The URL can be used to link to this page

Admin Section 1 __ ; C ITYOF I j 1r CHANHASSEN 1 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 I (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 by City Administrat011 rndor e ✓ i_w� I MEMORANDUM A Rejecter! Date ( 'a 3- ' Date Submitted to Commission I TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager Date Submitted to Council FROM: Paul Krauss, AICP, Planning Director (� / _ 3 1 DATE: June 21, 1993 1 SUBJ: Proposal to Locate Corn Hut at the SW Comer of Kerber and W. 78th Street Staff has been made aware that the Dimier family, which formerly operated the pumpkin field I and corn hut on what has now become the Target site, are proposing to plant pumpkins and open a up a corn hut at the southwest comer of the intersection of Kerber and West 78th Street. This land is part of the Target PUD, but ownership has been retained by Mr. Burdick. To the best I of my knowledge at the time of writing, the pumpkins may have already been planted. In my conversations with Chuck Dimler, I indicated that the city has no particular position one 1 way or the other on planting pumpkins or any other vegetable on this site as long as erosion control is managed. The Engineering Department approved a grading permit to allow fill to be placed on this property a short time ago and site restoration has not yet been completed. I did I indicate to Chuck however, that a corn hut as such is not a permitted use on this site in the PUD. Several years ago, staff attempted to get an ordinance reviewed that would have dealt with this I sort of "transient merchant" but we were unsuccessful. Thus, there is no ready means of reviewing this request. As I see it, this is really not a terribly big deal. Having a corn hut in this area is historically consistent and it is clearly a temporary use, both because it is seasonal I and due to the fact that this property will probably be developed in the near future. Since it is part of a PUD, the City Council ultimately exercises a fair amount of discretion as to what can be allowed to occur on the property. There is inadequate time to process a formal PUD I amendment to allow the corn hut to occur. What I am proposing to do by this memo is to make the Council aware of the fact that the corn hut will be located on this site and to ascertain as to whether you are comfortable with this. As long as you fmd it acceptable, staff has no problem 1 allowing it to operate for the season. Staff awaits your guidance on the matter. 1 Is 1 T«: PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Dimler`s Sweet Corn 7203 Kiowa Circle • Chanhassen, MN 55317 • (612) 934 -8974 • (612) 955 -1160 6 -9 -93 ' To: Mayor Chmiel & Councilmembers From: Chuck & Ursula Dimler family Re: Plans for 1993 Stand (from discussion with Mr. Paul Krauss) Our sons have a lease with Mr. Burdick for the lot at Kerber Blvd. and West 78th Street. Vegetables have been planted on the property and Matt & David Dimler are responsible to grade and keep the property in a tidy condition. Our family has been growing and selling our produce in Chanhassen and surrounding communities for five generations. We provide seasonal employment experience for Chanhassen youth. We feel we have a mutually beneficial relationship with the residents and officials of Chanhassen and hope to be able to continue this. As in the past, we are planning to sell our vegetables in Chanhassen during the vegetable harvest season. The residents are calling and asking where they will find the "stand" this year. Matt and David have made arrangements with Mr. Burdick to park their trailer stand off of Kerber Blvd., south of West 78th Street. As in the past, we will provide adequate distance for safe parking, entry, and exit. We have been cooperative in keeping within the intent of the laws and ordinances, and we are concerned for the safety, cleanliness, and public good. The summer stand also provides information to numerous motorists who have lost their way. The lord willing and weather allowing, our hope is that our neighbors will enjoy fresh "from the farm" vegetables and that our family will harvest an adequate profit to allow our children to stay in the colleges of their choice. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Chuck Dimler RECEIVED RECEIVED � t - 1993 , � ► 1993 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CITY OF CHANHASSEN I 1 eb 4 .,. C ITYOF I ,. i j t Y CHANHASSEN i � ,_. 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 1 3' (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 I Action by City Administretdt bn� - D� MEMORANDUM Modified dorsed ✓ w I . Rejected TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager DetP 4.2 9 mi Date Submitted to O C Commission 1 FROM: Paul Krauss, AICP, Planning Director Date Submitted to Council Charles Folch, City Engineer b- a t -q 3_ 1 DATE: June 23, 1993 SUBJ: Proposal to Allow Staff to Permit the Installation of Temporary Directional 1 Signage Due to Highway Construction I The closures of major entrances into our community from Highway 5 this summer is causing substantial disruption to a number of businesses and institutions. For example, several weeks ago we were approached by the staff from the Temple of Eck, who were having a conference in I Minneapolis over the first weekend that Powers Boulevard was shut down. The Temple staff came to us indicating that there had been at least two accidents related to the resulting confusion and asked for authorization to install signage on a temporary basis. Staff discussed this matter 1 with the Mayor and allowed the signs to be installed. Since that time, the Planning Director and City Engineer have had an opportunity to discuss this I matter and we concluded that temporary signage is going to be required for a number of properties throughout the summer. Charles indicated that he had in fact already been contacted by Lotus Lawn and Garden and we fully expect a number of people to make requests. What we 1 propose to do is to utilize the attached MnDOT- authorized strategy for allowing business signage in construction zones.. The policy gives specific guidelines as to where signs can be placed and how large they can be,'etc. We would propose to also allow signage to be placed at strategic 1 locations on non -MnDOT rights-of-way that Are controlled by the city. We are asking the City Council for authorization to allow this to occur by administrative decision of the City Engineer and Planning Director. We do not foresee allowing signage to be placed in public rights -of -way I where businesses whose traffic patterns are not or which have excellent visibility from Hwy. 5 with their access being immediately identifiable. One example of this may be Festival I Foods, which is clearly visible from Hwy. 5 and its main access from Market Boulevard is not altered. However, there are also a large number of properties where such signage is appropriate. 1 fs 1 ILO PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1 1 Don Ashworth June 23, 1993 I Page 2 RECOMMENDATION It is our recommendation that the City Council authorize us to allow these signs to be placed on an interim basis for the duration of construction season. Upon completion of construction activity, all signs would be required to be moved. ATTACHMENTS 1 1. MnDOT Guidelines for Business Signing in Construction Zones. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Engineering Services Divisions Technical Memorandum 93- 20 -T -03 1 May 28, 1993 TO: Distribution 57, 382, 612, 618, and 650 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 1 MEM[ 0 © FROM: John E. Sandahl JUN 1. 4 1993 1 Director /Assistant •,; of Engineer Engineering Servic ENGINEERING DEPT. 1 SUBJECT: Guidelines for Bus' . Signing in Construction Zones EXPIRATION This technical memorandum will expire on May 28, 1994, or when this information is included in the Minnesota Traffic Engineering Manual. 1 IMPLEMENTATION The guidelines contained in this Technical Memorandum are to be implemented immediately. 1 INTRODUCTION Mn/DOT construction projects have frequently caused disruption of traffic patterns in business areas and have sometimes caused difficulty and confusion for motorists attempting to reach specific businesses or groups of businesses. The Mn/DOT Traffic Engineering Organization has researched this problem and has 1 established uniform guidelines for business signing in construction zones. PURPOSE 1 The following guidelines have been established to improve driver guidance, create safer operations and minimize the impact on businesses created by construction activities and 1 detours. GENERAL GUIDELINES 1 A. The district should contact the affected traffic oriented businesses through the project development process for a construction project to explain the project, the detours (if required), the project schedule and to listen to any suggestions for lessening the project's impact on a business. 1 1 1 Technical Memorandum No. 93- 20 -T -03 Page 2 May 28, 1993 .: GENERAL GUIDELINES (Continued) ' B. Businesses should be encouraged to use special advertisements and directional information to inform customers via the media. • ' C. Businesses that,receive signing must be "vehicular traffic sensitive" and significantly affected by the construction project. D. All business signs should conform to the Mn/MUTCD to the extent practical and possible. E. Business signs which would interfere with permanent or construction signing shall not be allowed. F. All business sign panels shall be black legend on orange background. 1 G. Business sign panels should be installed on a separate structure within the highway right -of -way by Mn/DOT or contract forces. ' H. Business signs shall be removed when the impact to traffic ends, or at such time that permanent changes in the affected area are completed. I. All business signing that is proposed by Mn/DOT to guide traffic shall be funded by Mn/DOT. Any additional business signing proposed by the businesses and allowed by Mn/DOT shall be funded by the businesses. 1 SPECIFIC GUIDELINES 1 A. Detour Required: Local Traffic Only ' 1. When the construction zone is open to a local street, a sign indicating that the road is open to that street may be used. ' 2. In areas where there are four or fewer traffic oriented businesses, sign panels for each specific business may be installed (see the attached format). Up to 1 four sign panels can be installed on a sign structure. 1 . 1 Technical Memorandum No. 93- 20 -T -03 I Page 2 May 28, 1993 1 SPECIFIC GUIDELINES (Continued) 3. In areas where there are more than four traffic oriented businesses alon g the I closed section, one of the following options may be used: a. When the businesses are scattered, sign message si with the messa a "LOCAL I BUSINESSES" may be installed I b. When the businesses are grouped in an area, a sign with the message "BUSINESS DISTRICT" may be installed. 1 Both of the above sign options should utilize the 72" by 18" format, as shown on the attached drawings. I 4. Major attractions such as shopping centers, cities and geographic areas may be approved for signing. 1 B. Detour Required: Complete Closure of Highway The signing as noted in A above may be considered at appropriate intersections along the detour route. This may require trailblazing signs. C. Detour Not Required When the trunk highway is reconstructed under traffic and motorists have difficulty 1 locating the access to the business because of the construction activities and traffic control devices, "Business Access" signs or sign panels for the specific business as specified in A2 may be installed. 1 for Construction Zone Business Signing ' Attachment: Sign Drawing 1 1 1 I MI i — I• — NM — • = 1 • MI • — S Mill _Rill , a r. r+ 0 n o 4 'FtiszF 72 x 18 ` 1 `� I i r+ 0 9 t o RADIUS 1 .5 (I -1/2) z -..-1 MARGIN .38 (3/8) . i JOHNSON ca BORDER .38 (3/8) h j c b 9 CAR 1 A LES z 0 1 c 4 MIN. 9 d 50 MAX. j �� _�� f i i • e. 4.5 MIN. .-- e —.-. d .-. c - •.• — b --►+a. 0 f • 29.5 a, '9 6.15 i 7 r 'S.--T D > h 5.7 g a 0. W o os 1 W ESTON ' & SUNS I NZD`�i I , 2.2 ; h Z porn k 5.7 �— w �, �� 1 53.3 MAX. PLUMBING 0 m 4.5 9 , 0 o zDZ " 9 1 ---di 1 z Z u z , m 0 6.5 f ►"�' c. o 0 o x -1 P 31.2 r- o -...- k-.-.-c--.-.. • 1 , it - e--.. m D rr q t / �1� * r m C) g t I j G7 1 } t SHEA HARDWARE Z v I w o m n x m .t /J t y Q---++ p o -n z 5C # 11 - arrow used. NOTES: 1)All dimensions ore in inches. z cn 2)Color - Black legend and border on orange reflectorized bockground. K 3)For arrow dimensions see page 102 , Sign Details, of the Standard Signs Manual. i.,9 z 4)Arrow direction and business name to be specified. 7) 5) Business name to be centered horizontally on center line. 1 ADMINISTRATIVE SECTION Letter to Virginia Harris, Carver County dated June 10, 1993. Letter from Governor Arne Carlson dated June 9, 1993. Letter from Patricia Peterson, Dept. of Commerce dated June 11, 1993. ' Letter to Senator Corridor Transportation Coalition dated June 9, 1993. Letter from Jeffrey Carson dated June 14, 1993. Regional Transit Board 1992 Annual Report. ' Memo to Don Ashworth dated June 2, 1993. 1 ISTEA Implementation Newsletter dated June 7, 1993. ' Letter from Elliott Knetsch dated May 27, 1993. Letter to Nann Opheim dated June 10, 1993. 1 Letter from a resident on Minnewashta Parkway dated June 15, 1993. Letter to David Lundahl dated June 21, 1993. Zoning News dated May 1993. Letter from Mary Ebanks dated June 18, 1993. Memo from Paul Krauss dated June 23, 1993. Letter to Senator Dave Durenburger dated June 21, 1993. Letter to Joanne Matzen dated June 23, 1993. Letter to H. Kelsey Page dated June 23, 1993. ' Letter to Terry Forbord dated June 22, 1993. Memo from Tom Chaffee dated February 25, 1993. Resignation from Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner dated June 8, 1993. 1 CITYOF t ClIANHASSEN 6 90 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 ' (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 June 10, 1993 1 Ms. Virginia Harris, Planner Carver County 600 East 4th Street Chaska, MN 55318 Dear Virginia, You recently requested a letter outlining Chanhassen's costs associated with our recently updated wetlands protection program. It is my understanding that this information is required to obtain a partial 1 reimbursement of funds through a State grant. Chanhassen's direct costs associated with the program include the following: Consultant fees for ordinance development and wetland mapping $46,000 Staff Time @ $20.00 per hour x 200 hours $ 4,000 Printing, GIS and related costs $ 5,000 ' total cost $55,000 Completed work products include a new wetlands protection ordinance that is possibly the first in the state to be based upon wetland values and functions and was coordinated with concurrent storm water and water quality protection planning. We have also field verified each of the over 400 wetlands in our community and developed a GIS - based map. Both products are available upon request. Consultant fees were paid to Bonestroo Engineering and their subconsultant, Frank Svoboda and Associates. In addition, the City retained the services of Ellen Klanderman, who is currently employed by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, to assist with wetland classifications. Please let me know if you need additional information. Sin - - C Paul Krauss, AICP Director of Planning c: SWMP Task Force City Council Is , � 4 , PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ,t'C13E S73 �cs'n i • h STATE OF MINNESOTA Ee =S' -- r �� OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR 130 STATE CAPITOL • y " 4%,4". SAINT PAUL 55155 \R \E H C ARLSO\ G(u\ ERA )R June 9, 1993 1 The Honorable Don Chmiel 1 City of Chanhassen P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 -0147 ' Dear Mayor Chmiel: 1 Now that the 1993 session has been brought to a successful close, it is time to look ahead at the FY 1994 -95 budget. As each of you work through the budget planning process for ' the next biennium, there are a number of concerns to keep in mind. The outlook on the economy is not optimistic. National and regional economic ' indicators do not predict any significant improvement in the state's revenue outlook for the next two years. In fact, national economic forecasters are more pessimistic than they were just six months ago. 1 Consequently, we cannot anticipate any improvement in the biennial state revenue forecast when the next update is completed in November. To make matters more ' difficult, the legislature added $320 million more than originally planned for the '94 -95 budget. The good news is the adoption of contingency planning authority, reached during the Special Session. The legislature and I reached an agreement that we will cut spending rather than increase taxes if the November revenue forecast deteriorates. If the next ' forecast indicates declining revenues, it may be necessary to reduce all state general fund and local government trust fund obligations by up to 1% of their biennial budget amounts. ' I am writing to you to reaffirm my commitment to this process. I am convinced, and I trust that the Minnesota Legislature agrees, that reducing government spending rather 1 than raising taxes to balance the Minnesota budget must be part of fiscal stability for our state. I am equally convinced this is the choice that Minnesota taxpayers want us to make. 1 1 \ EQL AL OPPORTI NIT) EMPLOl ER 1 0 PPINTE: ON RECvCLED PADEP 1 June 9, 1993 It is the responsibility of all of us to avoid financial disruptions. no matter how minor. h‘ planning for possible budget reductions. In addition to public employees foregoing a pay raise in FY 1994, other cost saving options must be considered including a prudent and thorough review of all operations and the development of cost system innovations. I urge you to keep the state's precarious financial situation in mind and plan your budget to ensure a reserve in your allotment for FY 1994 -95. I continue my commitment to holding the line on taxes and ask for your continued 1 support in these challenging times. Warmest regards. 1 AR.\ H. CARLSON Governor 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4. . :- = 133 EAST 7th STREET �/Z yv STATE OF MINNESOTA •.,. . ST. PAUL, MN 55101 I . . ' . : : =� 612/296-4026 OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE FAX: 612/296 -4328 June 11, 1993 I Charles D. Folch City of Chanhassen I 690 Coulter Drive PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 1 RE: City of Chanhassen Garage - Leak #1873 Dear Mr. Folch: I Please be advised that the Petroleum Tank Release Compensation (Petrofund) Board has approved your reimbursement request at its most recent meeting on June 3, 1993. Under separate cover you will be receiving a I reimbursement award in the amount of $24,339.69. The reimbursement check is being awarded to you pursuant to determinations made by the Board and the I Commissioner of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). These determinations were in part based on your representations of fact and your agreement to continue corrective action if necessary. The award is made expressly contingent on the following terms, and in accepting the award you are agreeing to these terms: I I If it is discovered that you have knowingly misrepresented or omitted any fact relevant to the determinations made by the Board or the MPCA, you agree to return to the Board, upon its demand, the entire award or any lesser amount the Board considers appropnate. 1 2 If your Corrective Action Plan indicates that further corrective action remains necessary, you agree to complete that action to the satisfaction of the MPCA. 11 you fall to complete the corrects\ e action, you agree to return to the Board, upon its demand, the entire award or any 1 lesser amount the Board considers appropriate. As Petrofund revenues come in. reimbursement checks will be issued. We anticipate claims to be paid within four I to fi.e months. There should he no need to call before that time expires. However, if necessary, questions may he directed to the number below 1 V truly yo 7 .... S.) -/ / , '.......) 07: .F 41 D P atricia L. Peterson I Executive Director, Petrofund (612) 297 -1 119 PLP hso 1 CiTY Q F CH HASSEN 1 a RRIIKE© j �' 3 1 ENGiNE DEPT. 1 1 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER /0 e Ar SOUTHWEST CORRIDOR TRANSPORTATION COALITION lac`' 470 Pillsbury Center r:C�Fh Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 337 - 9300 ' June 9, 1993 , Senator Paul Wellstone 123 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Attn: Lucy Mondale , RE: Demonstration Grant for Design and Construction of New T.H. 12 Our Our File LN400 -51 Dear Senator Wellstone: On behalf of the Southwest Corridor Transportation Coalition I request that you support the Coalition's demonstration grant application in the amount of $6 million for funding in the fiscal year 1993/94. We propose that it be used for design and construction purposes within the following projects: o Design of Segment III between Trunk Highway 41 and the intersection of Carver Road 147 with in place Trunk Highway 212. o Design of Segment IV between Carver County Road 147 and the in place four lane segment of existing T.H. 212 at Cologne. o Design of the diamond interchange in Segment III at the intersection of Trunk Highway 41 and new Trunk Highway 212. o Partial funding of construction of Stage I of Segment I, between Mitchell Road (in Eden Prairie) and I -494, currently scheduled for bid letting in February 1995. o Partial funding of construction of Stage II, Segment I, between Mitchell Road and Wallace Road in Eden Prairie, currently scheduled for bid letting in October, 1995. We have just submitted a response to the Criteria for Highway Projects published May 5, 1993 by the Transportation Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee. We are herewith forwarding 87-54352 LIr400 -51 1 1 1 Senator Paul Wellstone June 9, 1993 Page Two 1 to you a copy of that response. We will appreciate your support of our application. Thank you for all of your past support. 1 Ve t rly rsf i � 4,4 ., 1 Rober . •- 1, Coalition President Chaska Co j it Member 1 RJL:dh cc: Board Members Congressman Jim Ramstad Congressman David Minge 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 RZ54352 LN400 -51 1 1 SOUTHWEST CORRIDOR TRANSPORTATION COALITION II 470 Pillsbury Center Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 337 -9300 1 June 9, 1993 1 Senator David Durenberger BY EXPRESS MAIL II 154 Russell Office Building Washington, DC 20510 Attn: Sue Pihlstrom I RE: Demonstration Grant for Design and Construction of New T.H. 212 Our 1 O File LN400 -51 Dear Senator Durenberger: On behalf of the Southwest Corridor Transportation Coalition 1 I request that you support the Coalition's demonstration grant application in the amount of $6 million for funding in the fiscal II year 1993/94. We propose that it be used for design and construction purposes within the following projects: o Design of Segment III between Trunk Highway 41 and the II intersection of Carver Road 147 with in place Trunk Highway 212. o Design of Segment IV between Carver County Road 147 and II the in place four lane segment of existing T.H. 212 at Cologne. o Design of the diamond interchange in Segment III at the I intersection of Trunk Highway 41 and new Trunk Highway 212. I o Partial funding of construction of Stage I of Segment I, between Mitchell Road (in Eden Prairie) and I -494, I currently scheduled for bid letting in February 1995. o Partial funding of construction of Stage II, Segment I, II between Mitchell Road and Wallace Road in Eden Prairie, currently scheduled for bid letting in October, 1995. We have just submitted a response to the Criteria for Highway II Projects published May 5, 1993 by the Transportation Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee. We are herewith forwarding to you a copy of that response. We will appreciate your support of II our application. Thank you for all of your past support. 1 1 1 I Senator David Durenberger June 9, 1993 Page Two 111 1 Ver, • , I yAS, I Rob -rt . in•a , o ition President Chaska Cou c' Member RJL:dh I cc: Board Members Congressman Jim Ramstad Congressman David Minge 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SOUTHWEST CORRIDOR TRANSPORTATION COALITION 470 Pillsbury Center Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 337 -9300 June 9, 1993 ' BY FAX AND MAIL Charles Siggerud 612/582 -1131 District Engineer Metropolitan District � ' MN Department of Transportation .�+ ��- / Q t Waters Edge Building 1500 W. County Road B2 Roseville, MN 55113 / 2./(E �� , RE: State Transportation Funding 4 Our File LN400 - 51 ��• -, r , ' ".' �` ""' „f" /9 " - 5 4 - I/ Dear Mr. Siggerud: Enclosed is a letter which I recently sent to Governor Arne Carlson and Commissioner James Denn of the Minnesota Department of Transportation, to urge that the letting dates of previously programmed portions of proposed new Highway 212 not be delayed. Any efforts you are able and willing to make toward maintaining the existing letting schedules will be appreciated. Thank you for your continued support. Ve Robert . L ndall, Presi ent RJL:dh ( Lii o cc: Southwest Corridor Coalition Board e-t^e) 1 1 JUN 14 '9_ 04 :22PM CARSON AND CLELLAND P.1 1 ,4/'� e e r - , 4 c , c' I CARSON AND GLELLAND ATTO$IPEYS AT LAW 6300 LNIN04.11 CREEK PARKWAY, SUITE 308 I J[ /IRLY A. CARBON MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 60450.2100 TCt. 0N[ rtli ►{.IAM G. CLiLLANO (612) 561•2600 STCV11l1 C. NEY TAX E1414gN M. $CHRLDEA 1412) 061.19,8 June 14, 1993 1 1 Mayor, Council, City Manager and Planner Al -Jaff VIA FAX CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 II Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 1 RE: Harry Lindbery - Conditional Use Permit 188 -11 II Ladies and Gentlemen: I am in receipt of the proposed Findings of Fact and Decision 1 for consideration tonight (6/14/93). Neither Mr. Lindbery nor I will be attending the meeting. I urge you to reconsider this matter and to give Mr. Lindbery an opportunity to meet any and all II reasonable conditions you might impose within a six month period. This request is based on the following: (1) Mr. Lindbery has made attempts to construct his I commercial building over the years and has met official resistance that has been outlined and is part of your record. He has spent close to $40,000.00 on permits and 1 building in this regard. (2) Mr. Lindbery has been operating a contractor's yard since the fall of 1988 without incident. It was only in the I summer of 1992 that alleged violations brought this before the City. : Presumably Mr. Lindbery has met City II requirements (one inspection per year minimum) prior to the summer of 1992. (3) The change in zoning (prohibiting contractor's yards in 1 A -2 zone) effectively reduces Mr. Lindbery's property in value without fair and lust compensation. Mr. Lindbery has spent nearly a quarter of a million dollars on this II property and if his property is reduced to agriculture only, it may be reduced by over fifty percent in value. (4) Although certain allegations were made in the summer of II 1992 regarding alleged violations of the Conditional Use 1 JUN 14 '93 04:13PM CARSON AND CLELLAND P.2 1 City of Chanhassen June 14, 1993 Page 2 Permit, these allegations were made by City staff based on inspections and to the best of our knowledge there has been no complaint by any other land owner, neighbor, etc. regarding Mr. Lindbery's use of his property. (5) The concept of equity ought to prevail and Mr. Lindbery should be permitted continued use of his property as a contractor's yard even if in a limited manner. On behalf of Mr. Lindbery, I urge you to reconsider this matter. I would ask that a copy of your final decision be sent to my attention for review. Very truly yours, CARS N AND CLELLAND 0,- ffrey A. Carson 1 JAC:nrz 1 cc: Harry Lindbery 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 A ki, St..1- - I 6? /LA - ive REGIONAL TRANSIT BOARD 1992 ANNUAL REPORT .. .p. 7 / S e ft "--; as 6 /7 ..........,, , :s,,,, ,.. I --- \ti o rtlitown 1 1 „........, r 1 ne ,_ A srool(dale i Rosedale 1 Maplewood \ apollsi U ot MN Sunray 1 -_ -, ,.. ' S )-1r2 ,, ‘.7 _ea.mington _,---.- Midway t. Pau oe I C Louls 13 a Uptown • \ H i g hland signal 14 I I Airport I .- Southdale iNN I \ . r- - ' .\----TEagan , . ,a 7tr,, -- E - x t p i1/4 R N E E s s — . • I 0 . 4 k : ' .1 ::'* C. k' .4 r , , ;-• PER S 0 N f . - . - rOOLS :- 1 Ilril - *Lai% . - • --, II : -,_- t - • ...•- r,,,.......,,........ 1 - 44A - A- . • — Afg 1 -- "' _ ' . - ,or ' , •1‘ -, i ii , 00 '!':-.,----.:— -- e ...., , I eAV • C nteV BurrISVI" st „,...., 1 ,, . I II■I MM.= •■■•••• illik AT Alre 1 1 SERVICE INTO THE SUBURBS I he want ad described a job opemng that Kevin Scott knew and then transfers to a Southwest Metro Route 5 3M bus In the he could fill. One drawback, though. was the location. Kevin, morning. he catches an express bus back to the cit a resident of Minneapolis. would need reliable transportation to get to Anagram International. a specialty balloon manufacturer "I like taking the bus because its easier —especial)} after work - located in Eden Praine. ing a night shift," says Kevin. "I would much rather relax o e bus than fight the morning traffic on Highwa} 35\\ Kevin now holds that night position and uses bus service provid- ed bs the Southwest Metro Transit Commission. Kevin travels While bus service has traditionally traveled from the suburb e from his Minneapolis home to the Mali of America transit hub Minneapolis and St. Paul downtowns, many job opening e irr - - ---, -,,.. .-...--.: 7, V t , j ��• .. , 7-N 6:::1. �-! 1 '''•• -ft,' /. :- •-, , A /*-': v 1 -�� _\� f> '= ANAGRAM W ELCOME _ . I S r � r , t '' I NTER NAT I O t , : ' ' ' ;:r __ \\4111111 --.- „7-e" : -.7 ,..----. .--• - ' ' t v-"n ----"' _ - i r . Olio \ NO v' Iit� fi � - ' -"'. i,. s 440_ h F « Y r r� i, ....__.../ � ' 1 - \ , - - 0 ,4 \ ra j ' r ' ‘ - -'' .1tr .-- 3 , 1 available in the suburbs and transit service must change to reflect staging areas, and oftentimes park- and -nde and bike- and -nde lots. 1 this shift. The Regional Transit Board is developing programs to Additional hubs will be established over the next feu sears. meet this demand. Comments Kevin. "Reverse commutes are a good idea for people who live in the cit\. especially since so mans The transit hub concept is working. Since the Mall of kmenca ' of the higher paying jobs are in the suburbs.•' transit hub opened. ridership has averaged 4.000 on weekdays. 7.000 on Saturdays and 3,000 on Sundays. A number of bus routes Southwest Metro Transit is one of five opt -out programs in the were extended or restructured to provide service to the shopping ' regional transit s) stem. In 1980 the Minnesota Legislature allowed and entertainment mecca. communities to replace existing service with ones more suited to ' local needs. using local]) generated funds to provide local service. While the transit hub concept helps riders connect from one service Communities like Chanhassen. Chaska and Eden Praine, where to another. the Regional Transit Board brought services together South v, est Metro runs. took advantage of the legislation. visually by developing a logo that now appears on all transit vehi- cles. The logo —with its accompanying tag line: a service of the Opt -out programs work m conjunction with regular route services regional transit system —helps riders see that each transit compo- through the transit hub concept. Transit hubs create focal points— nent is part of a coordinated regional system. in suburha ; and central cit) locations —for people to link with transit services such as regular route. express routes. and commu- In addition to transit hubs, a number of park - and -nde lots opened. nit) circulators The transit hubs serve as convenient and safe bnnging the number of available parking spaces to 6.119 at 142 ' transfer points. making transit more attractive and easier to use. sites. Park -and -ride lots provide a cost - effective means of serving the commuter market. Dnvers have an opportunity to connect with Dunn 1992 the RTB MTC. and MnrDOT worked with local transit services. leaving their single- occupant vehicles before the cornm s to build six such transit hubs at Rosedale Center. reach congested highways. Some specific park - and -nde lot addi- Ma'.'' of kmenca. dou Mown St. Paul. Plymouth Road. Louisiana tons m 1992 included the Target store in West St. Paul. VF\\ Post A enue and Leamington station, in downtown Minneapolis. These #9625 in Coon Rapids. Colonial Church in Edina. and I -394 and transit hubs cons of climate- controlled w ailing facilities. bus Plymouth Road in Minnetonka. 1 ■ ■ ■ ■ PLANS IN MOTION - - cc^''%e tc .. o s• Transit is takng a leadership The Reg c-a "'ans =__ _ ' FOR 1993 ce:ermne me most appropriate : .lte-s x role in reducing pollution wltnin work( a^: e"ec: e Ser. :e to : s -s :: :- -_ rezeez 115 own operations. Tne MTC Tra^.SI: A. , ' Irrp va'ious trahsi: f: pe_o ::.hc a'e seek—.; will move Into the second year Va' e. to ex:','e ma•k s e�c . : Cvvre B , the = of a two -year alternative fuel bus oe:e.o tr;,_" Its Jcoseevers p c,7 demonstration project. which is Appie Vabe. The - e _- - I v :orrs e:r` 4C agencies tc m the cool. ^' ^.2 a;E eta • c s. ;e ; c exa sa :cs e' passes gas. ethano l, and use particulate of natural hous ng a7.: c• a ea :- , ea' traps to reduce the emissions ' from buses 1 Ai., CITY OF - . CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN. MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 ' MEMORANDUM 1 TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager h, /; ` _'/ FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Director . ' 1 j DATE: June 2, 1993 - SUBJ: Dale Gregory and Dean Schmieg y ;3 P I want to take a moment to express my confidence in Dale Gregory and Dean Schmieg as top notch employees for the city. We all recognize Dale's and Dean's commitment to their work, and as such. come to expect their continued high performance. I have no reservations in calling upon either Dale or Dean to assist at any and all times in getting the "job" done. This past Friday eN, ening. I called Dean and Dale at their homes to ask if they could make themselves a� ailable over the Memorial Day weekend to perform the installation of a silt barrier at Lake Ann Park. All I said to Dean was that I was leaving it up to him to coordinate the work we had discussed. By 9:30 a.m. the next day (Saturday morning), they had completed the work. Both Dale's and Dean's willingness to go the extra mile make working with them a pleasure. pc: Charles Folch. City Engineer 1 DaN, e Hempel, Assistant City Engineer Jerry Ruegemer, Recreation Supervisor Dawn Lemme, Program Specialist 1 1 �� PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Minnesota — ' 1 Department of Mn/DOT completes NHS study Transportation 1 ISTEA The Minnesota Department of prioritized as required b} jeers will compete for as Transportation (Mn/DOT) FH�vA. (The} are shown as many types of ISTEA funds as i submitted a 3,900 -mile NHS dashed lines on the NHS ! permitted. 1 IMPLEMENTATION (National Highway System) map) FHWA will decide if j study to the Federal Hi hway these four routes should be This flexibility will alloy, g N1n'DOT to evaluate all pro) - Administration (FHWA) on included in NHS. ! ects independent of category NHS is interim in that FHWA NHS's Intermodal Surface I ?vHS's biggest impact locally Transportation An advisory board appointed has until Dec 18 to develop a is that FHWA will have over Efficient■ Act of 1991 by Commissioner James N. true NHS and submit it to sight (approvals on design) Denn under took the study Congress. Congress has until for projects using federal The board relied heavily on Oct. 1, 1995, to adopt an {ands on these routes FHWA In this issue: regional input, coordinated NHS. If they do not, there will j will not have m ersight \\ hen 1 by the regional development not be an NHS federal funds are used on Minnesota completes NHS commissions. Although NHS is funded sepa- non -NHS routes. study Minnesota's NHS includes rately as a program under I Workshop discusses interna 'about 200 miles above the ISTEA, the designation will (contact Jerry Skelton, tional trade corridor study targeted number of miles have little effect in Minnesota. 612/297 ' Mn /DOT responds to rule allotted to the state There- Why? The state plans to use making fore, the four NHS routes that the funding flexibility provid- constitute the additional Number 8 ed by ISTEA to its fullest. That ; Mn /DOT uses task mileage were justified and means all transportation pro- ' June 7, 1993 ; force to respond to rulemaking Workshop scheduled to discuss In March see era] notices of I international trade corridor study ! proposed rulemaking cover- ; Corrections ing statewide and metropoli- Please note the following, ' FH\XA has scheduled meet- tees. Included were represen ;tan planning and various changes in - what are the ings around the country and tatives from the State of Min ISTEA mandated management duties. responsibilities of in Canada and Mexico to dis- ! nesota (Mn/DOT, systems were published in ' ATPS article in the �1a� - , cuss issues and gather infor- Department of Trade and the Federal Register Ma\ 3 issue of ISTEA I plemenu ; matron for the International ! Economic Development. and was the closing date for tom tion Newsletter Trade Comdor Study as part State Planning), University of ; meats of Section 1089 and 6015 of ! Minnesota. '' • In fifth paragraph the first ISTEA. �Sn. DOT used a Rulemaking sentence should refer to the Minnesota Transportation Response Task Force and Region Transportation Mn/DOT's initial involvement Alliance, Highway Users Fed- assembled individual Rule I Improvement Program in the study was at the sub- eration, Minnesota Trucking Response Activity Teams to (RTIP) regional roundtable work- Association, Seaway Port review, oversee and coordi- shop June 4 in Winnipeg, Authority of Duluth, North- nate department responses I • In Appendix A. District -i. Manitoba, Canada. More will west Airlines, Mesaba Air. The teams represented van- remove the asterisks from ! be available on the workshop Motorways Ltd., Transx, Twin ous planning. administrative Mahnomen Count\ and add I in an upcoming issue of this Modal Inc., Yellow Freight and operating disciplines I Headwaters RDC. District 6. I newsletter. Systems, Roadway Express, within and outside Mn DOT remove the asterisks from Olmsted Count` , District I Mn /DOT provided FHWA Consolidated Freight�•ays An April workshop was held add Jackson County . Metro with a list of professionals and the Sooline Railroad. to coordinate information 'Division, add Ramsey County representing the various about the proposed res ons- rans oran organizations (contact: Ron Hoffman t ttioexecutive P P P and East Central RDC p g 612/296 - 9072) I es. An summary of and interests as possible invi- the workshop is available ' • Number of counties should be as follows District 1 (7) (contact Tim Worke, 612/296 - and District 8 (12) , 5309 or Leonard Eilts, 612/ 1 296 -5425) 1 1 � LEGEND 1 1 National Highway System Route ‘ 1 . ' ■ as National Highway System Route over • - the Target Mileage • -. 1 1 •- 1 • ( / 1 61 `• 2 / S 2 ( 169 59 2 , .. 1- ll It 53 10 371 i 169 2 / 33 1 • 7 M 1 21 210 • 5 9 10 210 3 1 L .. / l'' ' 1 210 371 ` - 10 ( 169 " / r , 1 • 94 10 23 23 r , \, 59 10 } 169 " AlreliFra.■ 124 8 " = 1 6% f .iigl.T1117 t • D. 7 23 .�� 212 212 4 7112 '�� V <• I F . 71 212 _ . '� 1 I 169 11 35 52 61 1 114 I OW 169 14 ` 90 71 60 63 90 60 (61 90 - -. —. — ._— —..— 90 _.. 90 — — —.. 1 60 71 35 �*` Questions, comments to U.S Postage I CITY OF CHANHASSE>N Z ° ,Robert Lour ✓e, Newsletter Editor PER IM First PAID Class c Minnesota Department of Tr (�I�fi fU� yr�.� 807 Transportation Building Permit No 171 JUN 1 395 John Ireland Boulevard 1993 St. Paul, MN St. Pa.,,, MN 55155 1 Tel 612/296 -1657, Fax. 612/297 -3160 ENGINEERING DEPT. 1 Charles D. Folch City of Chanhassen I 690 Coulter Drive PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 1 1 4,..., 'N TSO SCOTT & FUCHS, P.A. C.A \1PI�FLL, h. U _ , 1 11 -` ' `. r, !, t Ft. trl :1 I -555. 1 1 +n,c R \\ 11 Elliott I's kn..t,,1' May 27, 1993 \1t.h.nl A Brol -t.! R. ,, ,. 1 ' -t, :it,. r 1 C n Kate Aanenson L J i.j I Senior Planner City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive I P. 0. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Merz, et al. vs. City of Chanhassen and Trolls -Glenn I Homeowners' Association Dear Kate: I On May 26, 1993, a hearing was held on the above referenced matter in Carver County District Court with Judge Kanning presiding. The parties argued their respective positions, and I Judge Kanning took the matter under advisement. I expect Judge Kanning to issue a ruling in about thirty days. I will let you know the outcome. I I thought the hearing went well, and I believe it is likely Judge Kanning will uphold the City Council's decision to grant a II permit for four boats. Please contact me if you have any questions. 1 Very truly yours, CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT II & FUCHS, P.A. 1 By: qL o r Elliott B. ` e sch I EBK:mlw cc: Paul Krauss R -�' {t.,.. Don Ashworth 1 - r � 1>' . • L.._ .' is \, "� t-_ '? :nr r • 1' 3r i C,'rror sinter Cur, l' • P.l_:3n, I-. A), 1 CITYoFE 1 z 1 , 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 1 + (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 1 June 10, 1993 1 1 Ms. Nann Opheim 1 20 Woodlane Street Excelsior, MN 55331 Dear Nann: 1 I just wanted to drop you a quick note and let you know how much I appreciated your hard work I in catching up with the minute taking. I know you put in a stressful two weeks on jury duty, but your turnaround on the minutes, specifically the items we needed right away, was great! You do an excellent job for the city, Nann. Keep up the good work! 1 Sincerely, 1 aren J. Engelhardt 1 Office Manager KJE:ms i pc: Don Ashworth, City Manager 1 1 1 "s. 1 to 41 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER - 1 ' Donald J. Chmiel City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 1 June 15, 1993 Dear Mayor Chmiel: I am writing to you in response to your March 16, 1993 letter to the ' residents of Minnewashta Parkway. You are right, it has been a hassle trying to keep a car clean when the road is muddy. I am sure you have ' had no shortage of mail or phone calls reminding you of it. But, in the interest of balance, I wanted to share a few thoughts on how well it really has gone. The number of times that I have had to wait for 1 construction vehicles has not been all that many. Most of the time traffic was able to pass on one side or the other. When I did have to 1 wait it seemed like a long time but in reality it never exceeded 5 minutes. Almost always the workers were either tolerant or courteous. 1 I saw far more times when the motorists were less than polite. 1 think the project went well considering the size of the work. Please don't put this note in a newsletter but I thought you should know that some residents are pleased with the progress and the project. 1 1 Sincerely yours, : �1 es c 4 t i ; ( X e._ 1 CITYOF CIIANBASSEN 1 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 1 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 1 June 21, 1993 1 Mr. David Lundahl 1 6501 Nez Perce Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Mr. Lundahl: Enclosed please find copies of the Planning Commission and City Council minutes of the Vinewood Addition. I could find no requirement for a 20 foot buffer yard. The staff did have a condition for a 20 foot side yard setback. We have asked the builder to remove the tree that is in the center of the common drive, therefore, the driveway location is consistent with the conditions of approval. The building activity is in compliance with the requirements of the conditions of approval for this subdivision. The city will ensure compliance with the conditions of approval before a final certificate of occupancy will be issued. The city will not be pursuing any further action on your concerns at this time. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. 1 Sincerely, 1 IBC a s: /V.6,'1. >'tka 1. Kathryn R. Aanenson Senior Planner KA:v 1 c: City Council 1 1 es PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993 might ask the Council to consider in place of the bowling center to add one that ' would be referred to as miscellaneous acquisition /improvement projects, $750,000.00. That relates to three smaller projects that fall under the same category. At the time we first put out this list with Springsted we didn't have the final numbers on West 79th Street improvements, the bus turn around, Market ' Square storm sewer, and Hanus acquisition but those four are complete. The total of those is $750,000.00. So we would be deleting bowling center, deleting Bloomberg and adding micellaneous acquisition for $750,000.00. It would be a net deletion of $1,300,000.00. Mayor Chmiel: Right. ' Councilman Senn: Don, are those new ones likewise ones that in effect have already been expended? ' Don Ashworth: Right. Completed 79th Street public improvements. We've completed the storm sewer. We've completed the turn around. ' Councilman Senn: I wouldn't have a problem with that. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion? ' Councilman Mason: I think what Councilman Senn has said makes a lot of sense and I would certainly go along with that. Mayor Chmiel: Right, I don't disagree with that either. Would you like to move ' that with the addition of that $750,000.00 for the miscellaneous acquisition. Councilman Senn: I'm not quite sure how to word it but I'll just say I move II 1 approval with deletion of the $850,000.00 for the bowling center and the $1.2 million for Bloomberg's property and the addition of $750,000.00 for the four projects that Don mentioned. ' Don Ashworth: Hopefully I can have a friendly amendment in that this was originally set for February 8th and we tabled it for 2 weeks and so the new date . should be shown as February 22, 1993. Councilman Senn: Fine. Councilman Mason: I second it. Resolution $92 -04: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve ' setting the date of February 22, 1993 for the 1993 Tax Increment Bonds deleting $850,000.00 for the bowling center, deleting $1.2 millioo for Bloomberg properties and adding 8750,000.00 for micellaneous acquisition /improvements. All voted in favor and the motion carried. E. PRELIMINARY PLAT TO REPLAT 2 LOTS INTO 2 LOTS AND 1 OUTLOT. SOUTH OF PLEASANT VIEW ROAD JUST NORTH OF NEZ PERCE DRIVE. VINEW00D ADDITION. STUART HOARN. Councilwoman Dockendorf: The reason I asked to discuss this separately is we were just handed this letter from several neighbors in the Vineland Forest area 3 City Council Meeting - Jar "'ry 25, 1993 who have some strong concerns about subdivision of the lot and I would just ask staff a little clearer explanation of what their concerns may be and if they've been addressed at the Planning Commission. Kate Aanenson: If there's a spokesmen here, maybe it'd be better for them to speak to it but I can go through the subdivision itself if that's what you'd like. • Mayor Chmiel: And in addition to that, if I could, in looking at the two lots 1 that we're subdividing, we show that it's .86 acres in size and we're going to divide it into .48 acres and .41 which makes that .89 as opposed to the .86. Which is correct? Kate Aanenson: They probably rounded up. I could double check that. Just to give you some history on this. This lot was split off Edward Vogel's middle of last year. Since that time a person has picked up this lot, Mr. Hoarn and has .requested that it be split. Both lots are approximately half acre in size. A little less than a half acre in size. The concern that the staff had originally, and we still do, is there is some trees in the area. Not all of them are of high quality. We did request the home placement plan the first time and we recommended it the second time. The lots do meet the standards. They are flag lots. They can meet the standards. One of the concerns is the driveway. They showed two separate driveways. This outlot here is under the city's control. We've granted them an easement to go across that. They had shown two separate driveways with that. We would recommend one. Whether there's one home or not, there would still be an access onto that so one of the issues that the neighbors had concern with was the two, or the traffic onto that but we feel like it's really not an issue because whether there's two homes or one, there will still be one driveway access at that point. The engineering department has looked at that and felt that that is really not a bad location sight distance wise. We did want to prohibit, what we felt was the worst condition, going out onto Pleasant View and recommended denial against that. Again the Planning Commission addressed those same concerns as far as home placement plans when they come in. We try to site the home on the lot inasmuch as to minimize tree loss and it's our understanding that the owners have the same concerns. The value of the lot is in with the trees. Just some background too. When Vineland Forest was in, I didn't work on that but in speaking to Jo Ann, we did walk that site with the Forester. There was a substantial amount of trees on that one too and substantial value of trees were lost when that subdivision went in too. Unfortunately sometimes that happens when the subdivision goes in. We do recognize that it's a concern. Mayor Chmiel: Do you have any idea of the species of those trees that are 1 there? Kate Aanenson: The ones that are there right now? No, I have not identified 1 those. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Would it be appropriate for any neighbors who may be here this evening to... Mayor Chmiel: Yes it would. Is there anyone wishing to discuss this as well? Please state your name and your address please. 4 1 11 City Council Meeting - nuary 25, 1993 Dan Rogers: My name is Dan Rogers and I reside at 6500 Nez Perce. One of the things that you can't see on that overhead is, if you look directly to the right of Lot 2 there, there's a house currently on that lot and I think you can just make out maybe the outline of that house. Kate Aanenson: There? Dan Rogers: Come down. There. Right` there. The driveway for that lot will very closely meet the corner of the driveway for the proposed development. And I don't live there. The gentleman that lives there couldn't make it tonight but it seems that that could be kind of a difficult situation where less traffic would probably be better than more. Kate Aanenson: Staff is recommending that we go back to the original proposal for the single lot split and the driveway be located there. There is a utility box there too so this is not what we're going to recommend. This is what they had proposed. They go back to a single driveway, centered where we save the trees and give separation for the other driveway. Dan Rogers: Okay. I'm not sure I understand. What I'm trying to explain is, no matter what you do for Lot 1 and 2, if there is one driveway or two coming out onto Pleasant View. Excuse me, Nez Perce. That driveway or driveways will converge on the existing driveway for the gentleman who lives next door making a V at the street. Kate Aanenson: No. No, they won't. Dan Rogers: No? 11 . Kate Aanenson: No. We've looked at that. That won't. Dan Rogers: Okay. The other concern is that a few of us case to the Planning meeting a few weeks ago just to hear what Mr. Hoarn had planned and he wasn't here so we're just interested to hear what he proposes to put on the lots. We're concerned with property values because we made quite an investment in our homes and looked at the area and we're just surprised to hear that that lot would be split into two. That's the basis for our concerns. Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you. Is there anyone else? Yes sir. Would you please come to the podium. We do record this and we'd like you to get you on TV too. Stuart Hoarn: Oh wonderful. I'm Stuart Hoarn and I own the property there. Actually my mother and I own it. I do apologize for not being present for the Planning Commission meeting. My grandmother in Tucson chose an inconvenient moment to die and she sends her apologies too. In any case, 1 will address the question about the driveway being too close there. As far as I'm concerned, I live on a cul -de -sac now and there are four driveways that come into a tight ' radius cul -de -sac and we haven't had any great objection to that. I think there's actually more separation there once that's done between the driveway to the south and the driveway to these two parcels than would be typical in a cul -de -sac. As far as property values. We're not planning to set up any group homes or anything like that, as happened in my neighborhood in Eden Prairie, so 1 5 City Council Meeting - Je ^Mary 25, 1993 1 you all can relax about that. If that's your concern. I'm not sure what the concern is. Obviously if people are involved in lots that are worth 50 +, maybe S60,000.00 apiece, we're not going to put hobbles on the lots. I think the 11 marketplace dictates that. So I guess I don't know if there are any other questions then that people would have of me about what we plan to do. It seems like a simple subdivision to me but. It meets all the requirements. Thank you. 1� Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Seeing that the issues have been discussed at the S Planning Commission meeting, I would move that we would approve the preliminary plat to replat 2 lots. One lot into 2 lots and 1 outlot south of Pleasant View Road, just north of Nez Perce Drive, Vinewood Addition. Councilman Mason: Second. Mayor Chmiel: Could I just put that friendly amendment making sure as to the 1 size. Which is proper. Any other discussion? Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the r Preliminary Plat to replat 2 lots into 2 lots and 1 outlot south of Pleasant View Road and north of Nez Perce Drive, Vinewood Addition, Stuart Hoarn with staff clarifying the correct lot sizes. All voted in favor and the motion carried. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: 1 Gary Carlson: Good evening Mayor and City Council. My name is Gary Carlson and I live on Lot 6 of Schmitt's Acre Tracts way up in the northwest boundary of the city. You gentlemen made the ordinance for non - conforming beachlots. Non- conforming recreational beachiot ordinance and our original plat allows about, right now about 40 odd people to, I've got the exact wording on the original plat here. The property is actually owned by a person that owns that whole remaining stretch of Lake Minnewashta on the northwest corner. I don't know if that's open for development yet but a single gentleman owns that entire area. He owns our 50 foot lake access and the City keeps sending me registered letters as if I'm the non - conforming beachiot. Through the years that this original plat has granted the heirs and assigns. So there's heirs of Schmitt that have the right to ingress and egress the lake over this 50 feet but I don't own the property. It's owned by the gentleman who owns that whole section on the lake. And with the City Attorney here, you're sending me letters as if I'm a beachiot, which I'm not personally. I don't know the 50 other people. So I don't care if you say well, you're non - conforming. How are you going to enforce it against me? 2 or 3 times a year I go over that 50 foot wide strip in and out from the lake. The City Attorney is here. I don't know if you're going to ask the owner to come down and request a beachiot or ask me to personally get one or the other 50 people and odd heirs and assigns to get a non- conforming permit. I'd be glad to apply for a non - conforming permit for myself but then the other 50 people will say, well why didn't you call me. Well it's not my, I don't know them. I don't know their addresses. We all just shave it. It's dated since 18, I think 1 the original plat was 18, or I mean 19. I've got it here but it's an old plat. It gives all of the heirs of Schmitt and the assigns the right to ingress and egress the lake over this 50 foot wide strip. 5o when I talked to the people at 6 i 1 Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1993 - Page 13 Krauss: I believe the 25th. Batzli: Thank you very much for coming in everyone. Craig Mertz: Paul, is that February 25th? ' Krauss: I'm sorry, January 25th. Mr. Chairman, before we proceed. I'm sorry but in the hubbub of the interviews I neglected to tell you. We had Sunlink call us yesterday afternoon. Their attorneys called us to ' pull from them from the agenda. It's item number 4. Batzli: So that one's gone, okay. ' PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT TO REPLAT 2 LOTS INTO 2 LOTS AND 1 OUTLOT ON PROPERTY ' ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED SOUTH OF PLEASANT VIEW ROAD, JUST NORTH OF NEZ PERCE DRIVE, VINEWOOD ADDITION, STUART HOARN. Public Present: Name Address ' Julius C. Smith Dan Rogers 7600 France Avenue So, Mpls 55435 6500 Nez Perce Drive David Lundahl 6501 Nez Perce Drive W. Pat Cunningham 865 Pleasant View Road I Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Batzli called the public hearing to order. ' Julius Smith: My name is Julius Smith. I'm here representing the landowner to the immediate west of that property. t Emmings: Who is that? Julius Smith: Frank Beddor Jr. Now I can put it in the negative or the ' positive. I'll take it in the positive. We don't object to this, provided that it doesn't negatively impact the lots to the west, which my client owns. He has engaged in substantial landscaping and we would hope ' that the City would require the same requirements on this developer who is being benefitted of course, because he's getting two lots out of one, that they do of everyone else and that trees on that lot would be ' replaced 1 for 1 and inch for inch like they require of other developers. And we feel that he should replace all the trees that are going to be done or we should establish or the City should establish 20 foot conservation easement certainly along our side. We've spent a considerable amount of money landscaping the land to the west and there of course is many precedence for establishing a 20 foot conservation district where they can't remove the trees. They've done it with my ' client on several parcels. The other question, the other thing we're concerned about is the use of Outlot A for access to Pleasant View Road. Under the initial platting, Lot 2, the original Lot 2 was required to go to Nez Perce Road, and we don't have any .problem if both lots go to Nez 1 Perce Road but we don't want, we would object to any authorization allowing them to use access to Pleasant View Road along Outlot A. Since Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1993 - Page 14 that was rohibited before, would prohibition P ore, we like to see that p ohibition remain. And make that a condition of approval. So essentially we don't have a I problem with it provided they don't tear all the trees out next to our lots. Our lots to the west and we would hope the City would apply the same requirements that they applied to everybody else with regard to trees and replacement thereof. Or if it's not possible, because you're I going to put two houses in there, that there at least be a 20 foot conservation easement along the side, on the west. Batzli: Paul, could you respond to the tree replacement and the access I on Outlot A and the buffer. Proposed buffer. Or he would like to see a buffer. Krauss: Let me take the easy one first. There is no access being proposed to Pleasant View Road. A condition backing that up is certainly fine with staff. I believe the old driveway to Pleasant View Road, they' was no anticipation of using it. It's a remnant outlot that was left over from the subdivision. We preferred at that point that it get incorporated into adjoining cots and there was some presentations by the property owner, the developer at that point that he was going to offer that for sale to adjoining properties and apparently it's never been done. We're still requesting that that be done. So again, I think you can put that to bed by just adding a condition that neither of these lot, should access to Pleasant View Road. As to the tree preservation issue, Mr. Smith is correct. As far as subdivisions go, we do have a tree replacement policy. We do do that. However, on single family lots, I which these generally are right now. I mean we're taking one lot and splitting them into two, typically what we do is establish tree preservation, a no cut area, around the homes to minimize cutting. Tha has been done. There is a condition to that effect. It states that landscaping, tree preservation, home placement plans, shall be submitte at the time of building permit application for staff review and approval. As to the question of buffering single family homes in the Troendle Addition, that's somewhat more problematic. First of all the location o" the driveways that are being illustrated on the plat would preclude that. I suppose it's possible to kick those driveways over somewhat to save additional trees. Honestly, it's been a while since I've been up there. Unfortunately, Kate could be here tonight. She was ill. But if there are trees on the property line, we can certainly work to incorporate some of those to some extent into there by kicking the driveway over. But t fundamental issue of buffering between one single family home and anothe is not something that we've gotten into in the past, and I really wouldn't advocate that you launch into that for the future. These are not, I mean the homes that are built in Vineland Forest area are not insubstantial. I think the neighborhood has developed quite attractively and people typically do significant landscaping. So if there is some desire, I think Mr. Smith is right. I think there were some trees along the old Troendle driveway, and I'm not sure who's side of the property they're on. Julius Smith: Troendle is again another bunch of lots over further west" Krauss: No, it's this one. Oh I'm sorry, you're right. It's after one more. It's the homesite. If there are trees within 10 feet of the Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1993 - Page 15 1 property, I think we can do something like that. But it's kind of hard to see on that drawing. But if you look at the larger sized print, the driveway that's being illustrated virtually butts up against that western property line. ' Batzli: But there's two driveways illustrated on this. Wouldn't that shrink once we go with the single driveway? ' Krauss: Yes. Well, the condition though that's been applied by the engineering department is only that they have a single curb cut. It gets split out into two driveways. We can, and probably ought to because it's in our subdivision code, require that they share a common driveway beyond 1 House number. Batzli: When it says the applicant shall utilize a single driveway I access in condition 5, that means one curb cut? That doesn't mean one driveway? I Krauss: Yeah. Ahrens: That doesn't even make sense actually. I Batzli: And then you require a cross access or driveway easement. Why would you require those things if they have two separate driveways? Krauss: Because at one point they will Y down and run together. Batzli: This is the property line there. He doesn't come over it. 1 Emmings: Oh, you're right. Krauss: What you will do is you'll have a single driveway that will 1 branch off at some point, so there is a common section. Ahrens: That's not how it shows on the plan. I Batzli: The plan shows two and it shows. Krauss: That's correct. The plan is wrong. This is a condition to 1 remedy the plan. But an alternative in this is to require that you, we're spinning our wheels with a lot of concrete here... If there's a common driveway that runs something like that, then you do have more clearance. Batzli: Is the condition the way it's worded now require the red line? Krauss: No. The green line. Ahrens: Why not require the red line? Krauss: I honestly don't have a problem with that. I Batzli: Now explain to me one more time why you would require for your green lines, why there has to be a cross easement? Planning Commission Meeting I January 6, 1993 - Page 18 1 development that's already there. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me that we ask the developer to conform to similar type convenants. Batzli: Well you certainly should talk to the developer and see if you can, it's something that we can't necessarily do but often times neighbors do have a large impact on a developer's plans so. Dave Lundahl: Is there any information about the number of vehicles per household that we could expect that would help us to insure that there's I only one single driveway there? Emmings: The number of vehicles per house are the number of spaces in the garage plus 1. If it's anything like my neighborhood. If you have I 1 car garage, there's 2 cars. If you have a 2 car garage, there's 3 cars. Conrad: I don't think there's anything you can hang your hat on to help' in that issue. The issues you can deal with are what we're talking about right here. You're kind of don't have control. Dave Lundahl: Well, I would reiterate my desire to see the red line typJ driveway recommended. Batzli: Thank you very much. Yes sir. Julius Smith: Just as a point of clarification. It's my understanding there's no access to Pleasant View authorized by this and also that tre replacement...ordinances don't apply to single family plats. Did I read that right? Paul, is that what it says? Krauss: Jules, they have not been applied to single family lots. Once you're looking to site a home, once the plat, the lots are created, we require that roads be moved to save trees. We require that lots be reconfigured to save trees. Where a developer has asked to cut them down, we require replacement. But when individual homes have been built, it's one of those things where something has to give someplace and what ' been done in the past is that the home is allowed to go in. They establish a no cut zone around the home and make sure that the equipment doesn't go outside of that area but you have to make a lot buildable. Julius Smith: Well, except they're going to cut down all the trees alon'j the west line. Krauss: Well I think that can be addressed. I Batzli: Well can we make it a condition that the driveway that we approve minimizes disturbance of the trees at the entry point onto Nez il Perce and on the westeiv line? Krauss: I think that you can do better than that. Frankly, I don't I offer this as an excuse but this was, there was something that I caught reading this tonight. I mean we have an ordinance that says when you have flag lots and you share common driveways, that you use a single driveway. That it be.paved 20 feet wide to a 7 ton design I believe. I' 44;' 11 Planning Commission Meeting 9 January 6, 1993 - Page 21 either to the east or the west but if we obligated him to sell it, then it wasn't worth very much. Well apparently that's never been resolved. Ahrens: It's not going to be worth anything... ' Krauss: Of course not. I'd support you trying it and if it's not justifiable, our attorney will tell us to pull it out. Batzli: Well, I would like to make it stronger than what you have it worded I guess. Not should be deeded but it shall be deeded prior to giving them building permits or something. i Emmings: Or final plat approval? Batzli: Yeah. Something where, this is kind of wishy washy and we don't solve the problem that we have hanging here. Krauss: Or it shall be deeded and combined. Ahrens: Why do, if we're not going to give them the access, what do we care what they do with it? ' Krauss: What do we care what? Ahrens: What happens to Outlot A. Batzli: I guess we don't want little fingers all over the city. ' Krauss: When you have remnant parcels, they're not maintained. Certainly nobody's going to mow that thing. It's the old driveway. It's no man's land. Ahrens: But there's no incentive for him to take half of it either. Krauss: No, and then what happens when is it goes tax forfeit after 7 ' years. Emmings: And one of the neighbors buys it. ' Ahrens: Yeah, one of the neighbors buys it anyway. Batzli: So then we live with it for 7 years? I guess I'd rather clean it up when we have the opportunity. Ahrens: If you can force them to sell his land? I doubt that you can do ' that. Julius Smith: Hasn't Oultot A in fact been sold to the owner of Lots 1 and 2? I believe it has. Krauss: That's the issue. Julius Smith: I think it has been I mean. 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1993 - Page 22 Krauss: It's part of those lots. Julius Smith: Mr. Van Eckhout has sold this to this guy. Krauss: So what you've done is you've eliminated the problem over Lots II and 2 but you still have the problem over the remainder. Julius Smith: Right. So when you say combining, you mean Outlot A with Lot, what is this 1? Is that what you're talking about? Krauss: Either that one or the one that's labeled as Cunningham to the. Julius Smith: Well of course Cunningham doesn't own it but the guy who II • owns this owns Outlot A. Krauss: That's not clear. 1 Ahrens: What if they don't want to buy it? What if the neighbors don' want to buy it? You can't force them to sell something that somebody, then you're forcing somebody to buy it. Emmings: Well how about making it part of Lot 1, to give Lot 1 responsibility for what happens to it. Taxes and everything else. He II may have more incentive to try and get a deal with one of the neighbors if he doesn't want it. Krauss: Sure. Batzli: See, I just don't like creating an outlot here that's you know. Ahrens: I think Steve's solution is the best one. I don't think we can force him to sell it and force somebody else to buy it. I guess we just" have to hook it onto another lot and make him maintain it. Emmings: Then he'll have to pay taxes on it and everything else until does something else with it. Ahrens: Right. Emmings: Except the only trouble with that is, it would make him go through another proceeding to split it off. Well, they'd have to wouldn't they? Ahrens: Is this registered land? Emmings: Well, wouldn't they have to go through another platting to mail it a separate parcel to sell it? Ahrens: No. I don't think so. Emmings: Do it by metes and bounds? Krauss: Sure. Metes and bounds...you're not creating a new lot. 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1993 - Page 23 Emmings: I wonder what the applicant will think of this. Too bad he didn't show. 1 Conrad: That will show him. ' Emmings: Let's turn the lots too while we're at it. Batzli: Okay. Otherwise I support the language to have the common driveway and preserve as many trees as we can to the west and to the ' south and where the driveway... That's all I have. Is there a motion? Or you want to discuss first? ' Emmings: Yeah. What do you want to do with Outlot A? And then do you really. Batzli: I don't want to allow the preservation of an Outlot that they're just screwing around with and they're not going to finish this piece up. I don't feel like this is good planning to let them create a new outlot. 1 Emmings: But do we gain anything by making it a part of Lot 1? Batzli: Well I think you force the issue that the applicant is going to go to the Council and say, I can't sell this with Lot 1. Or at least it's going to, it will force them to do something with it. I think. Emmings: Well, who's going to own Outlot A? That's what, I'm not clear 1 on that. Pat Cunningham: That's why I'm here. I'd like to. Emmings: Who are you? ' Pat Cunningham: I'm Pat Cunningham. Emmings: And you live? Pat Cunningham: I'm directly to the east. Emmings: Oh okay. Have you talked to him? Pat Cunningham: Yes. I've talked to him. I've tried to buy it for the last couple of years and I got a call about 2 months ago from Mr. Van Eckhout, I think you pronounce it. He said, I'm not going to sell it you because I can make more money selling it to somebody else. Ahrens: Who does he figure he's going to sell it to? 1 Batzli: He 'sold it to the person that's splitting these lots. 1 Pat Cunningham: He sold it to the first, the larger of the two I'm guessing, and that man owns, as I understand it... Julius Smith: Is it my understanding that the guy who owns Lot 2 is not the same person who owns Lot 1 anymore? 1 Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1993 - Page 24 Krauss: No. Julius Smith: Then perhaps the owner of Lot 2 also owns this. Krauss: Actually my understanding is the individual that's buying Lot 111 is also buying Lot 2 to build a home for his mother. Emmings: He couldn't own Lot 2 now because there is no Lot 2 now. 1 Krauss: It's in one ownership. It's one parcel. Julius Smith: This whole parcel has got, there are two lots. 1 Krauss: Right. Julius Smith: I'm talking about the old plat. The original one. This 1 has been divided into two lots. Now they want to divide Lot 2 of the original one into Lots 1 and 2 and making the new plat. Krauss: Right, exactly. Julius Smith: My question is, Outlot A, the fellow who owned Lot 2 II before this plat. I mean the guy who's platting it, Lot 2 of the old plat. Owns Outlot A as well. You can't very well, if you put these two lots together, he's going to have access and I don't know how. 1 Krauss: That's not clear to me Jules. I think that this outlot is still merged with this underlying lot. " Julius Smith: That's right. And that's why you almost have to leave it an outlot because if you say we don't want an outlot. It's got to be put with this lot. 1 Krauss: Well, but what the Planning Commission seems to be saying is, why let it be an outlot at all. Why not make somebody take responsibility for it? Julius Smith: I don't know that you could force somebody to sell it though. 1 Krauss: No, but you don't have to allow it to be replatted and maintaining it's outlot status. 1 Julius Smith: You could just leave it as nothing. Krauss: You can make it part of Lot 1. Emmings: But what do Oe gain by that? It was my suggestion and I'm not so sure we really gained anything by it. Because it still is going to bill owned. Someone's still going to have to pay taxes on it. I was thinkin we could. Batzli: But that person's right there. , i 1 r y 4. II Planning Commission Meeting I January 6, 1993 - Page 25 Emmings: What do you mean? II Batzli: Well if you hook it up with Lot 1, whoever's in that house is going to own it. II Krauss: They don't have the ability to just sever it and forget about paying taxes on it. It's part of their lot. II Batzli: It's part of their house. They're going to pay taxes on it. Emmings: Maybe we'd be doing Mr. Cunningham a favor if we do it that I way. Ahrens: This underlying lot, this Lot 1 right here. II Batzli: The original Lot 1. II Ahrens: The original Lot 1. Who owns that? Batzli: Do we know? I Julius Smith: A fellow by the name of Edwards used to own it. I don't know if he still does. He was the platter, he was the one who did the . original split into two lots. II Batzli: Well from a sound planning practices viewpoint Paul, should we hook it up with Lot 1 or not? II Krauss: I'd prefer that you get rid of it one way or the other. Either we force their hand into merging it with an adjoining lot, if that's legally justifiable. I think probably that's questionable. Or you I eliminate the outlot status and combine it with Lot 1 and put the onous on that property owner to resolve it by selling it or maintaining it. I Ahrens: That's what you have to do. Batzli: I guess I'd, oh okay. Yes. II Julius Smith: I have only one concern with that. If you split, if you put that Outlot A into Lot, whatever his new one is, Lot 1 of the new plat, that outlot, that Lot 1 is going to be an L shaped lot and I don't I believe the city has bought the access onto Pleasant View Road and I'm not so sure that if his lot abutts Pleasant View Road you can stop him from using it. If it's a separate lot, you can prohibit'him from doing that. II Emmings: But if we make it a condition of the plat, can't we do that? Tell him he's got to have his access on Nez Perce. II Krauss: Yes, for sure. That's true. I mean you've already resolved that. II Ahrens: We're already doing that. II Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1993 - Page 26 Emmings: That's a condition of the plat. He's asking for a plat and we're making that a condition. Do you think that's alright? Julius Smith: Well yeah, if he agrees. He in a sense is giving up his right to the access to Pleasant View... Emmings: Well but that's even what he's drawn on his own plat. So that's what he wants. We're not making him do anything he hasn't. Batzli: I guess what I would recommend is that we say, the remaining portion of Outlot A should be deeded or combined with one of the adjacenil parcels, or be combined into Lot 1 prior to final plat approval. Emmings: I like that. Batzli: Is there any other discussion? Is there a motion? Emmings: I'll make the motion that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision #92 -13 with conditions in the staff report 1, 2 and 3 as they exist, and striking the word "of" in number 3, as discussed in Matt's discussion. And number 4 will read that Outlot A, striking th words "remaining portion ", that Outlot A should be deeded or combined to one of the adjacent parcels or be combined with Lot 1 prior to final plat approval. And then conditions 5 thru 8 will stay as they are in the I staff report. There will be a new number 9 that will say that neither Lot 1 nor Lot 2 shall have direct access to Pleasant View Road. And a number 10 that says that the Lots 1 and 2 shall share a single driveway and the location of that driveway shall be submitted for approval to cit' staff with the intention being that the trees along the west lot line of the two lots shall be preserved to the extent possible. Ahrens: Second. ' Batzli: Any discussion? Ledvina: I think this is one item, I think you used the word should in I your. Emmings: Shall. Change should to shall. 1 Ledvina: Okay. For item number 4. Batzli: Would you like to, I think that our neighbor to the south indicated there were some trees there. Would you like t� extend your motion on the driveway access to try and be considered to the trees on II that side as well, or are you just concerned about this west side? Emmings: I'm concerned about the west side only because we've got an opportunity by the location of the driveway and I don't know what. They do have to submit a tree removal plan right? Krauss: Yes. 1 Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1993 - Page 27 Emmings: So you're going to have some input and you can look out for the ' neighbor to the south maybe to some extent there? Krauss: We can try, yes. But we should be aware of the fact that these ' lots are big enough to accommodate a 60 foot wide home and the increased sideyard setback on a neck lot, which goes from 10 feet to 20 feet. So you've got to assume that it's probably going to be down to the minimums. ' You'll have a home 20 feet back from the property line. Batzli: But they're going to have 20 feet of buffering from the property line. ' Krauss: Yeah, and what we try to do is to make sure that as much of that 20 feet as possible gets preserved because you don't just cut it off ' their foundation line. There's usually abutment that runs around it. Batzli: Any other discussion on the motion? ' Emmings moved, Ahrens seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision #92 -13 with the following conditions: 1. The proposed house location meets the flag lot requirements. 2. A landscaping, tree preservation, and home placement plans shall be submitted at the time of the building permit application for staff review and approval. 3. The applicant shall dedicate to the City by final plat additional road right -of -way on Outlot A along Pleasant View Road to arrive at one -half the total right -of -way of 40 feet contiguous from the north line of Lot 2, Block 1, Edwards /Vogel Addition. 1 4. Outlot A shall be deeded or combined to one of the adjacent parcels or be combined with Lot 1 prior to final plat approval. ' 5. The applicant shall utilize a single driveway access onto Nez Perce Drive. A cross - access or driveway easement shall be prepared guaranteeing access and maintenance responsibilities for the two 1 parcels. 6. The City will provide and install individual sanitary sewer and water ' services to the property line at the time a building permit is issued for Lots 1 and 2, Vinewood Addition. At the time of building permit issuance for Lots 1 and 2, a connection charge in the amount of $7,907.44 (1993 balance) shall be collected. ' 7. The applicant shall be responsible for all costs associated with modifying any manholes or catch basins as a result of the driveway l access onto Nez Perce Drive. 8. The applicant shall contribute $1,800. to the City for future extension of Nez Perce Drive to Pleasant View Road. Planning Commission Meeting II January 6, 1993 - Page 28 9. Neither Lot 1 nor Lot 2 shall have direct access to Pleasant View II Road. 10. Lots 1 and 2 shall share a single driveway and the location of that II driveway shall be submitted for approval by city staff with the intention being that the trees along the west lot line of the two lots shall be preserved to the extent possible. II All voted in favor and the motion carried. Batzli: When does this go to City Council? II Krauss: January 25th. Batzli: Thank you very much for coming in. II PUBLIC HEARING: II SIGN VARIANCE REQUEST TO LOCATE A MONUMENT SIGN WITHIN THE REQUIRED SETBACK LOCATED AT 600 WEST 79TH STREET. ON PROPERTY ZONED BH. HIGHWAY BUSINESS DISTRICT. AMERICANA COMMUNITY BANK. II Sharmin Al -Jaff presented the staff report. Chairman Batzli called the public hearing to order. II Kim Jacobsen: I'm Kim Jacobsen. I'm representing the Americana Bank. Randy Schultz, the President of the bank gives his condolensces. He couldn't be here. He's got a bad back tonight and he's in bed and maybe' going under surgery but needless to say, we did request that the sign be/ as I guess we're presenting it now. We did go through the City Council and we went through with the Planning Commission. We never trie to do anything that allowed us to be 2 feet from the property line. We came from Market Square. It's a PUD. If you can recall, we were here once before with a development. During that time we had a monument sign It was located within a few feet of the property line there. When we II came down to Market Blvd, we again represented a monument sign. Never tried to deceived anyone but we ended up with a monument sign and built a base as part of the general construction package where the contractor built the masonary base, which happens during the construction. Came at that point to apply for a sign permit. To put the signage on top of the base assuming we had no problems. Everything had gone through. II Construction plans had been reviewed. Had been approved by staff. We looked at the situation and I guess what we've got to say is that we don't feel we're presenting a problem and not making a precedence out of this case. I brought along some photographs. One is the photograph of II our base, which is sitting here. But I think the important thing to notice about it is that we are about 20 feet from the street. We're a good 12 feet from the sidewalk and I guess if you look real hard in the background of this photograph, you can see the Market Square sign. The II one I've got a photograph of is the one that is on Market Blvd. It sits within a couple feel of the sidewalk. Within 10 feet of the street. It just seems like, to the average person, a precedence has been set. I meall they look at that sign and then they look at what the Americana is proposing and the situation we have been brought into, I don't see that II Cr-7 Q c /GC- , 1 / . 7/ LC MAY 1993 VI AMERICAN r, , PLANNING ASSOCIATION U sing Mediation litigation. Without question, the courts play a vital role in resolving land -use disputes, judicial intervention is not ' utes, but •" to Resolve g P j Land-Use Disputes always necessary or even warranted. Local governments and • Y_ p private landowners alike can benefit from working out their 1 I differences with alternative dispute resolution techniques, such By Mark S. Dennison as mediation. When land -use disputes arise between private landowners and The Land -Use Mediation Process local zoning authorities, litigation should always be viewed as the Too many land -use disputes wind up in court. Although last resort to resolving the conflict. Whenever possible, alterna- mediation cannot resolve all disputes, it should at least be tine dispute resolution techniques should be pursued first. considered. For years, mediation and arbitration have been used Litigation is costly and time - consuming for both sides and does successfully to resolve a wide variety of conflicts, such as little to foster good community relations. Just ask the California matrimonial, commercial, and labor law disputes. Only recently C V oastal Commission about all the taxpayer dollars spent has it been recognized as an alternative in the land -use and defending the Nollans' taking challenge all the way to the U.S. environmental context. Supreme Court because the commission refused to budge on a Land -use mediation is a voluntary, � I ` p g ry, nonbinding process in building permit condition that was questionable at best. [ Nollan which the local land use /zoning v. Cal:forma Coastal Commission, 483 U.S 825 (1987).] Look at authority and the private all the time and money spent b • the Nollans to show that the landowner(s) rel on a I P TO OVERCOME THE y commission was unreasonable. third party's expertise '`„ Further, imagine the time and money shelled CONFUSION AT TNIS POINT to guide them to a out by both sides in First English S PROPosE ro E5TA8LI51� mutually satisfactory ;- I Evangelical Lutheran Church of r esolution of their Glendale v. County of AN OFFICE OF DIVINE land -use dispute. Los Angeles, MM8irER BYPASSING THE Unlike an arbitrator, 1 . • PROBLEM AREA who can impose a y° . decision on the parties, .� the mediator helps the • 1 parties decide for themselves i krok ■ whether they can settle the dispute and on \ what terms. 104 r 111111716 ..- t ' Mediation simply means negotiating a r a ( solution with the assistance of a trained 1 c • F4P611Q— moderator who is impartial and lacks ;, a DIVINE d ecision- making powers. [A very readable and 7 useful book on the art of negotiation is Gemng .0 i= to Yes by Roger Fisher and William Ury : 1 (Penguin 1981).] Professional mediators have 482 U.S. 324 (1987), extensive training for intervention and approach the :_T:: which lasted 12 years. In the end, the dispute with a formal strategy designed to break_ county won the lawsuit, but were all those years in impasses and reach a resolution. Professional mediators I court, the mounting legal fees, and the expenditure of human are listed in the telephone yellow pages under mediation or may F resources worth the taste of victory? be found in the Dispute Resolution Program Directory published - Few people followed the final resolution of that case. The U.S. by the American Bar Association. When the parties agree to try Supreme Court had declared, significantly, that even temporary mediation, it is important to select a mediator who can make regulatory takings require just compensation. But the decision was both sides feel comfortable and who has experience in resolving remanded to the California Court of Appeal, which two years later land -use disputes. : ' g concluded that the interim zoning ordinance at issue was reasonable A major reason for the success of mediation is its open, III in scope, purpose, and duration and therefore did not amount to a direct, no- nonsense approach to getting the parties together to temporary regulatory taking of private property. [210 Ca1.App.3d air their grievances and stake out their positions. The mediation 893, 258 Cal.Rptr. 893 (1989).] session usually is conducted at an informal location, such as a - Although Land -use and zoning disputes seldom reach the law office or mediation firm. The parties, their lawyers, and nation's highest court, First English and Nollan stand as high- anyone else affected by the dispute can and should attend. The profile examples of the time and expense associated with such process begins with a joint meeting in which each side explains _ its position. Following this joint session, the mediator begins circumstances. For example, if one side believes that it has a I - meeting with the parties and their attorneys separately and very strong case, it may not want to enter into mediation, which confidentially. During these private meetings, the mediator tends to split the pot. Litigation may be the preferred option 111 works with each side to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of when the facts clearly favor one side. Ordinarily, however, the case and to examine possibilities for settlement. The neither the land -use authority nor the private landowner will mediator then develops a plan for matching a dispute resolution have an open and shut case, in which case the parties would method with the parties and the issues they have presented. likely settle before going to trial. Mediation might also be I This plan needs to be shaped and tailored to the particular considered disadvantageous when a neighborhood group seeks dispute. This stage of the mediation is the most complicated the long delay associated with litigation, hoping that a step in the process and involves give and take by both sides and developer will eventually abandon its proposed project. skillful judgment by the mediator. Once a final mediation plan Because mediation is nonbinding, the final resolution is not I is developed from this bargaining session, it is agreed upon and legally enforceable if either side should fail to honor the set for implementation. mediation agreement. This potential drawback seldom causes Studies show that the parties to a mediation are likely to problems, however, because once the parties have negotiated a abide by the terms of the resolution because of the large role mutually agreeable resolution, the probability of renewed I • they played in working out an agreement. In the United States, conflict is small. 90 percent of mediation cases end with a successful settlement. Approximately 80 percent settle on the first day, and the other To Mediate or Not to Mediate I 10 percent settle within a month of the initial discussions. Mediation is not always possible. Patent violations of zoning ordinances, such as siting a liquor store next to a school, Advantages operating a machine shop in a single - family zoning district, or Parties to a land -use dispute can realize several benefits from erecting a commercial office building without a building permit, using mediation. The process is quick, flexible, open, and generally are not resolvable through mediation. In such cases, the nonbinding. It saves time and money and preserves an ongoing local zoning authority usually is obligated to enforce the zoning relationship between the parties. It is informal and not governed ordinance. However, mediation may work well in reaching by strict evidentiary rules and procedures. The session is agreement with a landowner on the terms and conditions of a I confidential. Unlike arbitration or trial, the parties can reveal as variance, building permit, or development proposal. much or as little information as they like. To encourage open Two land -use disputes over development of wetland areas in negotiation and offer protection in the event the dispute cannot Oregon illustrate the benefits of mediation. In the Bott's Marsh I be settled, the parties often sign a confidentiality agreement at case, a dispute arose over development of a wetland area in the the outset. In most states, laws exist to ensure that nothing Nehalem Bay esruary in Tillamook County. A developer proposed stated or exhibited during mediation can be used in a later filling a wetland area large enough to accommodate the siting of a court proceeding. marina, motel - boatel, restaurant, shops, and parking facilities. t There are other advantages. Strong opposition to the project pushed the case into litigation. • Mediation encourages the early resolution of the dispute Before undertaking the project, the developer applied for fill- before time, energ. and money are needlessly wasted. and - removal permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Oregon Division of State Lands (DSL). Even though I • Mediation forces both sides to look seriously at the merits of the developer knew about the controversy surrounding the their positions at an earl) stage. proposed development, he decided to apply for the permits without negotiating with relevant government agencies and I • Mediation is a no -risk option, the process is voluntary and interest groups. The permits were denied, and the developer nonbinding, and either parry can walk out at any stage. filed a petition against DSL in Tillamook County Circuit • In mediation. no fact - finding or final decision is rendered by Court, which ordered DSL to issue the permit. DSL then the mediator to create leverage in any subsequent appealed to the Oregon Court of Appeals, which overturned the I proceedings. lower court ruling. Now the developer is planning to appeal to the Oregon Supreme Court. • The mediator has no stake in the process, except to achieve a So far, the developer has spent more than seven years trying settlement. Both sides retain a high degree of control over to obtain necessary permits. DSL has incurred significant legal the process. fees, and costs to the developer for attorney and consulting fees I • Use of a mediator takes the bravado and posturing out of are estimated to be at least $250,000. In contrast, the Hedges Creek Marsh case involved settlement discussions, thus promoting reasonable dialogue. I development of a 140 -acre parcel, including 48 acres of • The only risk is the time devoted to attending the session freshwater wetlands, for residential and light industrial use. . and the cost of the mediator, which is minimal compared Tualatin's wetlands protection ordinance requires that the with the expense of litigation. developer work out all conflicts with the applicable state I • agencies and interest groups before applying for municipal Disadvantages approval of the proposed development. In addition, the The process does have its disadvantages. Some of the advantages developer made changes to its proposed development plan that listed above can even be considered disadvantages under certain required changes in a previously approved Corps of Engineers I Section 404 (Clean Water Act) regional permit and the issuance of a DSL fill- and - removal permit. Mark Dennison zs an attorney and author who practices Many parties had a stake in the proposed development's final environmental and land -use lain in Ridgewood, New Jersey. configuration. The developer chose to negotiate with the '''-:. -': 2 1 1 federal, state, and local agencies and environmental interest Above All, Communicate I groups to resolve any potential conflicts. This process began in Sound planning and good communication of ordinance early 1988 with unassisted negotiations between the various standards can minimize the potential for disputes between land - interested parties and progressed into mediated negotiations. By use authorities and private landowners. Good interaction March 1990, the parties reached a final agreement on all between municipal attorneys and planning staff can also resolve I outstanding disputed issues. The cooperative mediation problems in zoning ordinances and ferret out legal pitfalls in agreement satisfies all of DSL's permit requirements, the federal development proposals. Furthermore, early dialogue between requirements, and the interest groups' needs. zoning authorities and landowners concerning permit As a result, when the developer actually applies for the DSL applications, development proposals, variance applications, and I permit, it likely will be processed and approved within the 90- day statutory time limit. Before undertaking the project, the other land -use issues may avoid the need for either litigation or mediation. Finally, as long as the municipality has the authority developer also must prepare a wetlands area resource to decide land -use disputes through mediation, it may make I management plan, which must be approved by all parties to the sense to enact a local land -use mediation ordinance to govern all mediated agreement. or certain categories of disputes. In stark contrast to the Bon's Marsh case, the costs of mediation were only 53,000, half paid by DSL and half by the I developer. Attorneys' fees, consulting fees, and staff time costs for the developer were only about $14,000. Thumbs Down on These two cases illuminate the advantages of mediating land- Dade Districts use and environmental disputes. A mediator can help to develop I creative ways of addressing the issues. Often, this can result in a District zoning boards were back on the ballot in Dade County, win -win solution for all parties. Florida (see "Decision Day for Dade," October 1992). In a March 16 referendum, the proposal to split the unincorporated I Interagency Disputes areas of the county into eight separate districts suffered defeat Sometimes land -use disputes grow out of interagency turf wars. by a 2 -to -1 margin. After the county board of supervisors chose Local government offices with overlapping jurisdiction over not to place the issue on the ballot, neighborhood groups such zoning and land -use matters, such as the city council, local as Protect our Communities and Save our Park filed an I planning board, zoning tommission, architectural review board, initiative petition. and zoning board of appeals, may differ on a particular land -use One of the biggest complaints of supporters was that the proposal These agencies sometimes spend valuable taxpayer county has not effectively controlled growth in unincorporated dollars w orlung out their differences in court. If local areas. In their initiative drive, they received support from 25 I government is truly designed to protect the public welfare, these groups and collected 98,000 signatures. The Metropolitan Dade agencies are obligated to spend taxpayer dollars prudently. The Commission then voted to place the issue on the ballot. Under benefits of mediation are even more compelling for these the proposal, each of the eight boards would be responsible only I disputes, w hick often arise when one zoning authority believes for land -use approvals in its "planning and zoning that another has usurped its powers in some way. A municipality" (PZM), as well as its PZM's land use component municipality can prevent man of these conflicts by clarifi ing of the 11- element county comprehensive plan. The average area the function and authority of each office However, when these of each board's PZM would have been 82 square miles. The I disputes arise, the municipality can resolve them by submitting commission, however, would have retained responsibility for the issue to a mediator funding and staffing the PZM boards and the county comprehensive plan. Legal Barriers Opposition to the plan came from several directions I Sometimes it is not possible to submit a dispute to mediation including the Latin Builders Association, land use lawyer Stanley because of legal constraints. First, a local governmental Price, and the Dade County Planning Department. A lawsuit authority must determine whether it is authorized to use filed by the Concerned Citizens of Northeast Dade sought mediation in land -use disputes. The municipal attorney should unsuccessfully to remove the issue from the March ballot. I know whether the state has a specific statute allowing for land- Builders argued that the boards would add bureaucracy and that use mediation or if the state's zoning enabling act explicitly or they would have considerable power to decide land uses without implicitly provides for mediation. If not, the city's home -rule assuming responsibility for sewers and taxes. The lawsuit charged I charter may grant mediation powers. that the ballot language was unclear and misleading. Another important legal barrier to consider is the limited Reginald R. Walters, retired Dade County planning director, authority of governments to delegate their police power over private and Gonzalo Sanabria, a member of the Dade County Planning propern• interests to nonelected decision makers. Clear standards Advisory Board, also noted that, while the commission would I must accompany such a delegation of authority, or it will be considered improper. Lora] zoning officials prepare the comprehensive plan, it would not have authority on fficials may not delegate their land uses in the new districts. The uncoordinated local compre- legislative or law- making authority to a nonelected party. This issue hensive plan could cause a problem with private property is more likely to arise with arbitration than mediation because transactions and government decisions. The unincorporated I mediation does not impose a binding decision on the parties. areas, they argued, would develop land uses in the best interest of Because a mediation agreement is not legally binding, it might not their own communities, which might not be consistent with the run afoul of the delegation doctrine. However, if the local zoning regional and state policy plans. I authority commits to some improper zoning action, such as an Since the proposal failed, neighborhood groups have illegal spot zoning, the mediation agreement may be challenged as a refocused their efforts toward presenting their local zoning bargaining away of the police power. concerns to the elected county commissioners. Beck Maroot 1 3 Michelle Donovan, a land -use specialist and administrative 1 Churches Contest assistant to supervisor Joe Alexander, is not sure what advantages Zoning Process the churches will gain. At one time, the supervisors did consider church cases. Because of the county board's highly politicized 1 Churches in Fairfax County, Virginia, are seeking more compas- atmosphere, that was changed so than the zoning board reviewed • sionate treatment of their development permits. Under the the cases using an established set of criteria. The hearing process . current system, the board of zoning appeals hears cases, but local before the county board takes an average of four months, longer ministers argue that the board is overly restrictive when it than the zoning board's 90 -day limit. Donovan says the switch considers special use permits for churches in lower - density back to the board will neither speed the process nor guarantee residential districts. They complain of permit denials, lengthy that the board will waive fees. One clear advantage of the • review periods, and costly development fees. They petitioned the proposed amendment is that combining applications for a I county board of supervisors to allow them to bring their cases church together with its accessory uses will slightly lower the directly to the supervisors instead of the zoning board. The permit fee (to $1,980) required for two separate types of permits. county adopted an amendment in February that allows churches If denied a permit, a church will not be able to resubmit an I to apply for special exception permits. The county board is now application for consideration by either board for one year. considering whether to allow churches with a child care center, "The problem is with the process," says supervisor Gerald nursery school, or private school with more than 100 students to Hyland. "In fact, things may not change at all." And Donovan have the option of applying to either board. says the zoning board is "rarely as harsh" as the county board I Fairfax County allows churches by right in higher - density because of potential public pressure for development to pay its residential districts as well as commercial and industrial districts. fair share. Amy Van Doren Churches must apply for a permit to locate in low - density residential zones, including residential conservation and preserva- tion zones. Ever development application the county reviews incurs fees based on the time involved in processing the permit. A separate department of environmental management requires ��,�� RePOrtS I another set of fees ro review site plans. Finally, all rezoning or . special exception cases are subject to proffers, legally binding - commitments set by either the zoning board or board of Reviewing New supervisors. A church may be required to pay each fee as well as � 1 to meet any permit conditions, including providing road Construction Projects improvements. in Historic Areas • Pastor Gan Haskell complains that his 20- member congrega- National Trust for Historic Preservation, 1785 Massachusetts Ave., Li I on was required ro pay thousands of dollars to widen the street NW, Washington, DC 20036. Information Series No 62, 1992; when the church was rebuilt after a fire. "While Fm certainly in 24 pp.; $5.00 plus $5.00 shipping and handling ($2.50 each plus favor of protections for the neighborhood, we felt like this was $5.00 shipping and handling charge for orders of 10 or more). overkill, he says. The ministers contend that the zoning approval As this report notes, new construction projects in historic process is significant]. easier for developers than for church districts can elicit passionate opinions from all sides. But there 1 members. who have little knowledge of the development process. are rational procedures that can be applied in assessing such County supervisor Michael Frey is working to convince his projects, including the use of technological resources such as colleagues that churches will receive fairer treatment if allowed to videotaping and computer imaging to aid preservation 1 . appear before them. "A church is not a 7- Eleven," he says, and commissions in visualizing the impact of proposed construction. should not be subject to the same procedures and fees. Church But clear thinking is also crucial: What values and visions does leaders regard the supervisors as more accountable to the public the community wish to attach to its historic districts? and thus sympathetic to their intentions. 1 OK in My Back Yard: Issues and Rights in 1 Zoning News is a monthly newsletter published by the American Planning Association. Housing for the Subscriptions are available for 545 (U.S.) and 554 (foreign). Mentally III Israel Stollman. Executive Director; Frank S. So, Deputy Executive Director. I Zoning News is produced at APA. Jim Schwab, Editor; Michael Barrette, Mark Booczko, Marjorie Beggs. Published by the Zellerbach Family Fund. Fay Dolnick. Sarah Dunn. Michelle Gregory. Becky Maroot, Marva Morris, Amy Van Available from San Francisco Study Center, 1095 Market St., Doren. Reporters: Cynthia Cheski, Assistant Editor; Lisa Barton, Production. Suite 602, San Francisco, CA 94103. 1993. 40 pp. Free. Copyright C1993 by American Planning Association, 1313 E. 60th St., Chicago, IL Despite the passage of the federal Fair Housing Amendments 6063' The American Planning Association has headquarters offices at 1776 I Massachusetts Ave. 1;.W., Washington, DC 20036. Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act, group homes for . " All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or utilized in any the mentally disabled still face intense opposition in many _ form or by any means. electronic or mechanical, including photocopving, recording, or communities where they seek to locate. This booklet reviews by anv information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the strategies and options pursued by planners and care providers American Planning _Association. 1 Printed on recycled paper including 50'0 °o recycled fiber ® for winning public acceptance of needed support facilities in . and 10% posrconsumer waste. four Bay Area counties. 1 4 1 ^ / e City of Ch n am l p 11955 CHAMPLIN DRIVE CHAMPLIN, MN 55316 -2399 (612) 421 -8100 RFC* Val June 18, 1993 1 993 1 AcS[ r Mr. Paul Krauss City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive ' Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Dear Paul: ' On behalf of the Champlin City Council and the Economic Development Authority, I want to thank you for taking time from your busy schedule to give Champlin representatives a tour of your growing community. The demonstration of successful commercial and industrial ' developments was very informative and encouraging. You and your community is to be commended for supporting and encouraging such quality developments. Sincerely, • • Mary A. Ebanks Executive Director Champlin Economic Development Authority ', o' C _ Ecba 9o,7o' Aff ma ,e Ac;:or Employe, 1 CITYOF ,0 oii,,, CHANHASSEN 1 1 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 1 MEMORANDUM 1 TO: Mayor and City Council 1 FROM: Paul Krauss, AICP, Planning Director DATE: June 23, 1993 1 SUBJ: Issues Pertaining to Nez Perce Road Extension 1 Staff has been made aware that representatives of Frank Beddor are holding one and possibly two 1 neighborhood meetings to gather support for his opposition to completing the connection of Nez Perce to Pleasant View Road. Staff has not been invited to these meetings, but we have received 1 copies of information from individuals that have. We have also received a large volume of phone calls pertaining to the meetings. Attached you will find two exhibits that appear to have been prepared by Mr. Beddor's representatives. He appears to be advocating alternative routings I for Nez Perce that are similar to the ones which were presented by his representatives at the City Council meeting when this item was discussed. Staff wanted to make the City Council aware of these meetings since you are likely to receive phone calls from interested residents as we have. I As we understand, the information is somewhat misleading. It appears as though the materials indicate the city is contemplating three connections into Fox Chase. This is in no way true. 1 From calls we have gotten, we understand people are being told that the city is contemplating the widening of Pleasant View Road. Again, this is not true. Lastly, the materials indicate that I the Nez Perce Road extension will cost $500,000, $200,000 for construction and $300,000 for land acquisition. Again, this is false. The city's feasibility study illustrates a maximum cost of $128,000 (see attachment) for road construction. We already have about $11,000 on hand I towards this expense and much or all of the balance will be borne by new development on the former Owens' parcels. Secondly, the $300,000 land price equals approximately $60,000 per acre for a site that contains a large, unbuildable pond. This seems highly suspect since we have heard ' of no residential land in excess of $30,000 per acre. Additionally, if the city acquires the entire parcel, then lots would be created and sold off to offset acquisition costs. I 1 Itil 4: PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER I „ , ,.. _..., • ... _ , . \ +P �o eP �. • 5 j �/ - _ -' The P roblem is that the developer has - , to pay $200,000 to put a road in his . ; y - \ \ i ' development, and the City has to spend , P ,�= _ -- �' �' ; \ — -1 /\ another $300,000 to condemn property / f '� \ and put in the connecting road. This . _. / / y; . ' \ s AL . - VIEW --- RDA. /� ;,\ \ •) �` s ? \.,-.,%. � r will probably end up being paid for by '. . t. , ' . t .,; ' _ �� , \ , )xnavers in tbis.area. ,�• ` , • ,, - •� ¢ 11 - �, -,c ,.r / __ i . / 1 ., gy p. A, ., u \ �- Y - zi _�. F . ` ` / ,- -. . \ \ . -_- / i.. 7.� .i•r= 1 .,�, • i/ IS1/,gr ria'�� Sle.w.�. _ —\ ._ / :� / ,: • 's A i / \ / i / - i - " - l?. �� .. YO V I r T W -LE ‘4,,,... Rd �., \ � ' / A . t ; 2. , : I 2 E n J , I _ , / /� new �e 4 /(`/ , c ` v Y / _ `� i ./2 . Aete _ii.....i ) ' ' - 4 a , -' '• - .:I / ' _, 114.0„,. o �. ! . l i '774/' ' .._- 1� / / i '_Air A ? -'TIO ' ,• \ - O 1 S ' ,_��1 IN 2' % r ! % /� \ �� ., , \ i / ,: '.� ' \ \ • i ' L � -' ] ?1 ` • 'fir. ' - s...... "E`' : f '=11 ` /� , 'C� �.} ' ` ` `._` I /,,' / ' 'ymfla N C _ ' ; 1{ :OTUS , X.Y. 1 a ' r y, , \" • .' I . _'firr F ��1� \ • l t " ` l i';- l / / `� ^ / i ` l \' " -", - ' T .! .1 b. C-: c"4 _... ! , ::.-- - IX a* .••• _ , \ I____-■- ' / , ..r .fa \� y • • �, �.,�, , 1 \ \ \, \\ �`, ' _ \ \" \\ .. o�► : f � ` \� �� THE PROBLEM I ' S v ia 0v . - M : i i � h • y „ ` t:y \` i /// �' ti Q� "r _ : p0 / \ 'i _�l - /� - _ I / yam - .. 1. .r te• Vge • • • C-° • -• - y '' ' , - 'o ;� \ : ------ . - - � ;al A. MI 11•11 Mil _11111111 —111111 -- 1111111 - - IR. — 11111111-111111111 Ilia • 2.•._ y �R The Solution: ` ` --- _y ion: The developer pay the �� V, ' �� - \i an extra lot. This extension of Nez •r� � same $200,000 for the road, and gets •"�`" „ • � _ ' '� . G. a �g • • . , __ \ �w.,.., / / \; �� ' Perce loops the road back to Lake ii , �Pi , , Lucy, eliminating some of the traffic on M„ • ' � Q• �L= $ , T'VIEV1� RD. • r - \ Lake Lucy. Most importantly, the City `" • A ✓ does not have to Conde f"� • 1SlYAA. ; � ..,. _ I _ install road ma property and 1 >' anew d at tax expense. V �-- " MPiN.WM 1 a T' ' • -a • ne ` � B> f 2 - _J ' \ ' ' S " '2' I \Vi,\ \\ \ �..j / ^ �/ „p •��;- :.. �i • 0 a v / , � ' / �.:. ,! . , 411p , • .:, - / ..., mr . - 4 lir ilia �. � \ /�' I � i L T G ,, a : \ -3, ' /. '''* I" ° i �j 1� �. ■ � .;► c� ni 1 L • 1 s �', .��° s �4 < + ! • y .N i d - - NORTH lAT ([ /� viNCt v� //�\ \ e S �- 1 •i I .I • f °• �.a % I � / 9� i" \ \ / a ^Otto. / / /�/��\ «' ttK] - _ SAKE ADDITION '— or gial Ai /�� . � ` , ��W ND / ' ., ..1 "\ \ / • \`� / t' a S` _ A �� — � ` Hi- z. [c ' , t �� ..aF�` l / r / , - 'qt, • NORTH LOTUS ` : A ' :as ..., «......__. � �-. �10 / ' ' /' LAKE ADDI ?ION , ,/ fii - i7 { 1i ' , ��,:.,li , Imo .cvie' V a i �'10lflllllll _ .I•�T - ; :IIIIIIIIIIIIIUII . I ml n 1 1I ., 1 T , ' ', ' D ?L °? _411 III�II iti Iij = �' " � 1,� �,� 13 \ �L a, \ • /F, , , - - , S 0 WWWI • 11 ,, 4 .7 -,;."(,..-..: t... 0 ..4 .. \ ".-- ill��! _ - -- _ - \ \\ . \ THE SOLUTION -_J 1 ;in 07.31 w . ____. ,\ .._ j 3 izi 00 scycis 0,\.. • . • t rAday.' `. % �• �. ' �.�.� \ `\ `\ DT ^ 1, -1 . : A',17 v. 01Se04,.,. wm� E3Yw / [i m / / \\ toe ` 1 ��'�ri;ti0- lets 1,,11 hi 1 SUMMA AND CO 1. This project is feasible from an engineering point of view. I r project costs for 2. This project is a detailed analysis of p o j 1 street construction, sanitary sewer, watermain, and storm sewer construction. 1 3. The total project costs are as follows: 1 Alternate A• Nez Perce (Through Street) Street Construction - Nez Perce Drive $ 534 84 84, Sanitary Sewer Construction $ 12,337 17,043 43 1 Watermain Construction Storm Sewer Construction $ 8,697 I Total Alternate A 1 Alternate B: Nez Perce ( "T" Intersection) with Peaceful Lane I Street Construction - Nez Perce Drive $ 46,085 Street Construction - Peaceful Lane $ 54,394 1 Sanitary Sewer Construction $ 10,465 Watermain Construction $ 10,465 $ 6,487 Storm Sewer Construction $127,896 Total Alternate B 4. Traffic and emergency safety issues have been addressed to meet city standards for urban roadway construction. I ercent 5. The total estimated project cost includes a 30 p factor for engineering, construction staking, inspection, administration, and contingencies. I 6. The estimated costs for improvements are detailed in Appendix A. ` 1 1 -2- along the West line thereof, a distance of 50 feet; thence in a straight line easterly to a point on the East line of said lot 50 feet North of the Southeast corner thereof; thence South along the East line thereof, to the point of beginning. 3. The front half of a single family home on the property is situated in Chanhassen, and the rear of the home is situated in Shorewood. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Minnesota Municipal Board duly acquired and now has jurisdiction of the within proceeding. 2. An order should be issued by the Minnesota Municipal Board concurrently detaching and annexing the area described herein. ORDER 1. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: That the property described in Findings of Fact 2 be, and the same hereby is, detached from the City of Shorewood 1 and annexed to the City of Chanhassen, the same as if it had originally been made a part thereof. 2. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED: That the effective date of this order is June 4, 1993. Dated this 8th day of June, 1993. MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL BOARD 475 McColl Building St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 2, 7, . Patricia D. Lundy Assistant Director } 1 1 Senator David Durenburger 1020 Plymouth Building 1 12 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 I Representative Jim Ramstad #152 8120 Penn Ave. South I Bloomington, MN 55431 Senator Paul Wellstone I 2401 University Avenue St. Paul, MN 55114 Congressman David Minge 1508 Longworth House Office Building 1 Washington, DC 20515 I Mr. Morgan Brown Congressman Jim Ramstad's Office 504 Cannon House Office Building 1 Washington, DC 20515 -2303 , 1 Congressman Rod Grams 1713 Longworth House Office Building I Washington, DC 20515 I Mr. Larry Blackstad, Planner Hennepin Co. Planning & Development Suite 310 I 822 South Third Street Minneapolis, MN 55415 Mr. Shawn G. Huckleby, Director Community Planning and Development I U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Minneapolis St. Paul Region V 220 Second Street South 1 Minneapolis, MN 55401 -2195 1 CITYOF i*t i CHANHASSEN .__,,,,.. r 690 COUL DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 ., (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 1 June 23, 1993 1 Ms. Joanne L. Matzen 1 Winthrop & Weinstine 1 3200 Minnesota World Trade Center 30 East Seventh Street St. Paul, MN 55101 -4901 1 Dear Ms. Matzen: I received a copy of your June 17 letter relative to the Heritage Development of Minnesota, Inc. 1 proposal to develop a site in Chanhassen located near Minnewashta Parkway. I must admit that I frankly found the tenor and content of the letter to be both offensive and misleading. While 1 it is true that city staff has been working with your clients on issues pertaining to this property, we have done so in a professional manner with all issues being presented as concisely as possible. The issue of the size and location of the park on this site is a major one and it should 1 come to no surprise to your client since we have been taking to them about it since this project was first proposed. The idea that Heritage expended significant amounts of money on preparation and submission of plans before the city raised a park issue is false. The plans that 1 we had seen at that stage were obviously not representative of a significant expenditure of time and effort. City staff has been working diligently at our expense to better define the important park and recreational needs we have in this area and we have been forthcoming with all of the 1 information to your clients. You indicate that "city staff has significantly and seemingly arbitrarily stalled this project." I 1 have no idea what you are basing this comment on since your item was scheduled for the Planning Commission meeting of July 7, 1993. Your clients have asked for a continuation to allow for resolution of issues pertaining to purchase price. I will reschedule the item when 1 requested by your clients based upon Planning Commission work load and schedule. As Planning Director, it is my call as to whether ar not an item is sufficiently developed for it to I be presented to the Planning Commission in accordance with the submittal requirements that are maintained by the city. Resolution of a major park issue like this would appear to raise significant issues as to whether or not this subdivision should be allowed to proceed until these I are resolved. 1 rt t417 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1 1 1 Ms. Joanne L. Matzen June 23, 1993 Page 2 I You state that City Code entitles us to "2.28 acres" by dedication. It is also clear that we are seeking to acquire an amount considerably in excess of that. We fully agree that land in excess 1 of park dedication requirements requires purchase by the city, but this matter has never been in doubt and we have always been forthright to your clients about this. 1 Should you have any further questions regarding this proposal and city actions on it, I would expect you to have the courtesy to follow it through city staff. 1 Sincerely, 1 „ ; i er - e. Paul Krauss, AICP I Planning Director PK:v I c: Roger Knutson, City Attorney City Council I Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Director Heritage Development of Minnesota, Inc. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT 8. FUCHS, P.A Jun 18,93 15:36 No.008 P.02 I WINTHROP & WEINSTINE 1 A PROYCSSIONAI. ASSOCIATION SHERMAN WINTHROP JON J. ITOGANSON ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW JULIE WIDLEY SCMNELL DAVID A,KRI$TAL I ROBLMI N.WL SANDRA J MARTIN THOMAS H. BOYD KARL A.WESER RICHARD A.MOEL GARY W. SCHOKMILLER JOSEPH C.NAVMAN JONATHAN D. CRAN ROGER D. GORDON TODD B.URNES$ 3200 MINNESOTA WQRIr TRADE CENTER DANIEL C. BECK TOMAS L,STAPPORD STEVEN C. TOVREK SCOTT J. DONOOSKE ERIC J. NYSTROM CARLA J. PEDERSCN 30 EAST SEVENTH STREET $TEPMEN J,SNYVCN PETER J. GLEEKEL KRISTIN L.PETERSON JAME$ W. DIERKING MART KULI ER EDWARD J. DRENTTEt SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101.4801 JOANNE L.MATZEN CATHERINE A.DOMINGUEE DAVID P. PEARSON JEFFREY R.ANS£L WILLIAM L.WINSON CHRISTOPHER W. MAbEL THOMAS M.H•RT IV LAURIE A.KNOCKE EVAN D. COORS SUZANNE M.SPELLACY CARRON C.KNUTSON LLOYD W. GROOMS TELEPHONE 115121 250- 5400 JOHN A. KNAPP JULIE K. WILLIAMSON THOMAS A. WALKER FAX 16121 !02 5347 GINA M.GROTNE F>DLLEN JOSEPH 5• PRiEOBERG MICHELE D. VAILLANCOVRT DEIST J. LOuSMIN PATRICK W. WEBER OF COUNSEL DAVID E.MORAN.JR. MARK T. JOHNSON DIRECT DIAL CHARLES A.DVRANT DONALD J. BROWN JENNIFER WIR.CK BREITINGER CRAIG A.BRANDT DANIEL W. HARDY BROOKS F, PO.EY OF COUNSEL 1 (612) 290 -8546 June 17, 1993 1 Mr. Roger Knutson 1 City Attorney City of Chanhassen 1 Campbell, Knutson, Scott & Fuchs P.A. 1380 Corporate Center Cry. #317 Eagan, Minnesota 55121 1 Dear Mr. Knutson: Our office represents developer, Heritage Development of Minnesota, Inc., a residential develo r, in 1 connection with various real estate matters, including matters associated with a proposed development located at Minnewashta Parkway and Kings Road in the City of Chanhassen. 1 As with other developers, the timing of Heritage's real estate investments is critical to the success of a given project. Heritage is purchasing the land in question intending to plat, 1 improve and sell the property during the 1993 building season. City staff, however, has significantly and seemingly arbitrarily stalled this project. i At the time of Heritage's purchase, the City represented that it had no interest in the subject property for park land since the City was negotiating with the property owner immediately to 1 the north. In fact, the subject property had been offered to the City three years ago but the City then refused to acquire it. Aware of the park dedication /park fee requirements set forth in the Chanhassen City Code, Heritage made several attempts to obtain the City's park I recommendations. Repeatedly, however, the City failed to specify the location, configuration or size of the park land required. Eventually, staff told Heritage just to submit for review a preliminary plat around which the City would work creating a park in the northwest corner of I the property. Our client then prepared and submitted its proposed plat. Only after Heritage expended significant amounts on the preparation and submission of the I proposed plat did the City finally specify what arca it wanted dedicated for park purposes. 1 CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.A Jun 18,93 15:37 No.008 P.03 1 1 Mr. Roger Knutson IIIT icrn Page 2 Unfortunately, the land specified not only drastically altered the plans, but it took the lake ' frontage and street access so critical to the value of the proposed development. Furthermore, under the Chanhassen City Code only 2.28 acres need be dedicated for park land. ' The City's plans now call for a park four times that size entirely on our client's property, despite the City's earlier representations that no more than two of the 10 acres allegedly needed for park purposes would be located on Heritage's property. According to the City Code, Heritage is entitled to be compensated for any acreage in excess of that required by the Code. We would request that staff reconsider its park dedication recommendation to acknowledge the ' time and money expended by our client to date in reliance on the City's representations. Please call me if you have any questions or comments about the foregoing. 1 Very truly yours, WINTHROP & WEINSTINE, P.A. : 44014116 ' •�a• • . Ma i-n M :sic :69s38 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CITYOF 0:17 CHANHASSEN i ,.% ,,,,,..., _. 1 ....., t ,tt 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 1 1 June 23, 1993 1 Mr. H. Kelsey Page 1 Standke, Greene & Greenstein, Ltd. 17717 Highway 7 Minnetonka, MN 55345 1 Dear Mr. Page: This is to acknowledge our receipt of your June 15 letter concerning property owned by Timothy 1 gP Pe Y Y Klouda at 6401 Fox Path. I have reviewed the letter with the Engineering Department Staff and we believe that it contains a series of misrepresentations and understandings. We note in fact 1 that, in our opinion, we remedied a drainage problem that had been created by your client when we redirected his drainage from an overland outlet into the storm sewer system. These 1 improvements were done at the expense of the city and of the builder of the adjoining lot. In any event, I have forwarded a copy of your letter to the City Attorney for formal action. 1 Sincerely, �GZ Paul Krauss, AICP 1 Planning Director PK:v 1 c: Roger Knutson, City Attorney City Council 1 Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer Mike Wegler, Street Superintendent 1 1 Is tO PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER I RECE LAW OFFICES STANDKE, GREENE & GREENSTEIN, LTD. ` t il\ ` 199; CITI OP ;., I 17717 Highway 7 Minnetonka, Minnesota 55345 ROBERT A- STANDKE I MARK E. GREENE DANIEL B GREENSTEIN AREA CODE 612 H. KELSEY PAGE TELEPHONE 474 - 3221 MARCIA S. ROWLAND TELEFAX 474 - 2575 II June 15, 1993 II II Mr. David C. Hempel Mr. Paul Krause Sr. Engineering Technician Planning Director City of Chanhassen City of Chanhassen II 690 Coulter Drive 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 II Re: My Client: Timothy C. Klouda, 6401 Fox Path; Notice of Claim II Dear Gentlemen: I want to bring to your attention the continuing water drain- ' age problems onto my client's property at 6401 Fox Path, which problems appear to have arisen from the alteration of the grade at 6411 Fox Path, and probably property to the West I and South. I understand the City at one time attempted to rectify this situation by placing some drain tile in between 6401 and 6411 and hooking the same into the storm sewer sys- tem running in front of those residences. Those efforts have II proven either defective or insufficient as water is inundat- ing my client's premises. I This situation needs immediate attention as not only is my client's lawn and other landscaping being damaged but so is his house, garage, driveway and other improvements to the premises. I would estimate the known damage at present at 1 over $10,000.00. Having reviewed the City documents on this matter, in our II view, the City has liability on this matter by virtue of at least the following circumstances; 11 1. Allowing alteration of the grade of 6411 Fox Path which has created the flow onto the Klouda pro- perty. II 2. Allowing a drainage system at 6411 Fox Path which discharged onto the public street in violation of City ordinances. II II 11 Messrs. Hempel and Krause June 15, 1993 Page 2 1 3. Failure to enforce the development conditions of the development contract by failing to require architect or civil engineer certification prior to granting building permits for 6411, regarding sur- face and subsurface drainage. 1 4. Failure to enforce the restrictive covenants and conditions which are of public record against the properties on the subject development area. 5. Failure to heed the warnings of Mr. Klouda at the time of construction at 6411 of the drainage pro- blem potential.' 6. Allowing construction of the retaining wall behind 6411 Fox Path and properties to the South of that residence which has directed the flow of water onto the Klouda premises. The above referenced list constitutes in our view, breach of duty of due care owed by the City to Mr. Klouda. Please be advised that this notice shall be construed, pur- 1 suant to Minnesota Statutes Section 466.05, as notification of claim against the City. Thank you in advance for your prompt attention to this mat- ter. Very truly yours, STANDKE, GREENE & GREENSTEIN, LTD. I_ � L I) it'llk7„) (/ H. Kelsey Page HKP /jf cc: Client 1 1 11 CITYOF At CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 June 22, 1993 Mr. Terry Forbord Lundgren Bros. 935 East Wayzata Boulevard Wayzata, MN 55391 Dear Mr. Forbord: The Planning Department has received your letter dated June 21, 1993, to Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Director, concerning park issues with the Song Property proposal. Your letter states that you have formally withdrawn from consideration before the Park and Recreation Commission the review of the Song Property. The issue of park dedication greatly impacts the layout of the proposed plat. Since the outcome of the Parks and Recreation Commission is an integral part of our review, we have no choice but to pull your item off the Planning Commission agenda until the park issue is resolved with a recommendation from the Parks and Recreation Commission. The large amount of proposals being submitted by developers for review by the Planning and Engineering Departments does not allow us time to review plans which have a good chance of being amended or pulled from agendas. Therefore, I am delaying action on your proposal until matters are clarified. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, �!V Paul Krauss, AICP Planning Director PK/ � 41, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER • 2/28/92 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 1991 INVESTMENT INTEREST EARNINGS RE- ALLOCATION i MONTHLY PREVIOUS FINAL NEGATIVE POSITIVE FUND DESCRIPTION AVERAGE ALLOCATION ALLOCATION DIFFERENCE EARNINGS EARNINGS ADMIN. FEE 516 BONDS OF 1986 736,313.54 63,358.48 65,212.48 1,854.00 0.00 65,212.48 3,260.62 517 1987 GO IMPROV BONDS 926,006.60 82,314.81 81,790.71 (524.10) 0.00 81,790.71 4,089.54 614 90 -9 TH 5 & LONE CEDAR (9,082.11) (866.89) (802.19) 64.70 (802.19) 0.00 0.00 615 LAKE DRIVE EAST 109,090.92 10,325.00 9,635.59 (689.41) 0.00 9,635.59 481.78 616 PKNG. LOT CONST. 78TH NO (520,360.79) (44,339.33) (45,961.53) (1,622.20) (45,961.53) 0.00 0.00 618 DOWNTOWN IMP. TID 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 619 90 -4 CTY. RD. 17 UPGRADE (17,200.94) (1,467.35) (1,519.29) (51.94) (1,519.29) 0.00 0.00 620 84- 4/88 -22 LK DRIVE EAST (38,088.88) (3,610.40) (3,364.25) 246.15 (3,364.25) 0.00 0.00 622 65 -8 LK DR E. PHASE III 0.00 (1.41) 0.00 1.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 624 85 -13 CHN LK BUS PK -5TH (54,320.98) (4,282.32) (4,797.97) (515.65) (4,797.97) 0.00 0.00 628 DOWNTOWN PUB IMPR PROS (934,380.30) (126,684.48) (82,530.33) 44,154.15 (82,530.33) 0.00 0.00 634 87 -2 W 78TH ST DETCHMNT 1,867,128.41 203,589.94 164,916.49 (38,673.45) 0.00 164,916.49 8,245.82 636 BLUFF CREEK DRIVE (26,348.31) (2,250.98) (2,327.25) (76.27) (2,327.25) 0.00 0.00 637 91 -8 WEST 79TH ST. (16,972.83) (1,960.56) (1,499.15) 461.41 (1,499.15) 0.00 0.00 639 87 -9 KERBER BLVD C & 6 109,383.72 9,483.83 9,661.46 177.63 0.00 9,661.46 483.07 641 87 -18 TH101 /5 REALIGN. (1,372,443.39) (122,834.35) (121,222.80) 1,611.55 (121,222.80) 0.00 0.00 642 89 -7 AUDUBON COURT (23,861.76) (2,036.17) (2,107.62) (71.45) (2,107.62) 0.00 0.00 643 89 -10 FRONTIER TRAIL 46,097.86 3,495.07 4,071.65 576.58 0.00 4,071.65 203.58 644 89 -18 AUDUBON ROAD (629,282.05) (52,362.56) (55,582.14) (3,219.58) (55,382.14) 0.00 0.00 645 89 -25 COUNTRY SUITES (439,541.59) (37,859.22) (38,823.07) (963.85) (38,823.07) 0.00 0.00 _ . 646 85-138 PARK PLACE PH2 (146,869.69) (11,661.75) (12,972.45) (1,310.70) (12,972.45) 0.00 0.00 647 90 -1 LAKE DRIVE WEST (2,432.46) (181.50) (214.85) 133.35) (214.85) 0.00 0.00 648 MINNEWASHTA PKWY. IMPR. 196,447.74 23,830.86 17,351.50 (6,479.36) 0.00 17,351.50 867.58 650 T.H. 101 TURN LANES 660.43 75.77 58.33 (17.44) 0.00 58.33 2.92 i 651 90 SOUTH HWY 101 (94,075.30) (10,616.26) (8,309.32) 2,306.94 (8,309.32) 0.00 0.00 652 90-7 DELL. ROAD (834.56) (95.47) (73.71) 21.76 (73.71) 0.00 0.00 700 UTILITY FUND 593,681.39 52,332.54 52,437.66 105.12 0.00 52,437.66 2,621.88 720 SURFACE WATER MGMT. 184,295.68 16,711.35 16,278.15 (433.20) 0.00 16,278.15 813.91 B00 HISTORIC PRESERVATION 46,489.01 608.87 4,106.20 3,497.33 0.00 4,106.20 205.31 803 INVESTMENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 902 ANDERSON CLEAN -UP 0.00 339.29 0.00 (339.29) 0.00 0.00 0.00 906 LK. RILEY HILLS -1. KLIN6 3,288.84 146.32 290.49 144.17 0.00 290.49 14.52 912 7 - 41 PARK NAIL BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 913 LOTUS REALTY - COLONY PT. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 914 SUN RIDGE COURT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 915 DEVELOPERS ESCROW 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 970 SOUTHWEST COALITION 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 fft FINAL TOTALS *1* 10,105,235.29 892,557.73 892,557.73 0.00 (444,856.29) 1,337,414.02 66,870.72 • 1 1 °O CITYOF ± i 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 a MEMORANDUM 1 TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner DATE: June 8, 1993 SUBJ: Resignation As Senior Planner After much consideration, I have decided to resign my position as Senior Planner for the City of Chanhassen, and stay home with my children. I think you know how important my job has been to me, and I have enjoyed working here for the past 8 years. I have also enjoyed ' the people I work with. Our family life has just become too hectic, and the children are feeling it. Also, they are growing up too fast, and in my heart, I know I want to spend as ' much time as possible with them. My last day will be September 2, 1993, when Sarah starts back to school. I really appreciate the flexibility you have given me to accommodate my changing needs. I have always appreciated your support, even through my "green" years. As you know, the ' people who work here are like an extended family, which makes my decision to leave here all the more difficult. pc: Paul Krauss, Planning Director 1 1 1 Is 1 t4: PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER