1l. Minutesw
1 I.
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 8, 1994
Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Wing, Councilwoman Dockendorf and
Councilman Senn
COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Mason
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Kate Aanenson, Charles Folch, Todd Gerhardt, Todd
Hoffman, and Diane Desotelle
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the
agenda as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: PRESENTATION OF MAPLE LEAF AWARD TO DAVE HEADLA,
STABLE INSPECTOR.
Mayor Chmiel: David. This is your life. This is a Maple Leaf Award where we recognize people who have
provided many services to our city. David, in the past 20 years has been our stable inspector making sure that
the horses were cared for and when complaints would come in, he'd check those out. Fences were mended to
make sure that horses weren't jumping fences. And many other things that David had done through those
particular years. So it gives me a great deal of pleasure to present to you the City of Chanhassen's Maple Leaf
Award which is presented to David Headla, Stable Inspector from 1976 through 1994. In recognition of
outstanding volunteer service for the City of Chanhassen, Chanhassen City Council, from myself and the balance
of the Council, extend to you a thank you and appreciation and I'd like to give you your Maple Leaf Award.
David Headla: I'd like to say I appreciate and value your recognition for service, thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Good, thanks.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Senn seconded to approve the following
Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations:
a. Olivewood Addition (Neumann Subdivision):
1) Final Plat Approval
2) Approve Development Contract and Construction Plans and Specifications
b. Final Plat Approval, Minger Addition including Final Reading of an Ordinance Rezoning the property.
c. Amendment to City Code Section 20- 904(c) regarding a time limit for an accessory structure to be removed
after the primary structure has been removed or destroyed, Final Reading.
d. Resolution #94 -75: Order Stage I Improvements for Lyman Boulevard/Lake Riley Area Trunk Utilities,
Project 93 -32.
f. Approve Certificate of Compliance, Saddlebrook, Project 87 -15.
1
C
Ll
City Council Meeting - August 8, 1994
g. Resolution #94 -76: Approve Resolution Designating Polling Places, Election Judges and Rate of Pay for
Election Judges.
h. Approval of Bills
i. City Council Minutes dated July 25, 1994
Planning Commission Minutes dated July 20, 1994
j. Resolution #94 -77: Emergency Purchase, Air Compressor, Chanhassen Fire Department.
k. Resolution #94 -78: Approve Resolution, Subrecipient Agreement and Third Party Agreement, Community
Development Block Grant Program, Year XX.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
Joe Scott: Thank you. Joe Scott, 7091 Pimlico Lane in Chanhassen. Mr. Mayor, thank you. Members of the
City Council, city staff and members of the general public. I'll make this as brief as possible. The packet that
you have in front of you contains information taken from the public record and from public documents. If
there's anything that anyone remembers about this presentation this evening is that Councilman Senn should
resign his position for three reasons. One involving poor judgment. Number two, conflict of interest and the
inability to identify one that had to do with a potential interest. And then also on two occasions he made an
attempt to have the City Council violate a section of the City Code for the same reason to an item he was
involved with. So what I'm going to do is start from the top. Exhibit number 1 is a development review
application and at the top of the page the applicant is listed as the Marcus Corporation. The applicant applied
for item number 2 which is conditional use permit. And item number 9 which was site plan review. The reason
why I use that document is that if you'll be kind enough to turn two pages to item number 2. This item is
labeled site plan review. It's a document that has been produced by the City of Chanhassen that goes over the
general requirements for an individual or a corporation to make an application. In the case of applying for a site
plan review, evidence of ownership or an interest in the property must be shown. The Press is listed as the
owner and from that I inferred that the Marcus Corporation had an interest in the property. I'll try to make this
as brief as possible for you. Item, a couple more pages, item number 3 is a similar document that the city has
provided that identifies what needs to occur from an applicant to file for a conditional use permit and you can
see that item number 3 on that page also requests evidence of ownership or interest in the property. This
particular item known to the general public as the Press/Kindeccare project appeared before the Planning
Commission in the middle of April of this year. For reasons of public safety and architectural concerns, the item
was tabled and after that tabling, Mr. Senn took it upon himself to have this item placed on the agenda of the
City Council. Our City Manager, Mr. Ashworth noted that that was rather unusual and asked our City Attorney,
Mr. Knutson to put forth an opinion. Item number 4 shows the letter that was dated April 21st, which is
included in the City Council packets. It was also delivered to each City Council member's residence by a
member of the Public Safety Department. If I can direct your attention to the bottom of the page of item
number 4. Here he stated that my conclusion however, the Planning Commission has rightly or wrongly not
taken action on the Kindercare and the Council would violate Code Section 20-44 to act at this time. One good
reason is to assume that upon reading that document, Mr. Senn would have withdrawn his project from the City
Council agenda. That did not happen. Item number 5. This is basically a reprint of the Chanhassen Code,
referenced by Mr. Knutson. Item number 6 deals with tying any violation of City Code sections to the State
2
City Council Meeting - August 8, 1994
Misdemeanor Statute, which item number 7 shows the penalty which is a fine of $700.00 or the imprisonment in
jail of 90 days so the reason why that information is in here is simply to show the serious nature of what
Councilman Senn was attempting to do to move this particular project forward. So now we are at the City
Council meeting Minutes of April 25, 1994 which is item number 8. Mr. Knutson was asked by Mr. Ashworth
to once again restate the Code Section 20-44 so it's on the public record that that discussion was taken. And I
included the rest of the discussion on this particular item. The City Council, as they should have done, tabled
the item. It was sent back to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission again tabled the Press
Kindercare project because of concerns for public safety and architecture. Mr. Senn once again added the
Kindercare Press project to the City Council meeting dated May 9th and attempted again to get the City Council
to act on it. If the City Council would have that, as I stated before, would have been a misdemeanor. There are
some sections in there that I have outlined. If you will go to item number 9 and go through to page number 9 of
item number 9. There is a comment here that I think bears repeating and a quote from Mr. Senn. It says, I
guess given where this all fits now, where it's at and I guess Roger, who is our City Attorney, would have to
speak of the legalities of it one way or another but I would simply implore the Council to act on it and push it
forward because if it feels it can't do so tonight, my fear is basically just that. So basically this is Mr. Senn
stating on the public record that he is imploring the City Council to act on this issue to move it forward, which
as I mentioned before, would have been a misdemeanor. He goes on to say, a few moments later, "so I'd just
Re to ask the Council to take the bull by the horns so to speak and take action on it one way or another." The
rest of the discussion is included for your edification. The City Council tabled it. The item was sent back. Item
number 10 is a notice of public hearing showing the developer as Marcus Corporation. And one of the final
issues right up here is the City Council meeting of July 11th where Mayor Chmiel mentioned, if I may quote.
This is where we have one of our City Council people who still has his name on a proposed project, which is the
Marcus Corporation. And prior to doing something of this nature I would like to have, see our Councilperson
sign a form indicating that there are no interests on this project and have our City Attorney draft this form for
him to sign. So basically what this all came down to is our Mayor made it a condition of approval that our City
Council member sign that. He goes on to say he's very concerned about what the public might think about this
and our editor at the Villager put together an editorial. Councilman Wing made the comment, and I really feel
the editor of the Villager hit it on the head. That something is wrong here and whether it's right or wrong, there
was an appearance of impropriety or an appearance of conflict of interest. The final item that I have here to
take a look at. Item number 13 and I just have a question for Mr. Knutson. This was the item that ... or some
member of staff had put together for Councilman Senn to sign.
Roger Knutson: I can't talk unless recognized.
Joe Scott: Oh, I'm sorry.
Mayor Chmiel: Go ahead.
Joe Scott: Okay. I just have a question. I noticed here it says, I was not paid nor will I be paid in the future
for processing the plat or the development. Does that preclude any non -cash compensation?
Roger Knutson: What, the Mayor's statement?
Joe Scott: Pardon me? Did you get a copy of that?
Roger Knutson: The last page.
41
1
r.
r
r
i
j City Council Meeting - August 8, 1994
Joe Scott: Yeah.
t
Roger Knutson: What was your question with it?
Joe Scott: My question was, in the two sentences that we had here, the final one is I was not paid nor will I be
paid in the future for processing the plat or development. Does that preclude the payment or does that preclude
any sort of non cash compensation?
Roger Knutson: The way my intention was, it would include any compensation.
Joe Scott: Okay. So there's the language there, I was not paid nor will I be paid for future for processing the
plat or development. Does that preclude any non cash compensation?
Roger Knutson: It includes any compensation.
Joe Scott: Any compensation whatsoever. Okay. My final comment here. There's another comment on the
July 11th that actually Councilman Wing said it. Referring to this action. Whether it is or isn't, that appearance
to me justified—departure from the Council. Councilman Wing I quote, and I hope you're not taking it out of
context. I have I guess a question for Mr. Senn and that is, tonight are you going to resign from the City
Council?
Councilman Senn: Are you done?
Joe Scott: I'm waiting for you to answer my question sir.
Councilman Senn: I will answer it in due time. I'll answer it in due time. I'm just asking, are you done?
Joe Scott: Well, I have one more document that I'll present to you, our City Attorney but I'd like you to answer
my question.
Councilman Senn: I'm not going to answer your question Joe so go ahead and go on.
Joe Scott: Well, assuming that Mr. Senn's answer is going to be no, I have a proposed amendment to the City
Code and this is something for your review and doesn't have to be acted on right away. But I know the Mayor
had made mention of the fact that either Code of Ethics or City Ordinances need to be looked at to allow that
things like this do not happen in the future. This is an effort to address that and as I said, this is not intended to
be acted on today but—on the agenda. Thank you very much.
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Joe. I guess one of the things that I'd probably like to just throw out in looking at some
of the things that Joe had brought. Council is looking at some of the things that were said within the paper and
I'd just like this for Council thought. Maybe with Roger, let me ask you a question. If there's been any
improprieties, or conflict of interest within this, I would really like to see this cleared up. Only because of the
fact that I don't want to see the city have a mark against it. I would like to proceed. I know you can guide me
in this, receive an opinion from your office regarding where do we go with this. The other question being, why
this is being reviewed and whoever may have an opportunity to look at this. Either the, as I was thinking of the
Board of Ethics, Attorney General's office or League of Cities or wherever. Maybe you can give me a little
insight.
4
City Council Meeting - August 8, 1994
Roger Knutson: I'll first start out by saying that our office obviously could not be anyone to investigate this in
investigating because we work with Councilman Senn on a weekly basis. Obviously ... and could not be a part of
that investigation. As far as other possibilities, again I could look into that and in the next week, 10 days, send
,
you a letter setting out your options. I think it's too important a matter, not to the reflection ... I'll just expose
most of this ... I'd you'd like that opinion, I'll supply that opinion.
'
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. I would like to get some feeling from Council as to what they think too the direction
should be. At least that's where I think it should go. Richard.
Councilman Wing: Well I think as Mayor it's your responsibility. Had I been the Mayor, which I'm not. I say
'
that respectfully. I think I would have, and this is in hindsight. I would have stopped this and simply have gone
no further until this had been resolved. And that's hindsight. So I guess I support your position as Mayor. I
think you should do what you think is best. My only comments on the issue specific is that if I take Mark at his
'
word, and there is no conflict of interest or any impropriety, and I'll make that assumption that that's the case,
I'm spending time for the third meeting in a row here talking about this with the problems and the newspaper
picked up on it. And the neighbors have picked up on it. If there is no conflict of interest, if there is no
'
involvement in this project, it would have been a very simple, simple thing simply to sit down. I mean the thing
passed. And to have complicated it didn't show good judgment. That doesn't say that Mark's wrong. I just
guess I would have stepped out myself personally and it's my own opinion. So for that reason I'd be hard to
support Mark's position because it's contrary to how I would have handled my own personal belief on this issue
'
so, I simply support your position. I think you should do what's best and I'll follow your lead.
Mayor Chmiel: Colleen?
'
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I too would like it to get cleared up and I guess I have a general comment.
Ethical Codes of Conduct are, I mean they're never black or white. They're more shades of gray and I think it
would be hard for any of us to say unequivocally that personal considerations have never come into any of our
'
decision making. I mean whether we work in the city or own a business in the city or live in a particular
neighborhood, on a particular lake or drive a particular route through town to work, we all have personal life
experiences that enter into our decision making within the city. And however I think all of us, including city
staff, everyone on the commissions and certainly on the Council, I would say always put the interest of the city
before our own personal interests. At least I do and I guess for that sake I would just really like to see the
matter cleared up.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Alright. Mark, is there anything that you would like to say at this time? And you
needn't.
Councilman Senn: No. I mean I really have no problems with Roger doing that. I have no problems with any
of that at all because I think the question was asked. I think the question was answered and there's basically
nothing there anyway so it doesn't bother me one way or the other.
,
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Alright, so with that Roger, would you pursue.
,
Roger Knutson: I'll make sure I do that.
Mayor Chmiel: And get back with an opinion and we will move ahead with it. I
1
i
I City Council Meeting - August 8, 1994
Councilman Wing: Don also, just to follow up kind of one of the original comments. It's not to say it wouldn't
happen again ... Colleen with any one of us. You were going to, Roger was going to come up with what some
' other cities have done with guidelines or ordinances. Is this being pursued?
Roger Knutson: I have a draft on my desk. Interestingly I only found one in Minnesota which was pretty
incomplete and I have another one connected to municipal officers and Don had one that he's going to give to
me to look at.
Councilman Wing: Is it.
' Roger Knutson: Eight of them?
Councilman Wing: Is it simple enough where if simply the Council, in my case with the Fire Department, said
because it's a red fire truck and we know your passions, it might be best if you weren't involved. Would just
that opinion of the Council have the power to exit me from the discussion?
Roger Knutson: It depends on what you finally decide on doing. A Code of Ethics, if that's what it is you
decide to adopt. You can give someone the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval so to speak for following it or
you can ... for not following it or you can hold them up to scorn in the community or what have you but that's it.
You can remove someone from office or send someone to jail or fine them or...
Councilman Wing: Well I understand.
Roger Knutson: But it's on the rules as opposed to an ordinance, which would make it a crime to violate.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: But again, that's what I mean by shades of gray. I don't have any problem with
you voting on something regarding the fire department. Who cares if it's your passion. You're a fairly
uninterested, well I mean you're an interested party but it would be the same for me removing myself if there
was an issue on Rosemount or something because my husband's employed there. I mean it's, like I said, it's
shades of gray.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, there are a lot of gray issues but when it comes to development, there aren't too many
gray issues when it comes to seeing something moved forward or to have something on it and there is some, as I
mentioned, there was something there that I didn't like and it bothered me some and I indicated that concern at
the time. In fact at Council. And so I just feel that we'd best move on with it. Get this cleared and if we have
to go to the League of Cities to have them take a look and review, or County Attorney or being that you're not
' going to really provide that. You're going to make a suggestion from what I understand. Then we move ahead
with that.
Roger Knutson: I can do that.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else for visitor presentation?
Jim Andrews: Very brief sir. My name is Jim Andrews from 7014 Sandy Hook Circle and I'm before you for
the same issue. I'd also just remind you it was about one year ago we had a similar uncomfortable situation
regarding the Planning Commission. At that time there was a suggestion made by me that we also investigate
' Code of Ethics and some directives and I think this is just another sign that this is something that we really need
6
City Council Meeting - August 8, 1994
to pursue. I think the discussion was already had regarding direct or indirect conflicts and that we should have a
written I think notice of an interest in a project or a decision regarding any personal or business gains that are
possible. I think also if a person involved in a decision making process is active in a lobby for or against some
project or decision, that should be disclosed. I think we're all here to do things that are for the good of the city.
I think it would be easy to be equally critical of Councilman Senn if he had decided to locate this in Eden
Prairie without approaching the city of Chanhassen. We might ask questions as why didn't he think about
bringing it to Chanhassen so I think we have to look at all the potential pros and cons. I think I would support
all of the Council here that they do their best. That they try to do what's best for the city and that I don't think
we should jump to conclusions until really all the facts are out. Thank you very much.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else?
Steven Peterson: Mayor, Council, I'm Steven Peterson. An attorney ... in Chanhassen. I feel that perhaps the
actions by Mr. Senn have compromised the entire Council and I'm a little, I'm primarily upset that he hasn't
seem to have noticed the position he's put the rest of you in. Secondly I wonder if in order to try to put this
thing to rest, a second letter could not be drafted for Mr. Senn that is much broader and more encompassing than
the one that was in this packet tonight. It's fairly specific as to what he may or may not have been paid for and
there is any number of things that could have come up. Any form of compensation and for doing any number of
jobs. And it would be nice, if in my mind, I knew there was nothing coming to him-for anything. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Steve. Is there anyone else? If not, we'll move right along with the agenda. Thank
you for your comments.
SEWER AND WATER CONNECTION CHARGES: REQUEST TO DEFER CHARGES, ST. HUB ERT'S
CHURCH/SCHOOL, DISTRICT 112.
Don Ashworth: The first item was the Kurvers Point item, has been deleted from this agenda. That item has
been resolved and there's no necessity for any City Council action. The second request for a deferment of sewer
and water connection charges arises from St. Hubert's Church and the usage of what is referred to as the old
Kenny's building as a school site for both St. Hubert's Church as well as the school. Initial discussions between
myself and representatives of St. Hubert's Church noted that you really have not provided any exceptions to the
collection of the local sewer and water charges. I guess the point here is, whether they be a small church
congregations, etc, we've established a uniform charge where we've reflected that. In further discussing the item
with representatives of St. Hubert's, they're primary point was, not really trying to get away from paying these
charges but the true question in their own mind as to whether or not that building will continue to be used as a
school for a long period of time. They didn't define what they meant but let's say they felt within the next 3 to
5 years they would have an idea as to usage. In light of the fact that schools are a relatively high generator, and
that the total charges against them, if it would be continued as a school, again are quite high. If on the other
side of the coin that use would return or I shouldn't say return but let's say at some point in time in the future
they remodeled the Kenny's building and used that for the Priest and study and library and other type of uses,
the local sewer and water charges would drop to one which is the same as they're getting credit for today.
Accordingly, oh and there's one other factor here in the discussion. The church recognized that they may very
well do an expansion. Or they need to do an expansion. The question really becomes one of where that will
occur and they thought well, they'll be paying these charges in any case. Is it possible that if we expanded the
new church site or the existing church site, could those credits be transferred across the street and I found out the
answer to that to be yes. They could be but it would require a designation or it would require an action by the
City Council instructing the attorney to prepare a document which would insure that those credits could travel
7
n
I City Council Meeting - August 8, 1994
with the church if they develop across the street. On Thursday I received the letter from the church which was
included in your packet. Again, at the time I wrote my cover report we were kind of going both ways. One as
a thought on their part to go ahead and pay the charges with the idea that they could be transferred. The second
alternative would be to seek a deferment, a 5 year deferment which means that we would establish those as a
charge against the property. The charge would not be levied to the county until after a 5 year period of time.
At that point in time it would be brought back to the City Council to make a determination as to whether or not
that charge would stay in place or not. And assuming, I had another discussion today with another representative
from the church who thought that they may still wish to pursue the alternative of just going ahead and paying
and look to the transfer. So I guess at this point, staff would feel very comfortable with either of the two. If
they paid, they may be allowed to transfer in the future. Or if the church would like to see the deferment with
the knowledge then that it would come back to City Council before it would ever be levied down to the County.
With that I guess I'd like to hear from the church. Really where their current position is.
Councilman Senn: Question first, if I could. With the deferral you're talking about, okay. The deferral
effectively is temporary okay, and it's actually putting.
Don Ashworth: Putting it on hold.
Councilman Senn: Putting it on a time line basically for that so it's purely a deferral. Okay. If the church and
' schools basically go ahead with this project, would they be putting any additional load capacity on the system
that they wouldn't be putting on by putting those same functions in both of their existing facilities downtown
now?
I Don Ashworth: I think they would have to respond to that but I don't know how they could add that many
additional classrooms without adding space. I thing something.
' Councilman Senn: I don't know, the school districts do it all the time. My kid's gone from 17 to 32 in a class
SO.
Don Ashworth: The number of units are determined by MWCC. The Metropolitan, the old Metropolitan Waste
Commission and supposedly that is after years of studying actual usage from various sized schools and
developing a standardized charge associated with those and they came up with the determination that the
Kenny's building was converted to school use would produce the equivalent of 7 single family houses.
Councilman Senn: Okay, and maybe I'm not being clear enough but I guess the question I'm after or the answer
to it really is, if the church or the school district or the church and the school district would simply perform
these functions in their current facilities, there would be no charges, correct?
Mayor Chmiel: That's right.
Councilman Senn: No additional charges.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess maybe what you're basically saying is if they were to take their library out and put the
kids in there, utilize that particular facility, or some of the other rooms.
Councilman Senn: Or use the library as a classroom, yeah.
I�
City Council Meeting - August 8, 1994
Don Ashworth: But it would still trigger the necessity for additional restrooms, bathrooms, etc and at the time
they would make application to put in those additional facilities, it would trigger a re-review by MWCC and
the...
Mayor Chmiel: Is the church representative here this evening? Wish to make a comment.
Dave Bangaster: Good evening. I'm Dave Bangaster, a member of St. Hubert's parish and also a member of
our long range building committee as well as our program needs at this particular time. .I've also got with me
Tim ... who's our parish administrator. I guess I'd just like to make a few comments. Right or wrong, it was a
big surprise to us. Whether we should have known about it is another question. We thought we had done some
checking around but obviously missed this one. At the time we went to pull our building permit we found this
roughly $20,000.00 issue out there which was a big surprise and really seemed quite excessive when you
consider the number of plumbing fixtures actually being put into this facility. There were a couple of toilets in
the space before. There was a deli as part of the Kenny's space I believe. I believe Chalet Pizza was in that
facility as well, which is a restaurant. Restaurants tend to have high usage. We've got some water closets and a
lavatory and a drinking fountain. The classrooms don't have sinks in them like most classrooms these days. I
should make the distinction, this is a temporary. St. Hubert's does not own this building. We are leasing it.
We have a 3 year lease. We do have some options beyond that to either lease or purchase but at this time, it's a
3 year lease and because we don't know what our long range plan is. Just like Chanhassen is growing quite
quickly, so is St. Hubert's and we're in the midst of studying how best to make use of the parish. It does seem
as though this is excessive considering, particularly what was in the space before. When we looked at it and a
couple of restaurants in there before, and when you consider these toilets, it doesn't seem to be the usage is
going up that much. The sewer and water services is not being increased at all to the building. The utilities that
are there are going to be adequate for what we intend to do. The toilets that we're utilizing are the low V
...toilets. Half the normal toilet usage. I'm also concerned, and I'm not sure Don if you're even aware of this.
I was, today as I was checking up on the Chalet Pizza angle, I called the city and talked to Jean. I'm not sure
what Jean's last name is.
Don Ashworth: Meuwissen.
Dave Bangaster: And I was inquiring about SAC credits for the building to see if maybe there were some other
credits that could be applied to our case and actually found to my dismay that maybe I knew something that I
didn't want to, which is to say that there apparently has been no SAC charges paid on the facility at all and now
what I guess what we as a parish thought was excessive at $20,000.00, now I'm wondering if is the city going to
go back and say, because all these previous uses had not paid, that we're going to be required to make up for it
and bring it all up to date. So I guess in terms of what we're asking for. Clearly we'd like to see it waived
I'm not sure that that's realistic. I would certainly like to see at least a reduction based upon the fact that the
building has been used for restaurant facilities previously. Whether or not they've been charged previously is
another question but get some credit for what the previous use had been and that increase over the restaurant and
supermarket is not all that great. So I guess we would like your consideration on a reduction and if that is the
case and we are required to pay the water and sewer connection charges, we would like to see that those charges
are transferable such that when we do decide what our long range plan is, whether it's to build or whatever,
should we not renew our lease and move out. Move into a new facility. We'd like to see those funds credited
to us. Any questions, we're available.
Don Ashworth: Mayor, I think clarifications. The Kenny's structure, the entire building was built prior to the
time that the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission came into being and the whole business of starting with
VE
F
I
I r7 I
L
L_ J
r,
City Council Meeting - August 8, 1994
local charges. So you're absolutely correct. A restaurant use would have a much higher use under their
guidelines but that use existed prior to the full charging system coming about. Since that point in time they have
moved out and a realty firm has moved in. If, on the other side, the realty firm moved out and now a restaurant
came back in, they would then be paying those higher units. Again I would really caution the Council against
the charging system is established as one again that we use the formula established by MWCC. I think that once
we get into a position where we're going to negotiate that, we're going to be negotiating it on each development
that comes in. I'm not aware of any time that we have negotiated that number over 25 years. And again, the
request for a waiver, I think that that would be very precedent setting and it has never occurred. The issue of
the deferment or the transferability. Staff would support either of those two options and I think that they're
reasonable options and we would continue to recommend either of those.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Richard. Do you have any comment on that?
Councilman Wing: Nothing to add to what Don said.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf. I guess I would agree with Don that these are the two options and I guess it would
be up to St. Hubert's to decide which they would prefer.
Councilman Senn: Let me clarify that. Is that what's being offered? Pick one?
Don Ashworth: At the time I wrote this report, yes.
Councilman Senn: So I mean all we have to do is say they're both options and the church can pick which one it
likes best basically?
Don Ashworth: The instructions back to the City Attorney's office are going to be slightly different under
whichever option they choose so I would assume that if that's what the Council is saying, they make the choice.
Then that gives me the authority to instruct Roger to prepare which of the two legal documents he's going to
prepare. It would be two different documents.
' Councilman Senn: I think in terms of that, I think both of your options are acceptable. If you're going to take
the option that deals with the payment, transfer of credit. If there's some way to maybe set some timing up on
that might be helpful. If we could do it through assessment or you know, I don't know what the legality of that
is with the church one way or another but it sounds like it was kind of a big surprise. I'm not sure they have
the money to necessarily handle it. If you could set up some type of a payment schedule, if they should choose
that option, that might be another way to look at it. It just might be for whatever it's worth.
I
Don Ashworth: There have been a few, if I may.
Mayor Chmiel: Go ahead.
Don Ashworth: There have been a few times where the owner has been surprised by this. I think of Prairie
House and I remember talking with the owner there and I know that he had come in and made a similar pitch to
the Council at that point in time. What the Council did, and I think it was started with the Prairie House was the
first one. Is if for whatever reason it does produce a hardship, we do offer the ability to actually assess that
10
City Council Meeting - August 8, 1994
charge over a period of years, which is really a third option and staff would support that. So if it's their
decision to take those 6 units and have those spread over 8 years at 5 %. That would be a third option. The first
option would be, it's deferred. So it just sits there. Jean's got it on the books.
Councilman Senn: But it sits there and ultimately the church, as I understand it, the church doesn't necessarily
have to pay that ever.
Don Ashworth: No. If they would abandon the school use and convert it over to a study for the priest, that
would probably the same as the one credit that they're currently getting.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Hypothetically what they could do is wind up putting additional classrooms on the
existing church property and utilizing the, and I don't know this but I'm sort of guessing, even though I go to St.
Hubert's. And utilizing the balance of the Kenny's, if you so choose to purchase that within a 3 to 5 year
period, to use that for office space or something of that nature. Is that what you're more or less, I know you
have several different options. You don't know which way they're going but that could be.
Dave Bangaster: At this point we're looking at, we have a 3 year lease and we're assuming if we build, we may
not be in that building at all. We just may not ... We don't know and until we finish, we're still trying to study
what our needs are to formulate our game plan. We hope to, we are a ways down the road in assessing our
needs and we hope that this fall we'll develop our plan but at this point in time we've got to go under the
assumption that we may not be in that building in 3 years.
Don Ashworth: If I hear the Council correctly, their willing to pass a motion this evening which would give the
option to the church of any one of the three methods. I outlined two here and described a third which would
allow that those charges to be put onto the tax rolls. Oh wait a minute, we don't have tax rolls for the church.
Dave Bangaster: Because we're leasing the facility, it is, we are still paying tax.
Don Ashworth: Okay, so that is a third option.
Mayor Chmiel: Can we combine two of those options? In other words what I'm thinking about is going to the
deferment because they don't really know what they're doing. Keeping that for a 3 to 5 year period and if they
so choose to proceed with that, then give them that opportunity to put it over an 8 year period at a 5% or
whatever percentage proportionally would be at that particular time.
Don Ashworth: That is an option as well.
Councilman Senn: So that can be Option 4 now?
Mayor Chmiel: No, that would still give us 1, 2 and 3 but combining 2 and 3.
Councilman Senn: Or a combination thereof.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. Take your choice.
11
1
1
1
1
I
�I
I
City Council Meeting - August 8, 1994
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And I don't want to force St. Hubert's to make that choice this evening. I would
just move that we approve the deferment or any one of the three options or combination thereof and have staff
work it out.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, that to me would be fine.
Councilman Wing: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion?
Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Wing seconded to direct staff to work with St. Hubert's
Church/School District to work out a solution from the three options or combination thereof, to the sewer
and water connection charges. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Dave Bangaster: Thank you for your consideration. Don, I'm glad you mentioned you're a member of St.
Hubert's and we'll gladly pass the collection plate your way.
Mayor Chmiel: I was there just last Sunday. Thanks.
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONS OF METES AND BOUNDS SUBDIVISION
APPROVAL, EDMUNDS ADDITION, 1861 SUNRIDGE COURT.
Kate Aanenson: Back in October of 1992 you approved a metes and bounds subdivision for the Edmunds
property as a part of the Sunridge Court subdivision. Located just off of Audubon Road and north of Lyman.
It's an existing home site and they split off this parcel here. One of the conditions of approval is that they
extend the sewer and water to the lot they were creating. The ordinance does require that all lots... maintain the
2 12 acre, which they have. They are in the area exempt from sewer and water if they so choose ... staff did
concur that based on the fact that extension of the sewer line is in excess of 150 feet away, that they do not have
to hook up as long as they provide, demonstrate to staff that they can have two septic sites on the property, that
we would be willing to allow... So we're modifying that condition or recommending modification of that
condition that they could either demonstrate how you could service it with sewer and water or they can provide
the two septic sites. That they could put the septic on their property so we're recommending modification of
that condition.
Mayor Chmiel: Just a question Kate. If that sewer and water goes into the first property and to Outlot A.
Kate Aanenson: It comes through here. My understanding is it's coming through here so there's potential.
Mayor Chmiel: In other words then it would have to.
Kate Aanenson: ...subdivision.
Mayor Chmiel: In other words then, it would have to cross over the entirety of that property and provide the
additional service to Parcel B.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
12
City Council Meeting - August 8, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. By that we could also then have an easement for that but as you're saying, the distance
is greater than 150 feet.
Kate Aanenson: Right. If they choose to do that, they ... and they did hook up to sewer and water, it may be an
option. We would accept either or. If they do choose to put septic around that, that's also ... we're saying either
or.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright, is there anyone here this evening for the Edmunds Addition? Would you like to step
forward and please state your name and your address?
Robin Edmunds: My name is Robin Edmunds and I'm ... First of all I'd like to interject something. That
property line ... we've already got an approval on the division on the property. On changing the lot lines. Access
to Lot B. At some future date we would hope to subdivide it into another lot. Right now we don't have enough
acreage there ... sign anything because of the cost involved. The city has recommended a $34,000.00 letter of
credit... We're building our own home and we have ... a friend of our's that will be putting in the sewer and water
for us. We would like to put in sewer and water to our home, existing home and by doing so we put in T's on
the pipe to just a lot for Parcel B and I don't think that Parcel B ... I'd hook up to city sewer and water. I
wouldn't put in a septic but that would be their choice. And by doing that, we don't have the financial resources
to back that stuff up. To be able to ... put in $34,000.00 worth of stuff and dig up...
Councilman Senn: I guess I'm confused.
Mayor Chmiel: You and me.
Councilman Senn: Okay, I'm glad I'm not the only one.
Kate Aanenson: Well I think the issue is, when you put in public infrastructures there's a requirement for
bonding surety. Okay, in order for this lot to go forward, being they are ... we're saying they're excluded from
the MUSA area so we're not, it's a lot of record ... the option to provide sewer and water against a septic and a
well. So what she's saying is they may look into ... the intent is how do we get sewer and water to Outlot B.
What we're saying, what we're looking at is...
Mayor Chmiel: And that's where you're saying Parcel A is 4. some acres and Parcel B was something like 2
1/2 or something of that nature.
Kate Aanenson: That's right.
Councilman Senn: But we can't just approve A.
Kate Aanenson: You already approved the splitting of this. What you originally put is both lots have to be
serviced by sewer and water. They can't, they don't have the financial resources to provide a surety that we
would require for the public improvements.
Councilman Senn: Can't we just require the surety on A and leave B to be provided at the time that it's
developed?
13
1
1
City Council Meeting - August 8, 1994
Kate Aanenson: We don't ... we're getting into an area that's really engineering. I'm sorry Charles isn't here to
answer some of that stuff but what we're saying is, we're giving them the option. They still could do that.
Certainly. Or the other option is, because it's in a rural area, the other option could be...
Councilman Senn: But I mean I hear the applicant saying, you know probably they would hook up to sewer and
water and I'd probably agree with that. So it'd be kind of a long, yeah it seems like kind of a long way around
it.
Kate Aanenson: Well they've been in numerous discussions with engineering. I don't want to usurp what
they've already been told...
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion?
Councilman Senn: I'll move approval.
Councilman Wing: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded that we proceed with the proposal that's indicated for a site
hook -up for sanitary sewer and water located at 1861 Sunridge Court, Dan and Robin Edmunds.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the amendment to the conditions of
approval for Subdivision #93 -21 to read as follows:
"The applicant shall have the option of either well and septic site on Parcel B or extend municipal sanitary
sewer and water lines to service the property. If the applicant elects to go with the well and septic option, a
grading plan showing two acceptable septic sites shall be submitted for staff review and approval. If the
applicant elects the option to extend city sewer and water to Parcel B, then detailed construction plans for
the extension of the utility lines shall be provided to city staff for review and formal approval. In addition,
the applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the city and provide the necessary
security to guarantee compliance of the development contract. The subdivision shall be contingent upon the
City Council approving the development contract."
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
AMENDMENT TO THE BF, BUSINESS FRINGE SECTION OF CITY CODE, ADDING ADDITIONAL
PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES, FIRST READING.
Kate Aanenson: ...1986 for allowing existing non - conforming uses in the area. Currently there exists ... uses so
we're trying to address ... we can accommodate businesses down there and also protect the city's interest while we
look at what the long term uses are probably down in that southern area. Short of that, there isn't a significant
area close to TH 101, 212, 169 and then this area here, the western side of the city. We did state on the staff
report the uses that are down there. None of the uses that you have conditional use approval from the city.
What staff is recommending is that we allow to ... permitted uses but the permitted uses that we're looking at are
also ones that we feel also are transitory or can change over in a period of time—not necessarily single family
dwellings but wholesale nursery, private park, agricultural use and then we also looked at expanding the
conditional use section. Adding, besides truck and trailer, which we do have down there now, sporting goods
and boat sales and miniature golf. We do have currently down there cold storage. The Planning Commission
14
City Council Meeting - August 8, 1994
spent a lot of time discussing this and they had concerns about, and some of the residents there too, concern
about expanding or creating more to the non - conforming uses down there, which we certainly ... We do need to
look at this area in light of what... implications of 212 and what's going to happen to this area. So really the
purpose of this is to allow a wide range of uses in the permitted section, but again there are these uses, uses that
also can change the ... over time. So we are recommending the proposed business fringe district be amended with
the uses that we have identified in the staff report.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there anyone wishing to address this at this time? Okay. Colleen. Anything.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, this question was asked at the Planning Commission and I guess I didn't see
a direct answer to it but what really is the impetus for this? Just because we know things are happening there
and we know we're going to study it but we need a short term answer or?
Kate Aanenson: We do have a use that's down there that has an interim use on it right now and if we don't
want that interim use, basically there's no other use they can use so we're really denying reasonable use of the
property. So what we're trying to do is provide an opportunity for a reasonable use of the property as we
indicated in modifications to the intent statement. Because there are no ordinances available. There are no
municipal sewer and water and ... we still have to allow reasonable use of their property. So the intent is to
allow something compatible that would make a good mix of neighbors and that—to them. That would be a good
neighbor and again, could be ... but yet it is compatible. And when we look at as far as the wholesale nursery, we
did put in criteria of what is conditional uses. Limiting the hours, the noise and the lighting and say with
miniature golf, some of those ... so they do become good neighbors. You can't ask ... when sewer and water
become available and land value goes up and they may want to change over to something else so really what
we're trying to do is provide reasonable use of the property.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay. So the sunset on this really is when the MUSA line gets expanded down
there.
Kate Aanenson: Yes. And also we hope to be studying this too but you're right, obviously until something
else...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Right. Well, I guess I have no problem with the permitted uses. They're all very
low intensity and environmentally sensitive. And the conditional, now help me out here. Permitted uses, they
can just come in and say, you know it's in your ordinance, I can build this. Conditional use is.
Kate Aanenson: You go through the criteria and see whether or not they meet those conditions. And you can
attach conditions to mitigate the impact. So you can limit the hours, the lighting so they would be a good
neighbor. But yet we really need to take...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And the conditional uses you have listed here are only because they already exist
with the exception of the mini golf course.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah. We're showing the ... miniature golf but yeah. We thought...
Councilwoman Dockendorf. Yeah, I guess I don't have any difficulties with it. At least it puts it on paper as
to what we're doing.
15
n
1
!I
I City Council Meeting - August 8, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: That's one part of the city that we've talked about for many, many, many years to really clean
up .... and that's right. They're really not. I think not too much has changed but I think the intent of the city
' should be looking at that to come up with some solution in eliminating some of that.
Kate Aanenson made a statement which was not picked up on the tape.
' Mayor Chmiel: Mark.
Councilman Senn: I had a question or exception maybe to what Colleen just raised and was answered. There
' really isn't a sunset on this at the point that the MUSA line extends. These uses could continue in perpetuity
beyond.
' Kate Aanenson: Absolutely, but what I'm saying is that we feel these are still palatable under if the MUSA
would expand in that area and we also feel like the land prices would drive, based on ... but these still would be...
Councilman Senn: But effectively, once this is done, there's really no way to stop these uses to go or expand on
' these properties short of setting conditions on them. And they have to be reasonable conditions.
Kate Aanenson: Well that's what I ... being more questionable as far as ... But we felt the ones that are under the
permitted would be appropriate or would be good neighbors.
Councilman Senn: Well I guess you know, just when I went through it caused me I guess a lot of concerns and
I guess the concerns are still there. If these uses are effectively expanded and maintained or allowed to continue
down there, I guess I'd want to spend a little more time specifically looking at some of these permitted and
conditional uses. You know truck/trailer /auto/boat sales. I mean I just look at the growth in some areas of
what's been happening with that and it what it does to basically to turn around and impact an area. And even
you know some types of basically warehousing. I mean motor fuel stations. I mean that can mean a lot of
things from truck fueling to you know.
Kate Aanenson: I think these were all legitimate concerns and we looked at that specifically. Again, we put the
map up ... we tried to identify all the uses and there really isn't that much need...motel and Admiral Waste and
some of the other ones... There isn't a significant but again, the real issue is allowing reasonable use of the
property that's down there.
' Councilman Senn: Can't you just do that by grandfathering what's there? So as long as they want to use it that
way, they can?
' Kate Aanenson: Well there's some that are vacant out there.
Councilman Senn: Well I understand that but I mean doesn't reasonable use of the property then become
' conforming to the ordinance, but you're taking care of what's there?
Kate Aanenson: There's nothing permitted in that zone right now so.
Councilman Senn: Well I understand that but I'm just saying what I think, you set a different set of what's
allowed if you were in that situation versus this, would you not? I mean the way I read through this it sounded
like this exercise we're going through is to more accommodate the existing business down there and make sure
' that they conform.
16
City Council Meeting - August 8, 1994
Kate Aanenson: No.
Councilman Senn: That's not true?
Kate Aanenson: No. No.
Mayor Chmiel: Go ahead Roger.
Roger Knutson: The existing businesses, if you're there, you have the right to stay there as a non - conforming
use. You don't need an ordinance for that.
Kate Aanenson: And that's, some of those may change over too. In time they may go away or ... if they change
to something else, it will require a conditional use or something maybe be permitted but this is to, the other
problems that are down there... permitted. There are some existing ones that are legal non - conforming. We've
been working to correct the problems.
Councilman Senn: But as long as this could go on, I mean all the discussion here about stopping the expansion
of the MUSA line and with the pushing out of the timing more and more and more on 212. I mean it just seems
to me these uses could go on for a long, long time and in fact expand substantially down there and as I'm
saying, that causes me some concern. Just going back to what Don said, I mean part of what we've been trying
to do is clean up the area down there. Not keep these sort of uses going down there.
Mayor Chmiel: Richard.
Councilman Wing: I historically have to look at this with a little bit of humor because the area we're concerned
about I think have canoed at least twice in my lifetime. And this sits right in the flood plain. This whole area's
been under water at least twice that I can remember. I mean totally submerged so I find it humorous that we're
worried about something that's going to be under water anyway. But I think there is.
Mayor Chmiel: That might be good for boat sales is what you're saying.
Councilman Wing: With it's own launching area. I think we just, I think this has been well thought out. I
would guess, when something of this nature gets through the diverse, directed, opinionated, watchdogs of the
Planning Commission, I tend to be pretty comfortable with it because they really hacked this one over pretty
good. Except Jeff's comment about the cart before the horse but even, after I reviewed that, I guess I was pretty
comfortable with their decision. I think the uses are well thought out. I think we've got good controls. I think
we've got high expectations for any business coming to the city at anytime anywhere in the future and we're not
going to have junk down there. We're not going to tolerate junk. And anybody that would try that would have
a real long road ahead of them so, I'm real comfortable with what's occurring here.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess I'm going to piggy back on what you're saying there because I think that's true. For
what we're doing within the Highway 5 corridor and I think we should also apply some of those to that same
particular area and look at that rather extensively. And because of the residential in and adjacent to there, I think
too, the kinds of lighting that would go in should be down lighting. A lot of different things have to be looked
at. So I think that even with the permitted uses. One of the permitted uses I had a little concern with was with
the agricultural aspect of it and Kate and I had some discussions this afternoon and they're going to look into
that a little bit more. Only because of the mere fact that if they were to bring any of the animals on site, which
17
C
1
I
F-
1J
I'
� I
I �
City Council Meeting - August 8, 1994
would still be used for agricultural purposes, you could have some given problems. So therefore they're going
to take a look at that to see if there's any problems that could exist from that. But the rest of it I think is true.
We still have the single family dwelling, 1 per, 1 unit per 10 acres. With the private park and public park and
the rest of them. Those are all permitted and hopefully, and I know you understand those conditional uses
Colleen. That you can stipulate what you feel should be done before that goes in to that particular site with a
condition as part of the conditions that we do with the other developments that we go through.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And does that give us, excuse me for interjecting but does a conditional use give us
as much power as say a PUD would?
Kate Aanenson: Asa...
Councilwoman Dockendorf. A PUD. I mean does it.
Kate Aanenson: Well a conditional use you can attach.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Anything.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Reasonable.
Councilwoman Dockendorf. I was going to say reasonable. You know if we're going to apply Highway 5
standards, that's pretty stringent.
Kate Aanenson: You know screening and those sort of things would be appropriate. Hours of operation. All
those sort of things.
Councilman Wing: This is the first reading and to start with.
Mayor Chmiel: That's right, this is the first reading.
Councilman Wing: And I would move first reading of the amendment.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, is there a second?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: Moved and seconded. Discussion.
Councilman Senn: One more question if I could. Kate, what's the rationale basically behind injecting the one
industrial use? I mean all the other ones seem to be fairly consistent commercial uses.
Kate Aanenson: Which is the industrial?
Councilman Senn: Well cold storage and warehousing I'm assuming is.
Kate Aanenson: That's out there right now.
IN
City Council Meeting - August 8, 1994
Councilman Senn: No, I understand it's there but I'm just saying as far as allowing it to continue as a permitted
or a conditional use. I mean that's kind of.
Kate Aanenson: You're saying take it out?
Councilman Senn: Well, that one makes me more comfortable because I look at it and say there's an eye right
in the middle of, I mean that could in effect make that a combined zone for whatever period of time by taking
that action out.
Kate Aanenson: You mean—based on a more current type of use.
Councilman Senn: Yeah. Well I mean it could be an eye there forever technically on that basis right?
Kate Aanenson: ...attach conditions on there such that.-That'd be an option.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, with that I'll call the question.
Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the first reading of
amendments to Article XX. "BF" FRINGE BUSINESS DISTRICT to read as follows:
ARTICLE XX. "BF" FRINGE BUSINESS DISTRICT
Section 20 -771. Intent.
The intent of the "BF" District is to accommodate limited commercial uses temporary in nature without urban
services, while maintaining the integrity, minimizing impact, and protecting the natural environment. When
urban services are available, land use may change to a higher and improved use of the property.
Section 20 -771.1 Permitted Uses.
1. Wholesale Nursery/Greenhouse/No Retail (Pursuant to Sec. 20 -257).
2. Private Park/Public Park.
3. Single Family Dwelling (One Unit Per 10 Acres).
4. Agriculture.
Section 20 -773. Conditional Uses.
The following are conditional uses in a BF District:
1. Motor fuel stations without car washes.
2. Truck/trailer /auto /sporting goods and boat sales/rental.
3. Utility services.
4. Cold storage and warehousing.
5. Miniature Golf Course (Pursuant to Section 20 -265).
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
19
I
L_J
Ll
t
r
i
City Council Meeting - August 8, 1994
AMENDMENT TO CTIY CODE TO INCLUDE THE DEFINITION OF "BLUFF" CITYWIDE, FIRST
READING.
Kate Aanenson: As you're aware the City had a bluff impact zone ... number of years and as we develop further
and as part of the Highway 5 corridor study we realized that one of the unique features of Chanhassen is our
topography and the preservation of that interesting topography. And we've had a number of subdivisions in
recently that we felt like we just didn't have the tools to review as far as the impact zone so we, this was kind of
initiated by the staff ...and try to preserve some of our natural features. So we recommended applying the bluff
ordinance city wide. We went back and looked through the history of why it wasn't ... first went before the
Planning Commission and originally it was. And then it was a concern of how much of the city would be
impacted and is this the right percentage of slope and the former Director, Paul Krauss and Rick Sathre sat
down ... felt like gee maybe it should be applied citywide. Maybe the impacts would be too significant and we
feel like that was short sighted. We revisited that and looked at a number of areas in the city and we all thought
it would be that ... but where it is, we certainly feel like those are areas we would want to preserve ... feel strongly
that it would be short sighted to eliminated that natural feature. So we're recommending two minor changes that
would apply to the city wide. And again, we don't feel like there's a significant amount of bluff areas that we
want but those that we do have, we would recommend to preserve them. And those recommended changes are
that it be applied city wide instead of just—the ordinance proposed in front of you and then also that the official
map be changed because the way it's mapped now, it just shows the southern area. And when we went before
the Planning Commission they recommended approval except Commissioner Conrad who was concerned about
all the history that went before when the Planning Commission looked at this and spent a lot of time ... and we
did talk to former Commissioner Erhart, who also had a lot of concerns and I think he realizes now where we've
come as far as the Highway 5 corridor study and working on a lot of the natural features, including the Bluff
Creek as it runs along the city as a part of that so I think he feels comfortable now. He has a really big concern
about the definition of slope. Not applied city wide but our actual definition of slope. I think he feels
comfortable now using the same definition. We feel it would be very awkward trying to have two definitions to
try to work this over so we feel strongly with just staying with the DNR's definition and we'd recommend that.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Now this is still, as it indicates, rust reading?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, we had discussions on this before and so we'll just go from that point forward. Okay
Richard, any questions?
Kate Aanenson: Let me make just one comment. If there is a concern about this and ... we can also look at the
variance issue too if there's an anomaly that just doesn't work and...
Councilman Wing: I'm concerned that, well first of all this is, let me organize my thoughts a minute here. The
history of this dates back before the 1990's and I've said this before and I'll say it again. It's the decade of
rethinking and redesigning and replanning and what they thought and did back in the 70's and 80's during this
historic period they're talking about, has no relationship to the city today. My concern is that this is falling short
of what I think we should be doing. I think we should, we have let this city develop, part of it, this old school
where you just simply came in and leveled it and put your houses down and put your roads in. That doesn't fly
anymore. And I guess what I was hoping we'd come up with, and this is a good start, is a slope ordinance.
And now you say we don't want the double definition and so if we stay with bluff, I can accept that but we
were, I think when I talked to the Arboretum, we were talking about you can't destroy more than 20% of a slope
Fa
City Council Meeting - August 8, 1994
or hill. I think that was, the reason I started out with 10 %. You only take 10% of the top off and then they said
no, nothing would be buildable. But you could get into 20% and then you have to build, my point here is, you
have to build to the terrain. You can't just level it out like the school did. But there are areas where there
would be exceptions and I don't question that at all. Kate, do we have to, after the Highway 5 corridor study's
done and low income housing and all this other stuff, would we want to take this and pursue it the next step
further and to try and protect our existing terrain as much as possible or is this going to sort of come.
Kate Aanenson: This is a stop gap on the severe bluffs. What we're finding is now as we're going through the
Lake Lucy areas and ... there's a lot of slopes to that area and that would solve.
'
Councilman Wing: 25 footers?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, there's some in there. Yeah in Shadow Ridge, which you'll be seeing at the next City
Council meeting. You're right though, I think maybe the slope may be another issue that may be separate from
this one.
it I
Councilman Wing: Well I'm real pleased you picked up on this and I'm real pleased you moved on and
think, like you say, it's an excellent stop gap and I'm really excited that you hustled on this because the days of
leveling it out I think have got to be over for Chanhassen and like you say, this is a real start so I'm real
enthusiastic about this and I would say thank you for getting it to us.
'
Mayor Chmiel: Good, Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I think you just answered my question that I had in your last comment, which was
where. I mean where in other areas of the city do we have concerns and it's mostly around Lake Lucy?
Diane Desotelle: We haven't looked at it really closely but that seems to be where it's one of the higher points
,
in the city where we've had some concerns that we've looked at. And then there are some other areas in the
southern end that we're going to address. Mostly the bluff impact zone map is strictly within creek area.
'
Councilwoman Dockendorf. Okay. The other ones, it's just hit and miss as to.
Kate Aanenson: And that's why we looked and though we'll try to map them but as soon as we try to map
,
them we're going to miss something and so until we actually get a plat submitted, we may not know so we think
it's best just to leave the definition of a bluff.
Councilwoman Dockendorf. Okay. Just a comment on the actual wording of the ordinance. You're taking out
'
the planned unit development, which just simply means instead of a comma you need an and inbetween the two
uses. Picky picky. It's a short ordinance. I read it.
'
Mayor Chmiel: Short, direct and to the point. Okay Mark.
Councilman Senn: Kate, I like where you're heading with it. I guess Council my concern is that, a little bit of
'
public process and that is is that unless we identify the areas, are we really adequately informing the affected
property owners and giving them a chance to comment?
Kate Aanenson: Well we are using lots of records for this is anybody that comes in for a subdivision plat.
,
21 1
1
I City Council Meeting - August 8, 1994
Councilman Senn: Well I understand that but there could be a lot of existing property owners out there being
affected by this who don't even know we're putting it into effect.
' Kate Aanenson: That would come forward with developments?
' Councilman Senn: I don't know. Maybe just to expand their house or something, I mean I don't know.
Kate Aanenson: Well this would be for new subdivision plats as far as that would be fQr setbacks and then you
' do the variance.
Councilman Senn: So this only pertains to new subdivisions? Not existing homes or expansions. That's
different than in this case but that's not what I got from out of this. I tell you, I had some concerns about what
we're doing affecting people here that wouldn't know about it.
Diane Desotelle: That's a similar situation to what happens with the wetland ordinance. We've had some
' people wanting to put decks on and whatever and now they're not meeting setbacks so it is something...
Councilman Senn: I understand that. We've got that one coming up.
' Diane Desotelle: ...do you apply the variance in that situation.
Councilman Senn: Well again, getting a variance down the road is fine but again, I question the process if we
don't let people know up front that they're being affected by things.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: But how do we effectively do that?
' Councilman Senn: Well, wetlands we mapped them for example so that pointed out the affected properties.
You know we've provided no designation here one way or the other of what the affected areas are. I mean even
if it's a general area. I mean it's better to ask for too much than none. I'm not saying going down to it a parcel
' but if you know there's a bluff area in this region, can't you just kind of blank out the area and send a notice out
to the people and say there's something, so I mean if they have a question or concern they can at least come and
raise it.
Mayor Chmiel: They're not aware as to where all those locations are. And that's probably where it's going to
come in. Maybe there could be special attention brought through the newspaper indicating that this is going on.
First reading has taken place and that the second place is going to take place at our next Council meeting. If
' there's anyone with concerns in regard to it, to come back in and attend the Council meeting prior to that second
reading.
' Councilman Senn: That's a good part measure as long as it really tells them in English what we're doing. You
know it says hey, if you own a property that has this situation on it, you better be aware that this could affect
you and you should get in here. That assumes everybody reads the newspaper in the area but it's better than
' nothing.
Mayor Chmiel: At least it gives us a chance to, it gives that opportunity for them to look at it. They may or
may not Okay, I guess looked at this and I really didn't have too much problem with it really as long as we
continue with the values of keeping and preserving our natural features within the city. I think that's one of the
1 22
City Council Meeting - August 8, 1994
major concerns that I had with it. So I would like to get a motion. City Council approve the amendment to
Article XXVIII, Section 20 -1402 and Section 20 -1406 as noted in Attachment #1 for the fast reading.
Councilman Wing: I'll move that with one addition to clarify Mark's position that prior to returning to Council.
First of all I think it should be on the agenda rather than consent agenda for this reason. And that there be some
public notification given prior to returning to Council.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'll second it.
Mayor Chmiel: Moved and seconded. Any other discussions?
Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve first reading of the amendment
to Article XXVIII, Section 20 -1402 and Section 20 -1406 as noted in Attachment #1 with the condition that
some public notification be made prior to coming back for final reading. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO ADOPT THE SURFACE WATER
MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP), FIRST READING.
Diane Desotelle: Well here it is, Surface Water Management Plan. It's been though a lot of work and I'd like
to praise the city for doing this. I came along towards the end here and tried to now get it to ... and start to see
what it's going to be like to implement it. Basically we've gone through the task force meetings. We had a
couple work sessions with Planning Commission. I tried to include a number of questions and answers that I
thought maybe were questions that would come up knowing that it's a very extensive thing to read and ... but the
first half I think is really important. If you read any of it, the fust...really covers it and has some really good
descriptions on what we're doing and why we're doing it. We have our consultants here with us tonight and I
don't know if they're going to want to speak on it but I'm here to answer questions and try to help you
understand it as best as possible.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Diane. I had discussions with Diane again this afternoon too. I must say that I
didn't take the opportunity to go through this in the entirety but I did review much of the executive summary
and some of the table of contents and different chapters in here and just sort of peroused it but as I looked at it,
I think Chanhassen is probably on the cutting edge to make sure that we are doing everything we can to protect
all the waters and everything within our confines of the city or the corporate limits of the city. And I really
applaud all those people who have had the opportunity to serve on this particular committee and work this out
and it took many, many nights of working it. Pulling together. Coming up with conclusions as to seeing what
they felt was really pretty good. I know that some of the Council also sat in on this as well so I sort of, I like
what I see and to think that we're ahead of everybody else I think.
Councilman Wing: Me too.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Okay, so with that I don't know if there's any need for any presentation at this time.
Has everybody had an opportunity just to look at it. They knew that it weighed 10 pounds 3 ounces and that
there's a lot of good things for the city. But I would entertain any questions Council might have in regard to the
proposed Surface Water Management Plan. Richard.
23
1
7
L
I'�
I�
n
City Council Meeting - August 8, 1994
Councilman Wing: After this much scrutiny and having sat through the history of this, I wouldn't even touch it
at our level. I'm very pleased with it. I wish I could have lifted it.
Mayor Chmiel: Well I just brought it along making sure the TV audience that sees this is in 2 weeks and know
that they did a lot of work with it. Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And I'd really like to laud the efforts of the committee and I know that
unfortunately Mike isn't here to share some of that recognition of his work on the committee. When it was
discussed in the last Planning Commission meeting, we talked about an Environmental Committee to carry out
the nuts and bolts of it and this was, wasn't this a Paul issue in terms of combining a lot of our smaller
committees and under the umbrella of the Environmental Committee and I think it's worth pursuing.
Kate Aanenson: It's a Kate issue too. We've been lobbying for it. The problem is, I mean when we have this
separate committee... weigh the staff down as far as time. After they take care of their issue they lose steam and
we felt like we had people from each of those task forces on one committee ... to work on specific issues that
come up—specific recommendations as far as whether we want to do some water quality projects and to
me—we're trying to work on that now. That committee can give us recommendations too, and on to you. Also,
we're looking at modifications to the landscape ... so we think it's better to have a standing committee that
provides a lot of different so it's not narrow focus ... be more specific but they cross all sections so we'd support
that.
Councilwoman Dockendorf. And bring it up to the commission level.
Kate Aanenson: Correct, yes. Commission level that meets regularly.
Councilwoman Dockendorf. Right, and as the Mayor did say, we are certainly on the cutting, if not leading
edge of this. In fact we're ahead of the DNR.
Diane Desotelle: ...suffer growing pains because of it ... we might not be able to at the same time, helping to
push the State along in their decision making.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Plus one of the other factors is to still establish more credibility with the DNR and I
think that's what we're really moving.
Roger Knutson: Mayor?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes Roger.
Roger Knutson: If I could just make one brief comment on this. It's already been useful to the city and to us in
the recent environmental lawsuit. Even though it was only a draft, we made reference to it and got good
mileage. Very helpful to us.
Mayor Chmiel: That's great. That's good. Okay, Mark.
Councilman Senn: I did read it and great document. Great job. You can always say there's always different
ways to word things but I think it really gets us where we want to get and I'm very happy with it so.
24
Ll
City Council Meeting - August 8, 1994
Councilman Wing: You know what this means to me, I'm out of order, excuse me.
Mayor Chmiel: Certainly you are. I didn't recognize you. Okay, Richard. Go ahead. Tell me. ,
Councilman Wing: To fly by like this just means that this thing is so complex, so big, so over our heads... '
Mayor Chmiel: Nobody understands it.
Kate Aanenson: ...using it for a number of months. All the subdivisions you've seen recently we've been ,
applying all the modeling that's recommended in here. The wetland inventory.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. The wetland inventory I think is probably one of the greatest things that we have. '
Kate Aanenson: Right ... and we have used it.
Councilman Senn: Well and Dick, I don't think there's anything in here that's that severe that you can argue ,
about the language and the concepts are all fundamental and the concepts are all good.
Councilman Wing: Yeah, it's a layman document. It was from the start. I agree. I
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, I'd like a motion regarding that the City Council approve the adoption of the Surface
Water Management Plan as presented in the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan as the first reading.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'd be happy to move it.
Councilman Senn: Second it. ,
Mayor Chmiel: Moved and seconded.
Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Senn seconded to approve the first reading of the '
adoption of the Surface Water Management Plan as presented and amendment to the Comprehensive
Plan. All voted in favor and the motion carried. '
AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE TO ADOPT THE SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT
REGULATIONS, FIRST READING.
Diane Desotelle: This is another amendment that.-started back in 1991 when the State asked the city to develop '
an ordinance and it took us a little while because of the staff turn over. There hasn't been a lot of wording
changes really from the State Statute itself. The wording changes that were made were ... closer to our ordinances '
and.. flexibility. I guess a couple of the ... changes that we have ... the lot sizes on the ... we had it at 15,000 so it
would be in conformance with our ordinances. And then also the impervious area ... have some flexibility there
within the ordinance. But in general it's been going on for a couple years and again, I guess I'm here at this
point to answer any questions you may have of the shoreland ordinance. Part of the reason we had.. ,
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you. I've got just one suggestion unless, and I'd like your input. In here we
indicate that we're to approve the code amendment adopting the shoreland ordinance as shown in Attachment #1 '
but at this time we have yet not received final approval but temporary approval and if we could just condition
25 1
F
i'
1
City Council Meeting - August 8, 1994
within that as well the final approval from DNR regarding comments from other neighboring communities once
that comes in so it's all part of that.
Diane Desotelle: ...and I don't believe that Ceil Strauss had any comments but we'll just have her finalize it.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Any discussion? Richard?
Councilman Wing: No.
Mayor Chmiel: Colleen?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: No.
Mayor Chmiel: Mark.
Councilman Senn: Yes. Let's see here. Diane, in terms of 20- 477(b). It gets into the cutting of shoreland
vegetation and stuff. Now is that simply set up as something you can regulate or does this basically for example
prohibit people from cutting out purple loosestrife and stuff like that.
Diane Desotelle: Basically the ordinance allows you to do clearing but the wording is vague as far as it doesn't
say exactly how much you can do.
Councilman Senn: That was my next question. Where's the definition. Because there really isn't, or at least
maybe I missed it but I didn't see one on shoreland vegetation.
Diane Desotelle: No. The reason a definition of shoreland vegetation, it just talked about clearing for basically
in order to have a view down to the water body.
Mayor Chmiel: Well yeah, but basically we can't be less stringent than what DNR requirements are but we can
be more stringent to pick up on some of those kinds of concerns.
Diane Desotelle: Right.
Councilman Senn: But that's not a DNR requirement. I mean DNR does allow you to.
Diane Desotelle: Yes, it's worded here so the intent of vegetation clearing within the shoreland bluff impact
zone and on steep slopes did not allow it. But how you define intensive vegetation clearing you know is a little
vague so we have to use our best judgment.
Councilman Senn: But (b) only applies to that situation then? I thought (b) was applying more generally to all
situations under compliance.
Diane Desotelle: I'm not sure.
Kate Aanenson: You're under general provisions?
FM
1
City Council Meeting - August 8, 1994
Councilman Senn: Yeah, under 20 -477, general provisions. Yeah. Item (b). Page 4. 1 mean there's a constant
battle with some of forms of noxious you know shoreland vegetation and stuff.
Kate Aanenson: ...correct Roger. I mean these are just saying these are the things that we have jurisdiction
over...
Councilman Senn: Well that's what I'm saying. Does that mean a person can't just do that? They have to
come in and get permission for example to.
Kate Aanenson: No, it's further described.
Roger Knutson: I'm not sure what your question is.
Mayor Chmiel: Could you rephrase your question.
Roger Knutson: 20-482 sets out the standards for vegetation alteration.
Kate Aanenson: I'm just saying that ... general provisions.
Councilman Senn: 484 you're saying.
Roger Knutson: 20 -482.
Councilman Senn: Okay, 20 -482. Okay. And then it has under 20-482 preserve shoreland aesthetics. I mean
that's very subjective. There's no definition to it. I mean all the other things here I think are fairly definable. I
mean prevent erosion into public waterways. Fix nutrients. Preserve historic values. Prevent bank slumping.
Protect fish and wildlife. Throwing in preserve shoreland aesthetics. It seems to me now that you're going to
be asking somebody to make subjective decisions on what is and what isn't. It gets real fuzzy. And one leads
to another. I mean that's where it goes but I mean yeah, once you get back under 482, that's a concern I have.
I think that particular reference is far too subjective.
Roger Knutson: I don't have the statute with me but we had an interesting dialogue between city staff and
myself about wording and anytime they call up and say, this doesn't make any sense. I'd say call your
legislators.
Councilman Senn: Well this again isn't part of the State. I mean the State doesn't have language in there that
says preserve shoreland aesthetics.
Kate Aanenson: I think it did. Pretty much all this is. We had the same questions. We went back and forth on
a lot of these things that were in a gray area.
Roger Knutson: Whenever wording came out we said ... it usually came right out of the DNR's model ordinance.
I'll double check that. I can't tell you that that's the case here.
Councilman Senn: Could you check that for us.
27
L
1
i City Council Meeting - August 8, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: I think we can find that out before the next reading and bring that back to Council. Okay, any
other discussions? Hearing none, I'd like a motion.
' Councilwoman Dockendorf. I would move the amendment to the City Code to adopt the Shoreland Overlay
District regulations, fast reading.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilman Wing: Second,
Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the first reading of a City
Code Amendment repealing the interim shoreland control ordinance and adopting the new shoreland
' management regulations as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
ADNI MSTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
EAW FOR COUNTY ROAD 17 (POWERS BOULEVARD), RECONSTRUCTION FROM TRUNK
HIGHWAY 5 TO LYMAN BOULEVARD (CARVER COUNTY PROJECT), CITY PROJECT 93 -29.
' Charles Folch: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. In your packets tonight you should have a copy
of something like this. It's...EAW for the proposed County Road 17, Powers Boulevard improvement project.
Carver County is on line now to initiate this first improvement project that you recently adopted Carver County
' and Chanhassen cooperative agreement in highway capital improvement program. This project basically consists
of reconstructing of County Road 17 from Trunk Highway 5 south of Lyman Boulevard to a 4 lane... which will
include storm sewer, street lighting, landscaping and trails. The current project—forecasts that most of this work
would be completed in like the 1995 calendar year. However there is slated that initial surcharging operation
t begin yet this fall. The EAW for this project is mandatory and the County's design engineer... prepared this
document such that Carver County will administrate this improvement project and is the RGU, Responsible
Governmental Unit for this project and the EAW. The purpose tonight basically is to make you aware that this
' EAW has been drafted. That it's currently in the comment period and as such if you should have any questions
or concerns as you view this document, please let staff know and we can draft a document or response to the
EQB during this comment period which is ... to end at the end of this month.
Mayor Chmiel: Just a quick question. Has Carver County notified all people in and adjacent to these roads
informing them that this is going to take place? The EAW is in process and that construction activities are going
to take place at such and such time and accessibility for those people to get out from their properties will be
worked out somehow?
Charles Folch: At this point, in terms of notifying adjacent properties of the EAW, I don't believe that has
' occurred. In terms of coordinating with those entries which currently access CR 17, as the project plans are
prepared this winter, they will develop a staging plan and a detour and traffic access plan which I believe they
probably, it would be a good idea to have a neighborhood meeting once those plans are put together to inform
' the neighborhoods and such.
Councilwoman Dockendorf. Any idea when the assessments will take place? Or at least the hearings.
' 28
r
City Council Meeting - August 8, 1994
Charles Folch: Actually there will be some proposed assessments for the northerly portion. Very northerly
portion of the project which basically goes through the business park. Associated with the, as was previously in
the previous improvement project that entailed business park property owners. I would guess that those hearings,
,
well the feasibility hearing would probably take place late this fall.
Mayor Chmiel: Have we not had discussions with those people already?
Charles Folch: Actually they were petitioning, basically petitioning property owners to this improvement
project.
,
Councilwoman Dockendorf. And the rest of it comes out of County funds and our agreement with them?
Charles Folch: Right.
'
Councilman Senn: Charles, I couldn't catch you but I asked Don Ashworth this afternoon a similar question to
Don's and that is with the 31st as the deadline. I mean that's our comments but beyond that 31st deadline, from
what you were saying before, I mean there would still be an opportunity for citizen comment and change then?
Or is that.
Charles Folch: That's the comment period in terms of reviewing and concerning the contents of this document
'
here. In terms of the EAW's impact to the environment as such.
Councilman Senn: But that only considers certain options I guess is what I'm saying.
,
Charles Folch: Basically to consider the price of the proposed road alignment that's given here and basically the
sole option for the alignment of the road project. Basically going to follow the similar alignment to what's out
'
there now. There will be a widening to the east along the alignment which will create the additional 2 lanes to
create a 4 lane situation. In terms of input on the design of the plan and things like that, there will be input to
those issues when the neighborhood meeting is held.
t
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Are there any questions? Richard.
Councilman Wing: No sir.
Mayor Chmiel: Colleen?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: None further.
,
Mayor Chmiel: Mark? '
Councilman Senn: Nothing further.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Are you saying we need a motion for this as well? I didn't see any. ,
Charles Folch: Actually no action is necessary.
29 1
L
i City Council Meeting - August 8, 1994
i
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, just as an informational item. Okay, so with item number 9. Next item on our agenda is
adjournment.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Wing seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
I
rJ
n
30
i
J
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 3, 1994
Chairman Scott called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Matt Ledvina, Joe Scott, Nancy Mancino and Jeff Fanmakes
MEMBERS ABSENT: Diane Harberts, Ladd Conrad and Ron Nutting
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner H; Dave
Hempel, Asst. City Engineer; Elliott Knetsch, City Attorney; and Steve Kirchman, Building
Inspector
INTERIM USE PERMIT TO ALLOW SCREENED OUTDOOR STORAGE IN THE
BF, FRINGE BUSINESS DISTRICT AND LOCATED AT 10500 GREAT PLAINS
BOULEVARD, ADMIRAL WASTE MANAGEMENT.
Sharmin Al -Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Scott: If you were to rate the intensity of use over the, let's say the last 12 months, what's
your best guesstimate as to the intensity of that use with regards to the number of containers
' that are stored there on the average? Do you have a feel for that?
' Al -Jaff: The maximum I have been able to count on there has been 58. It has never gone
beyond that.
Scott: Why the extra 100?
Al -Jaff: I think the applicant should answer that question at this point.
' Scott: Well since we're not having a public hearing, this will be a good time to do it so.
' Bill Griffith: Mr. Chair, Planning Commissioners, my name is Bill Griffith. I'm an attorney
representing Admiral Waste. What we've discussed on site was essentially what is required
to screen the containers, whether it be 58 or 140 or 200. The topography provides essentially
' a buffer to the north. The existing vegetation provides screening year round because of it's
density and intensity around the area. And so what is being provided now is a 150 foot fence
' at 6 to 8 feet in height and the addition of the spruce trees provides a break in the look of
that linear screening method. What we discussed is whether the applicant could come back at
a future time and say, based on experience, we've got 140 out there now. There are still 2 or
' 3 rows left, in which we could provide dumpsters based upon that. Showing pictures or
whatever type of documentation would be acceptable. Could we obtain essentially an
I Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
amendment of the deferment. That's what we desire. I think in fact the city code allows the
' applicant to come in, amend a permit and where it complies with the standards for approval,
obtain an amendment for that permit. That's all that we're discussing. It really is a statement
of what's allowed by code. We wanted to see a clear statement as there is in the, I think the
' last condition. For instance it states, the applicant may request an extension of the interim
use permit prior to it's expiration. Similar to that kind of statement which is a statement of
essentially the obvious that we can't request an extension. No guaranteed implied. We
' wanted to say that the applicant can request additional dumpsters if they demonstrate those
dumpsters can be screened and that's what this full exercise is about. Demonstrating that we
can screen the dumpsters which are now located on the property and those that are capped at
' 140 today and maybe at some number in the future. That's essentially what we discussed.
Scott: Any questions for the applicant?
' Ledvina: Did you look at how many dumpsters can actually, physically fit in that area? In
terms of putting the dumpsters there. Maneuvering them. Having access to a large type of
' truck vehicle and things like that.
Bill Griffith: The plan which has been submitted to the staff would provide the ability to
' locate the 140 dumpsters. Today there are 4 rows, or there have been 4 rows. Again, they
reduced the number of dumpsters down 20 to 58. We certainly know that 58 could be
' allowed.
Ledvina: What's the size of the dumpster? The dimension of the dumpster.
' Bill Griffith: I don't have that.
' Nancy Lee: They're about...
Ledvina: 1 1/2 to 10?
' Nancy Lee: They go anywhere from 1 1/2 foot deep to 10 to 12 foot deep, depending on
the ... diagram in that demonstrates when I put in these dumpsters, utilizing 12 foot dumpsters.
Ledvina: I'm sorry, could you say that again?
' Nancy Lee: Sharmin has the ... the southwest corner.
Ledvina: Right, I see that but.
F
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994 1
1
Nancy Lee: ...is a 5 x 4 foot...
Ledvina: Right, I see that. But I guess what I'm thinking about is they all, you know they
all pack in there nice but that's not, it doesn't seem to me the logistics of getting the things in
and out. Are you literally packing them in there tight and how do you get equipment in that I
area to.
Nancy Lee: ...dumpsters you use the back of the truck. You back up so you can hook it up ,
to the back of the truck. Obviously we park the dumpsters in line so all we have to do is
back up to it and take it away. Obviously we can't get the dumpsters at the very back end.
We utilize those in the front first. ,
Bill Griffith: Maybe I can get to the point of your question. The experience has been that 58
dumpsters in loosely aligned rows, because these were aligned before this issue arose. 58 '
dumpsters in 4 rows at 100 feet fits comfortably on the property and allows for a truck to
come down and move it around. Based upon the discussions with city staff, we've increased
the width of the area to 150 feet. That's the width of the, or the length of the fence. And '
the number of rows, because of the concerns about screening, are more closely spaced and the
rows are now, 12 are shown on the plan but if you have 10 let's say at 150 feet, you could '
comfortably get in the 140 dumpsters and we would maybe at that point come back a year or
two from now and say, can we increase the number. But it's been demonstrated that they can
fit within the area shown on the plan. '
Mancino: Yeah, it hasn't been demonstrated to me yet. Don't we require a site plan as we
do on any subdivision, any building site where we can see that the trucks can get in off '
Highway 101? I mean I went there and I was very concerned about big trucks getting into
and onto that site. And I haven't seen a site plan that shows that the trucks can get in and
out. And I haven't seen a site plan that shows us exactly where the 140 dumpsters will go ,
and if the and if the land is graded. I haven't seen any grading plan or anything. Do we
require that? There hasn't been any physical, visual thing for us to look at, at all. For the
last, boy this started, we requested an actual landscaping plan, let's see. We met in June t
about this. We met in July about it and now we're meeting in August about it and we
haven't seen anything.
Scott: It's also unfair to have us react to something that's not in our packet. So it's very '
difficult for us. I mean fortunately you've had a chance to meet with the applicant and stuff
but as a Planning Commission, I mean we don't have the benefit of those conversations. Nor ,
do we have the benefit or did we have the benefit of what you have and it's very difficult for
us to make a decision in a span of 10, 15, 20 minutes on something like this, so. I don't
know how you want to respond to that. '
3 �
i Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
Al -Jaff: I believe there are conditions in the staff report, and we have amended some of
' those conditions as well. We haven't had a chance to go through them yet but with the
conditions in the staff report, we believe that we will achieve the desirable results.
' Scott: What about the, I noticed that there's some, a number of trees to be planted along the
railroad right -of -way. Will that impart any screening benefit to the residents or from what I
know of the area, that's fairly steep. There may be 40, 50 feet above the property.
Al -Jaff: It won't, we won't get any benefits in the near future, no.
' Scott: What, and the reason for planting the trees along the railroad grade is for future
eventual screening for the people on the bluff?
' Al -Jaff: Correct.
Scott: Okay.
' Mancino: Dave, how do ou feel about big trucks entering TH 101 and coming off TH 101
Y g g
in that area? I mean it's one, hard to find. The entrance. I went there two different times
' looking for it and yet there was, when you're coming down that hill, it's right on the top of
the hill going down to 212. And you don't see anything coming out of the east side there...
' Do you have any thoughts?
Hempel: Yes, TH 101 is a curvy road in that area. There probably are some sight
' considerations to be concerned with. It's my understanding ... it has been accessed in the past.
Mancino: But we're intensifying the use. We're going to have more traffic there because
' we're going to have more dumpsters.
Hempel: The other consideration I guess is TH 101 is a State highway and MnDot would
' have jurisdiction of the access. There probably could be the most concerns from a liability
standpoint... necessary site improvements. There's traffic control signs to be placed and truck
hauling signs and similar to that that could be posted on TH 101 ... the potential is there.
' Mancino: Because those trucks, I would think move pretty slow as they're getting ready to
turn and somebody coming down that hill. The other thing is, as I remember it's gravel into
' there. The roadway off TH 101 is gravel. Don't we require, I know that we do in a
residential areas, where you need driveways to be asphalt, 7 ton and MnDot requirements, etc.
Is there?
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
Hempel: We do for two reasons. One is for emergency access. All weather, in the winter
time conditions, spring thaw conditions. The other is from an erosion standpoint. Hilly
terrain. There's not adequate site drainage to the site... potential to have erosion problems
there but I think that site's been there for some time. I'm not aware of any kind of erosion
problem. I haven't been made aware of anything yet to date. If I'm not mistaken, we did
have a site plan at one time for this that did show either existing or proposed conditions.
And we did have some remarks with regards to that site plan. At this time I don't think...
Al -Jaff: Another thing we like to have... emergency access. There really isn't anyone living
on this site. So that's something... There is some very minor, minor erosion. It's not even
erosion. It's more of a pothole in the entrance as you go into the site.
Mancino: So you would not recommend paving it as we do residential driveways?
Al -Jaff: Yes.
Mancino: Okay.
Scott: Any other questions or comments for staff or the applicant?
Al -Jaff: Could we, if I may, go through some conditions that need to be amended.
Scott: Sure.
Al -Jaff: On condition number 1. It should read, the applicant shall demonstrate. No, we
take out the applicant shall demonstrate that the submitted landscaping screening plans will
provide adequate screening year round. But it will read, all final plans shall be approved by
staff. The fence and landscaping shall be constructed and planted prior to October 22, 1994.
We originally chose the September 15th because that's the DOT deadline for landscaping.
However, you can plant trees beyond that date and that's what the applicant requested and we
can work with that. And condition number 5. This condition has been satisfied. When we
went to the site we noticed that the compost materials had been removed. We also would
like to add a condition to read that, the applicant shall replace any dead trees within one year.
Or anything that dies within one year shall be replaced. Any new planted trees.
Mancino: Anything on the property that dies.
Scott: Also there should be a condition here that storage of compost materials, tires or plants,
it says furniture or other refuse, shall not be stored on this site. And I don't know, I'm
looking at the July 11 t version.
5
1
F
77
I
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
Al -Jaff: Okay. We made a change to condition number 6 to read only empty dumpsters may
be stored on the site.
Scott: Okay, thank you.
Mancino: Did you want to say anything about MnDot? Oh, you have got that.
Al -Jaff: We do have that condition.
Mancino: Yes, on 4. And how do you feel about the length of the term shall not exceed 10
years? Weren't we also talking about Sharmin last time, not only should it be terminated
within one year of inclusion of the site within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area, but
according to the study, 1995 plan. How that's guided. Didn't we say something about that
last time?
Ledvina: Are you saying that we should tie that into that?
Mancino: Yes.
Scott: Tie the use.
Ledvina: That's open ended.
Mancino: Tie the use into that. Oh, but then we were concerned with.
Mancino: Well, so are all of these.
Al -Jaff: I believe that was the amendment of the BF district. The zoning ordinance
amendment would apply then rather than this specific application.
Scott: Any other comments or questions? Matt.
Ledvina: Well, I don't know. I don't care to be surprised when it comes to these meetings
as it relates to what we have. You know I specifically, I asked last time that we have the
applicant demonstrate on paper that x amount of dumpsters can be fit in the screened area and
that they shall screen from all sides. I don't know, I don't have a very good level of comfort
that I see enough information to tell me that. I hate to say come back again and show us
your plan. Let's see that plan in a little more detail. The contours on all sides because
essentially, I mean you've said that yes. There's plantings there. There's trees but I'm not
necessarily convinced of that because I haven't seen a detailed plan of that. I guess I'm still
2
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994 1
I
not comfortable with moving this along at this point. I think the applicant is on the right
track certainly in terms of finalizing this thing but I'd like to know what I'm voting on and I
don't have that level of comfort yet.
Al -Jaff: Do you feel that condition number 6 addresses that concern? Or shall be limited to '
the number that can be adequately screened.
Ledvina: Well, I'd like to know that going in up front. I think we can turn everything over '
to the staff but then at that point you know, what's our role. I think we need to, it's my
understanding of the role that we want to make sure that the conditions of these types of
permits are adequate. That the site plans are adequate and I don't have that level of comfort. '
Scott: Okay, Nancy.
Mancino: Gosh, I uess I kind of feel the same way as Matt. I think that the applicant is in '
g Y PP
the right direction and I'm glad that staff and the applicant met to go over a landscape plan. '
Something that we've been requesting but I agree with Matt. We did ask to see a layout of
the dumpsters and egress and ingress points and how that all works and I would feel much
more comfortable waiting to see that. ,
Scott: Okay, Jeff.
Farmakes: I won't argue with that. Obviously a time limit in there and... In general I'm not '
wildly enthusiastic about expansion of those uses. I go back to the mining issue that we had
here many times. That's a pretty big percentage of expansion. Currently under the rules and ,
regulations that we have, that's allowed but I go back again to the planning issue. I think it's
enough property probably to live with that amount of dumpsters. But I think it might be a
bad precedent for what we're doing. Or something at least to look at. And if they're going ,
to study this for long term, next year or in the next season, I think that that's a good thing. I
think we should do that. I think we should come to a conclusion as to what they're going to
do with those businesses. We're going to permit that type of expansion... '
Mancino: I had a question for Sharmin. When we conditional use with Barbara Dacy. I
think when she was Planning Director. When the conditional use was first given to the '
applicant. How many dumpsters? Wasn't it 50 at that time? Was there a limit?
Al -Jaff: It was going to be enclosed within a building. There was supposed to be a building ,
on this site. It was completely enclosed.
Mancino: So that the dumpsters were going to be inside the building. Was that it? Or was '
i Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
�I
the building for some other maintenance reasons? Or was the thinking at the time that the
' dumpsters were all fitting inside the out building or the big?
Al -Jaff: There was supposed to be vehicles in the building as well. Nancy, were there
supposed to be vehicles as well as dumpsters?
Nancy Lee: Dumpsters were not going to be stored in the building.
Bill Griffith: Let me see if I can address the question please. I think the letter you're
referring to from, is it Barb Dacy? That's the planner at the time. Allowed for the
' temporary storage of 50 dumpsters on the property pending the development of the site. As
you may recall from earlier discussions, the City Council denied the request for an extension
of the conditional use permit. As you may also recall, our concerns is there are very limited
' uses in the BF district and the applicant has been using this property in the interim for the
storage of dumpsters. Essentially all they can use the property for because of limitations.
That is why we're in here for an interim use permit. And that is probably why you have
' some discomfort level with the amount of materials submitted or the level of detail. This is
not ... a conditional use permit for a permanent use. This is not a commercial building.
Something that you're maybe more familiar seeing at this Planning Commission level. This
' is an interim use permit essentially to install a fence to screen dumpsters on the property.
Maybe if we established that the existing number, 58 would be the cap for this round and
' install the improvements and demonstrate to staff in the next season that we can store more
on the property, maybe that would get us off of dead center. But as far as the level of detail,
we do not intend to hire a professional landscape planner to provide detail on a fence. It dust
' isn't going to be done for this level of use. This is an interim use permit. It's to store
dumpsters on the property and we believe through site visits and through documentation that
we've satisfied the city code and demonstrated that to city staff. I apologize and I'm sorry
' that hasn't been for 3 meeting brought your comfort level up but that's really where we're at.
So maybe to get off dead center, if we propose the 58 that have been allowed to this point
and demonstrate in the next season that we can store more. Once the improvements are there,
' maybe we can get this thing moved onto City Council. We have a season for construction
and we have a season for installation of plantings and any further delays may put us beyond
that season by the time we get out of City Council so that would be my proposal to move this
' thing along.
Scott: What do you guys think about that?
' Mancino: I would be glad with not intensifying a use and keeping it 58 and also the term of
the length being 5 years. Not 10 years as it says. For a interim use permit.
8
I1
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
Farmakes: I find that acceptable.
Scott: 5 years?
Mancino: And not intensifying the use and keeping the dumpster count at 58.
Farmakes: Sure.
Ledvina: Well, I think if we reduce the numbers and kept the, allow some plantings the same
that would bring about certainly 3 times the chance of that area being screened so that seems
reasonable to me in terms of that approach.
Mancino: And it doesn't intensify the traffic on TH 101 and it allows.
Scott: How many, in your report, how many conditions do you have? You're working off
the July 11th? I just want to make sure what I'm putting in.
Al -Jaff: July 28th.
Scott: May I have a motion by the way.
Mancino: Yeah, I move that the Planning Commission approve the Interim Use Permit #94 -1
for outdoor storage of dumpsters as shown on plans received July 7, 1994 with the following
conditions. Sharmin, could you please read the revised number 1?
Al -Jaff: Okay. A final landscaping plan shall be approved by staff. The fence shall be
constructed and the landscaping shall be planted prior to October 22, 1994.
Mancino: And could you just add in that the 46 trees so we have a count as to what the
landscaping is made up of.
Al -Jaff: 46 spruce trees.
Mancino: And how tall? 6 feet?
Al -Jaff: The applicant has purchased the trees at 1 1/2 feet tall. They have been planted.
Bill Griffith: The number is 42. They have been planted and they are, the trees are not
providing the screening.
1
L
n
i Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
Al -Jaff: At the site, Nancy mentioned that they have been planted on her site.
I Nancy Lee: No. They're not planted.
Al -Jaff: I misunderstood. They are 1 1/2 feet high and they are.
Mancino: And they are, I mean the reason why we, they're planting 46 frees is to break the
' horizontal line, right? I mean isn't that what we were told. And the fence is going to be 8
feet tall, because it can screen more dumpsters being 8 feet tall. And now we're going to
have 1 1/2 feet trees. I'm going to stop and can we go back to the discussion on that?
' What's our ordinance say as far as landscaping and? Don't we have a minimum coniferous
size?
5
Al -Jaff: 6 feet.
Mancino: 6 feet, okay. So if we are asking for landscaping and we do have a minimum city
size, thank you.
Elliott Knetsch: If I may be allowed. You've seen my face at the last couple meetings. I'm
Elliott Knetsch from the City Attorney's office and I guess I just wanted to say to you that in
staff's opinion we've been looking at this for a long time. Obviously the level of submittals
is not on a par with what you might see for Goodyear's conditional use permit to put an auto
store on Highway 5. But the level of submittal is commensurate with the nature of the use
and this is a temporary use. It's an interim use. It will only last under this permit as
proposed for 10 years. It's basically a use that's existed out there since I think 1988 or '89.
And we have to ask ourselves, what can we ask them to do. What kind of investment can we
ask them to make in return for a 10 year use of the property. And they've been somewhat
struggling with this property. Their plans, it was proposed back in '89 or so for a conditional
use didn't come off and now we are left with a zoning district that provides zero permitted
uses as it stands right now for that property. There's not one thing they could come in and
get a site plan and do out there.
Mancino: We just passed.
Elliott Knetsch: Again that's, you recommended at the last meeting that we increase those
permitted uses but that's not on the books yet. That still has to go to the City Council. I
would suggest trying to make a decision tonight. If you feel that you just can't approve it,
then I think you should make that recommendation. But if you can, if you do think the use
can work out there with the conditions as outlined by staff, I think that's what should happen
tonight. The applicants are here as far as some of your specific questions about trucks getting
10
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
in and out. I think they have provided a great deal more detail. We know where the storage
area is going to be. It's outlined on their site plan so dumpsters won't be stored willy nilly ,
all across the property. She's got a boxed in storage area there behind the fence. That's the
only place a dumpster could go. The tree issue. They are not for screening. They are to
break up the fence. They're 1 1/2 to 2 foot high spruce which if any of you have them '
know, they grow fast. You know within just a couple years. They will be very noticeable
against that fence. If they aren't originally. Again, the site has a lot of vegetation on it.
There's a bluff coming up from Highway 212 which provides some natural screening and a '
natural barrier in addition to the fence and so forth. So I guess what I really wanted to tell
you is, it's apparent from these last three meetings that you're somewhat frustrated by the ,
level of submittals and the information and then today you get something that's not in the
report and that's certainly understandable but I guess our request, and the applicant's request
is that you make a decision tonight one way or the other and state your reasons for that. ,
Thank you for letting me speak.
Scott: Thank you. Motion? I
Mancino: I'll try this one again. I move that we approve the Interim Use Permit #94 -1 for
outdoor storage of dumpsters as shown on plans received July 7, 1994 with the following
conditions. And Sharmin if you could state that again, and I would like to add, in specifics
'
there if you could, that the fence be 8 feet in height and there are 46 trees be in varying
height from 1 1/2 feet to 6 feet.
'
Scott: Is there a second?
'
Mancino: Oh, and the other one. Then number 2 stands as is. The hours of operations.
Number 3, there shall be no outdoor speaker system stands as is. Number 4 stands as is.
Number 5 we can delete?
'
Al -Jaff: Correct.
,
Mancino: Number 6. The number of dumpsters shall be limited to a number that can be
adequately screened, not to exceed 58 dumpsters. And retain only empty dumpsters may be
stored on the site. Number 7 remains as is. Number 8, the length of the term shall not
'
exceed 5 years. And the rest remains as is. And number 9, Sharmin could you please.
About the applicant shall replace any new trees that die within one year.
,
Al -Jaff: Correct.
Ledvina: I'd second that.
,
11 1
' Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
Scott: It's been moved and seconded. Unless there's any discussion.
' Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded that the Planning Commission recommend to
approve Interim Use Permit #94 -1 for the outdoor storage of dumpsters as shown on
' plans received July 7, 1994, with the following conditions:
1. A final landscaping plan shall be approved by staff. The fence shall be 8 feet in
height with 46 trees of varying height from 1 1/2 feet to 6 feet constructed and the
landscaping shall be planted prior to October 22, 1994.
J
u
2. Hours of operation shall be from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and
9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Saturday. Work on Sundays and holidays is not permitted.
3. There shall be no outdoor speaker system.
4. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of the Minnesota Department of
Transportation.
5. The number of dumpsters shall be limited to a number that can be adequately screened,
not to exceed 58 dumpsters. Only empty dumpsters may be stored on the site.
6. There shall be a yearly review of this site to ensure compliance.
7. The length of the term shall not exceed 5 years. The use shall be terminated within one
year of inclusion of the site within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area or if conditions
of approval have been violated, whichever comes first. The applicant may request an
extension for the interim use permit prior to it's expiration.
8. The applicant shall replace any of the new trees that die within one year.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
12
e
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994 1
I � I
PUBLIC HEARING:
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 46.5 ACRES INTO 36 RURAL SINGLE '
FAMILY LOTS AND ONE OUTLOT, HALLA'S GREAT PLAINS GOLF ESTATES,
LOCATED SOUTH OF COUNTY ROAD 14 (PIONEER TRAIL), AND WEST AND
EAST OF HIGHWAY 101 (GREAT PLAINS BLVD), DON HALLA.
Public Present:
Name Address
Mike Lynch
17003 Sherwood Road, Millac, MN
,
LaVi Lynch
925 Creekwood
Paul Martin
9610 Foxford Road
Wayne Kinion
9451 Foxford Road
Steve McMeen
9391 Foxford Road
Doug Rynda.
David & Sharon Gatto
9411 Foxford Road.
9631 Foxford Road
,
Mark D. Halla
770 Creekwood
Sandy and Don Hall
Roger Anderson
6601 Mohawk Trail, Edina
7415 Wayzata Blvd, Mpls.
,
Dale & Peggy Gunderson
845 Creekwood
Deborah Graffunder
Jim & Jan Sabinski
10001 Great Plains Blvd.
775 Creekwood
'
Rick Schuelke
10251 Great Plains Blvd.
James Dingel
9351 Foxford Road
Karen Hasse
630 West 96th Street
'
Claire & Anne Vogel
815 Creekwood
Spencer Boynton
777 Creekwood
'
Sharmin Al - Jaff presented the staff report.
Mancino: Can I ask one more question.
Is that even if it's in a mixed use area? Because
this is, it seems to be a residential subdivision around a commercial retail area. So does, how
does that work?
'
Al -Jaff: The retail area is an existing use. It's grandfathered in. They're not expanding the
use.
'
Mancino: And that area, the acreage that
that takes up is part of the aggregate of the
subdivision? Is that included in the aggregate because you've got two different uses? Okay.
'
13 1
i Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
Al -Jaff: That's
at s part o the 102.
Scott: Because I know the smallest lot I think is 60, 30,000 square feet. Something like that.
Mancino: Well I just thought the whole aggregate would just have to do with the
subdivision. The residential and wouldn't include a retail/commercial area with inside.
' Scott: Well that raises a question. So basically the existing use will continue and then there
will be 60,000 to however many thousand square foot lots around it. Is kind of what you're.
Mancino: Yeah. My question is, can you really consider, both because we've never used it
as one whole unit when part of it's residential subdivision. And another part's a retail. A
whole different kind of use. And isn't the aggregate for the 1 unit per 2.5 acres a residential
subdivision requirement which has nothing to do with the retail area. Commercial area.
Don Halla: I'm sorry but I'm Don Halla. I think you're interpreting it backwards. Your
ordinance 2 1/2 lots per 1 acre rather than 1 lot per 2 1/2 acres which comes to 15,000 square
foot is the minimum lot size. Then there's other restrictions. I believe that's in the
ordinance.
David Gatto: May I say, I'm David Gatto and 1 represent the.
Scott: Well, wait a second. Wait a second. No. Planning Commission staff.
Al -Jaff: Okay. The ordinance right now allows an overall density of 2 1/2 acres. One unit
per 2 1/2 acres. You may reduce the size of the lot, as long as they would maintain the
overall density.
Scott: Then in the calculations the lot that will contain the existing retail, I'll say retail
business is included as a lot.
Al -Jaff: Correct.
' Scott: The outlots are also included as a lot from a standpoint of density calculations.
Al -Jaff: Right.
Mancino: It doesn't matter what their uses are?
1 Al -Jaff: Correct.
1 14
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
Mancino: Okay. Thank you.
Sharmin AI -Jaff continued with her staff report.
Mancino: I just have one more, if I can ask. Thank you Sharmin. And that is, this is guided
for residential large lot. So that means residential large lot is 1 unit per 2.5 acres. Is that
correct?
AI -Jaff: That's correct.
Scott: The question is, is that the density? Are we talking guided for a specific density or
guided for a minimum lot size or both.
Al -Jaff: That's grandfathered in.
Aanenson: Right now it's currently, as you recall, we have not... Right now we say 1 per 10.
If you recall that in 1987 we changed, based on the Met Council, they didn't want urban
sprawl, to allow 2 1/2 acre lots. So we went back and changed that based on the Met
Council's 1 per 10. Recently the Met Council said, that's creating some sprawl in a different
way so what we said is you can have, you can go as small as 15,000 square feet as long as
you could provide 2 drainfield sites in that septic. So if you have 40 acres and wanted to
cluster 4 units, you could do that. As small as 15,000 square foot lots as long as you provide
services. So when services do become available, we don't have the sprawl. And that's a
separate issue from this. What Sharmin is saying is we're going by the grandfather rights
that were given to them by the City Council at the 1 per 2.5 so that's what we're operating
under. He was given extensions by the City Council. So they're two separate things. The 1
per 2, the old pre -'87 which he is operating under.
Mancino: And now my question is, in the future we have several large lot developments.
We have Timberwood and we have lots of them around the city and we passed an ordinance
that says that those must stay 2 1/2 acres. They can't subdivide into 15,000 square feet.
Aanenson: The reason for that is preserving the integrity of those rural areas. If they all
want to come in and petition the city as a group to change. What we don't want is to have
individuals within there splitting off where people have bought into a rural atmosphere and
that sort of thing. So that's the intent of this.
Mancino: And you need 100% participation? Or close to.
Aanenson: Whatever the Council decides is appropriate.
15
0
r
C
J
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
Mancino: Okay. And is that the same here?
Aanenson: No. Again, we want underneath, what he was given as an extension from the city
and that's what he's still pushing to ... Again, the rule change. He still was given an extension
of the old rules and that's what we're operating under.
Mancino: So you could go in and subdivide at the time the MUSA line moves, you could
subdivide this further?
Aanenson: Yes. If sewer and water is available... Part of why this got delayed is we were
looking at, there was the small lots and the 15,000 and we did look at that-looking at some
other ways that this could be platted under small lots and clustering could be provided. That
was one reason why...
Mancino: So this is the only large lot subdivision that could be further divided into 15,000
square foot?
Aanenson: Well all of them could if they petitioned the city and it's inside the MUSA.
Outside, I mean if there were other subdivisions in the city that have larger lot and sewer and
water becomes available and they request the city, can we go smaller. Could we split up our
property when sewer and water becomes available, we certainly would look at it.
Mancino: My only concern about this is, is you have a subdivision and it's right now 1 to
2.5 acres and you have some people obviously who want to further subdivide and some who
don't and they bought into it thinking it was very rural and large lot, etc. And then you have,
I mean we'll hear years and years here, you have some homeowners who want to come in
and subdivide.
Aanenson: You're talking about the people that lie in the Golf Estates?
' Mancino: Yeah.
Aanenson: Well again the same issue. We did put the same condition. You know the
' Council—looking at a rural—and leave it that way until the entire subdivision to further
subdivide.
Mancino: Okay.
Farmakes: Do some of these developments have private covenants that preclude subdivision.
Is this particular one in front of us considering that or is that?
16
l
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
Al -Jaff: We're not aware of any private covenants.
Farmakes: We talked at one time about looking at this problem and looking at ghost platting
in the event that these are subdivided. So what type of development we'd actually wind up
with rather than having piecemeal. Wondering if that went anywhere.
Aanenson: Well that was one of the options. We looked at doing clustering septic systems
with this plat and we looked at doing 15,000. Whether or not you could find acceptable
drainfield sites. So some lots ... as far as maintaining the density that was given to him and
trying to cluster it. It seems like this would be the best way to go.
Scott: Any other questions? Okay. Dave, do you have any comments?
David Gatto: Yes, we have quite a few.
Scott: Excuse me, Dave Hempel. Sorry.
Hempel: Mr. Chairman, not really at this point. I'm open for questions. The staff report
should explain our concerns.
Al -Jaff: Mr. Chairman? Steve Kirchman is with us today if there are any questions on the
septic systems and how they operate. He will be available to answer your questions.
Scott: Okay. Steve would you, we've received some letters from, well why don't I just say,
do you have any comments you'd like to make at this time about the project?
Kirchman: No. Staff report pretty much says all I need to say so, if all those conditions that
were requested in the staff report are met, then we're going to be okay with it.
Scott: Okay, good. Thank you. Can I have a motion to open the public hearing please?
Mancino moved, Farmakes seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was opened.
Scott: If anybody would like to speak about this particular issue. Or excuse me, we need to
hear from the applicant first. I'm sorry about that. Would the applicant like to speak? And
please give your name and your address and have at it.
Don Halla: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Ladies and gentlemen of the Planning Commission.
Neighbors and members of the community. I'm Don Halla. I live at 6601 Mohawk Trail,
17
1
i
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
Edina, Minnesota. I have been in business since 1962 on the property in question. We
purchased the property back in 1.962 as a family landscape nursery operation and grew trees
to sell them retail to the public. And we have been serving the community of Chanhassen
ever since then. It is a family business. We support many of the families in the community
who work for us. Some in landscaping and raising plant material. Back in 1986 we came to
the city to discuss I guess the changes in the ordinance which was taking us from 2 1/2 acres
for 1 lot to 10 acres. They put a period of time there for people to bring their plans and plots
in order to meet this criteria and we did. We had the benefit ever since then to follow all the
directions of the city and to maintain that window that we—that they left open and be
accepted and subdivided their property at that point in time. Based on that subdivision that
took place in 1987, I purchased all the property from my brother... nursery business. And I
have been the sole owner of the property and the nursery since then. I've been working on
the premise though since 1962. Back in 1972 we also moved our total operation which was
located in Edina out to this site and have been operating 100% of the total business from this
site. Back in 19, we were approved for 37 lots to be put on this site. We do have that on
preliminary approval still standing. I guess that preliminary approval, which was shown
earlier, could in fact be enacted today and we could go to that layout. But back in 1992 I
was ready to do something and I came into the city staff and talked to Paul Krauss and we
were working with Jo Ann Olsen and Paul requested us to change what we had approved. He
said that he felt that it was very poor land use for the city. He didn't think that the two
developments that had developed to the north and east of us were working well as far as the
city was concerned for use of land. So at that time he said that he would like to see us
change the size of the lots and do it for 1/3 of one acre size. We hired Roger Anderson and
we redeveloped this property and came in with a plot that we presented to staff. To meet the
criteria that the then plan person asked us to do. By going through the city staff, they
decided they didn't want that. They decided they wanted the lots to be bigger for many
different reasons. So now we're back to really a 2 1/2 acre plan again. I believe it ... that was
pre - approved or we could go with this new one. We have had communications with the city
saying we want to maintain it but we can still do that originally approved 2 1/2 acre lot plan.
...good use as the one we had basically a year ago now. I don't think it's ... being in the
landscape business and being involved in landscape architecture and in fact I have a daughter
in law who was involved with city planning and park commissions out in Baltimore who is a
landscape architect ... I do not feel that we're necessarily using the best use of this land but we
have been farming it as a nursery business for many, many years. But we are now meeting
that criteria of larger lots. The 2 1/2 acres. I personally... There's become a question about
septic sites and that's why we're back to 2 1/2 acres. I don't believe there's been any
failures of septic sites on this land or any other land right adjacent to us. We have irrigated
this land in growing nursery stock and so on and yes, we have ... certain areas. They also
found in the unirrigated areas that the ... model was somewhere between 4 and 7 feet. So
where we haven't caused the modeling by our growing of nursery stock which changed the
I:
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
I
chemical make up of the soil, it appeared there is very good septic sites throughout the site.
Anyway, this is where we're at.. We're back to the 2 1/2 acres. We're back to where we
'
were in basically 1987 with a little bit different layout. And we want to do what's fair for
the community. That's what I've always said. That's why I went to talk to Paul. What
would the community like? What would the city like? And he asked us to make those
changes. We were asked to make a change again so now we're back at this point. And if
this is what the city wants, then that's what we'll do. If it's the first 2 1/2 acres that's
approved, then that's what we'll do. We're not trying to plague anybody. We're not trying
'
to create any problems. This is my retirement. I still plan to be in the nursery business there
for a period of time. I don't plan on moving out. That's why we're keeping that 11 1/2
acres in the center. We will continue to grow plants and continue in the nursery business
'
there. That is our intention. There are many things though that are requested in this go
around which make the development... cost prohibitive... From my standpoint, in farming the
land for this length of time, there's a few things that would be impossible to do. Pushing
t
water uphill. Changing and redoing Highway 101. Some of the things like that which I
believe are requested by the State before. — personally seen the reports that say... In any case,
if this is the use that the community would like to see, and it is over 2 1/2 acres per lot at
t
this point, then we're happy to go along with that ... but in all sincerity, I don't think it's what
any of us...Thank you.
'
Scott: Any questions for the applicant? Is there anyone else on your development team or
anyone else you would like to have speak?
'
Don Halla: Yes, Mr. Roger Anderson. I just would like to show the layout that was done if I
may, sorry. That was done for the interim one we were requested to do... This was the
'
design that we were requested to do by Paul and basically was a clustering type design. At
this point in time we had also explored with him the fact that the lots would be close enough
so that you could put in the small sewer system to approve and meet EPA. Hook these
'
people up to sewer and have the system work as kind of a community sewer system. Paul
was in, he said he had seen it work and was in favor of that idea but I believe other members
of the staff were not in favor of that so therefore this design was scrapped and we went on
'
to ... subdivision. This was clustering only using the west half of the property and still meeting
all the criteria of lot size and so forth required by the city with the exception that what was
asked for was considerably larger septic systems between this development and what we have
,
now.
Mancino: I have a question Mr. Halla. On the west side you were clustering. What was '
happening on the east side then?
Don Halla: The east side was going to remain open. The east side was going to be open ,
19 1
I
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
land that would be used for nursery business for umpteen years... Somewhere in the
scuttlebutt too they wanted to develop it for a park. So it seemed like we were making,
working with the city and handling their situations and desire for putting a park in there and
at the same time obtaining the number of lots that could give me my retirement that I was
hoping for.
Mancino: Thank you.
Roger Anderson: Chairman and Planning Commission, staff and residents. My name is
Roger Anderson and I've done the design work for Don on this revised plat and the earlier
one that was submitted. The staff report that we received is very comprehensive and fairly
lengthy. There are quite a few issues regarding this property that needed to be addressed and
as indicated by the planning staff, we have been in discussions over quite a period of time
regarding all of these issues. Many of the things we talked about and the things we had to
look at regarding this plat were the results of those comments and suggestions from staff and
the input from Paul Krauss, who is not here right now but the plat has moved forward and I
think we've made good progress in coming to a result that we feel is good for the city. As
Don indicated, we think it gives us a little more land than would necessarily be required but
we're here tonight to present the plat and discuss it and deal with the issues that are before
us. To keep, since there are so many issues in the report, I wrote down our comments and
some broad categories that I will discuss. Hopefully briefly. If anyone has any questions
during the discussion of those categories, I'll be glad to answer questions. I think the history
and what I'll call the planning issues have been addressed fairly thoroughly. The history goes
back to when Don bought it in '62 and through the various changes in the plats that have
come since that time. I believe the report does say we're at 2.83 gross acres per lot and if
my math is correct, if we subtract out that outlot, we still are at almost 2.6 acres. If we take
out the nursery property which is about 11 1/2 acres, we're still in excess of that 2 1/2 acre
minimum. Also in the report I believe we meet the lot area, the setback requirements. There
are no various. No other requirements that we saw in the report that we did not meet. The
next issue that I'd like to address is the street layout. With the number of go arounds we've
had on this plat, we've had an opportunity to do quite a few things with the street layout and
look at several options. The plat Don showed you earlier showed the 35 lots on the westerly
side of the property and it showed that area connected to the road. With this presentation we
have not shown the connection on the north, from the south half. On the west side of TH
101 connected because staff has suggested that that probably would be a good idea. I believe
that is something we can incorporate. into the plat. There are some other street issues though
that I think we are concerned about. The primary one being a suggestion that a portion of
Highway 101 be reconstructed as a part of our platting process here and the development of
the land. Highway 101 through that area has some substantial curves and visibility problems.
There are a number of things there. And from the developer's standpoint, one particular issue
U
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
is brought up the hill just north of Creekwood Drive. Our concern is that we're being asked
to correct a single problem. A stretch of road that has a substantial number of problems. It ,
is not our, it's unclear if we can have access to that to even repair that road if it's still
designated as a State trunk highway. There's a resident, there's a house immediately to the
east of that hill and you can see the reason the hill is there because they did not want to ,
cause problems for that residence. If we go in or if anybody does, I believe there will be
some implications there. The whole issue of whether or not we can go in and work on TH
141 I think is one that needs to be resolved. In addition on the east side of the property, the '
suggestion was made that the private road along the south side of that parcel be the preferred
route for the road to serve Mr. Halla's property and I believe the suggestion was made based '
on the fact that there are a number of individual lots all served by this private road. We feel
our property best lays out the way that we've shown it with some possible minor revisions
and that forcing us to put the road in that location, where the private road is now, is certainly '
not in our best interest.
Scott: Excuse me, where is that? You're talking about the private road. You're not talking I
about Creekwood?
Mancino: Right here. I think it's on his property.
Don Halla: It goes right through here. On the south side.
Roger Anderson: And if I understand correctly, there are parcels south of that private road '
now that are served by that. It seems the best use of the property that we have to work with
is to put the roads in the locations that we've shown. We feel that obviously needs more
discussion and would involve a major revision to the plat obviously since the road ... about 300
feet. A further issue that I'd like to discuss briefly is the trees on the property. As Mr. Halla
indicated, it's been an active nursery for 32 years. There is some natural forested area on the '
northerly property line against the county road and the staff has suggested that that area
should be generally preserved as a tree preservation area. With the exception of the fact that
we feel there are some houses that should be placed in there, we can still maintain very '
adequate buffer between the county road of those houses. That seems to be an appropriate
use there. We do have and we do show grading in there to allow the construction of I
believe it's 4 houses along that bluff. They would be walkout houses encroaching no more t
than they had to obtain that walkout and with minimal impact on the natural vegetation in
that area. The remainder of the site is predominantly remnant trees from Mr. Halla's ,
operations and they're a wide variety of trees and sizes and some are pretty rough. Many of
them are beautiful trees and it's our intention to save and protect as many of those as we can.
One comment the staff made was that we didn't show any site grading on this particular site, ,
and there are a couple of reasons. One is the soil treatment systems that need to go in. And
21 '
I
i Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
the other was that we don't want to disturb any more of those trees than we have to. We
' wanted to keep the grading hopefully confined to the streets and the drainage areas and
restrict it pretty much to just those locations.
Mancino: I have a question Mr. Anderson. The staff has requested about the tree
conservation along the northwest side here. Along County Road 14. Is there any other area
in the subdivision that the staff has requested you preserve trees? Or is that the only tree
preservation area that staff has directed?
Roger Anderson: The only other area I'm aware of is to preserve I believe it's 3 trees in the
area of Pond B which is on the easterly end of the site. The storm sewer discharge. The
pond as I've shown it would impact those trees and they've asked that we make an
adjustment on that pond to save the trees and we'll be glad to look at that.
Mancino: Okay. So out of the whole 102 acres, staff has been pretty flexible about the
nursery stock but have asked that that one strip be part of the conservation?
Roger Anderson: That's my understanding.
Mancino: Okay. I just wanted to make sure. I have one other question about the private
road. Who owns that private road? Is that property that the parties on the north own and the
parties on the south? Who owns the private road that goes through there right now that is
accessing the other homes to the south?
Roger Anderson: I believe Mr. Halls has the best information on that.
Don Halla: That is owned by several properties on the south. We actually have a private
easement to use that strip of property which is 30 feet wide. It was granted to us in the
purchase of our property that we have a 30 foot easement on the south side, not on our
property but on another property which then has been subdivided since then and it's really
been they've had to get our permission to use that since it was a project given at that time.
There has been granted subject to restrictions within that easement that they have to do
maintenance. It also says in that easement that if it ever goes to a public road, that they have
to give up the additional 30 feet for it to be a public road. That's what the easement says.
On the south side. So it's all south of our property. That was a term in our buying the
property. They gave us 30 feet. If it ever went to a public road, they would get another 30
feet for it to be a public road. That's public record.
Mancino: Thank you.
22
l
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
Roger Anderson: The next area I'd like to address briefly is on the individual soil treatment
sites. A substantial amount of the information provided is regarding how this site would be
served. How we'd get mound systems in there. What the requirements may be and some of
this gets back to the history of where we've been and where we are now. The plat that was
submitted back in March with the 1 acre sites was reviewed by the staff and it was
determined at that time that the lots were a little bit too confined. They didn't allow the
flexibility orientation of access and a few other things that staff requested. And at that time
Mr. Halla suggested and requested that the city's consultant, Resource Engineering give us
some advice on where do we go with this plat. How can we get these mound systems in
here. They prepared a report in May of '94 and based on that report, we prepared the revised
plat that you see here. Their suggestions were basically to be very careful with orientation of
the mound systems. To allow for proper access. To allow adequate space for water supply
and wells that can't be too close to these systems. And they also pointed out particularly that
soils and site evaluation needed to be done for these sites. And that would include soil
borings and a look at the site by a soil evaluator. Site evaluator. As of this date, for this
specific plat we have not included those particular borings and that site evaluation. And our
reasoning is that we have redone this plat several times. There was a substantial expense in
having an evaluator go out and determine that these sites are adequate. And we've also got
some history out here. We had 70 borings approximately throughout the site in '86 and based
on that information all of the borings, with minor exception, show that the site was adequate
for the mound systems. And again in the fall of last year we had approximately 70 borings
done based on the previous plat you saw and with minor exceptions again, those borings
indicated that the site was acceptable. So based on that overall representation we felt fairly
comfortable with providing this plat for the city's review subject to a final review of these
sites and some potential adjustments, we expect there will be some, as a site evaluation is
done. But we didn't feel it appropriate, since it's changed a number of rimes, to spend that
money and then find, like we are finding right now, that... potential for a major redesign of the
east side in particular. So we're prepared to go ahead with that and Mr. Kirchman may have
some input on that.
Kirchman: ...getting done right.
Roger Anderson: The last issue is the drainage issue on this site. 102 acres is a big piece of
ground. We've got many types of drainage going on here and many different outlets. The
city's requirement refers to approximately 6 outlets. In my evaluation of the runoff, I believe
I came up with about 15. Many of them flows around the perimeter ... flow off by surface
water flow and they will continue to do that after the plat is constructed. But also there are
significant improvements on the interior of the plat including 4 additional, 3 additional ponds
and an upgrade to the one pond on the east end. Many culvert and surface drainage
improvements and also we've included the ponds to treat the water to NURP standards as
23
L
11�
I
I
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
suggested by the staff, which is a requirement to remove some of the nutrients and control the
runoff. So I think we've done a reasonably good job of addressing the runoff considerations
with the eye towards treat the water for phosphorous and no more of the water will run off
now than, or in the future than has right now and that's generally the guidelines we follow.
There are a couple of particular issues with the drainage that we're concerned about. The
existing nursery site, or the retained nursery site would be about 11 1/2 acres and I believe
indicated in the report, approximately 40 acres of the golf course to the west drains easterly
across Mr. Halla's property and into a pond that is behind the nursery and then under TH 101
and into a fairly deep ravine east of the highway. That's a substantial amount of water and
the city's storm water management plan reviews that information and layout and provides
storm water ponding there. But it seems to us the suggestion in the report that we reroute
that water and retain it and treat it as a part of this plat may be stretching things a bit. I
think that needs a look also where such a good portion of the golf course is coming through,
is it a reasonable expectation for Mr. Halla to have to provide for that with this platting. We
don't think so but we think there's some questions can be answered there. In addition, at the
northerly portion of this site, we're providing a pond for nutrient reduction that we feel can
stay in place and the staff had suggested. Now I'll point it out over here.
Mancino: What do you mean the existing one?
Roger Anderson: The water from that pond flows northerly into the wetland on the north
side of the county road. We provided a NURP pond there to treat the available runoff and
we feel that will do a reasonably good job up to NURP standards. The staff is suggesting
that Mr. Halla contribute to the long range pond construction fund of the city and we think
that needs a look to see what his actual obligation should be. And the other area is the red
circle which is Pond B on the right hand side which is the pond that was actually created,
how long ago Don?
Don Halla: Probably back at about 1970 through design and so forth the... stabilization work.
' Roger Anderson: Both the Pond B and the pond in the nursery were created as part of the
soil conservation service or the agricultural stabilization people and they have outlets in
design and parameters based on the information that they use and those ponds are in and
' working fine. The city has asked for some upgrades. I think we need, that was another
question we had. Just what has to happen there. So there are a lot of issues here. I haven't
hit all of them but hopefully as briefly as I could, hit the predominant things that we're
' concerned with and some of the things we're trying to do to get a good quality plat for the
city. With that I'll answer any questions that the Planning Commission members may have.
I Scott: Good, thank you.
24
'�J
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
Ledvina: Mr. Chairman.
haven't been submitted.
discrepancy?
The staff report indicates that the borings for the proposed sites
You've indicated that the borings have done. Can you clarify this ,
Roger Anderson: The borings have been done for two previous layouts and those are the,
there are 140 some borings that we have out on the site. For the exact configuration that we
have right now, we did not have a site evaluator go out and take brand new borings and do
the site evaluation for the reasons I explained earlier. We felt that we've been through
enough changes where if we spent the $5,000.00, whatever it was, already knowing that the
soil borings in general indicated there isn't a problem, and also knowing that the lots of this
size, if we do some minor adjustments in the location, extremely likely that we'll find a spot
that will function satisfactorily. We felt it was best to wait until we get the feedback from
the Planning Commission that we're on the right track as far as layout goes. Then we'd be
happy to provide the information.
Scott: ...what your answer was. The information exists but it has not been presented?
Roger Anderson: The requirement of the code is that the borings be taken at a certain
location with two borings in each one of the sites. And we have taken, as I indicated, 140
borings out there. Not precisely at that location but enough to get a good general feel for the
whole site.
Scott: So are the borings that have been taken that you have the information on, because the
lot lines have shifted or something like that inbetween plats, they no longer apply to the plat
that we have in front of us tonight.
Roger Anderson: That's correct.
Scott: Okay. I just wanted to make sure I understood that. Do you have any other
questions? Good. Is anyone else from the applicant wish to speak? Okay. Thank you.
Well we'll, can I have a motion to open the public hearing please?
Mancino moved, Farmakes seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was opened.
Scott: If anybody would like to speak about this issue, please step forward. Identify
yourself. Name and address and let us know what's on your mind.
David Gatto: Thank you Mr. Chairman, members. My name is David Gatto and I'm here
representing the Lake Riley Woods Homeowners Association. I've got some question and
25
k
1
1
I Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
some comments. I've got, there's a, I guess we want to make it clear to Mr. Halla that we
' don't oppose the development of the area but we've got a fairly unanimous petition here that
says that we absolutely want the lots to be 2 1/2 acres absent of all the funny math and all
the outlots and the various things going on. One can easily see, without even pulling out a
' calculator, that some of those lots are not 2 1/2 acres. And as a matter of fact, I did some
arithmetic and the average lot size, if you add up the lot square feet and divide by the number
of lots, you get 2.04 acres per lot. So not only can you just simply see that some of them
' aren't 2 1/2 acres but the average is substantially less than 2 1/2 acres.
Scott: Just the ordinance allows for outlots and.
' Aanenson: Well there's a gross and net. We may need to get some additional... but again
we're falling into ... was given so many units under that preliminary plat. Since that time
' we've allowed some flexibility as far as lot sizes go. He's got the same number of lots.
What he's done is he's clustered them differently.
' Scott: The ordinance allows for a minimum of 15,000 square foot lot. But the average
density is.
' Aanenson: He's still maintaining that. And that's what we're saying. He's still maintaining
the average density. It's just the.
' Scott: And the calculations allowed by the ordinance allow for the inclusion of outlots and
then the existing, the retail area as well as the growing range that will exist until some further
' time. I just wanted to make sure that we all understand what the ordinance is.
David Gatto: When you speak ordinances, are you talking about the present ordinance?
Let's clarify that now.
Aanenson: Okay, what we're saying is that he was given under this 1987 plat or '86 plat, he
was given so many units on so much acreage. Okay, that hasn't changed.
David Gatto: Alright, that's good because that first plat we were showed, that we showed up
' there from 1987 shows the outlot developed and my guess is that has a minimum lot size of 2
1/2 acres. That's all we're, in fact we've got petitions. We have petitions from 29 people in
Lake Riley Woods that we can submit and it says we respectfully petition that Halla Nursery
' should not be allowed to redevelop their property any smaller than 2.5 acres and that the
minimum square footage requirements of 14,000 square feet, that's housing, be established in
order to preserve the value of the properties surrounding Halla and maintaining aesthetic
' appearance of the neighborhood at the level adhered to when our homes were built. Okay, so
W
J
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
we've got that signed. And that's just the people in our association. Since then we've heard
of other folks and I believe some of them are here tonight ... talk to you, that live outside of
Lake Riley Woods. Lake Riley Woods is east of Highway 101, north of Pioneer Trail and
there's a horseshoe shaped road called Foxford Road. That's, and then there's a couple cul-
de -sacs. Also I'd like to know, and maybe the City Attorney's assistant can help me. How
long was the extension valid that Halla was given when the city grandfathered him in in
1986? How long was the extension valid for?
Al -Jaff: 5 years.
David Gatto: Okay, thanks. And I'd also like to comment that during, well just recently here
in 1994 this outlot that his retail establishment's on they did, I don't know if you want to call
it an expansion or an improvement but an additional retail outlet was built on that in 1994 so
I don't know all the particulars behind this grandfathering business but those folks have
improved that during that time and added a substantial development on there, what they're
calling their outlot and these folks are using that to determine some sort of an average density
and like I'm saying, there's some funny numbers going on there and we don't like that.
Okay. So and then I just want to move on. The staff report actually speaks to that problem
on page 2. The folks say that the two outlots shown on the plan contain the existing
businesses and residence. These outlots must be shown as lots. Allowing the outlots to
remain will create a non - conforming situation. I appreciate staff pointing that out. Septic
systems on a nursery, in Resource Engineering's report they've, I want to just, I know we all
got this report probably on Monday. Maybe some other people had it on Friday. I want to
point out some things. In Lake Riley Woods we are held to very strict standards on these
septic systems. As a matter of fact, some of us made the mistake of planting some trees not
right on the septic systems but near enough to septic systems where we raised some eyebrows
with the inspectors. And we had to move our trees, some trees as small, we had to move
some trees one foot in order to comply with the city ordinances. And so we appreciate the
strict controls that Steve and his people have on those septic systems. I heard Mr. Anderson
talk a little while ago and kind of pooh pooh some of Resource Engineering's report saying
well this is all in there and we've got information that says these septic systems will work
and what not. But Resource Recoveries got a couple good comments in here. On page 2 of
13 they say, there is adequate area for individual on site sewage treatment systems as
presented on the proposed plat. There are other factors which are equally important leading
to the conclusion that none of the lots as presented in the proposed plat are suitable. This is
in their initial summary. Summary and introduction part. On page 9 of 13, they talk about
the operations that the nursery had and they say the operation of the nursery may have much
more concentrated and machinery travel than a farm field would cross it such as corn,
soybean, hay, etc. are grown and harvested. If the soil profiles at a depth of 1 or 2 feet has
been ... or removed, that location is likely not suitable for installation of a sewage treatment
27
Cl
I Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
�II
I `J
mound. Areas where original soil have been removed and replaced by tree transplanting
' activities likely will not be suitable for the installation of a sewage treatment mound. And
they had another comment that, and I don't know whether Halla does this or not but where a
nursery operation can ... soil to a 3 foot depth to prune the roots of the trees, and they talked
' about that as creating a channel for the movement of soil water which isn't acceptable and
again I want to point out that when we had to establish the locations for our mounds and our
lots, the city was absolutely adamant that that land was virgin land. It's never been touched
' and to this day we can't plant, by ordinance, any trees or anything else on a secondary
sewage systems that have been planted and that's a tough deal to live by when you have a lot
out there and you're trying to shield yourself from Pioneer Trail and Highway 101 and some
of the other areas that are really clogging themselves up with traffic. It seems as though that
Halla has a history of ignoring some simple environmental conservation rules. Here on page
6 staff talks about Halla putting, and if the staff was familiar with this drainage basin.
' Apparently on the east side there's a drainage basin. In past dealings with the applicant in
securing a grading permit to fill in a portion of the downstream ravine, it appears the
applicant has been filling this ravine without the appropriate permit and with unacceptable
' materials such as landscaping debris and other materials that will settle over time and create
erosion and shear failures on the bluff. That's kind of damaging to Mother Earth and I guess
we're kind of surprised that a business such as Halla would engage in such a practice.
' There's another disturbing thing on page 11 where it talks about these folks haven't been,
they haven't been cooperating with some of the city staff. Attempts to evaluate the proposed
' plat clearly have been made but the applicant's failure to work with the City ISTS evaluator
makes thorough evaluation impossible at this time. You know, and I've heard what Mr.
Anderson said. Who is Paul Krauss? What's his position?
' Scott: Well he was the Planning Director.
' David Gatto: Oh, so he's gone now?
Scott: Correct.
' David Gatto: That's good. Because I was going to write a letter to the Mayor tomorrow. I
think it's absolutely outrageous what he asked these people to do and if he made that dense
' development on the west side of Highway 101, I'm going to, well he's gone but I think that's
absolutely outrageous that he told these folks to do that dense development. That had total
disregard for what all the other homeowners wanted in the area. That would have been, I
' don't know how many other people you would have here but I mean you can see how
interested we are when there's just the 2.04 acres. I suspect that in listening to what Mr.
Anderson was saying about all the reports and the hoops that he's had to jump through, that
' maybe this comment is because that happened. Also I haven't seen any comments in here
W:?
I�
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994 1
with regards to any kind of traffic studies or traffic impacts that may take place on Highway
101 and Pioneer Trail. I know that in the morning especially when everybody in our '
development has to turn east on Pioneer Trail, it's quite a chore because all the cars will stop
at the stop light on Highway 101 and Pioneer Trail and I don't know what they're doing but
it's really quite a chore to turn east there. If they were to keep that one road that's across
from our association not aligned the way they have it, I think that will complicate the
situation. So we appreciate the comment, if they do a development at all, to align their road
with Foxford Road. I think that's a real necessary thing but in addition, I'm surprised there's '
no comments about a traffic study or impact in here. We think that we see in here that the
applicant has provided $1,000.00 in escrow to pay for Resource Engineering and this process
has gone on since '87. Not only with the city but Resource Engineering and I guess we'd '
like to know how much Resource Engineering has cost the city now and how much additional
it may cost the city and maybe the applicant should be asked to pay additional funds if more
studies are required. We would like the City Attorney to look into this outlot business. It '
doesn't seem to be a valid use, as Nancy said, that an outlot can be used as a commercial
business in a residential area. That's kind of odd. It's clear additional exploration is needed
to determine the suitability of the land for septic systems and again, just in summary, the ,
Planning Commission should really table this issue while we clear up what this minimum 2
1/2 acre per lot business and get these funny numbers all out of the way. Again, we're not ,
opposed to development but we really would like to see that the 2 1/2 acre minimum per lot
upheld here. Thank you.
Scott: Thank you. Would anybody else like to speak at the public hearing? Yes ma'am. '
Deborah Graffunder: Hi. My name is Deborah Graffunder and I am the property owner that I
is directly east of Halla Nursery.
Scott: Could you give us your street address too please? I
Deborah Graffunder: Sure. 10001 Great Plains Blvd. I've lived across from the nursery for
15 years. It's my property where TH 101 has a sharp turn. I'm feeling, I wish my husband '
was here tonight. He's in Canada fishing and I can't even contact him but bear with me.
Mancino: Excuse me, could you show us where you live? I
Scott: Just point it out.
Deborah Graffunder: That's my property. We purchased the home 15 years ago ... privacy
I
and the space... extensively landscaped our home and our gardens. It's quite lovely. It's quite
park like. I have a big concern here. I've heard Don make reference as to this is his '
29 1
I Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
_J
retirement. Well this is our home. We plan on staying there another 5 years. All of our
' three boys have been born and raised there and I'm concerned that TH 101 is going to go
through part of my property or this private road is my road. It is on our property. There are
3 property owners. My husband and myself for the first stretch of the road. The next stretch,
David Teich which farms his 5 acres next to us. And—property owner. The Halla nursery
has an easement to use the road. I again don't mind having development either. I would
actually rather have some nice 2 1/2 acre home sites be there rather than living with the
' nursery and all that. I'm tired of the big trucks going down the road and the loud speaker.
You know I mean I just am. I just am. And so I'm not here to say I don't want this
development. Actually I wouldn't want mind it at all as long as it's done very tastefully.
' Lake Riley Woods is gorgeous. We wanted to move over there but we'd lose some of our
privacy and such. I just want to maintain my property and not have a public street bulldozed
by I think 70 some huge, gigantic Norway pines in front of my home that I've babied for 15
' years. Clipped around and ... I just had to get up here and say you know, who I am and my
situation. I guess that's it.
' Scott: Thank you very much. Anybody else like to speak? Yes ma'am.
Jan Sabinsky: My name is Jan Sabinsky and my husband Jim and I live on 775 Creekwood.
' And I just wanted to take this opportunity also to list some of the issues we have regarding
the proposed Halla addition. We too are not against the development if it's done in the
proper way and if the lot size is at least 2.5 acres. But we have some other concerns and we
' would just like those to be stated here tonight so that the Planning Commission can take them
into consideration. We would like to leave the street named Creekwood that we live on.
Since we've moved there about 21 years ago we've changed our address, or they've changed
' the address on us about 4 times and we don't, we're tired of ... all the people that send us mail,
that our address is being changed again. We would not like you to issue the building permits
' until the roads and streets are done. No construction traffic on Creekwood. I don't know if
you know the size of the Creekwood street but it's only about 20 feet wide. And there have
been big trucks that have made the wrong turn on that road. There have been other
' construction trucks on that road and that road isn't meant to take that kind of traffic. We
would not like to have any more out traffic on Creekwood. The Creekwood going out onto
TH 101 is very dangerous. Every morning any given person that comes off Mandan or
' Creekwood could get hit. It's very difficult to see towards your left when you're coming out
because of that hill. The paving of Creekwood was paid primarily by the homeowners. Halla
paid only for 3 lots. And if he's going to be putting some more property on there, I would
' like to see the other property owners get some refund on that. As I said before, Creekwood
is only 20 feet wide. It's too narrow for any hook and ladder fire trucks, if there should be
any fires. The water runoff from Creekwood goes into the ravine. Halla's have a pond
' across the road from us and I believe it goes under Creekwood into the ravine. The traffic is
30
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
backed up on County Road 14. You mentioned the traffic in the morning and you can't get
out onto CR 14. When we come home between 5:00 and 6:00 p.m., that traffic is backed up
for at least a mile. Or more sometimes. I too have a concern about the intercom system.
The intercom system is on at 7:00 a.m. every morning and is on until 10:00 p.m. or later.
They play music on the intercom system, which I don't appreciate. They have on occasion
run Bobcats right outside of our property from 7:00 a.m. until 10:00 or later. They have
some noisy peacocks that screech like a cat who's got their tail caught in a vice. It's very
annoying. Lack of fire station or equipment on the south side of Chanhassen for the size
houses that are being proposed. I understand that if there were any fires there, that they
would bring a fire truck with water tanks on them. And we don't believe that for those size
houses that are being proposed, that that's going to be adequate. There are no parks or place
for neighborhood children to walk or ride bikes on that narrow Creekwood street. A lot of us
walk on that road and it's very, very dangerous from the traffic from the golf course. I know
that's not Don's issue there but that road is, you can't have two way traffic on that street.
The commercial property, we're concerned, is mixed up with the residential area. I can't
believe that that's allowable. I mean to have that size of a commercial property and built up
all around with houses. They're going to back right up onto that property. I wouldn't want
to buy a house there. Concern about the chemicals that have been used by Halla running off
into the neighborhood wells. There are noxious weeds growing along the wildflowers on both
sides of Creekwood and the ravine area. I mean there's thistles and who knows what other
kinds of weeds growing there. We would like to see Creekwood closed from TH 101 and
make a new access on the south side of Halla's new shed. Why weren't the homeowners
notified of the change in plans for only 3 houses previously planned for coming onto
Creekwood? There have been several references to the park issue. I saw a sign on the staff
report that a little area that was indicated to say that it was a park. Is there anything more
that you can tell us about the park issue? Is there going to be some property designated for
parks, or a park?
Al -Jaff: The Park and Recreation Commission will be meeting on Tuesday to discuss this
specific issue.
Jan Sabinsky: Okay, Tuesday when?
Al -Jaff: August 9th. I'm sorry, tomorrow. No, this August 9th. Tuesday, yes.
Jan Sabinsky: Here at 7:30?
Al -Jaff: Yes.
Jan Sabinsky: Okay. And then is there any update on the plans for the golf course to
31
1
r
r
i Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
develop? We haven't heard anything about that. I know that might impact the development
and the current people that live in that area right now. Oh, okay. So you don't know what
they're planning on? No word whether they're going to do anything with that property? Sell
it or keep it or, okay. Thank you.
Scott: Good, thank you. Would anybody else like to speak? Okay.
David Gatto: Yeah Joe. You know I represent a lot of the people that are here.
Scott: Can you step up to the microphone so we can get it on the public record.
David Gatto: Joe, once again, I'm representing an association of Lake Riley Woods
homeowners and a lot of those people are the people that are out here in the audience and we
just wanted one speaker.
Scott: We appreciate that.
David Gatto: So if you look around and people aren't saying anything.
Scott: Yeah, we appreciate that.
David Gatto: And if I didn't say enough for anybody, but go ahead.
Scott: Well we appreciate that. It's important that we get citizen comment and we
obviously hear from applicants. We like to hear from citizens and it's especially appreciated
when it makes sense to have people speak on behalf of an association. Obviously people may
or may not be within an association that are always welcome to come in. I'd like to thank
you all for doing that. If there's no one else who would like to speak.
Roger Anderson: Could I briefly summarize for the applicant?
Scott: No. No. No. Please sit. Could I have a motion to close the public hearing please?
Farmakes moved, Mancino seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Scott: Comments, Jeff.
Farmakes: I had some concerns about the drainfields and ... seemed a little open ended to me.
I'd like to see those closed up.
32
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
Audience: Could you use the loudspeaker, we can't hear you.
Farmakes: Can you hear me? ,
Audience: No. I
Scott: You're as loud as it can go? Okay.
Farmakes: I'll just try to speak louder. I'm not quite certain, as I understand it, the 2 1/2 ,
acres is the average, correct? That's the way it's works. Maybe that could be explained or
that, you're referring to them as funny numbers. Sometimes they do appear to be funny
numbers but the way that the ordinances are set up and the way that the situation with the
development of the city between the applicant and the city, they use a formula.
David Gatto: Jeff, I read the ordinance...
Scott: Excuse me. The public hearing is closed. ,
David Gatto: Well then the City Attorney ought to speak to it because the city ordinance I
says minimum 2 1/2 acres per lot. I read it the day before yesterday.
Farmakes: That's correct but as I understand, there's also a commitment to the city and the '
applicant. Is that correct? Perhaps what I'm saying is, perhaps you should discuss that with
city staff so that you're understanding of that also.
David Gatto: Well city staff also explained their extension expired 5 years after 1987...
Scott: Excuse me, the public hearing is closed. I
David Gatto: I understand but your commissioner is addressing me Chairman.
Farmakes: I'm not expecting a response. I'm just making a suggestion that you and the city '
are comfortable with the information that you have.
David Gatto: I'm not comfortable. '
Farmakes: Okay. Getting back to the drainfields, I'm still uncomfortable with that report. It '
didn't seem inclusive to me. There's a lot of things that this development seems to be still
left out to interpretation or subject to taking out. I'm not sure if there's that much concern
about the issues of 2 1/2 acres or 2.2 or 2.4 or so I'm not sure how that formulation works
33 1
I Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
out and when they come up with it. They have a very large lot and then of course it adds to
' these smaller lots that—and we've been through that before on a lot of these different
developments. I'm not sure on the TH 101, I believe that the State will determine how that
lays out. Do we not make a suggestion on how we would like to see it? MnDot makes that
' decision. Is that how that works?
Scott: I think you can talk about the special status of Highway 101, again.
' Mancino: And who pays for it and.
Scott: Yeah, and how that works.
Hempel: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. Trunk Highway 101 is classified
as ... the applicant and /or city to petition MnDot to provide the funding for safety
improvements ... we've done similar improvements along TH 101 north of Highway 5 where
we have added on turn lanes. Right turn lanes on Cheyenne and Pleasant View. Those types
of intersections. MnDot does fund those 100 %. The problem that, and so you're looking at a
minimum of 2 years out right now for MnDot to consider that. They get all these requests
from different communities for safety improvements on the trunk highways. Throw them in a
kitty. Prioritize them based on safety and let each community know each year which qualify
and which don't. Right now ... minimum of 2 years out.
' Scott: Okay, and those we have already petitioned MnDot for those improvements?
' Hempel: No, we have not.
Scott: Okay. So that's something that perhaps we would want to do? Soon.
Hempel: ...appropriate with the plat approval. -
' Scott: Okay. So that's, okay.
Farmakes: I'll pass it on...
' Scott: Nancy.
' Mancino: I have a few questions and I may need to come back too. I guess I have some
questions about, this is for Sharmin. When we are doing a subdivision around a retail
commercial area.
1 34
n
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
Audience: Excuse me ... talk louder.
Mancino: Can you hear me?
Audience: No.
Mancino: Can you hear me? I feel like I'm screaming. Okay. When you, Halla has grown.
It has a new building this year. Now I'm not saying it hasn't grown in acreage but it has
upgraded it's building. It is doing a good retail business. And then we put a subdivision
around it. Lots of people who want to live in their homes and they want it to be quiet, as
we've all heard tonight. How do those two go together in the future? I mean we're talking
about, we've heard about outdoor speakers going on at 10:00 at night. We hear about 7:00 in
the morning and I've heard the music there because I was over visiting and actually took a
ride through the property. And it's not classical ... or anything. I mean it's pretty hip music.
Don't we, I mean we're going to get citizens in. We're going to get homeowners. We're
going to get people just like you and me in here all the time asking or requesting some sort
of a limitation on hours. And does that need to be part of this or.
Aanenson: ...the nursery was there first. They're a grandfathered in here. If people want to
buy ... they have been grandfathered in.
Mancino: But are these hours grandfathered in? I mean we have asked other commercial
areas. I'm thinking about the one that was here earlier, Admiral Waste. We have them hours
from Monday thru Friday.
Aanenson: They asked for an interim use permit so we have control over...
Mancino: So does a grandfathered use mean that you can have any hours anytime?
Aanenson: They're limited to what they had when they were established.
Mancino: So what is that?
Aanenson: We're trying to determine some of that right now.
Scott: But then there's also noise ordinances and that sort of thing.
Mancino: Well I think it would be wise for Halla to work with the homeowners around and
establish some sort of, and have it written down and have it in the covenants so that people
know what it will be and get that straighten out before because I can see this becoming a
35
1
I
J
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
bigger problem. Dave, I have a question for you about the Block 6. This is between Block 4
and Block 6 there is a future road in that southeast corner that abuts the bluff. And I know
that this isn't final roadway. You know exactly where it will go but I just wanted to share
my concern with where that roadway goes to the southern property which says future
development. It seems to cut into the bluff area. And I would like that to be studied and
made sure of the grading so that we keep, I think we have a new ordinance that says what, 40
feet away from top of the bluff.
Hempel: He's going to take a look at that. It does appear to encroach on the...
' Mancino: So I'd like that added to our recommendations. Secondly Dave, how are we going
to be accessing in the future, and I see staff's concerns, the property to the south of Block 4.
I understand that future road going to the future development which leads to this but coming
' a little more west but still east of TH 101 we have those 3 property owners and part of that
question is, their easement goes out to TH 101, is there room between the new Halla Nursery
' Vista Road on TH 101 and the easement that these people live off of? And is there enough
distance between the two? Is there 300 feet? Doesn't it have to be 300 feet?
Hempel: It appears based on this drawing that there is the 300 foot separation on the access
point. MnDot does have control on accesses onto trunk highways... jurisdiction to grant this
access—and that's why, if I could back up to your first concern with access to the property
south of Block 4 and south of that private driveway, that's where in the staff report we
thought it was prudent to make use of the current road alignment. That it's better to expand
on it to serve properties to the south as well as the subdivision for Halla. The plat
configuration on the east side can very easily be rearranged to accommodate this and to just
circle ... We'd be happy to look at the applicant to demonstrate... that access that private road...
We have received numerous complaints as far as maintenance goes on that road. It's kind of
a...not even a city road.
Mancino: Well I agree with that recommendation. I think that has to be looked at. And I do
support keeping that slope for the conservation easement and allowing no penetration into
there without a lot of grading. I think that is the one area and it is the only area that we're
asking to keep in it's natural state with the trees there. Sharmin, are we applying the tree
preservation ordinance on this? I mean what percentage needs to be?
Al -Jaff: ...landscaping plan has not been submitted with the application and that is one of the
conditions of approval.
Mancino: Thank you. Again I'd like to thank staff for a very, very comprehensive report
and good recommendations. Thank you.
36
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
Scott: Matt.
Ledvina: Okay, following up on the outlot situation. You mentioned that there are two
outlots I believe in the report. But I don't see, I only see Outlot A as identified. Is this area
identified future development in the southeast corner of the parcel, is that considered Outlot
B?
Al -Jaff: Correct.
Ledvina: Is that right? Am I misreading that or is that labeled on the plan? Or I didn't find
it.
Al -Jaff: ...as an outlot and we're recommending that it be...
Ledvina: Okay, so.
Don Halla: I don't own that property.
Scott: Excuse me. The public hearing is closed.
Ledvina: So that's not part of the plat?
Don Halla: No.
Ledvina: It's not part of the plat. Future development.
Scott: Could you direct that question to staff please?
Al -Jaff: It was ... part of the plat...
Ledvina: I thought it was part of the plat too. It's indicated here on our drawings as part of
the plat. So it's not part of the plat?
Al -Jaff: Well the 102 acres includes that piece of property.
Ledvina: Okay. And they don't own it and it's not part of the plat.
Scott: Well then has it been used in the density calculations? ...okay, wait a second.
Ledvina: But there's an error in the density calculations then if that's not part of the plan.
37
I
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
Scott: They don't own it and it's not part of the plat yet it was used to calculate density?
Al -Jaff: Correct.
' Scott: Correct, okay.
Ledvina: Going onto the southeast corner of the development. There's a small area. It's
' about, a little more than 2 acres. What is that area? It's not identified as a lot but it's
identified within the plat.
l
J
Al -Jaff: I'm sorry. Could you repeat the question.
Ledvina: The area in the very southwest corner of the parcel. It's not identified as a lot yet,
what is that?
Al -Jaff: There's an existing single family home.
Ledvina: Okay. Is the ... to identify that as part of that in terms of the Block and Lot numbers
and such?
Al -Jaff: It is part of the overall plat. It was approved on July 9th, 1989. This parcel right
here.
Ledvina: Alright. It wasn't clear to me what was on there. The, I'm going to jump around a
little bit but the situation with Creekwood. I know for one of the residents that spoke, one of
the staff recommendations is that the name of Creekwood remain the same so we're tracking
with the residents on that. The situation with the widening of Creekwood, is that going to be
required as part of this development? Where we are bringing more traffic out into that area.
How are we dealing with that?
Hempel: As with this staff report now we did not recommend upgrading of Creekwood.
...last week it appears to be about 22 feet wide and a normal rural street is 24 feet wide
which would be the streets built within the Halla plat... There are grading and those type of
issues that would be ... with the plat.
Scott: But isn't the majority of the traffic, at least during the summer months, has to do with
Bluff Creek and not with any residents? The golf course. That's the access to Bluff Creek.
So adding 3 more homes is probably not going to change, I mean in the winter it will have a
slight impact but during the summer, it probably won't.
38
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
Hempel: ...probably add 8 more homes.
Ledvina: Yeah, 8 homes. All of Block 2. Actually Block 1 and Block 2. So essentially
your view of the situation though is that the existing situation is adequate in terms of the
width of the pavement. You did mention that there will be some grading and drainage
improvements on the north side of that road?
Hempel: That's correct ... but we have not proposed to do widening or improving... what's
there. ...an improvement at the intersection of Trunk Highway 101.
Ledvina: Okay. I had a question in the staff report and maybe I didn't read this properly but
it seems to say that if Outlot A is platted as a lot, they would not have access to TH 101.
Now I've got to maybe go back to the staff report and maybe if I could point this out.
Maybe I'm just not interpreting this correctly. Page 7 on the bottom of the last full
paragraph. It says since no further access will be allowed off of Trunk Highway 101,
provisions for looping two street systems through Outlot A from Golfview Circle or Golfview
Court should be explored by the applicant. Does that mean that you're closing the access to
TH 101 from Outlot A?
Hempel: The intent there was to provide a looped street in the future when you subdivide the
nursery by itself. Maybe 10 years down the road if they ever decided to replat.
Scott: Well that's not going to affect their ability to do business or anything like that.
Hempel: Not at this time, no.
Ledvina: Okay. Well I noted that that was one of your ideas in terms of the future
development but it wasn't identified as a condition. Do you think it's appropriate as a
condition? As it relates to future development. Maybe MnDot would take care of that by
their review of any future development in saying that you've got on here. You've got one
here. There's no way you can, you know everything's going to have to be internal after that.
But is there something that we should do here?
Hempel: I believe condition number 27 on page 18.
Ledvina: Okay, there it is. I guess through Outlot A. Maybe you should make it a little
more emphatic in terms of the no further access will be allowed off of TH 101. 1 think that
really gets to the point of what we're trying to say right there, right? I mean you're saying
that it can loop through there but you're not saying that you can't have the outlot.
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
Hempel: That's what we're predicting...
Ledvina: I know that's what you mean in the condition but maybe it can be a lot clearer. A
little more clear. Now I'm a little bit unclear as to being on the road issue. TH 101 itself,
where that hairpin curve is. What's shown on the plat is essentially a straightening of that
curve. Now, and you seem to indicate that the city has right -of -way now for that
improvement of that curve. What's the situation there?
Hempel: That's correct. The previous plat submitted back in '89, the city did require that
the applicant dedicate future road right -of -way for the upgrade of TH 101. 120 foot wide
strip of land. That has been dedicated.
Ledvina: That's from the property owner from the east?
Hempel: That's from the Halla's. From the property—plat has not been dedicated yet.
Ledvina: So half of that. Half of that area is dedicated.
Hempel: Right, the north half through the proposed plat.
Ledvina: Alright, okay. And when would that upgrade occur? I mean if you could look into
your crystal ball, is that 10 years? 5 years? What are you saying?
Hempel: It depends on the... development pressure. As traffic increases with development.
Ledvina: Is this going to be another one of those safety kind of things? Because this looks
like a more serious alignment issue.
Hempel: That's correct. This was not going to be...
' Ledvina: Okay. The system for, the situation with the individual soil treatment systems, the
information that's provided in the staff report certainly leads one to believe that there's a lot
of work to be done here. And it's kind of a catch -22 scenario with the developer and I
understand that because he's got to spend the money to go out and do the soil borings and all
the evaluations but then he's got to go back and then set the property lines and it's kind of a
back and forth process and if those don't quite work, you know he ends up going back out in
the field again. But I think, and I know that's a bad situation but I think this isn't your
normal site in terms of that scenario. Or a normal scenario for siting septic systems. You
' have all the pre - existing uses here that have disturbed the soils. Poor soils generally to start
out with, as I understand. And I guess I know we have in the conditions, condition number 8
,I
C.
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
essentially covers the requirements here. I think, I don't know. Do we have essentially 5
conditions but I guess the last situation is if you've got a platted lot and you can't find the
septic site on it, do you just go ahead and say, all of a sudden the lot is, or not all of a
sudden but you say that the lot is unbuildable.
Aanenson: We don't give preliminary plat approval. We never give final plat approval until
all these conditions are demonstrated to our satisfaction. So what we're, the position that
we're saying is that yes, there's a lot of conditions. There's a lot of work to do. What we're
saying, based on the fact that he has done a lot of septic site exploration based on the two
previous... give preliminary plat approval until he demonstrates that he can meet all these
conditions... We wouldn't create a lot unless he can meet...
Ledvina: Okay, I didn't know that. I thought this was going to be carried all the way
through until the time when the lot would be.
Aanenson: No, no. And then until these conditions are met, we wouldn't go forward.
That's why there's a lot of conditions.
Ledvina: Okay. Just a point of clarification for condition number 22. It says Outlot D. I
think you mean Pond D, is that correct? As it relates, you're talking about the drainage and.
Condition number 22, page 17. Fourth condition here.
Hempel: Actually the point of clarification ... I guess, this is the previous plat that was
approved back in '89. The development will retain ownership of the piece that's right
adjacent to the ravine where the storm water drains underneath Creekwood. It drains off a
ravine. They would like to acquire or have the applicant dedicate to the city a drainage
utility easement sometime in the future when we need to develop a storm sewer system to
resolve that erosion that's occurring down in the ravine...
Ledvina: Okay. So this is near Creekwood. It's not by Pond A necessarily?
Hempel: I'll show you on the map.
Ledvina: I might have misread my map but.
Hempel: Actually... down here...
Ledvina: Do I have that map? Is it an 8 1/2 x 11 map?
Hempel: Yes.
41
I
1
7
I
LJ
r
I Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
Ledvina: But if it's not identified on our plans here, how do we deal with that?
1 Hempel: It's still a lot of record...
' Ledvina: But if these are our reference documents here.
Hempel: Basically what I'm trying to say is ... runoff or the volume of runoff will increase.
' Therefore causing downstream drainage improvements ... eventually constructed.
Ledvina: Yeah, I'm tracking with you. I guess just in terms of the nuts and bolts of this
' thing I'm just wondering, because I didn't really take a look at that. I didn't, well I'll let that
go. The situation with Resource Engineering and the reimbursement. Is that reimbursement
' to the city, is that a typical thing and should that be done in this case maybe for future
thoughts associated with evaluation of those sites? What's your reaction to that?
Kirchman: We've had Mr. Halla establish an escrow fund and if his escrow fund is depleted
we add additional funds to it to pay for Resources Engineering.
' Ledvina: So in the past he has been reimbursing the expenses of Resource Engineering?
Kirchman: That's correct.
I Ledvina: Okay. And that's standard operating procedures?
' Kirchman: That's correct.
Ledvina: Well I think overall this is a very complicated plat and there's a lot of specific
' things that are going on here. It's a very beautiful piece of property and it's going to be a
very nice area to live in certainly for the new residents here. I think that I would like to see
this thing moved forward but in my opinion, at this point, I think we need a little more work
with getting closer on some of these conditions. I'm a little bit uncomfortable in terms of our
calculations and I think many of these things can be resolved.
' Scott: Dave, can I put you on the spot for a second? That piece of property that's slated or
identified as future development looks like it's about 450 by I don't know, 600 or something.
If that piece of property is 14 acres, maybe 13 acres. If it's 15 acres, that makes the density
' 2.3 so I guess in my mind too, I mean that can obviously be changed. They can take out a
couple of lots and make some of them larger to meet it but as this stands right now, just from
' my rough mathematics, it doesn't meet the density requirement. But I mean that's, once
again, that's something that can be changed. But can I have a motion please?
42
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
Ledvina: I would move that we table the preliminary plat, Case # 86 -31 SUB to subdivide
102.73 acres into 36 rural single. family lots and two outlots, Great Plains Golf Estates.
Scott: Is there a second? Would you like to second that? Okay, I'll second that motion. Is
there any discussion?
Mancino: Yeah, I think my discussion would be that we send it on with our various
recommendations and if for any reason it does not meet the individual sewer, septic, that it
will come back because it will have to be redrawn. The plat will have to be redrawn so that
those mounds can be installed and will be here. If there's any significant changes, it will
come back in front of the Planning Commission.
Farmakes: I agree. I think the conditions cover the open ended parts with preliminary. I
think it gives staff the idea what information we're looking for I guess when it comes back as
a final plat.
Ledvina: Well I initially thought that when I was looking at this and I know that staff has
worked hard in developing these conditions. I don't think that's unreasonable. I guess I
would withdraw my motion at this time.
Scott: Okay. Can I have a new motion please?
Mancino: I move, with a little support from others, I move that the Planning Commission
approve the preliminary plat for Subdivision #86 -31 for Great Plains Golf Estates as shown
on the plans dated June 6, 1994 subject to the following conditions. As is 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,
a, b, c, 8, a, b, c, d, e, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, a, b, c, 25,
26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33. And I'd like to add condition 34. That staff and applicant
work together to make sure that the future road in the southeast corner of the plat not infringe
on the bluff. That it adheres the new bluff ordinance. Number 35. Recommendation that the
1 unit per 2.5 acre is based on the actual land to be platted. Specifically does not include the
future development area which is not owned by Don Halla. And have I missed anything?
Ledvina: A friendly amendment?
Mancino: Yes.
Ledvina: I would like to amend condition number 27 to indicate that, to add that for future
development of currently identified Outlot A, there shall be no additional access granted for
Trunk Highway 101.
43
J
L
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
Scott: Do you accept that?
Mancino: I do. And I would like to add another recommendation. 37, that the retail
commercial area have covenants with the proposed new landowners and it tells the opening
and closing times so that people up front know when the opening and closing times is of the
retail commercial area. What days of the week. The hours. What kind of activity will go on
and if those are changed, it has to meet the approval of the landowners in the subdivision.
Scott: Especially with the loudspeaker and equipment operation. Okay. It's been moved and
seconded that we act on the motion. Is there any discussion? Any additional discussion. All
those in favor of the motion.
Ledvina: Excuse me Mr. Chairman. I don't know that, did we second the motion?
Mancino: I don't know.
Farmakes: I'll second the motion.
Scott: Been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion?
Mancino moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the preliminary plat for Subdivision #86 -31 for Great Plains Golf Estates as
shown on the plans dated June 6, 1994, subject to the following conditions:
1. All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc -
mulched or wood fiber blanket within two weeks of completing site grading unless the
city's (BMPH) planting dates dictate otherwise. All areas disturbed with slopes of 3:1 or
greater shall be restored with sod or seed and wood fiber blanket.
2. The applicant shall work with the City in developing a landscaping reforestation plan on
the site. This plan shall include a list of all trees proposed to be removed and their size.
The vegetated areas which will not be affected by the development will be protected by a
conservation easement. The conservation easement shall permit pruning, removal of dead
or diseased vegetation and underbrush. All healthy trees over 6" caliper at 4' height shall
not be permitted to be removed. Staff shall provide a plan which shows the location of
the conservation easement and the applicant shall provide the legal description.
3. Lot 4, 5, 7, and 8 Block 3, shall be custom graded and shall provide a tree preservation
plan for staff approval prior to issuance of a building permit. Staff shall have the right to
require a change in house pad and location if it will result in saving significant vegetation.
I
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
A snow fence shall be placed along the edge of the tree preservation easement prior to
grading.
4. The turning radius of a fire apparatus access road shall be designed; shown on site plan;
and, approved by the Chanhassen Engineering and Fire Department.
5. Dead end access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with Chanhassen
Engineering and Fire Department approved provisions for the turning around of fire
apparatus.
6. Fire apparatus access road shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads
of fire apparatus and shall be provided with a surface so as to provide all- weather driving
capabilities. The road shall be in place prior to construction of new dwellings. This
applies to homes which are in excess of 150 feet of State Hwy 101.
7. Street names:
a. Maple Court is not acceptable. The City already has 5 streets with "Maple" in the
name.
b. The street between Hwy. 101 and County Road 14 is named both Birch Drive and
Halla Nursery Vista. The street must have only one name. Eliminate Halla Vista
Drive.
c. Rename "Golf View Circle." Submit alternative name.
8. Building Department conditions:
a. Use Carver County licensed septic site evaluator.
b. Submit boring logs of borings done on each proposed ISTS site with a unique
identification for each to Inspections Division.
c. Stake and identify proposed property lines, proposed ISTS sites and perc and boring
locations.
d. Provide a preliminary evaluation report on the ISTS sites from Resource Engineering.
e. Revise the preliminary grading plan to show standard dwelling type designations for
proposed house pads.
45
1
t
i Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
9. The applicant will need to provide revised detailed storm calculations for 10 and 100 -year
' storm events and provide ponding calculations for storm water quality and quantity ponds
in accordance to the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to
review and approve. The applicant shall retain on site the predeveloped runoff rate as
' well as provided interim water quality and quantity ponds. The applicant shall provide
detailed pre - developed and post - developed storm water calculations for existing and
proposed storm water basins. In addition, water quality pond design calculations shall be
' based on Walker's pondnet model.
10. The streets shall be constructed to the City's rural street section. Detailed construction
' plans and specifications shall be submitted for review and formal approval by the City
Council in conjunction with final plat approval. The construction plans shall be
designed in accordance to the City's latest edition of standard specifications and detail
' plates.
' 11. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the
necessary security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and compliance
with final plat conditions of approval.
' 12. The applicant shall meet wetland fill and wetland mitigation conditions as stated in the
Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit. Mitigation work shall be implemented prior
' to or concurrent with wetland fill activity or excavation in future phases of the project.
13. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory
' agencies, i.e. Watershed District, MWCC, Health Department, PCA, DNR, Army
Corps of Engineers, Carver County Highway Department and MnDOT and comply
with their conditions of approval.
' 14. The appropriate drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated on the final plat for
all storm water drainageways and ponding areas lying outside the street right -of -ways.
The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. Consideration should also be
given for access for maintenance of the storm water ponding areas. Outlot A shall be
platted as a lot and block.
' 15. The applicant's engineer shall develop a sediment and erosion control plan in
accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. The plan shall be
' submitted to the City for review and formal approval.
16. The grading plan shall be revised to relocate all berming outside street or trunk
highway right -of -ways. The berm shall be limited to 4 feet high with 3:1 slopes along
46
�_1
J
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
Trunk Highway 101 right -of -ways. In addition, the grading plan shall show all
proposed grading as a result of drainage improvements, street and house construction.
The applicant's engineer shall work with staff in developing a revised storm drainage
plan to accommodate plat revisions.
17. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to storm water ponds or wetlands
shall be a minimum of three feet above the 100 -year high water level. All storm
water ponds shall have side slopes of 10:1 for the first ten feet at the normal water
level and no more than 3:1 slopes thereafter or 4:1 slopes throughout for safety
purposes.
18. The outlet from the existing pond behind the nursery shall be re- routed and directed
through Pond "B."
19. Existing wells and septic systems on the site which are not to be utilized shall be
properly abandoned in accordance with City or State codes.
20. The applicant shall be responsible for the appropriate storm water quality and quantity
fees based in accordance to the City's Surface Water Management Plan. The
requirement for cash fees in lieu of land or permanent pond construction shall be
based upon the schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning.
21. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found
during construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain file as directed by the City
Engineer.
22. The developer shall convey to the City appropriate drainage and utility easements for
future construction of storm drainage infrastructures over Outlot D, Great Plains Golf
Estates.
23. Ponding facilities on the east side of Trunk Highway 101 will be considered after the
plat has been revised to accommodate staff' changes in the plat's street and lot
configuration. The developer's engineer should also provide the City Engineer with
revised detailed storm sewer drainage calculations and discharge rates for the storm
drainage system on the east side of Trunk Highway 101 as a result of revising the plat.
24. The applicant shall modify the plans and incorporate the following safety
improvements:
a. The steep banks along the west side of Trunk Highway 101 lying south of the nursery
47
i Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
entrance create visibility problems for northbound traffic. The applicant is also
' proposing to construct berms as required along Trunk Highway 101. Staff
recommends that the existing banks along Trunk Highway 101 be pulled back to
improve sight lines and berming be restricted to a minimum of 4 feet in height.
b. The hill on Trunk Highway 101 just north of the intersection of Creekwood Drive
shall be lowered to improve sight distances. The current situation does not meet
' MnDOT standards for sight distance at the posted speeds.
c. Roadway alignments for Halla Nursery Vista and Trunk Highway 101 may impose
' sight distance problems as well. This should be investigated and documented by the
applicant's engineer that the intersection meets MnDOT's standards for the posted
speeds.
25. The applicant shall be required to re- excavate all unacceptable materials in the ravine
on Lot 3, Block 6 and backfill with engineered fill as well as replace the existing
storm drainage pipe (24 -inch CMP) with concrete pipe.
26. The applicant's engineer should redesign the storm water basin (Pond "D ") to
accommodate the existing significant trees that are alive yet.
27. The applicant shall provide for the future looping of the two street systems through
' Outlot A from Golfview Circle or Golfview Court. Outlot A shall have no
additional access granted for TH 101.
' 28. Halla Nursery Vista road east of Trunk Highway 101 should be realigned to follow the
private roadway easement and eliminate the need of the private road.
29. The applicant should provide documentation to the City and Carver County that
appropriate right -of -way has been dedicated with the final plat to achieve one -half of
the minimum 100 -foot wide corridor for County Road 14.
30. Access to the individual lots shall be limited to the interior streets and not from
County Road 14 or Trunk Highway 101.
31. The applicant shall revise the plat to align Birch Drive to be continuous with Foxford
Road at the intersection of County Road 14.
32. The final plat should show the new dedicated Trunk Highway 101 right -of -way.
.•
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994 1
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. I
Scott: Oh yes, it is a public hearing. There's really no applicant. What I will do is I'll ask
for a motion to open the public hearing. I
Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. '
Scott: Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on the public hearing? I don't think so.
Can I have a motion to close the public hearing please. '
49 1
33. Outlot A is currently used as the nursery business and should be platted into a lot and
block. The final plat should also rename Town Road to Creekwood Drive and show
,
Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 2 as a replat of Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, Great Plains
Golfview Estates.
'
34. That staff and applicant work together to make sure that the future road in the
southeast corner of the plat not infringe on the bluff. That it adheres the new
bluff ordinance.
'
35. The 1 unit per 2.5 acre is based on the actual land to be platted. Specifically
does not include the future development area which is not owned by Don Halla.
'
36. Covenants be provided for the new property owners informing of the days and
hours of operation of the retail commercial site and if any changes are made to
those hours and days, that the property owners be informed of such changes.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
,
Scott: Any people who are here tonight, please follow your issue. You'll have the
opportunity to express your concerns, ideas, comments to the City Council. And once again,
,
this is not final approval of the project at all. This is the first phase. Basically what it does
is it gives the developers a little bit more certainty that the project is moving ahead so they
can then invest additional dollars to answer some of the additional questions that we have.
'
Thank you all very much for coming.
PUBLIC HEARING:
,
AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE, CITY CODE SECTION 20-
1181(B)(4) REGARDING INTERIOR LANDSCAPING FOR VEHICULAR USE
'
AREAS.
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. I
Scott: Oh yes, it is a public hearing. There's really no applicant. What I will do is I'll ask
for a motion to open the public hearing. I
Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. '
Scott: Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on the public hearing? I don't think so.
Can I have a motion to close the public hearing please. '
49 1
1 Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
' Farmakes moved Mancino seconded to close the ublic hearing. All voted in favor and
P g
the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Scott: Is there any discussion? Jeff.
' Farmakes: I have no comments on this. I'll go with the staff recommendation.
' Scott: Okay, Nancy.
Mancino: I just have a couple questions. Does it, when you divide it up like this, is it
' enough square footage for a big overstory tree which has a fairly big span, drip line span, is
that a big enough area? Has somebody really figured it out?
' Aanenson: Yeah. Well that's the minimum. We've also got a provision in here where we
think, I mean if we've got an existing tree, a canopy area that you want to preserve, that you
can allow...
Mancino: Because I know one of the things when we first created this or worked on it was
allowing some massing.
' Aanenson: Yeah. What it says is that ... unless there's a tree preservation area ... try to preserve
trees—that's a good question though. We certainly wouldn't want to destroy that
Mancino: Okay, thank you.
' Scott: Good, Matt.
Ledvina: No comments. I support staff's recommendation.
' Scott: Could I have a motion?
' Mancino: I move that we approve the ordinance revision for Section 20- 1181(b)(4)
specifying the dispersion of interior parking lot landscaping islands, peninsulas and
boulevards.
Scott: Is there a second?
' Ledvina: I'll second that.
' Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we pass this item. Is there any discussion?
' 50
1
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994 I
Aanenson: Yeah, right. '
Mancino: Didn't we ask to see new grading there or something?
51 1
Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded that the Planning Commission recommend to
approve the ordinance revision for Section 20- 1181(b)(4) specifying the dispersion of
interior parking lot landscaping islands, peninsulas and boulevards. All voted in favor
and the motion carried.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded to note the Minutes of
the Planning Commission meeting dated July 20, 1994 as presented. All voted in favor
and the motion carried.
,
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE.
is
,
Aanenson: I'm sorry I didn't put anything in your packet... Lotus Lake Woods which the
plat on the Forcier property was given a one year extension—it was a pretty straight plat so
we feel comfortable giving them a one year extension. The Minger subdivision approval.
,
We only had 3 council people so that needed a rezoning and a rezoning needed 4/5 majority
so just the plans and specs and the grading permit was approved for that. At the next Council
meeting they'll approve the rezoning so they can move forward with that plat. Again, Good
,
Value Homes which is the O'Shaughnessy piece which is immediately west of the school.
That was, the applicant wasn't at the City Council meeting two weeks ago. The last City
Council meeting they asked to be removed and we are meeting with them on Friday. I think
,
they're going to go forward with a little bit, what's south of the frontage road extension as it
goes towards the Opus property and come in with the twin homes ... He is going to go forward
that so we'll be meeting with him on Friday.
with portion...
Ledvina: Now that went through us, right? That's a PUD?
'
Aanenson: Yep. And they never went to Council.
Ledvina: Okay, so but they've made changes now and now they're going to go to Council?
'
Is that how it's.
Aanenson: No. He's asking not to go to Council. He just wants to go forward with just one
,
portion instead of the whole development which had the rental on the north side...
'
Ledvina: Okay, so it's a phasing more or less then.
Aanenson: Yeah, right. '
Mancino: Didn't we ask to see new grading there or something?
51 1
J
i Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
Aanenson: And landscaping. There were some issues, yeah. The Coffman development,
Shadow Ridge, they did give conceptual approval on that but again there were a lot of issues
on that. You talked about the slope and the wetland and that was one that we had ... The
Council did ask that when it goes to final plat, normally we put those on consent, that they
have an opportunity to revisit that again because there were a lot of conditions. A lot of
issues so they want to make sure that that was addressed. The interim use permit for the
grading on Mission Hills was approved. And then the Council discussed quite a bit time the
' proposed entry monuments. They went to the HRA and then to the Council and before the
Council ... you wanted an opportunity to see that but there were some issues that were brought
up about the types that they were looking at ... low key Chanhassen entry sign... landscaping.
Then we got into a big discussion about the cost. Maintenance costs and that sort of thing so
a little bit more, Council wants to see a little bit more ... about costs before they decide to go...
with that anymore so that will come back before the Council before you have an opportunity
to see it.
Ledvina: Are they going to make any decisions on that?
Aanenson: I think ... just an idea and then it will come back through you to hold the public
hearing... and then go back up. Right now they're just trying to develop some concepts and
look at costs...
' Ledvina: That's going back between the HRA and the Council and we haven't seen anything.
Aanenson: I think what they're trying to do is deciding what they want to do. They've got a
lot of issues...
Mancino: I think I read, was it the paper. The newspaper or the Chanhassen Villager that
' Councilman Senn had suggested that maybe the businesses participate and especially the
entrance around the downtown because that is something.
' Aanenson: Well the one we're really trying to work on now is most specifically the one on
Powers because we've got the, with the Outlot B and Target. The Taco Bell which you'll be
seeing next week. We want to make sure that...
Mancino: Next week?
t
Ledvina: No, 2 weeks.
Aanenson: That we have a nice entryway. And again...
52
Planning Commission Meeting - August 3, 1994
Scott: Good. Ongoing items, seeing none. Open discussion.
DISCUSS CONCEPT OF ENTERTAINMENT COMPLEX.
Brad Johnson and Truman Howell presented slides and a presentation, on an informal basis,
to the Planning Commission regarding architecture and ideas for the entertainment complex to
be located in the downtown area.
The meeting was then adjourned.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Planning Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
53
i
0 11
MINUTES
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MEETING
AUGUST 11, 1994
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Mayor Don Chmiel, Eldon Berkland, Bill Bemhjelm,
Dave Dummer
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Brian Beniek and Greg Weber
STAFF PRESENT: Dave Johnson, Captain Ron Holt, CSO Greg Hayes,
Chief Bob Moore
Commissioner Berkland called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
The first order of business was the presentation by Mayor Chmiel to Dave Johnson of a plaque
commemorating his years of service to the community of Chanhassen while serving on the Public
Safety Commission.
Commissioner Berkland moved for approval of the minutes for last month's meeting, seconded
by Bill Bernhjelm. The minutes were approved.
Director Scott Harr asked that each commissioner write down the starting date of his service on
the Public Safety Commission to update city records.
No visitors were present.
Community Service Officer Greg Hayes was recognized for completing a 2 week course at the
National Fire Academy in Maryland. Director Harr stated that Greg Hayes is heading up the
Breathing Apparatus Replacement Committee.
' CARVER COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
Captain Ron Holt presented the Sheriff's Department report. Captain Holt stated that he and
' Scott Harr had a meeting that morning with Sheriff Wallin and Chief Deputy Castleberry
concerning next year's contract for police hours. It was agreed at this meeting that an upgrade
in police hours was not necessary for the coming year.
Scott Harr continued discussion on the contract for police hours. He stated that while in 1996
the hours would probably need to be increased in order to keep up with City growth, he had met
with City Manager Don Ashworth concerning the possibility of creating a new crime prevention
position for 1995 instead of increasing police contract hours.
J
J
J
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Scott Harr stated that every month gets busier, with permit revenue up 71% from this time last
year. He noted that 2 temporary inspectors had been hired for the summer. The temporary
mechanical inspector continues to work part -time, while the temporary building inspector is now
working full -time through October because of the increasing demand for inspections.
PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT
Scott Harr said at this time there were no applicants for the Public Safety Commission vacancy,
as the two candidates had withdrawn their applications due to time restrictions on their parts.
Commissioner Bernhjelm suggested keeping the Public Safety Commission membership at the
present number, instead of seeking people to serve just to fill that opening. Commissioner
Bernhjelm dismissed the possibility of cutting back on the number of meetings, possibly to every
other month. Commissioner Dummer suggested keeping monthly meetings, but making them
shorter in length.
Director Harr stated that regular meetings were a good way to "keep a finger on the pulse of the
community ". He also stated that regular meetings were a good idea to monitor things going on
in the community and to discuss issues in order to keep things going as well as they are.
Mayor Chmiel agreed with continuing regular meetings, and stated that he would like to wait for
a volunteer to come forward to fill the Commission vacancy in lieu of recruiting a new member.
All agreed.
COMMUNITY SERVICE OFFICER REPLACEMENT
Director Harr stated that today was Steve Winters last day as a Chanhassen CSO, and that Kerri
Nolden had been hired as his replacement. Ms. Nolden is working towards becoming a law
enforcement officer and comes highly recommended.
CRIME PREVENTION DONATION
' Director Harr stated that he had written the Lions' Club to thank them for their generous
donation. City Manager Don Ashworth had asked Director Harr to look into a trailer being used
instead of a separate vehicle. Beth Koenig was asked to investigate the use of a trailer in other
' communities, and discovered that no other community was doing so. All communities contacted
recommended a vehicle be used for such a purpose.
Commissioner Berkland suggested calling the vehicle a Public Safety Education van instead of
Crime Prevention van, so that the overall broad mission of public safety was kept in mind.
Mayor Chmiel suggested that the van be marked as a Public Safety vehicle and have CSO's drive
it to encourage community awareness of public safety education.
Director Harr reported on the presentation he will be making to the City Council regarding police '
services in Chanhassen. Director Harr stated that he has prepared a Public Safety Police Costs
Report. He believes this is something that should be in the archives to acknowledge people that
make the program work as well as describing the program itself. He said that Sheriff Al Wallin '
has been invited to attend the August 22nd City Council meeting when the report will be
presented. Director Harr would also like the Public Safety Commission to attend if possible.
He said that his report will be scheduled during the visitor's presentation. All present agreed it
was a good idea to attend. Mayor Chmiel suggested that Director Harr introduce the members
of the Commission at the City Council meeting. I
The 1995 Police Contract recommendation will also be scheduled for discussion at the August
22nd City Council meeting because the Sheriff's office wants it back as soon as possible. I
Commissioner Bernhjelm mentioned that while there would be insurance and maintenance costs,
he didn't see how the department could go wrong with a 4 -wheel drive vehicle which would be
so versatile. Commissioner Bernhjelm moved that the $21,000. donation be used for the purpose
t
of purchasing a public safety education vehicle (with Director Han presenting the graphics, etc.
at a later meeting), Commissioner Dummer seconded the motion and the motion carried.
'
Director Harr discussed the possibility of a Crime Prevention position being considered instead
of increasing police hours.
'
Mayor Chmiel said that by end of 1995 Chanhassen's population could be over 15,800, if
building continues as it is now. No lull is expected. Commissioner Dummer said that if that
proves true, Chanhassen will be at the same ratio as it was in 1990 as far as police hours per
'
resident, and that it could be possible to continue giving good service to the City with the
existing personnel if a crime prevention effort was pursued.
,
Director Han stated that the traffic enforcement program is going very well. There have been
no complaints concerning ticketing and stops by the officers, in fact, there have been a number
of calls commending the program. He said the three projects with Eden Prairie and the State
Patrol went very well.
Commissioner Berkland asked if there will be money next year for the Traffic Control program?
'
Director Harr did not know but believes the program is worthwhile to continue, and will include
it in the 1995 budget.
'
Relating back to police contract hours, Commissioner Dummer noted that there isn't the data to
support increasing the contract hours now. Commissioner Bernhjelm said that the "job is getting
done" with the personnel now in place, but suggested that now is an appropriate time for
,
Chanhassen to get its "foot in the door" with a crime prevention program. He stated that an
advantage of having a Public Safety Department is that duplication of responsibilities is
eliminated, and that a public safety education position would further this concept of coordinating
'
safety education efforts. Commissioner Berkland agreed that it is an excellent idea. He would
like to see an "across- the - board" public safety education program which would include seat belt
'
usage, etc.
Director Harr reported on the presentation he will be making to the City Council regarding police '
services in Chanhassen. Director Harr stated that he has prepared a Public Safety Police Costs
Report. He believes this is something that should be in the archives to acknowledge people that
make the program work as well as describing the program itself. He said that Sheriff Al Wallin '
has been invited to attend the August 22nd City Council meeting when the report will be
presented. Director Harr would also like the Public Safety Commission to attend if possible.
He said that his report will be scheduled during the visitor's presentation. All present agreed it
was a good idea to attend. Mayor Chmiel suggested that Director Harr introduce the members
of the Commission at the City Council meeting. I
The 1995 Police Contract recommendation will also be scheduled for discussion at the August
22nd City Council meeting because the Sheriff's office wants it back as soon as possible. I
It was recommended that a motion be passed for a -0- increase in police contract hours, and that
a public safety education position be included in the 1995 budget.
' Commissioner Dummer moved that it be accepted, Commissioner Bernhjelm seconded the
motion, and it passed.
' Director Harr said one of the biggest budget problems at the Fire Department was being hit by
unanticipated repair bills, e.g. $3000. for overhead garage doors recently. 1 st Assistant Fire Chief
' Bob Moore stated that the door was 20 years old at the time and needed replacing. He said that
next year the other doors will need to be replaced as well. Director Harr said that a new air
compressor is being considered rather than repairing the old one, and would cost $20,000., while
repairs could cost $10,000. Bob Moore suggested that a person who could walk through the Fire
Department buildings on a regular basis to make maintenance and replacement recommendations
would be helpful and Dave Dressler is helping with this.
Commissioner Bernhjelm said that the Edina Police Department tries to project out 5 Y ears for
maintenance and replacement, and perhaps this would be a good idea for Chanhassen. Mayor
Chmiel said costs for maintenance and replacement would be more palatable when projected out
5 years instead of at the time when needed.
' Commissioner Bernhjelm motioned to close the meeting, Commissioner Dummer seconded, and
the motion carried. The meeting closed at 8:35 p.m.
r
g: \safety \s h 811