. '!he commercial kennels, they are houses and they are sold there
like a retail business whereas a private kennel you are just keeping your own
personal animals. '!here was a discrepency in the age there and the Council
I
40
I
I
I
26'1
City Council Meeting - November 17, 1986
had some concerns about why is one 6 months and why the other is one year so
the commercial kennel should be only on this new ordinance. I think we have
it proposed in the rural area.
Councilman Geving: How about 31? We spent a lot of time on 31 but I just
feel there are some areas in that flood plain area that would be ideal for
storage facilities like the one we approved in the Industrial Park and others.
Gary Brown has talked from time to time about putting up a facility down in
that area. I don't know if he still does but that would be ideal for that
kind of thing. I understand what you are saying because of the lack of water
and soils in that area might be overburdened with a lot of septic systems and
so forth but I still feel that that area can develop.
Barbara DacY: '!hat is this little corner next to Gedney right?
Councilman Geving:
going to Shakopee.
storage facility.
That plus the whole area east of TH 169, the corner there
'!hat whole area to the north where Sorenson has his little
Barbara Dacy: Right. Sorenson's storage facility would be within this spot.
Councilman Geving: Okay but what about from there all the way over to the
Chanhassen border?
Barbara Dacy: Olr concern, I think the map that was in your packet excluded
it but everything east of that area exceeds 25% slopes. It is just very, very
steep in there.
Councilman Geving: Where is Moon Valley?
Barbara Dacy: Moon Valley is at the bottom.
Councilman Geving: '!here is a house in there. '!here are several buildings.
Barbara Dacy: Right. There are four single family homes on that little
private drive back there. Olr concern was the extent of the grade required on
the steep slopes and so on would be tremendous as well as secondary factor of
additional traffic interruptions along TH 169. '!he Council has decided to
make everything a Conditional Use in this district. Staff feels that this
should be retained as proposed. If you want to look at...
Councilman Geving: Why could you just take that little spot that you've got
Sorenson there and run that whole area all the way off the board?
Barbara Dacy: Olr concern is that it is too steep in there for building. You
should be allowing a commercial development on that steep a slope, eSPecially
wi th septic systems. We have a flater, developable area in here which, when
you look at the corner, still we are allowing some area down here for
developnent.
Councilman Geving: Is that where that old gas station is there?
41
.r,j. {ffl0
'~iJiVD
City Council Meeting - November 17, 1986
Barbara Dacy: Right.
I
Councilwoman Watson: What about over by Debbie there?
Barbara Dacy: You are retaining Conditional Use permit approval so you do
have that control. This is much flatter ground and so on. The soils are a
little better. They are more sandy then anyplace else and require so staff is
not as strong as this...
Councilman Geving: But couldn't you designate that area?
Councilwoman Watson: Because the kind of uses we were kind of talking about
were not uses that are heavy septic system uses either. When we were talking
about it that night, the storage facility.
Barbara Dacy: This location is concentrated to existing and adjacent
development. OUr concern is that we don't want to be spreading the commercial
development all the way down TH 169 Corridor.
Councilman Geving: Why do you say that? I don't understand your statement at
all. we're the ones that are going to make the decisions.
Mayor Hamilton: From a planning perspective.
Councilman Geving: Sometimes a planner's perspective is not the same as
reali ty when you are sitting on this side of the board and I think we have to
make provisions for some kinds of commercial establishments and businesses in
that area of the city.
I
Barbara Dacy: I agree.
Councilman Geving: Now you are agreeing.
Barbara Dacy: I'm agreeing with your statement that you have to provide some
type of areas and what we are recommending is that you offer this area and
yes, go ahead and consider this. OUr concern is with the slope, the traffic
interruption, the sewage availability or lack of sanitary sewer in the area.
Councilman Geving: So if a businessman came in and he had a legitimate
request for some facility be placed in the flood plain area and the Council
agreed that it could be done. It had very little impact on soil, maybe it
would have a very light use of a septic system there, we could go through with
a Conditional Use Permit and make it happen. Is that what you are saying?
Barbara Dacy: Yes and the other thing too is you could consider a rezoning
request on this site also. I guess to err on the safe side, I would think
that you would gain more control to make sure that you get a specific proposal
for this particular area.
Councilman Geving: I just want to be a devil's advocate from time to time. I
like to argue with you. Thanks.
I
42
.-
2'69
City Council Meeting - November 17, 1986
III Barbara Dacy: So did you want this corner as BF then?
Councilman Geving: Personally, I do. I don't know how the rest of the
Council would vote but I think I would see BE' in there.
Councilwoman Watson: What we were talking about was the kind of storage
places, something that had to do wi th trucking and those kind of things.
Counci lman Geving: How many acres have we got...
Barbara Dacy: I think there is approximately about 20.
Councilwoman Watson: What is the zoning where the old seminary is? God knows
something has to happen.
Barbara Dacy: That is proposed as agricultural.
Councilwoman Watson: Because that place is a hazard. They should be forced
to destroy the buildings that are there or do something because that really it
went from not so hot last year to really bad. I went by it today.
I
Barbara Dacy: The most recent proposal that we've got is we have some
interest in subdividing that site for single family homes. You've got a creek
running right through the middle of the property and steep slopes but I think
the seminary should come down.
Councilwoman Watson: It should. I think it is dangerous in it's present
state.
Councilman Geving: I would move from my perspective to make that area BF and
let the Council consider it further but I think it should be BF. It is right
next to Gedney's.
Mayor Hamilton: I agree. I'm all for it.
Councilman Geving: Let's designate it BF then. Business Fringe.
Councilwoman Swenson: Are the septic systems that we're going to be able to
put in going to be sufficient to take care of that?
Councilman Geving: That's why we say, these are very light users of septic
systems and we would look at it as a Conditional Use.
Councilwoman Watson: We were thinking of things like storage units like Gary
Brown is proposing. Some of those type of things that virtually don't need
septic systems. M:iy not even have it.
I
Councilman Geving: A lot of times they will just put a fence around an area
and call it a storage a problem area.
Councilwoman Watson: Tom was talking about some kind of a trucking thing.
Something to that nature which might not have more then a couple of employees.
43
B70
City Council Meeting - November 17, 1986
Councilwoman Swenson: The way it looks down there, as far as I'm concerned,
you can't do anything that is going to make it look any worse then it does.
I
Mayor Hamilton: You're right. Anything would be an improvement.
Barbara Dacy: Let's review those uses. You've got automotive service station
to account for the one that's there, the motel to account for the one that's
there, outdoor display of merchandise for sale, standard restaurants, fast
food restaurants and cold storage and mini warehouses so some of those uses in
there are to make those existing uses conforming.
Councilwoman Watson: What about the restaurant one?
Barbara Dacy: We have both the standard restaurant and the fast food
restaurant.
Councilwoman Swenson: ~Vhy do we have to write an ordinance around an existing
business? Does that make it right?
Mayor Hamilton: To make it non-conforming. The intent is to have as few non-
conforming uses as possible.
Councilwoman Watson: We simply would not be able to allow a restaurant
because of the fact that it would be such a heavy septic user that you simply
could not entertain a proposal like that.
Barbara Dacy: If you want to omit the restaurant uses from the district.
I
Mayor Hamil ton: Why doesn't the Staff handle that?
Barbara Dacy: We checkoo that. They have it spottoo zonoo for lack of a
better word but Eden prairie has it counted for their parcel only. They are
in a rural area.
Mayor Hamilton: I realize that but what I'm saying is that we're concernoo
about septic in there and there is a place that gets heavy use and it's on
some steep slopes.
Councilwoman Watson: We don't know how their septic system function.
Councilman Horn: They were allowoo to expand significantly.
Barbara Dacy: If you want us to look at it further at the first reading but
we will go ahead and change the map for the BF.
Councilwoman Swenson: I could go through this a lot easier if I had a map to
look at. It has botheroo me with this whole process because I'm making
decisions about things and I don't even know where we're planning on putting
it. Can I go back to 22 for a minute? I'm a little bit concernoo that
private kennels without a little bit more, I wonder how to define this. I'm a I
dog lover myself and if we're talking about a family dog that has a litter,
this is one thing. It is an accessory use which means that we have no control
44
I
I
I
271
City Council Meeting - November 17, 1986
over it arrl as much as I love dogs, I can see why people who might not could
be very disturbed by barking animals all through the night and that tyPe of
thing. They have to come in arrl argue on the basis of a nuisance ordinance
that this is creating a major problem and from what I read in the papers, this
doesn't seem to work very well in other communities.
Councilman Geving: Pat, you're talking basically about dogs and cats. There
was a very good article in the paper, one of the northern suburbs yesterday on
exotic animals. A fellow was keeping wolves and breeding wolves. He had at
one time a leopard or a cat of some sort and I think that is a bigger issue
then kennels. What to do about those kinds of operations. Are you including
that in your thoughts?
Councilwoman Swenson: No, I would consider that under a commercial but I
could see, I think I brought that up before but this is not a problem because
lots of people have zoo animals and things like that. My concern is, I think
we had a restriction on three dogs or whatever it was. Do we still have that?
Don Ashworth: Yes. You see, I don't think it is a problem Pat. Maybe if you
and I could talk about it, I think the way it is in the ordinance, I think it
basically could work very well and I think it protects both sides.
Councilwoman Swenson: As long as we carryover these protections, that is
fine.
Barbara Dacy: An accessory use, we do have control in that they have to have
a principal use before the accessory use can...
Councilwoman Swenson: I wouldn't care if somebody had 18 dogs because they
would probably be over at my house as much as they were in their kennels but
I'm just trying to avoid problems for future Council.
Don Ashworth: Let's you and I talk before December 1st.
Mayor Hamilton: Anything else? If not we can move onto the next thing. Did
you have anything to add?
Barbara Dacy: Sure, just for your information the Planning Commission will be
talking about the Fence Ordinance on Wednesday arrl deperrling on what they
decide, we will incorporate that ordinance into the draft.
Councilwoman Watson: When I look at the schedule arrl it says publishing arrl
effective dates are late in January and everything. By the first of the year
this thing will be in it's final form though.
Mayor Hamilton: N:xt Don wants to tell us about the meeting we're going to
have to interview engineers.
Don Ashworth: I'm afraid it might have to be two. I have three excellent
candidates for you. All three meet the qualification requirements. I tried
to give the Council alternatives from a candidate from very extensive
backgrourrl arrl a very strong carrlidate to a candidate that barely meets
45
6])... F? ~
bl IJ LiJ
City Council Meeting - November 17, 1986
qualifications, potentially younger and someone who is right in between.
I
Councilman Horn: Are you going to recorrrnend to us again Don?
Don Ashworth: What I'm saying to you is I would be more then happy to work
with all three. Saturday morning would be the best for the candidates. I'm
hoping that City Council, one of the camidates is from Iowa so I would have
him coming in Friday evening and being here Saturday morning. About 9:1313 am
we would be done... This coming Saturday morning am I would anticipate about
half hour-forty-five minutes per candidate. One problem is one candidate is
leaving for Florida on Friday so he would not be able to be with us on
Saturday morning so I've got two candidates for Saturday morning but the third
one, the only time that you might have an opportunity to meet him would be
Thursday afternoon like at 4:313-5:1313.
Mayor Hamilton: Is he the guy from Iowa?
Don Ashworth: NJ. One of the candidates is out-of-town and he will be gone
for a 113 day period am I just kim of hated to push off the selection process
for almost three weeks.
Mayor Hamilton: If he is interested I would think he would make himself
available.
Don Ashworth: See if he would be willing to change his flight times? The
camidate in question is a weaker camidate but I wanted to at least give you
three and quite truthfully I could not find five good candidates out of 11313
am some applications.
I
Mayor Hamilton: Why don't you talk to him and ask him if he can change his
schedule. If he is not willing to do that then...
Councilwoman Watson: Is he going on vacation?
Don Ashworth: Yes, he is going to Florida.
Councilman Geving: If I wanted a job awful bad I would be there.
Councilwoman Swenson: But if that is his vacation time am is the only time
he can get off.
Don Ashworth: 'Ibm is right, what difference would it make if, would the
Council be available at 8:313 Saturday morning.
The Council manbers stated that 8:313 a.m. would be better.
Councilwoman Swenson moved, Councilwoman Watson seconded to adjourn the
meeting. All voted in favor and motion carried. '!he meeting was adjourned at
113: 35 p.m..
Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
I
46