3i Minutes 1 Ski
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
1 REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 9, 1993
Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was opened
with the Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilwoman Dockendorf, Councilman
Senn and Councilman Wing
COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Mason
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Todd Gerhardt, Charles Folch,
Todd Hoffman, Kate Aanenson, Sharmin Al -Jaff, Tom Chaffee, and Betty Eidam
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Senn seconded
to approve the agenda amended as follows: Mayor Chmiel had a public
' announcement regarding shooting /hunting boundaries in the city of Chanhassen
public hearing; District 0112 Youth Commission report; and adding to the
Consent Agenda item (j) TH 101 and Pioneer Trail, Mrs. DeJoode conveying a
.piece of property of 8 acres to Worms; and under Council Presentations,
' Chanhassen Volunteer Fire Department concerning adjustments to fire pension
plan. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS:
1 Mayor Chmiel: This is regarding the shooting and hunting boundaries within
Chanhassen. As it reads here, I'd like to make a public announcement that the
Public Safety Commission will be holding a public hearing on the issue of
shooting and hunting boundaries within the city of Chanhassen. The public
hearing will be held in the Council Chambers on Thursday evening, August 12th
at 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.. If you have any thoughts or concerns you would
like to bring to their attention regarding the issue of the shooting and
hunting boundaries within the city, please plan to attend the August 12th
' Public Safety Commission public hearing from 6:00 to 7:00 p.m. in the Council
Chambers. We have had one public hearing on this. The response was very
minimal and we've had an awful lot of concerns with shooting so we decided we
would hold one more public hearing and make that additional announcement. It
' was also put in the newspaper. At this time I would like to call on Natalie
Rosini to provide to us the status of District 0112 Youth Commission,
including an overview of their year end report. Todd.
Todd Hoffman: Mayor Chmiel, Natalie called late last week and due to a change
in plans with both herself and the adult representative, they would like to
reschedule until the second meeting of the month.
' Mayor Chmiel: Fine. Thank you.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to
approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's
' recommendations:
a. Approve Construction Plans and Specifications for Lake Susan Hills West
9th Addition, Project No. 93 -5.
b. Bluff Creek Estates:
1) Final Plat Approval
2) Approve Construction Plans and Specifications and Development Contract
' d. Resolution 093 -66: Approve Infiltration /Inflow Matching Grant Agreement
with the MWCC.
1 1
1
1
1
City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993
1
f. City Council Minutes dated July 26, 1993
' Planning Commission Minutes dated July 21, 1993
Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated July 22, 1993
g. Consideration of Granting Trail Fee Credits for Trail Construction and
Amendment to Development Contract, Chanhassen Business Center (CBC),
Audubon 92 Partnership.
i. Resolution #93 -67: Approve Change Order No. 4 for Upper Bluff Creek Trunk
Utility Improvement, Phase I, Project 91 -17A.
All voted in favor, except Councilman Wing who was not present, and the motion
carried.
(Councilman Wing arrived during discussion of item (e).)
E. APPROVAL OF ACCOUNTS.
Councilman Senn: On (e), I think I just had one question. I didn't get a
chance to ask before. On page 6. There's an expenditure of $2,572.62 to
Hammel Green for fees and services on the Entertainment Complex study. I
thought that was being done by the HRA. And if so, I was wondering why it was
paid out of the City.
Mayor Chmiel: Don, could you clarify that? Hammel Green's fees being paid.
' Don Ashworth: I'd have to pull the invoice but I'm sure that it's associated
with the School property and so it is being paid by the tax increment district
but it's Tax Increment District 13, which is under the purview of the City
Council.
Councilman Senn: Then we have a wrong entry here because it says,
Entertainment Complex Study.
' Don Ashworth: I think that that's what they have referred to it as if they're
going to incorporate a recreational element into the elementary property. So
we have 22 acres and the school has 20 acres and the question, which will be
later on this agenda is, is should we be adding blocks to that such as an
' additional height on the gymnasium. Soccer fields, baseball fields, etc. And
this billing represents their work efforts to date to analysis the cost
associated with those options. It's basically the report that you received
from 2 -3 weeks ago.
' Councilman Senn: I just don't understand how we're meshing the school site
with the entertainment complex. I mean that doesn't make any sense to me at
all. And both of them are TIF districts and both of them are HRA.
' Don Ashworth: The downtown is within TID #1 and is under the purview of the
HRA. The McGlynn district is an Economic Development District and it is under
the purview of the City Council. The work that they're charging us here for
is the study that they came up with to, what would it cost to have the
' elementary gym go to a full sized gym? What would be the cost associated with
a field house? What would be the cost of adding a fitness center to that, etc?
Councilman Senn: So is it a correct statement to say then that okaying this
' expenditure is not for the entertainment complex study but is for the school
study? I mean if we can just say that, then I have an answer but I'm not
getting an answer.
2
1
City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993
Don Ashworth: It is not for the entertainment complex that had been considered
in the downtown area.
Councilman Senn: What other entertainment complex do we have under
consideration?
Mayor Chmiel: This is basically, I guess maybe what I'm trying, as I'm
listening to both of you here, there's sort of a misnomer that rather than
having the entertainment complex study, it probably should have been for the
school.
Councilman Senn: That's what I'm asking. That's all I asked but I keep not
getting a yes answer to that.
Mayor Chmiel: That's what it reads there.
Councilman Senn: Is that true?
Don Ashworth: Right. If you would prefer to change that to be study
elementary school options, that would be a clearer definition.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other questions on that? ,
Councilman Senn: Nope.
Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to move that?
Councilman Senn: I supposed yeah.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second.
Councilman Senn: I'm really sure but.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the
Accounts amended to clarify that a check in the amount of $2,572.62 payable to
Hammel -Green should be for the study of the Elementary School Options. All
voted in favor as amended and the notion carried.
H. APPROVE CONTRACT AMENDMENT TO WEST 78TH STREET DETACHMENT AND DOWNTOWN
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 92 -3 FOR EXTENDED WORK HOURS AND OVERTIME COMPENSATION.
Councilman Senn: Item (h). As I understand what we're being asked to do is
okay in effect an overtime premium or expenditure of $25,000.00 to accommodate
the Target time lines.
Mayor Chmiel: That's good, because it's one of the same questions I asked and
I got a very good answer so hopefully he's going to answer you the same way he
did me.
Charles Folch: Bottom line is, yes. We do not want to end up with another
project going through the winter as we did last year. We all I think are
fresh in our memories of what we went through last winter and early spring
with a project that didn't get completed before freeze up so that's yes,
you're correct.
Councilman Senn: So it's not to accommodate the Target schedule but it's to
make sure that we don't we hit winter construction?
1
3
1
1
11
11 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993
' Charles Folch: It's actually a combination of both. We need to accelerate
the remaining time schedule on the project to make up for at least 3 weeks
that have been lost this year already due to poor weather conditions and
additional work on the project. So it's a combination of both. Target is
integrally a part of getting this project completed yet in October.
Councilman Senn: Is there a reason why there's not a cost sharing on the
$25,000.00? I mean why is the City paying the full $25,000.00 in overtime?
' Charles Folch: There is a cost sharing. Basically on all overtime work, the
contractor would pay the, let's say the time. Of the time and a half premium
wage, they would pay the full 100% of the straight time of that overtime and
then the City and the contractor would split the premium share of that time
50/50. And basically we estimate it might be around $25,000.00 so there is
sharing between the contractor and the City on that.
Councilman Senn: But the sharing I'm asking about really isn't an issue
between the City and the contractor. It's an issue between the abutting
property owners who are supposed to be paying for part of the project. I mean
why is the City being hit for the whole difference? I mean why isn't Target,
why aren't the other abutting property owners paying a share of this
' additional project cost?
Charles Folch: Actually it is, you're correct. It is considered a project
cost which does go in, when we finally do the totals and tallies for what this
project costs and what we propose to assess, it does affect the assessment to
the abutting properties that are benefitting from this project.
Councilman Senn: So this will be included in that?
1 Charles Folch: Absolutely.
Councilman Senn: Okay.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: My questions were basically the same but I also have
a question about the soil correction work. Is that because of the rains or is
that just something you discovered when they started digging?
Charles Folch: That was something we discovered once we got into it.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And you can't find that out by soil borings
' beforehand?
Charles Folch: We did do extensive soil borings before the project. It's one
of those unfortunate situations where you missed it. Bottom line, you missed
a bad spot.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And my other question is, is it going to get done in
time?
' Charles Folch: We're going to make every effort and that's why we're trying
to come up with creative solutions like this to try and do whatever we can to
get this thing done this year. Yes, that's bottom line is we want it done.
Mayor Chmiel: As I've been talking to many of my neighbors and a lot of
people that utilize CR 17 to get onto TH 5, I'm hopeful it's going to get done
too because I don't want it to be like Minnewashta. Receiving calls as to
when it's going to get done and let's get rid of the mud.
4
i
1
1
City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Charles, I noted you letter on the Administrative
Packet and I don't recall if it was to this contractor or the TH 101.
Charles Folch: It was to this contractor. He's actually the same contractor.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Oh, okay. So they have gotten their act together. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. I was concerned about the mobilization as to the
timeframe that they indicated they were going to start. And I thought they
were probably behind a good 2 weeks when I discussed this with Charles and
after discussion I find that that probably was not too close but because of
all the rain again that we have had, which is causing problems just like we
have with snow. I'd rather have it rain right now and move on with this thing 11 and get it completed. So is there a motion?
Councilman Senn: I'll move approval with the caveat though that this cost is
being split amongst the property owners.
Mayor Chmiel: There's another thing within that too and there's some
discussions we're doing with the County to see if some of that's not going to
be picked up as well.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'll second it.
Resolution #93 -68: Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to
approve Contract Amendment to West 78th Street Detachment and Downtown
Improvement Project 92 -3 for Extended Work Hours and Overtime Compensation
with a note that the costs will be split between everyone concerned equally.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
J. HIGHWAY 101 /PIONEER TRAIL, MRS. DEJOODE SELLING 8 ACRES TO WORMS, 1
ADMINISTRATIVE SUBDIVISION.
Sharmin Al -Jaff: This is a very simple subdivision. Our ordinance allows
administrative subdivision if a parcel fronts on a public right -of -way. This
is one of the parcels that is involved in the subdivision and does not front
on a public right -of -way. It's actually land locked. We have, Mrs. DeJoode
owns 5 acres here and 8 acres just north of that 5. What she would like to do
is combine this 8 acres with the neighboring 2 acre part of Lot 2 of Jeurissen
Addition. This parcel is a metes and bounds. This one is a platted lot. You
can't combine a metes and bounds with a platted parcel under a single PID
number. What we would do is combine them under a single ownership and at the
same time we would make sure that no building permits be issued on this
portion. On the 8 acres unless it is platted in the future. Again, it is
such a simple subdivision. Or actually it's just changing ownership of the
parcel that it doesn't warrant being platted, and with that we're recommending 11 approval with conditions outlined in the report.
Mayor Chmiel: Mrs. DeJoode is here. I don't know if she'd like to add
anything more to that. To what Sharmin has really brought up. Thank you.
Are there any other questions?
Councilman Senn: Sharmin what is the, it says here there'd be some type of a
document prohibiting the 8 acre parcel from being sold as a separate parcel.
Sharmin Al -Jaff: Correct. Here's the document and it will be recorded
against the property.
1
5
i
1
11
City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993
' Councilman Senn: Okay what if the, let's say it's not sold and let's say the
current property owner tries to use it as an 8 acre parcel.
Sharmin Al -Jaff: We won't issue a building permit for it.
Mayor Chmiel: You're going into a total 13 acre combined total there now.
DeJoode's are cutting their's from 13 acres to 5 which is required as opposed
to the Worm's who are acquiring the additional 8 acres and will be giving them
a total of 13, is that correct?
' Sharmin Al -Jaff: Correct.
Councilman Senn: So Worms will be in conformance?
r Sharmin Al -Jaff: Correct.
Councilman Senn: And DeJoode's will not be in conformance then with the 5
acre parcel?
Sharmin Al -Jaff: However the density will not change. So we're not changing
anything in essence. This is what we have right now.
Councilman Senn: You have 2 parcels now.
Sharmin Al -Jaff: Correct. And this is what will result from what you will
' approve if you approve it.
Councilman Senn: And what's happening with the other, the one with 750
written on it? The other part of the parcel.
' Sharmin Al -Jaff: It is an existing platted lot.
Councilman Senn: It is? Okay, that one is platted. Okay.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other questions? If hearing none, I'll make a
motion to approve item (j).
Councilman Wing: Second.
Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the Administrative
Subdivision .of property by Mrs. DeJoode located at Highway 101 and Pioneer
Trail as proposed by staff. All voted in favor and the motion carried
' unanimously.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
Jim Andrews: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. This afternoon I did drop
off a copy of a letter which I hope you all received for your packets tonight.
I'd just like to read what the letter says and ask for the Council to take a
leadership position in making it clear what their intentions are, and I'll
read the letter now. On July 21st, 1993 I attended a Planning Commission
meeting. On one of the agenda items a Planning Commission member had played
an active role in a special interest group interested in a certain outcome of
the Planning Commission. The commission member never publically disclosed his
involvement with this special interest group. I believe that the City Council
needs to create an official city policy which necessitates public disclosure
when a city official, Council person or Commission member has played an active
role in any special interest group lobbying for a specific action before the
11 city. If such a policy is already in existence, I suggest the following
6
1
1
1
City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993 1
remedial actions. Number one, provide a written copy of such policy to all
city officials, Council members and Commissioners on an annual basis. Number
two, have the Council make a public statement of such a policy and as a sub
item, make the same statement at the first meeting of every new Council. And
number three, take whatever appropriate action may be necessary related to
that specific incident at the Planning Commission meeting. Thank you very
much.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you. I think there probably has been some
procedures already established but have not had the opportunity to review this
in the past and was probably done by a resolution or something. If there has
not been, I would say that the city will take it under advisement and try to
come up with something to alleviate any given problems that could come up as
such. Richard.
Councilman Wing: I'm not, I may have been at this meeting and I guess, if
. this occurred I didn't read it the same way so I guess I'd like, this is
assuming that a Planning Commission member acted inappropriately. I guess I'm
at this point not accepting that as fact but I'd like to know more about it
and if that's the case, I think we should we react to it and it pertains to
all of us. I guess I'd like this particular incident or the Minutes reviewed
and see if there was any discrepancy.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I was at the same meeting and I don't recall anyone
on the Commission advocating a particular position strongly. However, maybe I
was oblivious to it.
Jim Andrews: As you both know, I'm the Vice Chairman of the Park Board. Also
the Chairman of the Highway 5 Task Force. I also seek this direction from the
Council, not just for the Planning Commission but for all our acting
commissions. I don't think this has been clearly stated as a policy. Not in
the 5 years that I've been part of the Park Board. So there may have been a
problem with the Planning Commission. That is not really the issue to me.
It's that I think the City needs to provide leadership for all commissions,
officials and Council people.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: No, I think it's excellent idea Jim. Just wanted to
make a point that I didn't see it at that meeting but as a matter of course we 11 should do that.
Councilman Senn: I think we should look at establishing an ordinance. I
thought we talked about that in the past. An ethics ordinance or something
like that. I'm not sure we've ever done anything about it but it's probably a
good idea that we go ahead.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, it was something that I brought up many years ago
regarding that as well. And somehow I was reassured that we had something on
the books so I didn't carry it any further. And I think everybody should be
well aware as to what the ethics are within their own judgmental decision
making. Sitting at this particular table or any of the other commissions. So
I'd suggest that we do review this and if we have one, let's get it
established. If not, I think we should set something up. Okay. Anyone else
for Visitor Presentation?
PUBLIC HEARING: VACATION OF PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY EASEMENTS OVER LOTS 33 AND 34,
BLOCK 4. HIDDEN VALLEY.
Mayor Chmiel: Once again I'd like to say, as I've mentioned, this is a public
hearing and I'm opening the public hearing for this. Todd Hoffman.
7
1
City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993
' Todd Hoffman: Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council. The subject easements
represent old easements. In fact the new easements have already been recorded.
This particular trail from Rice Marsh Lake to Lake Susan has already been
constructed. The change in the easement locations allowed the trail to take a
' more natural line and create an additional separation from the Lowdermilk and
Meyer residences. Both the Lowdermilk's and the Meyer's were receptive to
this change and work with the City in that regard. It is recommended that the
attached resolution in regard to the vacation of pedestrian walkway easements
over Lots 33 and 34, Block 4, Hidden Valley be adopted.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone at this time wishing to
address this issue? Again, this is a public hearing. It's an opportunity to
address it. If seeing none, I'll ask for a motion to close the public
' hearing.
Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to close the public
hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was
closed.
•
Mayor Chmiel: Any discussion on this? Hearing none, I'd ask for a motion.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I move approval of vacation of pedestrian walkway
easements over Lots 33 and 34, Block 4, Hidden Valley.
Councilman Wing: Second.
' Resolution #93 -69: Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Wing seconded to
adopt the resolution in regard to the vacation pedestrian walkway easements
over Lots 33 and 34, Block 4, Hidden Valley. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED VACATION OF DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS LOCATED
ALONG THE COMMON PROPERTY LINE BETWEEN LOT 1 AND LOT 3, BLOCK 1, MINNEWASHTA
' HIGHLANDS, KENNETH AND GLADYS BLOMQUIST.
Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. As you'll see on the
Figure attached to the staff report, there is a narrow strip of land which ran
' along the north side of Lot 3 which was originally reserved for the plat of
Minnewashta Heights to serve as a driveway access for Lot 1, which was a flag
lot. However, the builder of Lot 1 chose to take driveway access from
Minnewashta Parkway and no longer needed this space reserved accordingly. So
this piece of property was recombined with Lot 3 and now the property owners
on Lot 3 are wishing to build a home and just as a matter of housekeeping, we
no longer need the typical 5 foot side lot drainage easements over that piece
so the vacation is recommended as requested.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there anyone at this time wishing to address the
Council? If you could come forward and please state your name and your
address.
' Kenneth Blomquist: I'm Kenneth Blomquist and the address of which we speak is
3900 Minnewashta Court. I have a prepared statement which isn't very long.
May I read that?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes sir.
Kenneth Blomquist: Mr. Mayor and members of the City Council. In the title
here is a statement and need for the City to vacate the right -of -way of the
' said property. We were shown this Lot 3, Block 1, Minnewashta Highlands who's
8
11
1
City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993 1
address is 3900 Minnewashta Court. We were very interested in this walkout
lot but it was very narrow in the front, only 44 feet. We then learned that
the owner of this lot also owned the unused driveway on the northerly edge.
At one time this would have been given access to Lot 1, which now has other
access. We then entered into agreement to purchase this lot along with the
unused driveway along this northerly edge. We know have warranty deed for the
same. Our plans are to complete. The plans are complete and the contractor
ready to begin building our new home which extends a few feet over into this
anticipated driveway. We then learned the City would not give us a building
permit because of the right -of -way which the City has on this anticipated
driveway. It is our opinion that the City should vacate this easement, or
right -of -way to us because the. City has little, or no value in retaining this
easement. What future would the City have in retaining it? If you will grant
us this request, the development of this property, our new home, may proceed
for which we will be grateful. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Very good, thank you. Is there anyone else? Do you have a
question Richard?
Councilman Wing: I'd move we close the public hearing.
Mayor Chmiel: A motion to close the public hearing. Is there a second? 1
Councilman Senn: Sure. Second.
Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Senn seconded to close the public hearing.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Councilman Wing: I would move we approve this vacation of Lot 1, Lot 3, Block
3, Minnewashta Highlands as requested. File No. 93 -4.
Councilman Senn: Second.
Resolution #93 -70: Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Senn seconded that the
City Council approve the vacation of drainage and utility easements as
dedicated on the recorded plat of Minnewashta Highlands lying 5 feet on either
side of the north line of Lot 3, BLock 1, and lies easterly of the 10 foot
wide drainage and utility easement over Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot 3, Block 1 ,
along Minnewashta Court, as dedicated on said plat. And lies westerly of the
5 foot drainage and utility easements as dedicated on said plat, over the
easterly 5 feet of said Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 at its northerly and southerly
extension. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
NON - CONFORMING USE PERMIT FOR COLONIAL GROVE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT.
Kate Aanenson: Colonial Grove was approved in 1956. In 1981 they were
granted a non - conforming use permit from the City. At that time it was not
specifically spelled out, the boats should be docked overnight. Staff
informed the applicants as part of the process. I mean the Association as 11 part of the process of all non - conforming beachlots to go through, that they
would need to come in and get a permit based on the fact that a survey in 1981
showed 3 boats docked overnight. This went to the Planning Commission twice.
The first time it went there was an error made by staff so the applicants did 11 request to go back before the Planning Commission. Mr. Whitehill, who is
representing the Association, has provided 5 affidavits stating that they
believe that the number of boats at the dock were 8 in 1981. I've attached in
your packet the affidavits and also from the Planning Commission a letter from
the Lotus Lake Association petition stating what they believe to be the level
9
11
11
11 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993
of use. In addition there's Minutes from when the plat was approved. The
second phase with the beachlot that stated that if they were to have boats or
canoe racks of the like, they would have to come back and get a conditional
use permit. That's where the staff came up with the interpretation that it
was maybe not the intent to have boats docked overnight. The Planning
Commission did on their Wednesday, July 21st meeting recommend that 3 boats be
docked overnight. Again the Association's requesting, based on what they
believe the level of use to be is 8 boats to be docked overnight. That's all
1 I had.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright, thank you. Is there anyone here representing the
Colonial Grove? Yes Roger.
Roger Knutson: Maybe I could give my short introductory speech... This is
our, I believe 14th recreational beachlot that the City has dealt with in this
process of registering a non - conforming beachlot. Just so we're clear on what
the ordinance requires. The ordinance requires the City Council to decide
' what was there in 1981. That's all. Not whether that use is appropriate.
Not whether there should be more or less than there was in 1981. Not whether
taxes are going up or down. Not whether there's trash there or other problems
there. Just one issue. One issue only. What was there in 1981. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks.
Cliff Whitehill: Good evening Mr. Mayor and Councilmen. My name is Cliff
' Whitehill, 7001 Dakota Avenue in Colonial Grove. I think the City Attorney
has stated succinctly and accurately what the issue is before you and that is,
what was the use of the dock in that particular outlot in 1981. There will be
a lot of statements tonight about what the use should be today or what it
' shouldn't be today or why it should be this or that or something else. In
1981, because I was very much a part of the formation of the Association and
participated in the drafting of the request for the non - conforming use permit,
it was not the practice of the city at that time to specify the number of
boats to be moored, and moored is a very important word and that's the word
that is commonly used. As to the number of boats that could be moored at a
dock that was authorized for the outlot. Clearly the non - conforming use
permit specified that there would be allowed a 100 foot dock. And in the
' memorandum of the City to the Council this evening there are a number of
statements and sentences there that do need clarification. First, what was
addressed? For instance on page 2 of the memorandum that you received. It
did state that under item 4, "no boats are to be moored ". Unfortunately that
' is incorrect. That is not what the permit specifies nor what the Minutes
addressed at that time. What was specified was that there were no mooring
buoys to be added to the use of the outlot in addition to the 100 foot dock.
It did not say anything about the number of boats to be moored. The Minutes
of the Council at that particular time did address, and was very specific as
to uses that were not permitted and the uses that were not permitted was that
no overnight parking or overnight storage, not the word moored, storage of
boats were to be allowed on the outlot. Again, not addressing the question of
the number of boats to be moored or moored overnight on the dock. When we
received our use permit I specifically inquired of staff at that time as to
the number of boats that would be allowed and the answer back, and which has
been the consistent answer back, well whatever a 100 foot dock can normally
accommodate. That is what is to be allowed. And that's why the issue before
1 you is what was the number of boats that were being stored or allowed in 1981.
The survey that was taken shortly after the granting of the use permit, which
is an unsigned survey, was for a particular moment in time. Nobody knows
whether or not that early June '81 survey indicated that there were other
boats that were at the dock that were out at the lake at the time. That was
10
1
1
City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993
early in the summer. Nobody knew whether everybody had put their boat in.
Most people don't even put it in by that time of June, etc and staff has said
that the, again staff, quoting from your memorandum has always stated that
this survey is based on one day during the summer of 1981 and may not be a
true representation of the level of use of the beachlot. You have been
furnished with affidavits of 5 individuals who were all residents of Colonial
Grove in 1981. Were concerned with the building of the dock, the use of the
dock and other matters associated with the use of that particular parcel. One
thing that the survey clearly indicated of course is that the outlot has
always been maintained in excellent condition. It's the pride of the
neighborhood and certainly I think should be a pride of Chanhassen. And there
has never been one complaint of anyone that we're aware of, or certainly from
the City to the Association, as to the maintenance and upkeep of the outlot.
You'll probably also hear from the Lotus Lake Association people that were
really not familiar with the useage of the lot in 1981, about what they think
may or may not have been the use of the dock and the number of boats. Even in
the Planning Commission they indicated an aerial survey taken more or less at
the same time was "inconclusive ". Although the issue as again stated by the
City Attorney is not how many boats should be allowed today under today's
useage. I think you know, obviously you probably should have that somewhere
in the back of your mind, and that is that limiting the number of boats to 3
is counter productive. First of all it will just cause additional congestion
at the ramp. The people who have boats in the Addition are going to use those
boats and so all you're going to do is irritate a number of people that have
to drive down TH 101, clog up the ramp which is already overused in any event,
and just cause them to put their boats in and out rather than having the
number of boats that was in 1981 being utilized at the dock. Over the years
the Association has faced the issue that can the dock accommodate everyone who
wants to use it and what we have decided is that in such events that the
number of spaces will simply be either drawn by lot or allocated. You get the
first half of the summer and the other person gets the second half of the
summer. So we have faced the issue of how we deal with 8 docks or the ability
to moor 8 boats at the dock. At the Planning Commission also there was a
statement that when people bought their property in Colonial Grove they asked '
about them. I mean it's always been advertised as one of the favorable
attributes of our Addition. That there is an outlot that allows the mooring
of boats of course and the tennis courts and other things that go with it.
And one of the comments was, well you may have been told that by your real
estate agent but you have the duty to inquire at City Hall what was the
appropriate, correct and allowed useage. Well, what would one have been told
had they inquired? They would have been told exactly what's happened and that
is, well the number of boats that are down there, presumably that's what's
allowed. If the use permit did not allow boats to be moored overnight, then
the Association has been in non - compliance since 1981 in spite of so called
three surveys. Now that's just impossible that the City would have had notice
of non - compliance for 12 years. Never notified anyone of non - compliance.
What happened was simply this. That as stated, in the late summer and fall of
last year, where it was omitted from these use permits specifically as to the
number of boats to be moored at these docks the City is now, appropriately,
attempting to clarify the record and also specify as to the number of boats
that can be moored at these particular docks. We were told that that was just
a matter of clarification. We're not applying for a new use permit. We
already have that. What was asked for is that we simply clarify for the city
the number of boats that were moored at the dock in 1981 and that number would
be the appropriate number that would be approved for today's useage. We
could, a 100 foot dock, it's a T dock, could actually accommodate more boats
than that. Well we've said, we'll just have to live with what we had back
then and so we're, whether you call it grandfathering or just in conformity
what was granted at the time, is simply the request of the Association.
11
1
City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993
' Nothing more. Nothing less. The last thing is that a number of other people
will speak as to whether or not the affidavits that were given are the best
and most appropriate evidence. Well, to me there just can't be other than a
photo taken, here are sworn, signed affidavits of people that were residents
at the time. Were intimately associated with the use of the outlot and the
dock. Were always interested in the ongoings of the Association and the well
being of the Association. That's the best proof that's available to you.
There's no aerial survey that indicates any differently. The surveys, the one
survey that was taken by the city in '81, as I said, was early in the summer
contemporaneous with the time that the use permit was granted. The other two
indications of a survey have no attached, even the basic information that the
'81 survey has. It's just a list in two other years as to the number of boats
in that year. Nobody knows what time of day. When during the year. Any such
' survey was taken because there's no background information on it. It could
have been taken literally at any time. So again, in conclusion and in
summary, the Association is simply asking for comfirmation by the Council that
in 1981 8 boats were moored at that dock which is an appropriate number of
boats for a 100 foot dock and that our use permit be clarified to that extent.
Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else wishing to address this issue at this
time?
Jeff Kvichaug: You'll have to excuse me. I get a little nervous at these
things so if my voice cracks or.
Mayor Chmiel: Just think you're sitting at your coffee table and we're
sitting there with you.
' Jeff Kvichaug: Okay. I'm a resident of Lotus Lake. I was also present at
the Planning Commission meeting and my name is Jeff Kvichaug. I reside at
6681 Horseshoe Curve. I'm not as eloquent or as silver tongued as Mr.
Whitehill but as a resident I believe I have some information that conflicts a
' little bit with some of the information Mr. Whitehill has presented. My goal
tonight is just to present this information and clarify certain statements
that may have been made to date. I agree the key issue here is the number of
boats that were moored overnight in 1981. The issue is not deeded access.
The issue is not real estate values. The issue is not the maintenance and
upkeep of the common area and the issue is not the use or overuse of the
public access. The issue is the number of boats that were there in 1981.
When this matter first came up and I became aware of it, I took the
' opportunity to discuss this matter with various members of the City staff.
Past and current board members of the Lotus Lake Homeowners Association.
Various residents on the lake. The DNR. The Ag Extension Service. Certain
past city staff members and selected County officials as well. While I'm
sympathetic to the concerns of the Colonial Grove residents, I feel that
certain information that's been presented is inaccurate. I have been a Lotus
Lake user for 6 years. Most recently I've been a homeowner on the lake. I've
enjoyed the access to the lake, both from a trailer boating perspective
through the public access and as a homeowner. I can certainly understand why
they're upset about the possibility of being limited in their mooring rights.
But certain information is not consistent with that of my research or our
research. Number one, the number of boats that were docked at that dock in
1981, Mr. Whitehill made reference to some information that a Lotus Lake
' Homeowners Association had presented. I believe you probably have a copy of
this letter but I'm presenting another one for the record. That's a letter
that was signed by the past and current Board members of the Homeowners
Association that were very active at that time and were also residents on the
lake. I believe in your packet of information there should also be a note
12
1
1
City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993
that there were going to be several affidavits submitted. That because of
time constraints we couldn't get into your packet before the meeting tonight.
I have a total of 8 affidavits regarding the use of the boats from homeowners
on Lotus Lake as of 1981. There were some questions made at the Planning
Commission whether our letter was sufficient evidence or whether their
affidavits should take precedence. As a result we followed up to make sure
that they're weighed equally, or had equal value. There's also been several
questions about the accuracy of the 1981 survey. And specifically Mr.
Whitehill has referred to it as an unsigned survey and that nobody knows about
the boats under use at the time of the survey. I took the opportunity to talk
to several of the people involved in the lake study committee which the City
Council appointed in 1981 specifically to address the beachlot ordinance that
was proposed in that year and the water surface useage ordinance proposed in
that year. The lake study committee was commissioned or charged with the
responsibility to work with city staff to, for one thing survey the number of
boats moored at common areas in 1981 for all the various lakes in Chanhassen.
- The city staff was responsible for conducting this survey and the individual
that was responsible for it was a person by the name of Scott Martin. I don't
believe anybody with Colonial Grove took the opportunity to talk to Scott
Martin and I spoke with him today. Scott Martin served from 1981 to 1984 as
the Community Development Director for the City of Chanhassen, and as such he
is responsible for supervise the city planning department, as I understand it.
He also was personally involved or personally performed a survey. He
indicated to me that the surveys were performed on weekdays when there was
little or no useage for all the various Chanhassen lakes. It was performed
once during 1981 for each lake. But it was clear to him as a member of the
city staff that this survey would be used as a benchmark and I'm going to
quote him as closely as I can here. And he said therefore it was done, and I
quote, the accuracy and integrity of a reasonable person. Now certainly that
doesn't mean that 3 is the exact number but it does mean that his count was
done when there was very little or no useage and it was as reasonable and
accurate as possible. Further, the original conditional use permit does not
specifically allow mooring rights. In fact there are certain Minutes or notes
that indicate another application process would be required for mooring
rights. For your information we also talked to the County to determine the
number of houses that were even built at that point in time, as it has
expanded significantly since then. According to our research there was a
total of 28 houses that were built in that Association in 1981, 10 of which
were lakeshore properties, meaning a total of 18 non - lakeshore properties
resided in 1981. Finally there's been some comments tonight, or in the -
Planning Commission meeting about deeded access and the rights that that
conveys. Deeded access does not necessarily mean that you have deeded mooring
rights and again, as Mr. Whitehill stated, mooring is a very important term
here. What deeded access right means is that you have deeded rights to use
the lake. With this, whether there's 3 boats allowed or whether there's 8
boats allowed, no one is taking that right away. It will be less convenient,
I agree. But the right to use the lake is not infringed or limited. In fact
they can all use it and all use the dock but only 3 can be moored overnight
under the proposal as accepted by or recommended by the Planning Commission.
In conclusion, there's been no unequivicable data presented by Colonial Grove.
There's been conflicting affidavits presented which I sympathize with the
Council and the Mayor to have to sort through. The City survey, as inaccurate
as it may be presented to be, I believe is the most accurate information we
have from that point in time and that supports 3. The city Planning Commission
recommends the approval of 3 mooring rights. The city staff that conducted
the surveys, they conducted it with reasonable accuracy and the variance
between 3 and 8 seems too large to reconcile for a reasonable person. And
finally, limited mooring rights does not mean limited use. As a final note, I
have one further affidavit and it's from a person who was involved in the lake
13
1
City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993
II
I study committee, and specifically charged with conducting a survey of the
number of boats moored at the various common areas and it discusses the charge
of whether the accounts were correct or accurate and deals directly with the
accuracy. Thank you.
il Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to address this?
Chuck Hirt: My name is Chuck Hirt, 7007 Cheyenne Trail. I have been a
resident of Colonial Grove since 1971. I am one of the parties that signed an
II affidavit and had a boat on there in 1981. There's a couple things I want to
address. I don't quite understand the survey idea that if someone goes down
to the lake one time during a summer and sees 2 boats, that that's the survey
for the entire summer. I mean there can be 10 boats down there at one time.
II There could be no boats. Yesterday we had 2 boats. The day before we had 4
boats down there so that I don't quite understand. The Lotus Lake Homeowners
Association survey, it's kind of interesting. I was trying to rack my brain
and think 12 years back exactly who was on the dock. I know I have about 6
II names and I can't remember the others, and it's interesting that the Lotus
Lake Homeowners Association in 1981, 12 years ago, can remember how many boats
were on our dock. I was there all the time and I can't remember exactly every
person that was there, and they can remember 12 years ago that we just had 3
I docks there. That's pretty hard for me to believe. The other thing I want to
address, he mentioned how the Planning Commission had approved the 3 boats. I
wouldn't say it was an overwhelming vote. It was 4 to 2 and one of the things
I remember specifically, and I don't know how the person was that was standing
II there but it was the first person that talked and I wanted to say something
after he talked but the public hearing was closed but the first thing he
uttered almost, well in all fairness and he went on to talk about 3 boats.
This has nothing to do with fairness and the City Attorney spoke exactly about
I it. It has to do with how many boats were there in '81. Not what is fair.
If that person was voting on the idea of what is fair and 3 boats is fair
because others got 3 boats, that makes no sense whatsoever. So I wouldn't
call the Planning Commission vote a very conclusive vote as far as
II overwhelmingly approving 3 boats. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else?
Chris Engel: Mr. Mayor, my name is Chris Engel. I'm presently the Acting
II President of Colonial Grove at Lotus Lake. I have been in that position for
the last 3 1/2 years and simply the points I would like to make, an emphasis
of Mr. Whitehill's comments surround, I would ask that the Council try to
separate, if they will, our particular permit from the others that you've
II dealt with in the past. The point that needs to be made, quite honestly is
that our Association, if you will, was one of the only associations at the
time that the ordinance was developed, that was I guess approximately 2 years
ago that had a non - conforming beachlot permit from 1981. Our position is
II quite clear, and I think we've made that position clear that we felt all along
that we have a permit that's withstanding. Quite honestly I have acted over
the last 2 1/2 years when Jo Ann Olsen was still involved with the city, I
approached the Planning Commission at the initial meetings where I was asked
II to show up as the President with our permit in hand. And in fact at that
point talked specifically with Jo Ann and I said, do I even need to be at this
meeting. We in fact do have a permit and is it valid. She said yes, and I'm
quite surprised you have one because I don't know of any other Association in
II all of Chanhassen that has one. Well I thank the founders of our Association
for getting that piece of information and I guess I would ask that we not be
lumped in with the other associations that you've dealt with in the past that
have in fact asked for a new permit based on what they've used in the past or
1 asked for more boats or were at 16 and we're now down to 8. We in fact are
14
II
II
11
City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993
asking for what we had in 1981 when we had a permit. A very valid permit.
And at that point, for whatever reason, there was no specification to the
number of boats but only to the length of the dock. 100 feet. I think there
is an implication that if you're going to have a 100 foot dock, that you're
going to put boats on it. I've been involved in the Association since 1986
and Mr. Whitehill also makes a very valid point. I've also worked on the dock
in coordinating parking places. If I'm not mistaken in 1986 they did a
survey. I have had a boat at the dock since 1986 and we had 7 or 8 boats on
the dock in 1986 yet the survey says that we had 3. Again, I have to
emphasize from the survey's point of view, what is the validity of the survey
when they're not even signed. There's no testiment as to who did it. What
time of day. Where in fact does the information come? We have 5 affidavits
that in fact specify that we have the 8 boats. Have had the 8 boats since
1981 parked at our dock and we had asked that the surveys be upstanding, be
thrown out and actually the affidavits be the upstanding evidence in this
case. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else? Okay, seeing none, I'll
bring this back to Council and come up with some kind of conclusion here,
hopefully. I might add this is not one of the best things we enjoy doing,
believe me. Makes you sometimes sit up here and think you're God and we're
not. But to come up with a conclusion. I must say that we have been rather
consistent in all of our decisions that we have done, specifically going back
to what was there in 1981 and there's a lot of arguments on both sides of the
aisle on that particular issue. But with that I'd like to start with Mark.
Do you have anything you'd like to add?
Councilman Senn: I started out I guess real, we've got this thing kind of
torn on it primarily because of all the, I guess other ones that we've had
through with it. The more and more I looked into it though I really started
to think that this was really a lot different than the ones, at least that
I've seen since I've been on the Council. Most of the ones I've seen at least
since I've been on the Council have been very ill defined. No permits. No
rules, no nothing in place. No deeds reciting what is or what the rules are
or aren't. In fact I think most of them I've seen come into Council we've had
two sets of people in the same neighborhood arguing over what was and what
wasn't. I think after really looking through all the history on this, again I
think this one is different. I think in 1981 before this ordinance was put in
place, this neighborhood in effect did have a permit. I've looked very
closely at the permit and the closest thing that I can see that relates to
boats is no mooring buoys shall be placed upon Outlot A. There is not any
more specific reference than that that I can find. Something that even '
resembles an issue of a boat. Likewise look very specifically back at the
Planning Commission Minutes from 1980 and those Minutes I think have kind of a
key word in it and that is where it talks about, it says here Mr. Merz stated
that the Covenants appear to be in order although they do not specifically
talk about overnight parking, overnight storage of boats or erecting
structures. However it was explained that any, and I'll underline this word
changes requesting any of the above would be required to go, or to undergo a
public hearing for conditional use permit. And what really starts to tear me
at that point is you have a neighborhood here who thinks they have a valid
permit and you know the right to put 8 or 10 or whatever number of boats there
was down there, and the reason they need to come into the city is if there's a
change. And they've never changed so I mean I think they've been operating
down there on that basis for all these years and maybe we've been kind of
derelict or neglectful of our duties but if we haven't called them on it for
12 years, I think it's kind of hard now to come back after 12 years and say,
you've been doing a no no for 12 years. Especially when you look back at this
type of wording in the document. To me if there was a problem we should have
15
1
City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993
been enforcing it a long time ago. Not now in 1993. I look back and I say, I
think the documents could have been a lot tighter. I think they probably
should have been a lot tighter. I look at all the Minutes and again the issue
of the number of boats I don't ever see referenced anywhere. I live on Lotus
Lake now. I happen to feel the lake's kind of a natural resource for the
community. I'd like to see as many people in the community who want to use
it, use it. I'm going to have to say, I've even used Lotus Lake I think most
of my life. As well as Christmas Lake and I can't remember exactly what was
down there in 1981, even though I probably used the lake frequently then. I
i remember there were a number of spots around the lake that had a fair number
of boats docked there but that's the best I can remember. I think, I talked
with the neighborhood and I talked with the Association and in fact, you know
basically they have records at least going back to 1986 showing the people and
the use up to that level. At the same time I guess I wish they would have
kept better records further back but I guess I wish the City did too. So I
guess anyway I look at it, I keep coming back to a not so clear answer and I
think in this particular case given the agreements, given the language and I
think the key point here is given the agreement. I walk away and I think if
we don't, how would I say this. I get bothered by the fact that I don't think
the neighborhood association really has to be here. I get bothered by the
fact that I think they have an agreement dated in 1981 with the City which
' doesn't specify a number of boats. I think they could very clearly be taking
a position far more, be counter productive than the one they are taking. It
seems to me that if the neighborhood is willing to agree to 8 boats, I think
given the documentation, given the circumstances, I think we ought to agree to
' the 8 boats and run to the bank with it so to speak because it seems to me
we're getting a good limitation that we don't have now. And I think that the
contention could be made that we don't. So I think we ought to go with that.
' Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: In the 5 or 6 of these, 4 or 5, I don't recall, that
we've dealt with this year, we've always tried to be consistent with our prior
decisions. However, in looking at this one it is different because there is a
non - conforming permit and basically it just doesn't deal with the issue. I'm
going to go with the 8, not because of Mr. Whitehill's issue of mooring or
storage. I think that's just semantics and does absolutely not address
permits. Not because there's 100 foot dock, because the City survey says it
was 35 feet. But more because we have been, we have tried to be fairly
liberal with these with the understanding people's rights to use the lake.
Somewhat because the validity of the city survey is in question and they have
been in all of these. We've relied on them when there was a lack of evidence
1 to the contrary but I think in this case there is evidence to the contrary.
Because you did have a permit and you were acting under the understanding that
your permit was valid and that you did have the right to store as many boats I
believe as you thought would fit. When you get to the affidavits, that's a
tough issue. You like to think that people, when they sign a sworn affidavit,
they you know, memories get twisted, etc but I do believe that at Colonial
Grove Association members probably do have a little bit better memory of it,
albeit it's probably a little bit biased. But for those reasons and for the
ones that Mark iterated, I believe 8 is fair.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Richard.
Councilman Wing: Can you address this permit issue? You know we're talking
about they had a non - conforming permit and it doesn't address numbers of
boats. What does any of this got to do with the '81 useage?
16
1
1
City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993
Roger Knutson: That non - conforming use permit they received, they received
prior to the enactment of the 1981, 1981 or '82 recreational beachlot
ordinance. The current ordinance was not in effect... Under what basis it was
issued, the City in fact was looking, we don't know. But it's relevant to the
extent it documents what was there in 1981, and only to that extent.
Obviously the Planning Commission and Council at that time looked at the issue
and said, here's what you've got. We're registering your non - conforming use
but for whatever reason they didn't mention boats. Well when the 1981
ordinance regulating recreational beachlots was passed, that became a very II important issue because it limited the number of boats you could have. So
what you do, you have the non - conforming use permit that tells you, answers
quite a few questions but you have a big blank as far as that permit goes. As
far as how many boats were there in 1981. From looking at it, you can't tell 11 whether there was one boat. I can't anyway, 1 boat there or 100 boats by
looking at that document. So you have to look at people's memories or
whatever other evidence they can come up with as to what was there in 1981.
Again, it comes back to the same issue. With the agreement or not agreement,
what was there in '81.
Councilman Wing: That's why I lost my compatrients point here where they're
talking about this being different than the others. I'm granting that they
had a non - conforming use permit and I'm going to say allowed the use of boats.
I don't have an issue with that so let's go back to the number of boats that
was there in 1981, because there is nothing different. They had permission to
use boats. So I have 5 affidavits here that say they had 8 and I have 5 over
here that said they had 3. And those people aren't just up on Horseshoe
Curve, or any one group. They're scattered around the lake. In fact one of
them is real close to the Association. In fact one of them that was signed
by, I'm not going to get into that. I guess I have information where the
affidavits aren't totally accurate, at least coming from Colonial Grove.
Considering a neighbor that was concerned about his signature on this and the
fact that he wasn't comfortable with it. So we get back to what was there.
The Planning Commission went over this twice. Not once and in both times the
majority of that group voted 3 boats. And two of those votes were over the
issue of affidavits. They did not have offsetting affidavits at that time so
I'm not going to rely on that issue. So I'm trying to decide here,in fairness
to all these other 13 we've done, what was there in 1981. That's all I care
about. It's irrelevant of property values or whether there was a permit or 11 non - conforming permit or whether you had boat use or not. Obviously you had
boats there so I'm going to grant you that. I'm trying to be fair here with
the other 13 and decide what was there. During the summer of 1981 the
affidavits claim that there was 8. Other affidavits claimed it was never more
than 3. And what compells me to favor those is the fact that the Association,
Lotus Lake Homeowners Association in fact had a complaint that year reporting
a violation of the subdivision. Well, even if I assume they had the right to
have those boats there, it still claims that there were 3 boats that were in
question, and 2 or 3 boats continued to be present at various times that
summer. No one has come forward tonight, or at any Planning Commission
meeting and justified any more than 3, and there's all sorts of documentation
here saying there was 2 or 3 boats there so I won't question that. But other
than the affidavits from this side, which are offset by this side, who both
seem to be real familiar with the lake. All were there in 1981. Some of them
again are neighbors. 3 boats comes up. 2 to 3 boats so it seems to me the
Planning Commission allowing 3 boats was somewhat of a compromise and I think
was reasonably fair. And I cannot find any documentation for more than that
number of boats. I also get concerned that by permitting any boats there with
the 25 foot beachlot, and then applying our dock setback ordinance which takes
10 feet off each side automatically for all neighbors, that leaves 10 from 20
that leaves 5 feet to work with for a dock. Well that's access for swimming 1
17
i
1
City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993
and other issues but when you start adding boat lifts and docks to that, now
you're in the dock setback zone and we have not allowed anyone else to have
that violation. But in this case, to impose that ordinance we'd in fact take
your use away so that's not going to work. The other issue I wanted to ask
about was this dock length. There's mention of a 100 foot dock but yet all
these surveys talk 35 feet. '81, '86 right on through. Why are we approving
100 foot dock if they've never had more than 35? Haven't they lost that
right?
Roger Knutson: I believe they say they have 100 foot dock there now.
Councilman Wing: Is that correct?
' Resident: Yeah.
Councilman Wing: The permit says 100 foot dock. What's there is 35. And
what's the actual use this summer? What have you noted this summer as the
' actual use? I haven't checked it.
Kate Aanenson: I haven't checked it this summer.
1 Councilman Wing: Okay. So I guess I'm going to support the Planning
Commission's recommendation because I think they listened to this through two
meetings and I think that the 3 boats was a reasonable compromise. It doesn't
issue, argue the issue of permits or boats. It only tries to address what was
there in '83 and the, or '81 and the preponderance of the, sitting here as a
jury member of the covenants says that there was no more than 3 boats.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. A lot of pros and cons to the issues. We're
debating this right now and some of the things that I have said at other
association meetings that we've had here is that that buyer beware situation.
When homes were being sold by real estate people, it often times enhances a
position by them to say you have boat right ability and utilization of that
property. And some of it's true. I look at it from the standpoint of the
' Association's the pull together these specific lots was the intent I think
really behind it as a swimming beach. Period. And it has grown from that
part a little more and a little more and a little more. I know under my own
circumstance when I bought my home, I was told that we had rights to Lake Ann
with a park that we had and it was told that was an association park. Well, I
didn't do as I should have done, is gone to City Hall to find out if that was
really true. But I was told it was and I believed the real estate agent. And
after finding out the city owns that piece of land. It is not an association
1 piece. It's owned by the City and I even had the City pull out the affidavit
showing that they were really the owners, and they were. Going back to, and
just a little side step of the story which pertained to me, myself. In going
back to what I'm looking at now. In some of the permit issued, that has been
1 issued, and with also a condition of a permit for two canoe racks to be on
that parcel. I still am leaning toward the position of Planning Commission's
decision as to the 3 boats. And I know if it goes to a vote here it's going
to be a 2 to 2 tie and we're lacking one individual as well. But I have also
thought there is some difference in what has transpired here as opposed to
some of the others. From a consistent standpoint as to how we have concluded
some of our decisions. I think that I'm still leaning towards the 3 boats and
also the 2 canoe racks that were on that parcel at that time. Even though it
indicates that it's 100 feet, of the permit that was issued, by everything
that I see here and Dick has mentioned this already, it's a reiteration of it.
Is that there has been in 1981, one seasonal dock 35 feet. In 1986, 35 feet
and in 1991, 35 feet.
18
1
1
1
City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993
Residents: No, that's not true...
Mayor Chmielt What's the length of the dock that's out there right now? Is
it 100 feet now?
Cliff Whitehill: I think the aerial survey will... 1
Mayor Chmiel: So there seems to be some kind of discrepancy within it. But I
think that all the things back and forth has been held and discussed and I
still see that, well let me just hold my vote until I make my decision. And
I've thought about this long and hard and I've looked at all the pros and cons
to the issues as I've said before. But I still think that there are some, and
it's sort of amazing. 3 to 8 is quite a difference from what there was to
what other people are saying as well. And it depends upon what day you're
really looking at. I think you brought that up before. What day it was. So
with that I would ask for a motion in regard to this, both Lotus Lake
• Recreational Beachlot.
Councilman Senn: 'I have a question first Don I'd like to ask, if I could. 1
Mayor Chmiel: And I was going to say, we're going to have discussion with it
as well. Go ahead.
Councilman Senn: For the attorney. I look at this and we have an agreement,
it seems to me, with the Association dated 1981 before the ordinance okay.
Picking one of the things that the agreement is very specific about, which is
the length of the dock being 100 feet okay. This document's then recorded.
Okay, through that Association's documents with each property, okay. How can
the city simply pass a new ordinance and say it's changing that dock length?
Changing that agreement and not even inform the people that they're doing,
specifically. I'm not talking about general public notice. I'm talking about
an agreement here. Not a general ordinance. I mean it seems to me at that
point the burden of proof so to speak is on the city somehow. If it's going
to change an agreement it negotiated and signed, it needs to specifically go
back and either renegotiate it, reopen it or do something, especially when
it's recorded against the properties. And I take that issue and I just follow
it through and I say, hey this is one of the poorest things I've ever seen. I
mean I can't help the fact that it's poor but I keep coming back to that
nagging question that says to me, you know geez. How can we mess with this
agreement?
Roger Knutson: I think this agreement, and I was not around in 1981 when this
was done so I wasn't here. I have no personal knowledge of how they reached
these conclusions. I don't even know why they had it. There was no
recreational beachiot ordinance at that time. There was a recreation
ordinance of some sort. After this thing was passed, the current ordinance,
the current version of the ordinance came into play. This is excellent
evidence of what people thought was there in 1981. I think obviously you'll
decide what weigh that should get. The boat issue wasn't addressed as far as
I can tell. Why it wasn't addressed, it's a preety obvious issue, why it
wasn't, I don't know. I think when the new ordinance went into effect in 1981
it created new rules. This helps you to decide what the baseline is and what
was there except for the one issue, which you saw tonight. The number of
boats that can be there overnight on the docks. From the discussion it
obviously was something that was on people's minds. It was discussed for a 11 moment at least in the Planning Commission meeting back then. They didn't
tell us what the answer is. I think obviously that's your task under our new
ordinance is to fill in that blank. Now many boats were there.
19
1
1
1
City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993
Councilman Senn: Okay, well.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion?
I Councilman Wing: I want to ask Mark how we've violated this agreement. The
agreement doesn't address the number of boats. It didn't say they could have
20 or 5 or 3 or none. What have we done to violate this agreement? Other
than trying to enforce the ordinance that came in in 1981, which we've done
pretty consistently. And that was done.
Councilman Senn: Well if you enforce the ordinance Dick, as it came in in
1981, you're in violation of this agreement because according to that they're
only allowed to have a 35 foot dock. It's right here in black and white. Yet
we have an agreement...separate the issues here and likewise this agreement is
silent on the number of boats. Which means they aren't bound by our ordinance
as far as I'm concerned. They have an agreement here with us that doesn't
bind them.
Councilman Wing: So they can have any number of boats they want t�.
Councilman Senn: But to me they're coming in and saying, we'll settle on 8.
To me that's a heck of a compromise. Like I said before, we ought to grab it
and run because I think there's some real open ended, I mean legal issues
here. If one attorney can stand on one side and tell us for sure this is what
the Court's going to decide, but I've never heard somebody do that yet. I
mean that sounds wonderful but this is one of those ones to me that seems like
it's real ripe for litigation and somebody's going to go in and split the
baby. And the agreement just has a big hole in it and I don't think that's
• • something we blame on the neighborhood. I think at this point we have to say
hey, we made a mistake. Okay. So let's swallow our mistake. Let's agree to
something that the neighborhood seems to be willing to go with and let's get
out of the deal without getting into a buncy of litigation and everything
else. That's the way I look at it.
Roger Knutson: I mean after the fact I think we certainly have the right to
enact ordinances regulating the number of boats that can come in. For
example, if they had no boats there in 1981...and they come in 3 years later
and say, you can't have any. You have the right, subsequent Councils have the
right to make changes from what prior Councils have done. To enact new
ordinances. Making things more restrictive.
Councilman Senn: We can't change written agreements with people. I mean I
want to make that clear. At least that's everything I've ever understood. We
can change ordinances but we can't change agreements. Contracts.
1 Roger Knutson: It depends on what you mean by, if you want to get into...
Councilman Senn: I'm just asking the question.
Roger Knutson: That's not 100% true. Planned Unit Development Agreement,
signed off by both sides, simple example. It's a zoning document. Can
subsequent Councils change that, yes. By amending the zoning. Absolutely.
Councilman Senn: Interesting.
Councilman Wing: We could go back on the history of this thing. Why it
started in the first place and the abuses that occurred that created this lake
study committee in 1980, 1979- 1980 -1981. Then we could get into why we had to
go to the permit process to begin with and that was battle after battle.
20
1
City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993
There are court cases that have been lost for tens of thousands of dollars
over one boat on Lake Minnewashta. We went to this permit process, and to say
the public wasn't advised. There were public hearings back then and this
group was included as much as any other group. And lake owners were included.
This ordinance was enacted after heavy public input and I can assure you it
was heavy public input because everybody wanted their little piece. In 1991
we had to face the issue that these, some of the beachlots, and even lake
owners themselves, were just taking whatever they wanted to do and running
with it and we were forced into a permit process out of outright battles. The
number of complaints got so high the City Council had to react. So we're
going through the permit process. And then after heavy public input, and
numerous public hearings where these chambers were filled with lake owners,
non lake owners, interested parties, we as a Council and Planning Commission
unanimously agreed to go with the 1981 boat counts. Non - conforming.
Conforming. Written this. Written that. I think that that ordinance
superseded those, is that not correct, when we decided to go with the 1981
boat count under that ordinance.
Roger Knutson: What we basically said is that in 1981 when the ordinance was,
the recreational beachiot ordinance was enacted, if you didn't meet those
standards as of that date, you were non - conforming and as a non - conforming use
you did not have the right to expand. So what we decided to do a couple of
years ago, we had constant complaints, is to register what you had there in
1981. So when someone comes in and says over this recreational beachiot
they're doing so and so and that's expansion, they shouldn't be doing that.
We can look at our files and say, oh. They're okay or they're not okay and
then we can go after them or say there's no issue.
Councilman Wing: So I don't have any interest in taking away their boats, nor
taking away their use. I just don't feel it's fair for me to sit here after
13 of these where we have impacted associations, and do anything other than
what was there in 1981 and it does not affect their agreement, written or
verbal or handshake or anything else. It's simply we have an ordinance in
1981 that counted boats. Now if they can show that they had 10 boats, •
Minnewashta Heights came in and had an incredible number of boats documented.
We couldn't argue with it. Got it hands down but anyone else that didn't have
full documentation, we went with these counts because it's the best we could
do and the burden of proof is not on us. I'll disagree with that. The burden
of proof is the people coming in and the burden of proof presented to me, and
the only reason I went with 3 boats versus 8 is that the burden of proof was
3. And I'm not going to belabor and argue this point. We can go all night on
this. I think maybe we should just call it. I'd love to compromise on this.
Maybe split it but we can't do that. That is not the question, or I would
certainly suggest we do that. Maybe come to grips on this issue.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And yet in my opinion it's not as cut and dried as
that. I mean we've been very consistent with the prior ones and we've said
I'm sorry people. I know your real estate agent told you this and I've upheld
those decisions but in this one it's my opinion that it is different because
they've been given a document from the city stating the use. And I think they
have more of a footing to stand on. So I can't be so cut and dried on this
and I would like to compromise if we could, because I think if any case, this
is one to do it on.
Councilman Senn: Well whether they go 3 or 8, it's not going to be the end of
the world and history isn't even going to note this but I guess I have to
know, they're different and they have an agreement. How many boats did that
agreement allow them?
1
21
1
11 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Right, it didn't allow any but it did infer that
they could have as many boats as would fit on a 100 foot dock.
Roger Knutson: To just point out on that. Then subsequent to this permit
1 being issue, an ordinance was enacted which limited the number of boats that
they could have. The basic concept is that you can't, this City Council, and
no other City Council, can contract away your zoning powers. I mean if for an
example, and I'll make an absurb example. They said you could build a glue
factory on here and this was all signed up. And the next day or the next year
the Council changed it's mind to rezone the property, they couldn't do it
unless they'd already started building it regardless of what that document
said.
Resident: We already had the dock.
Mayor Chmiel: Please, hold it down. Thank you.
Councilman Senn: But we do, let me understand. I guess one quick question
and that is, we do have a non - conforming use permit on this property now,
correct?
Mayor Chmiel: That's correct.
Roger Knutson: Yes, but it's non - conforming use permit under the existing
ordinance.
Councilman Senn: I understand. I understand. Okay, but in every other
respect it pretty much deals with or meets the issues of the ordinance, okay?
I mean I guess what I'd like to do is just simply, I guess to get it off
center. I'd like to move that we amend the existing non - conforming use permit
with the neighborhood's agreement to enter an additional item and
clarification that no more than 8 boats would be allowed at the dock. Docked
or moored or whatever the best legal terminology is.
Roger Knutson: Tied up to the dock.
Councilman Senn: Tied to the dock. Overnight, right? Is that the way to do
1 it?
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? I'll call a question. Would you like to
make, who would like to make a motion?
1 Don Ashworth: Was there a second on the motion?
Roger Knutson: No.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I thought Mark did.
Councilman Senn: Just did.
Mayor Chmiel: No, it's not a motion as yet. You have some clarifications?
Roger Knutson: I thought Mark just.
1 Councilman Senn: I just moved.
Mayor Chmiel: No, no, no. Yeah, you moved that but there was other
discussions that were still on. And you are making. I asked for a motion to
22
1
1
City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993 1
be made. I called for that now so if you'd like to reiterate that, you may do
so.
Councilman Senn: Whatever I just said, right.
Mayor Chmiel: You amend the non - conforming. I
Councilman Senn: I'd like to move that we amend the non - conforming use permit
beachlot for Colonial Grove at Lotus Lake 2nd Addition, with concurrence of
the neighborhood to include an additional provision which limits the number of
boats to be tied to the dock overnight to be 8.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'll second that.
Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any other discussion? If not
I'll call the question.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the Non-
Conforming Use Permit for Colonial Grove Homeowners Association Recreational
Beachlot with an amendment to their agreement which limits the number of boats
which can be tied to the dock overnight to eight (8). All voted in favor,
except Councilman Wing who was silent, and the motion carried unanimously with
a vote of 4 to 0. I/
Councilman Wing: Can I get one clarification item? What about our dock
setback ordinance that we've been so rigid on? It would appear to me that
this dock and these boats can't possibly comply with that. We've granted them
the authority to operate the site, is that correct?
Roger Knutson: Since they, you said it very well. If the existing dock can
comply, we require compliance but in this situation since it would not be
possible to comply without taking out the dock, we cannot require compliance.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, does that clarify your question? ,
Councilman Wing: Yes sir.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Very good.
Councilman Senn: What was the vote?
Mayor Chmiel: It was vote 3 with a no vote which would mean it's a yes vote.
Thank you.
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 4.47 ACRES INTO 7 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, 7500
FRONTIER TRAIL, LOTUS LAKE WOODS, LEANNA FORCIER AND HUBERT V. FORCIER.
I/
Sharmin Al -Jaff: This is a very simple subdivision. The applicant is
proposing to subdivide 4.47 acres into 7 single family lots. Currently there
is an existing single family home on the site. This residence will be either
demolished or used for practice by the Fire Department. 3 of the parcels will
be serviced by an extension of Del Rio Drive. It will be cul- de- saced. The
other 4 parcels will be serviced off of Frontier Trail. There will be ponds
built up to NURP standards. Those ponds will not only service the subdivision.
However, it will also help retain the water from the surrounding area before
it flushes out into Lotus Lake. So it will definitely improve the quality of
Lotus Lake. The site is heavily wooded. It is a fairly young forest and
staff requested a preservation easement over what is highlighted right now in
red. And the applicant has shown this preservation easement on the plan. The
23
1
City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993
applicant is proposing to replace every single tree removed. By the time all
trees are replaced, we would have lost 10% of all trees on site, which
currently the landscaping ordinance is being changed and what planning staff
is recommending through the Tree Board, what they're recommending is that
total tree loss would not exceed 30% so this is definitely under the 30% that
would be removed with the new tree ordinance. We are recommending approval
for this application. However, there are two changes that we would like to
make to the conditions of approval. The first one is on page 8. Condition
number 11. It should read extension of utility service stubs to Lots 4 and 5,
and also the driveway, shall be in this same general location to minimize
disruption and tree removal. And then we would strike out, those two lots
shall share a common driveway. We should also strike out the shared portion
of the driveway shall be built up to a 7 ton design and 20 feet in width.
What the applicant has proposed is those two driveways be within the same
general area with a buffer strip between them, which is acceptable. The
second condition would be adding condition number 16 which would read, the
applicant shall pay full park fees in lieu of parkland dedication. And with
that we're recommending approval. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Sharmin. Is the applicant here this evening?
Robert Davis: Good evening Mayor, Council members. Citizens. We've got a
smaller group here since the last item. My name is Robert Davis. I'm an
architect. I'm at 4010 West 56th Street in Edina. I'm working along with
11 Sunday Engineering in the land planning of this project for the Forcier's.
Let me clarify for you some of the items that have been previously brought up,
either with staff or at the Planning Commission meeting previously and the
direction we have agreed to proceed with. There's 7 lots here and this has
been a single residence on 4 1/2 acres, although it was 2 lots legally. There
was only one residence for 50 years. So most of it has been fairly heavily
wooded. One of the discussion items was the affect on neighbors of putting
houses in here that for 50 years has been quite heavily wooded. We feel the 4
affected houses are here, here, here and across the road. One of the
discussion items with the Planning Commission was to change a driveway on Lot
5 from this side, because of the effect on the neighbor across the road and
the loss of trees to here. And that's the item we just discussed about. A
reasonably close driveway with a 5 foot green buffer with 2 1/2 feet on each
side of the lot line. That was the direction of. We felt the improvement and
sensitivity to the neighbors across the street so the wooded area comes down
the road here will look around and the... One of the other items brought up
at the Planning Commission was...on Del Rio Drive, on the south side. He
specifically called out that he had an oak tree in this property here which he
felt was very important and we included that on the tree preservation list
even though it's not 6 inches in diameter. Our tree preservation list
documents 169 trees 6 inches or larger. One of the other properties here is a
1 minimum setback. The existing residence on the north side of Del Rio and we're
moving the asphalt of the cul -de -sac, offsetting it from the center so that we
feel we can save a number of these trees that are in the right -of -way but
because we're holding the asphalt to this side rather than centering it, we
11 think...saving the trees. The grading and drainage plan shows that retaining
wall. The fourth residence is the existing Mason residence here which we feel
that by locating the lot and houses where we're showing the, that that gives
the most leeway to this party in terms of non -use in the rear of these lots.
That house is quite close to the property line but pulling this house up and
this way down here, we feel that's a good compromise there. So those are some
of the issues and items that have been discussed with staff and modified and
discussed at the Planning Commission meeting. There was some discussion about
the pond. They're shown here. Just a pond. Right now there's a storm sewer
coming downhill and curving out this way...off here. We're proposing a storm
i 24
1
City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993 1
sewer off this cul -de -sac to come down to this point too and then a structure
which would divert water to this pond. There's an overflow and pump the
ponding down here. This overflow crosses out under Frontier Trail and is
proposed to culvert under the road. That's in the Bonestroo report that you
have. One of the things I wanted to clarify is that in developing this amount
of land there's a requirement of a pond...proposal with the city for the
additional size of these ponds. They're in effect made larger to provide a
better water quality from off the property coming to this system. We just
speak a minute about the tree inventory. Do you have a copy of this included?
So you have the wording of the replacements. Very simply we're offering to
replace either every tree cut with one 2 1/2 inch caliper tree or all tree
caliper lost after 20 %. Whichever is more restrictive. And it appears that 11 on...page we would have 40 trees planted and in another case, 43. One of the
items is, do you have a copy of the conservation easement? Is that in our
packet?
• Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Robert Davis: Okay. That is a document change. The granting of an easement
for the preservation of trees in these areas and that's shown here. Now the
two lines here, and these are labeled and they're called out on your easement
as A as a general area here, here, this, this and this. And A is the area
that no cutting can take place. We felt as we develop this and talked to
people and talked to staff that we didn't want to get into a situation where 5
years from now people start coming back and saying, we want an exception. So
we tried to have some foresight here and say, let's give an area close to the
building pads that the property owner can cut a tree and replace at full
caliper. In other words, if it's a 25 inch tree, he plants 10 2 1/2 inch
trees to replace them. But he can do that and we're considering that as a
probable buildable area for a family room and screened porch. Some addition.
We just felt we wanted some thought here of not restricting this conservation
easement line so close to the building pad that you'd come, that people are
coming back to here in 5 years saying we want an exception. I think staff is
agreeing with us.
Mayor Chmiel: We've seen too many of those, thank you.
Robert Davis: You had one tonight that you're trying to correct. Is it
appropriate for the Council to consider the cost sharing item or is that to be
taken up with staff?
Mayor Chmiel: I think that's a discussionary thing with staff. 1
Robert Davis: Okay. I'd like to just put out an item for your consideration.
For your information. We're proposing 2 trees on the front of each lot and
the total here is 3 saved trees, removed and new trees. And there's 2 trees
proposed in the front of each lot and then there's 26 trees proposed around
the pond. I'd like to consider, the owner feels that he's contributing
generally to the public in another way. This lot at one time in the process,
we started back in February with our first plans here was 107 feet wide. It's
now 90 feet wide and that land in effect has been given to allow the pond to
get larger. There was we feel one...and I think it's a good donation for a
waterfall. Another item which I feel is a community value is the conservation
easement which does not allow the cutting of these trees. Obviously you're
working to develop...And we are then replanting trees as a third item. We
have we feel, and I think staff is saying, a high quality reforestation plan.
I'd like you to consider cost sharing of the trees around the pond because the
ponds...larger. There's 26 trees in effect going to be replaced in that area
25
1
11 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993
and I would take up I guess with staff in the cost sharing that item. I'd
like to ask for some consideration.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. If you were to ask my opinion, I don't see any cost
1
sharing by the city in association with those particular ponds. At least
that's my opinion. I don't know what the balance of the Council would be.
Robert Davis: As far as the tree removal goes?
Mayor Chmiel: Right. Richard. Do you have any addition?
Councilman Wing: No, I would concur, only because it doesn't look like it's a
real impact. It's a nice development and I don't think that impacts the cost
of it significantly that I'd feel guilty about not participating. Or no.
Councilman Senn: You said it right.
Councilman Wing: My answer's no, whatever it is.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I agree that it is a benefit to the city about the
ponding issue. Conservation easements, those are pretty much par for the
course. I guess I would agree. The city has very rarely in my knowledge,
actually never to my knowledge, undertaken any cost sharing with tree
replacement.
Robert Davis: Okay, there is a 4 division of the cost sharing in related to
the utility of t he p ond and th culvert under the road because i som cases
we're diverting water from the existing underground storm sewer to this system
and then the report indicates that that structure...So I was just taking that
one step further and saying that there is already the concept of cost sharing
on the ponding and it seems to me since the owner felt they were giving
something to the community in terms of land, and the conservation easements
over a lot of the area, that.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Could you put a dollar figure on that? •
Robert Davis: Ah 26 trees. So we're talking half of the 26 or 13 at 2 1/2
caliper is $100.00 a caliper inch.
Mayor Chmiel: I see some other problems that exist from this. From the
standpoint of our sewage lift station that could tax this particular station
some as well. That may necessitate us to look at something in the long run
with this and so that's some of the reasons I feel that I'm not in any
position to supplement that. And there could be considerable additional costs
for the city as well. Into this station provided there's going to be problems
...with it right now and I think by taxing this with 7 more units would
probably do something with that, if that's something we have to look at.
Councilman Wing: We stopped at Colleen. I don't know if Mark is done
commenting on that. I don't mean to involve you either.
Councilman Senn: Well I don't know. I mean if we're over all the issues, I
guess I'm not quite prepared to comment on the tree one. I had a real
11 question for Charles, if I could. Does this tie into the sewer lift station
that we've been having the problems with? I've seen Mr. Anderson's letters.
I've talked with Mr. Anderson. I've seen his pictures. I think there's a
very valid concern about sewage flowing into the lake and that's a real
concern to me and I think if that is the station, I guess first and foremost I
26
1
1
City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993 1
think we have to have an answer to that before we go any further on
consideration for this but I'll throw it into your...
Charles Folch: Sure. To answer the first part of your question, yes. This
property would tie into the system which ultimately goes into Lift Station No.
2 located on Frontier Trail. Would this cause a capacity problem for that
Lift Station? Under normal flow conditions, no. There's plenty of capacity
in the system. In discussing this issue and trying to do a little bit of
research over the last 10 years of when we've had failures at this lift
station. And actually other lift stations around the Lotus Lake area.
Typically what we find is whenever there's a power outage and the lift
station's down, it's not able to function or immediately following a heavy
rain storm. That probably 6 to 12 hour period where we're probably getting a
lot of heavy I and I, inflow into this system from sump pumps, is when that
lift station and other lift stations in the area can be exceeded from a flow
capacity standpoint. But outside of a power failure in the heavy rain storms,
this system has no problem handling the additional homes proposed with this
subdivision. We are taking some steps to try to mitigate that. The Council
last fall authorized the city as a part of a major sewer improvement project
with the city. We are acquiring a mobile unit generater system which will be
mounted on a truck so that if there is a power outage at a lift station, we'll
be able to drive the truck to that lift station, basically hook up to it and
be able to have it operate. Unless lightning hits the lift station and burns
things out, then it's no good to have a generater but it's not going to help
you. And we are trying to do, we are of course doing annual sewer rehab
programs to take care of I and I that's coming in through the pipes.
Throughout the Carver Beach area and I guess one of the remaining things we'd
like to take on, sometime in the near future is address the sump pump
connection issue because that's really the heart of what's hurting us
following these rainstorms.
Councilman Senn: How long, or I mean, I don't like to see raw sewage or
whatever you want to call it floating into Lotus Lake, or any lake in the city
of Chanhassen. How long does it take us to...take care of the problem? I
mean let's say we keep having more years like we had last year and this year,
which I think it caused quite a number of times where we had sewage going into
the lake, not associated with power outages or whatever. I mean just like you
say, simply over capacity caused by the rains and everything. So I mean
that's a real concern to me before we answer the question of should we be
allowing additional development in the area.
Charles Folch: Again, I guess my response to that is, normal flow the system
has been designed to handle the needed capacity for the area. There's not a
problem with that. I guess it's a matter that, and we are continuing to press
forward to do step by step process which is becoming each step more and more
expensive but that's the way we're proceeding with it to find ways to solve
this I and I problem.
Mayor Chmiel: It isn't that we've not done nothing at that particular site.
We have also put an expansion on that particular site, did we not Charles?
Charles Folch: Yes. Last year we did increase the horse power.
Councilman Senn: I understood it from you that the main problems really is
sump pumps and I guess my real question, to get to the bottom of the matter
is, how can we get the sump pumps out of the system quickly?
Charles Folch: Well I guess we'd have to look at trying to do some sort of
inspection type program on a city wide basis. Currently what we do is, in our
27
1
1
1
11 City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993
building inspection and utility operators have been very cooperative. Whenever
they have the opportunity, by either meter reading or doing a permit
inspection of a remodeling in a basement, each of the inspectors has done very
well at making note as to what connection they have for their sump pumps and
I've got probably over 3 dozen letters in a file that over the last year and a
half where inspectors have notified a property owner that yes, this is
violation of State Codes. You need to disconnect it and the homeowners have
complied once they realized what problems this was causing for the city.
Other than maybe taking the next step and doing some sort of inspection
program or public notification program for the city, that's probably the next
big step.
1 Mayor Chmiel: Did we not go through that process through the newsletter
informing people?
Charles Folch: We did inform them from an informational standpoint. But it
was not a requirement. It was not a program set up where we were going to
actually physically verify the connection in each individual home. But again
yes, there is a problem and it's typically due to following a heavy rainstorm
or power outage. But in my opinion there's not a problem with capacity under
normal flow conditions.
Councilman Senn: Okay.
1 Robert Davis: I'm through with my presentation. I'll answer questions now or
later, at your choice.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else wishing to address this issue at this
time? If not, do we have any questions? Richard.
Councilman Wing: No sir.
Mayor Chmiel: Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Do you want comments or questions?
Mayor Chmiel: Whichever.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Comments. I think the applicants seem to have been
very cooperative. It seems like it's nicely done by staff and by the
I/ engineers and by the consultants and everybody else. I'm happy with the lot
size. It's a good reforestation plan and I think we just need to hammer out
about this cost sharing for tree replacement, and I've already said how I
stand on that issue.
1 Mayor Chmiel: Mark.
Councilman Senn: I'm going to echo a little bit what Colleen said. I think
for a development of this size and what's happening, I've rarely seen better.
The applicant's done a tremendous job. Given the job they've done probably
under some normal circumstances, I might even be more inclined than usual to
do something with the trees around the ponds but I mean it comes back to this
real concern about the sewer thing and I would like to see with our approval
of this if we do some sort of concerted effort in that area to, through
notification or notice or inspection or something, just really beef up our
effort to do something about that because I think with the sewage going in, I
think it's, if that's not the only location, I'm not trying to single this one
out but at the same time now we're putting more on it so it's just a good time
to address it.
i 28
1
1
City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993 1
Mayor Chmiel: All I'll say is ditto and I'll call a question. 1
Councilman Senn: I'll move approval as per staff's recommendation. And I
don't now how this would be done but I guess I'd like to throw some type of a
caveat or flavor into it that said we establish prior to completion of the
project some type of notification or program inspection to beef up our effort
in the area to try to eliminate the overflow problem.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? ,
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Good idea, I'll second it.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion?
Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve Subdivision
#93 -10 as shown on the plans dated May 13, 1993, with a caveat that the city
establish prior to completion of the project some type of notification or
program inspection to beef up the effort in the area to try and eliminate the
overflow problem, and subject to the following conditions:
1. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance
with the current edition of "City's Standard Specifications and Detail
I/
Plates ". Detailed street and utility construction plans and specifications
shall be submitted for City Council approval.
2. The applicant shall apply and obtain permits from the Watershed District,
I/
DNR and other appropriate regulatory agencies and comply with their conditions
of approval.
3. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the city and
provide the financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the
development contract.
4. Deleted. ,
5. All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with
seed and disc - mulched or wood fiber blanket within two weeks of completing
site grading unless the city's (BMPH) planting dates dictate otherwise. All
areas disturbed with slopes of 3:1 or greater shall be restored with sod or
seed and wood fiber blanket.
6. The applicant shall enter into a joint cooperative agreement with the City
for construction, maintenance and cost sharing of the storm water improvements
as detailed in the feasibility study prepared by Bonestroo & Associates dated
April, 1993.
7. The conservation easement shall permit pruning, removal of dead or
diseased vegetation and underbrush. All healthy trees over 6" caliper at 4'
height shall not be permitted to be removed.
8. The applicant shall provide a 20 foot wide drainage and utility easement
over the existing storm sewer and sanitary sewer lines in Lots 1, 2, 4 and 7,
Block 1.
9. The applicant shall dedicate drainage and utility easements on the final
plat rights over all ponding and drainage areas.
10. The existing house on the property shall be razed prior to final plat
approval. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining the necessary
29 i
1
City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993
permits from the City and State.
11. Extension of utility service stubs to Lots 4 and 5, and also the
driveway, shall be in the same location to minimize disruption and tree
' removal. The driveway shall follow the utility service alignment.
12. The existing 15 foot drainage utility easement through Lot 7, Block 1
shall be increased to 20 feet wide.
13. The front yard setback can be reduced to 25'.
14. The applicant's engineer shall review the lot grading on Lots 1 through
3, Block 1 to see if adjustments can be made to push the building pads closer
to the front property line in an effort to reduce tree loss on said lots.
15. All lots shall be custom graded and shall provide a tree preservation
plan for staf approval prior to issuance of a building permit. Staff shall
have the right to require a change in house pad and location if it•will result
in saving significant vegetation. A snow fence shall be placed along the edge
of the tree preservation easement prior to grading.
16. The applicant shall pay full park fees in lieu of land dedication.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PRESENTATION OF THE 1992 AUDIT REPORT.
Don Ashworth: We have Cliff Hoffman with Deloitte and Touche here to make a
11 presentation in regards to the 1992 audit. Cliff.
Mayor Chmiel: Cliff, I want you to know that this was quite a documentation
and I really did read this when I wanted to go to bed and it does put you to
sleep. No reflection.
Cliff Hoffman: I understand that. The document is over 140 pages and as Mary
will just cover briefly, that there is a lot of statistical data that covers
the last 10 years of Chanhassen. It's a very professional document. This is
11 the highest level that the city has ever been at...and Mr. Mayor, fellow City
Council members, I'd like to just very quickly hit the highlights. We do
report to the City Council and the Mayor. We don't work for management. I
would like to tell you that overall you had a great year financially. There's
been a significant improvement in your financial reporting. As Mary Keller
who's sitting there will go over in a minute, when you get to your management
letter though there are some things that are important that you address. And
you need to address them in the context that you're a city of 13,000 marching
forward to 25,000. If you're going to stay a city of 13,000 people, I would
say that maybe you don't have to get on and address these things but your
challenges are more because you are growing. In many ways the activity that
we see at Chanhassen as compared to some of our other clients, you've got more
going on than cities that have 50,000 in the population. Mary Meyer is the
Senior Accountant. She was out here every day on the account and first of all
turning to page 1. One of the things that you measure efficiency in
government is what's the ratio of the number of city employees you have to the
1 population. The line item I'd like you to focus in on is in 1990 there was 1
city employee for every 260 in the population. That's grown now to 306. Now
you could say that that's good. I would tell you that the typical range, what
we're seeing in the suburbs that we audit are 200 to 250. So you're stretched
even thinner than that. If you consider that you're going to continue to
grow, you're going to have to decide where you're going to make those
30
, 1
1
City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993
strategic replacements. Frankly there's only one other city that I'm aware of
that has a higher proportion than you do and they're quite a bit more limited
on what they do on community development and parks. So anyway, from the
standpoint of growing government, much lower than the population, you're doing
a great job. Looking at the sewer and water fund, you had a better year than
the year before. The City has made the decision not to cover depreciation
expense on the system and we'll talk about that a little bit more later.
Turning to page 2. If you look at your debt per capita, the City is much
higher than the national average at $1,590.00 versus the national average at
$595.00. And roughly the debt to value is 3% versus 1.4. One of the things
you need to consider though is that almost all of your debt is on improvement
bonds that are paid by specific taxpayers. It's not a general obligation of
the public as a whole in Chanhassen. The specific projects or specific
homeowners that are paying for specific improvements so just looking at the
macro numbers you may conclude that you have way too much debt and the city's
in a lot of trouble. I don't think you can make that case here.
Councilman Wing: Before you go on, maybe it's, do you have that number
without those improvement bonds?
Cliff Hoffman: That'd be the $169.00. $169.00 per capita. Oh, what the
national average is?
Councilman Wing: Well, no, no, no. Just if we take these improvement bonds
out, where would we stand with other cities.
Cliff Hoffman: Okay. Mr. Mayor, Councilmember Wing. The problem is that the
national statistics, they don't take out the tax increment bond so I can't get
that number for you. I suspect though from what we see in our other clients,
your putting all of your debt in the future development and the projects and
you don't see that. You see a lot more of the general city improvements are
being paid by the taxpayers as a whole. I can't prove that but I can tell you
$169.00 is a very low number. From what I've seen. I would say that's
substantially below the national average. I can't prove it. On the water and
sewer funding, as you're looking at that page though you can tell that your
profit rate, your margin left over is only 9 %. Nationally people charge a lot
more for water and sewer. While you had a good year last year and
unfortunately the rain isn't blessing you on selling water this year, it is
important to stay on top of your sewer rates because as we've talked about in
prior years 75% to 80% of the cost in the sewer side is driven by the
Metropolitan Waste Control Commission. You can't control that and it's just
like a utility can't control a lot of times what's happening in the price of -
coal and that cost is automatically passed along to the consumer. I really
think you need to think of that cost the same way. That the City shouldn't
pick up the burden for that. Turning to page 4 of the financial statements.
What we're doing on page 4 is taking your audited fund balances and then we're
backing off property so we're looking at what is your liquid fund balance.
What is your liquidity and...for instance you have a lot of money tied up in
water and sewer plant and equipment. So when you back those off, how does the
city look this year versus last year. Far right hand column you can see that 11 you have $3,896,000.00 in what we call liquid fund balance. That's versus
$3,431,000.00 the prior year. It's a very good year of improvement in a very
difficult year of municipal finance in general for the State of Minnesota.
And it's important that you show that improvement because I do think as
concurrent with better financial reporting and telling your case a little more
with the numbers, that that's going to contribute to an improvement in your
bond rating. Turning to page 5. Your fund balances in the general fund now
are what I would call adequate but not excessive. The City has to run
basically for the first 5 months of the year only on about 10% of the revenue 1
31
1
II City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993
II that it collects. Most of the money comes in after the first of the June, so
you need a fund balance to have the working capital to get you through the
first 5 months of the year. If you didn't have that you would have to do
what's called tax anticipation borrowing, which is what a lot of the school
II districts are into now. That's very similar to using your credit card to buy
groceries. It's not a good situation to be in, from the liquidity standpoint
and then not paying your monthly bill.
11 Councilman Wing: Along with that last year we discussed that, the little fund
that Don's secret drawer where there's cash reserves and the State was more or
less disallowing those. But that little fund was what was necessary to carry
over from month to month. Have we still got that Don or are we into this
position now where, what's the word he used again? The tax.
Cliff Hoffman: The tax anticipation notes.
Councilman Wing: Yeah, we haven't gotten to that point. We're still
11 protected from that?
Don Ashworth: Very well.
II Cliff Hoffman: Okay, turning to the next page we have a chart, and it's a
little better in color up there but in looking at how the city is run, we've
got depreciation as a separate piece in green there. The upper part of your
chart. Compare that to the revenue. Looking at your utility funds and you
II can see that the operating revenue and your utility funds covers your
operating expenses. Though it's not covering this depreciation so what that
means is when the system wears out 30 or 40 years from now, you'll have to
rebond and relevy for the whole system. So that's basically, and there are a
II lot of cities that operate in a similar philosophy to where you're operating
right now. But you do need to be cognizant of that. From a rate setting
standpoint, you're not setting rates to cover depreciation on the system. I'd
like you to skip over a couple pages now and we'll go to the schedule Mary, on
II the debt service schedule. And I think this best graphically shows what the
future of Chanhassen is very likely to be. In green and in yellow on the
transparency here, the top two are what we talked about our special assessment
bonds or tax increment. It's only the very bottom of the chart are the
I general obligation bonds. And what this means is that by the, right now you
have very little general obligation debt and by the year 2000 you'll have paid
off most of the tax increment debt and most of the special assessments will be
gone by the year 2004. So the legacy that this city has left to the future
11 taxpayers is tremendous. All that tax base is going to be available for the
city, the school district and the county in a very short period of time. So
that's a tremendous accomplishment. A lot of times we talk about the skeletons
in the closest the government has, that we're not charging today's taxpayers
11 for today's services. Well what you've done is set up a very large schedule
of economic development that will pay off in the year 2000. Now as I say that
though, there are a lot of tax increment projects around the country that have
been done where they shopping centers are totally boarded up. They didn't do
II a very good economic feasbility study. They put something in an area where
the population wasn't growing and so those tax increment districts aren't
going to pay off. So what you've done here is the difference is that you're
covering your projects with your future dollars so the payoff will be a much
I stronger tax base when you get to the year 2000. It's really important that
you focus on that story as you go down to Moody's. And as you look at, you
know if you look after 1996 -97, the debt, there's a huge drop. A huge walk
downhill as you will in your future debt. It's considered outstanding anytime
II that most of your debt, half your debt is going to be gone in 10 years. In
your case almost all of it will be gone. And like I said earlier, very little
32
II
II
1
City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993
of it is on the general obligation on the general taxpayers. Provided these
tax increment projects pay off. Which you've had a very good history of so I/
far. Briefly on the next page, general fund revenues.
Councilman Wing: Can I, you know you've made some real accolades on this page
that we just got done with. Can I ask who that reflects on? Does it reflect
on our financial staff and our city managers?
Mayor Chmiel: No, Council.
Councilman Wing: Some of the whizbang here that's done something right.
Cliff Hoffman: Mr. Mayor, Councilmember Wing. Some people who would say it's
better to be lucky sometimes than it is to be good but I think you've had a
good history because there's been a number of projects that you haven't made
mistakes. In what you invest in. And the knock on tax increment financing is
that if you finance a development that competes with an existing business,
what happens then, you take something out of tax increment and you hurt the
existing business. They go in. Protest their values. Get a lower value so
you get less current dollars and then your payoff isn't going to come for 10
years. So that's, you have to always measure yourself. The if but rule. If
but we didn't do this, would this development happen in the city. So it's tax
increment financing isn't a pancea that's good for everybody. If you over
develop, if you make mistakes of projects and so looking at where you're at
right now, the picture does look very good. And as I said earlier, your level
of GO debt is...by the general taxpayers is extremely low. But you have to go
beyond the macro numer which says you're over the national average. Does that
answer your question?
Councilman Wing: Well yeah. I was just giggling. I guess it's just you
were, staff should be...I guess there's almost room for, with all due respect
to Money Bags Chmiel, I think it really speaks highly of staff. I'm really
impressed with the report so I'm really appreciative of how we're doing here.
Cliff Hoffman: Turning to the slide on revenues. You've got a good news and
bad news story here to tell. Back in 1987 25% of your money was inner
governmental which is principally state. As you know local government aid has
disappeared for you and there's a threat to losing even the homestead credit.
Now you're down from 25.2% to 17.1 %. The good news is though if you count
investment earnings over 80% of what you bring in for revenue, you're in
control of. Either through property taxes and how you set fees for licenses
and permits. So the good news in presenting the story to the bond rating
agencies is you're in control of your own destiny. You're not dependent on
the State. The bad news is that the sales and income tax dollars that you
send into the State aren't really coming back to the city of Chanhassen.
Turning to the next page. There is quite a change in the expenditure side
that I want to talk a little bit about. You've had a large increase on what
you spend in public safety. You were at 28.5% and now you're at 35.3 %. Back
in '87 though you were abnormally low at 28.5 %. The range we're seeing in our
suburban clients is anywhere from 35% to 50 %. The national average is 50 %.
Now this is fire and police. What we have found is, if you go from a
volunteer system to a full time system, you'll be at 50 %. It's extremely
expensive. I won't talk about the merits but I would tell you that you can
operate in the 35% to 40% range easily. Once you go from volunteer to full
time though you'll be at 50 %.
Councilman Wing: I just want to comment that public safety on our report in
'83 found the mean for our metro area and our surrounding communities,
everybody was spending, the average was 44 %. Shorewood and on and on and we
33
i
1
1
City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993
were at 28% and we decided to spend more money effective that year and we're
still under this. How are you doing it? As a member of the Fire Department,
you are in deep trouble here.
Cliff Hoffman: Not to defend the Mayor, Councilmember Wing. The 44 though is
made up averages of full time and volunteer and you really see it polarized.
Councilman Wing: We only took the volunteer.
Cliff Hoffman: Yeah. You usually see it at 35% or you see it at 50 %. There
doesn't seem to be a lot of inbetween.
Councilman Wing: Okay.
Cliff Hoffman: So the average is probably 44. Also to mention, bigger is not
necessarily better in that number. The number I always give is Miami spends
65% and the reason you spend money on parks and recs and community development
is you want to have a well rounded city that people want to live in. That
tends to reduce how much you have to spend on public safety. By controlling
community development. So you need to never forget that focus. Investment
earnings. The last 5 years, as you know, staff has done an outstanding job in
that area. The key thing though that this does take a lot of time for staff
to monitor this performance and one of the things that is in our management
letter that Mary will mention is that should there be a rapid rise in long
term interest rates, the finance department will need to be on top of that
real quickly to make sure that you don't have a loss of principal. And the
other thing is, I don't think you can count on this type of rate of return
every year. You've had a very good year. In fact you've had a very good 2
years, 3 years, but you can't count on the level that we had in 1992 forever.
Last page is off the back of your individual income tax return. The focus
that I want you to focus in on is your end of the pie is at the top. Local
aids and property tax refunds went from 16.6% of how the state spends it's
money down to 5.5 %. A normal year of inflation and health care will totally
wipe out what's left for cities. So the long term prognosis for what's going
to happen here is not too good. The good news is you've proven that you do
balance the budget. You do stay on course. You do charge today's taxpayers
for today's services. You are booking things like vacation pay as a current
liability. You're not deferring that to future generations to pay. So the
good news is your foundation is very good to deal with any potential problems
that there are in the State budget. So if there's no question on the
overview, I'd like Mary Keller to come up and briefly go through your annual
report and then a couple of the management letter comments that we have.
Councilman Wing: Just before you sit down. On the capital outlays. Any idea
where we stand with a norm, if you will? It seems like we've got 1% capital
outlay in '92 and we're a growing city. Is that abnormally low? Is that an
11 average?
Cliff Hoffman: Mr. Mayor, Councilmember Wing. This percentage of capital
that's in here is the capital outlay that's in the general fund. And one of
11 the things that you've done, I think that's real good, you've set up an
internal service fund this year. At the end of the year and you moved some
money out. You're going to start charging now for equipment useage and
building some money up. And that's good that management has decided to do
that so thatit won't show up as capital in the general fund here but you will
be putting money aside from the general fund into the internal service fund.
So that's why the number should get pretty low. It's in there for capital.
Mary.
34
i
1
1
City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993 1
Mary Keller: I think that each of you probably received this voluminous
report. This is different than the report issued last. You probable noted it
was a bit heavier. It has a few more pages and the reason for it is is that
the city has applied for the Certificate in Excellence in Financial Reporting
which is an award you can get from the GFOA. This report has to be sent in to
the GFOA. They have a series of reviewers look at it and determine if you are
in compliance with all of their requirements and if indeed you are, you will
get a certificate which can in turn serve to increase your bond rating. The
requirements they have are very lengthy and that's why this report has been
lengthen as well. And you'll notice that there are different sections in here
and I'm obviously not going to go through them but there's a section with the
introduction, there's a financial and then in the back there's a statistical
section which has 10 years of historical data which is all required under
GFOA. I don't know who would ever read every page of this. We obviously do
and your preparer does but it's quite a feat and quite a task to put this
together, as you can well imagine and whenever numbers change, it changes oh
like 20 pages in here every time something happens. Or a number changes in
the draft. In the introduction section, do you have these with you by the
way?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Mary Keller: Okay. I just want to point out a couple of things. In the
introductory section. On page 5. These are things that were not here last
year. A letter from the City Manager. That's new. And pages 7 thru 15.
That's the transmittal letter where your Finance Coordinator and Treasurer
have talked about the operations of the city as well as talking about forward
looking projects. That is a very key element in the reviewers mind. When the
GFOA reviewer looks at it, they pay very close attention to what's in the
transmittal letter. This is a well written letter. In the financial section,
on page 17, is our opinion. And this is the second year of clean opinion.
Last year was also clean. The prior year, for a few years in the past before
that, there was a qualification on here because there were not adequate
records for us to be able to audit the general fixed assets. That has been
cleaned up. Has been taken care of. We no longer have the qualification. On
page 20 and 21. Here's your balance sheet of all your funds. If you go over
to page 21. Halfway down the page. Right above the double underscores you'll
see that your total assets now are $96,500,000.00 relative to about
$95,500,000.00 last year. You do have a nice increase. And another new
category that's on here that you've heard Cliff mention too is that you now
have an internal service fund. That's also new in this report that was not
there last year. And on page 23, one other thing to point out. Your total
revenues for your governmental fund types and your expendable trust fund. This
does not include your sewer and water funds. Look at your total revenues.
They increase from 13 1/2 million to 18 million. That's a substantial
increase. And your expenditures also went up. Almost by 10 million. That's
largely due to your capital projects. The footnotes to the report which begin
on page 28 and run for many pages are very similar to last year. There's one
in particular I would like to point out and that is on pages 36 and 37. On
page 37 particularly, we are required to assess the credit risk of your
investments as of the end of the year. Depending on what you have invested
in, and a criteria established, we determine if they're risky investments or
not. And if you look halfway down the page you see they're all classified as
U.S. Government obligations and they all fall in credit risk category number 1
which means they are the lowest credit risk. However, if you look at the very
last paragraph on that page, we do make reference to the fact that during the
year the city did invest and repurchase and reverse repurchase agreements.
Had you had those at the end of the year, they would have been displayed on
this page as being in credit risk category 3 because they are riskier in
35
1
11
City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993
nature. The rest of the report is just individual statements for every fund
that you have. And it goes on and on and on in the statistical section.
Anybody have any questions on this report?
Mayor Chmiel: I was hopeful you weren't going to go through each page. I
didn't want to go to sleep here.
Mary Keller: You already did that once right.
Mayor Chmiel: It's good reading. Any other questions?
Mary Keller: If you'll take out the management letter that was handed out to
you tonight. It's the loose leaf. I just want to highlight a few things
' here. This is the letter where we make observations and recommendations
regarding the operations of the city. Things that we have noted when we have
been out here doing our audit field work. The first page is just our general
page. Pretty much boiler plate. If you turn to page 2, I just want to
highlight a couple of the more important observations we made during our
audit. The first one deals with personnel, and this is pretty interesting.
We cite that the number of personnel within your finance department here has
not changed very much, however the city has grown in size by quite a bit.
Right now you have 3 people in finance and particularly one person is relied
upon to have all the knowledge and skills to record everything in your
accounting records. Now, look at the background. Your population has
increased over 102% in the last 10 years. Your assets have more than doubled
and your revenues have gone from $3.3 million to $18.1 million. Those are
substantial increases. We also make reference to the fact that you have a
number of capital projects as you're well aware of. More than most cities of
your size or cities that even are much larger than you and you also have a
detailed fixed asset system to track all the fixed assets. With all of this
development going on, we believe that it would make good sense to have an
additional person added to the finance staff. They really are pretty
stretched. We can tell you that having been out here for as long as we have.
Why is everybody looking here?
Councilman Senn: Does that mean we can load our audit fees by that amount?
I/ Mary Keller: But we also in our recommendation cite what we think a candidate
should have. You obviously want someone that has significant government
experience, and preferably a CPA. As the city continues to grow, and
operations continue to expand, it takes more and more time to roll everything
up and to keep track of everything and have good records and be able to
produce this report. The comment on the bottom of the page regarding a
management fee, I won't go over. You can read that later. On page 3, we have
a couple of comments on reconciliations. I would like to cover the second
one. This is an internal control issue. Technically the utility clerk is
' responsible for doing some reconciliations with the subsidiary ledger and the
general ledger. That person did not do those reconciliations during fiscal
'92. Those reconciliations were performed by the finance coordinator which is
better because the utility clerk also has access to cash. Cash receipts and
posting those. If she does have the access to cash receipts and also does the
reconciliations, we've got a problem with internal control. So in the event
that the finance coordinator no longer does this and it does roll back to the
utility clerk, which I believe is where the responsibility is to lie, we may
' have what is called a reportable condition in internal control. So our
recommendation is to shift that responsibility to somebody else. We have one
comment on CBDG funds. That's pretty minor. And on page 5. Pages 5 thru 7
are all prior year comments that we will repeat in subsequent years if the
situation warrants it. The first one is on the investments. And Cliff eluded
36
11
11
City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993 1
to this earlier as far as the types of investments the City is investing in.
And we go into the background and the goals that the city should have. As far
as complying with State Statutes, which you do. Looking at the maturities of
investments to make sure you've got cash available when cash is needed. And
maximizing the investment earnings which you obviously have done. But we do
caution you to be aware of what can happen, particularly if interest rates
rise. You need to be able to react quickly. The next comment on the deferred
comp plan, that's a repeat from last year. I won't go into that. And on page
6, the comment in the middle of the page. I think you're all familiar with
this regarding the Chanhassen Bowl. Their delinquency on their payment on
their debt. The city did receive the 1991 payment in '93. The City has not
yet received the 1992 payment. Just so you're aware that that continues to be
past due together with property taxes. And the other two comments you can
read too at your leisure. Does anybody have any questions regarding these?
Any of the comments?
Councilman Wing: Can I ask a layman question?
Mayor Chmiel: Sure.
Councilman Wing: I'm trying to get this down to my level, which is quite a
bit below everybody else here on financial matters. If I had to be a
taxpayer, based on what I've heard tonight, should I be relatively proud to be
a taxpayer in Chanhassen? That seems to be what it comes down to.
Mary Keller: Oh absolutely. Yeah, absolutely. 1
Councilman Wing: Thank you. That's something quotable for the newspaper. If
I had to be a taxpayer, should I be proud to be paying taxes in Chanhassen.
The answer was correct, yes.
Mayor Chmiel: A reiteration. I don't know if anybody's proud in paying taxes
but.
Cliff Hoffman: Just a couple more overview points. It doesn't take the
effort to produce the report every year like this. When you have to come up
with 10 years of data and come up with the format and the first time that
staff writes the transmittal letter is the most difficult. It's always easier
to do something, so if you wonder why I go through the bother, this could have
a significant impact on how the city is rated. It's kind of, the rating
agencies will never tell you that getting the Certificate that they'll move it
a certain point. They all tell you behind the scenes that it is something
that's important from a criteria standpoint. Less than 2% of the governmental
units in the country have the certificate. So what you're going for is a
standard far beyond what anybody else is achieving and I think you should take
this as a very good report. That the City is being very efficient. That
you're doing a good job but also there is a little bit of a warning there
saying that you are growing. You've got a lot of projects going on. It's
time to relook at what investments you're making in people if you're going to
have that future growth.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'm sorry if I missed it earlier but our current
bond rating is B, what is it?
Mayor Chmiel: AA. 1
Cliff Hoffman: BAA.
Tom Chaffee: BAA1. 1
37
1
1
1
City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993
Councilwoman Dockendorf: BAA1?
Mayor Chmiel: Right. We've just upgraded it 2 years ago. Or is it 3 now?
Time goes by quickly. 2? We're looking to get an upgrading again shortly
' hopefully if and when we receive this.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And you think it is currently where it's at because
of the debt equity ratio?
' Cliff Hoffman: High debt per capita. I'm sure they're looking at that.
They're not focusing on where, they've heard too many horror stories with tax
increment projects around the country. You've got to get them out here to
' look and to see and then produce the count. It's hard with a qualified
opinion, what you had 2 years ago was not only on general fixed assets but it
was also on your utility funds. And so it creates a taint that you really
don't want.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Right, and with the clean record of the,past 2
years, great.
Councilman Senn: Could you explain your observation recommendation on the
Market Square one? You kind of skipped over that.
Mary Keller: Oh that's where, Market Square Management Company manages that
mall over there and the City is to get a return on their profits.
' Councilman Senn: I'm confused. On your recommendation it says company's to
verify the financial position of the management company.
Mary Keller: Right.
Councilman Senn: Isn't that financial position of the city's investment? I
mean we're not investing in the management company are we?
1 Mary Keller: No, you're not investing in the management company. It would
actually be more the position of the mall but the management company would
have all of that information. You have the authority to ask them for audited
financials. That has not yet been done so we encourage you to do that to make
sure that you are getting an equitable return. Right now they're sending you
monthly drafts but no one looks at them. They're not audited so who knows.
Councilman Senn: So we're getting a return?
Mary Keller: No.
Councilman Senn: We aren't getting a return?
Mary Keller: You've got one more. It's just because it's written in the
agreement that you have that right, I would encourage you to ask for that.
Don Ashworth: The terms of the agreement allowed them, and I believe it was
just the one year. If they ended up with a loss that they could convert the
interest payment and add that to the principal amount. But it was only during
the anticipated timeframe where you kind of, you end up with not full tenants
and not full receipts.
Councilman Senn: How long does that go on though?
1
3 8
11
11
City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993
Don Ashworth: Well again my recollection was it was only for the one year
period of time but I don't recall. It's limited, I know that.
Councilman Senn: So all those letters on that issue coming through in our
Adminstrative Packet that said that we're basically forgiving the interest and
tacking it on as principal, that's over and done with now?
Don Ashworth: No. They just elected. They had an election process with,
they could go through if they were not achieving the revenues that were
originally projected. But again it was only as a start -up type of a thing and
that was in writing as a part of the original agreement. So it wasn't
something we modified later.
Councilman Senn: So we're beyond that period then you're saying? '
Don Ashworth: They did it for the first year. Whether or not they have that
ability for the first 3 year period or not, I'm not sure. I was thinking it
was more limited than that. But I don't recall.
Todd Gerhardt: That document's that thick. It's a big book isn't it Mary...
Mayor Chmiel: We can just check that out and see. 1
Cliff Hoffman: I'd like to reiterate that we do work for the City Council,
the Mayor, and not management so if any questions come up during the year
concerns and future audits, that you be sure to notify us directly.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Appreciate you coming in and providing all this good
data for us. Hopefully it will put us in a better rating for bonding as we
did the last time when we invited them here to see what was here. And it does
work out better than going to New York and sitting down with them.
Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor? If I could take a couple of minutes. I really
would like to thank our accounting staff. Tom, Betty, Jean. I'd like to
thank our auditors for again providing advice during the course of the year.
I'd like to reiterate some points that I don't know were necessarily brought
up. This is at least the fifth year where actual revenue exceeded budgetary
revenue by at least 3% to 4 %. This is the fifth year where actual expense was
3% to 4% under the budgeted expense. That's one area that has continued to
keep our fund balances in a healthy position. In fact even allowing for fully
funding any type of sick leave, deferred compensation. Any of those types of
programs. Secondarily, we finished this year, I don't know if you had a
chance to go through the capital project funds, special revenue but every one
of those are in a far better position than they were a year ago. We, to the
best of my knowledge, have the ability to take on a project and to know that
we have the funding to complete those. I do not know of one financial arena
that we have not improved on and again I thank all those people.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you. Appreciate it.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: If I could make one comment. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Why certainly.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I found the letter on page 7 to 15, all I needed to
read. It was wonderful. Very succinct and concise and gave me all the
information I needed.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. 1
39
1
1
City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
Mayor Chmiel: One of the things that I mentioned before was the Chan
Volunteer Fire Department. Consideration for adjustments to the fire pension
plan. Just sort of as an update. We, Don and I, have sat down with them,
with the Fire Department, and just last Saturday again. This was not the
first time we've sat down with them. We've been doing this on an interim
basis between 6 and 7 months of working to hopefully coming up with a
conclusion for this pension plan. It's taken a lot of time and a lot of
effort on everybody's part. Sitting down to do this participation and
discussion. And we sort of have come up with a solution to what we're looking
at and also this, rather than being an every year, 2 year affair, we're
putting this on a 5 year basis. And we should be, we should have the
association going back to it's members to discuss this. To come up with a
conclusion and then you have to have two readings on this as well. If they're
in acceptance of what has been proposed so maybe with that I'll just let Don
reiterate some of the other discussions that we've had previously. But I just
wanted to make you aware of the fact that it's not just done over a short
period of time. It's been done over several, several months. Trying to come
up with a conclusion.
Don Ashworth: This is an arena that in previous years has been a very
difficult one for whichever City Council has had to carry out those
negotiations. I recall various times that the discussions were very heated
and we even had firemen that were alleging that they may bring in their pagers
so I've been very happy with this year's negotiations. Albeit I must state
that the real big issue has been whether or not a modification of pension
benefits would be made retroactive to firemen who have already retired. And
that issue has, the current firemen recognize that there's only so many
dollars available. This is not the Federal government. We're not going to
just simply run this thing in the hole, which therefore means that you're
talking about potentially reducing the benefits available to a current
firemen. And that has I think caused the most anguish between the firemen
themselves. I think the solution we've come back with is a good one. You'll
be getting a copy of a memorandum that I have prepared that we use now as an
outline Saturday morning going through some of the issues. I'm very happy
that the Fire Department has, appears, because we haven't had the final vote,
that appears to be open to some of our suggestions. Means by which we can
assure that that fund stays solvent and that we can continue to provide
increases over to the department and stay competitive. So again I would go
along with Don's point. I'm really happy with the progress. Again, you'll be
' getting that memorandum in the near future. It should appear on your agenda
for either the 23rd or first, probably the first meeting in September.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Any questions you might have?
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
CITY COUNCIL SALARIES, 1995, CITY MANAGER.
Don Ashworth: Actually there was a goof up between Karen and I. I had
intended to do this polling of Council members as it dealt with the National
League of Cities and I think I've contacted each of you asking that you kind
of be prepared for that. In the meantime Karen misunderstood a note. This
item should have appeared in the Administrative Section so that you were aware
that this survey had been completed. But since we're talking about it not
becoming effective until sometime in 1995, I don't think that we need to
really rush in and do this right away.
40
1
1
City Council Meeting - August 9, 1993
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Are we talking about A or B? I'm sorry.
Mayor Chmiel: That would be B.
Don Ashworth: Oh, I'm sorry. I did jump to B.
Councilman Senn: You may as well finish it.
Don Ashworth: So again, that item B was really supposed to just show up in
the Administrative Section. Unless the Council wants to do something.
Councilman Wing: I'll move a large increase.
Councilman Senn: You have to specify an amount Dick.
Councilman Wing: I won't get out of this one.
PROJECT SCHEDULE, NEW CHANHASSEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, CITY PROGRAM.
Don Ashworth: Project schedule, new Chanhassen Elementary. I did receive
today a note from Mark who is concerned with how the memo had gone out from
Todd Hoffman. What I'd first like to do Mark is maybe catch you after the
Council meeting and see what you would suggest but I would, my initial thought
would be to take exactly the memo that you sent to me, put a little note on
the top saying, total agreement doesn't exist as to what conclusions were
reached and then basically send each of those commissions your memorandum to
me. But you can think about that and we can talk about it later. In, as it
deals with this project schedule, of course there is Todd's memo. But each of
you should have received a Park and Recreation Commission agenda and you
should have received that last Friday. Inside of there is the report that I
was referring to earlier. This is what we were charged $2,600.00 from HGA and
I don't know if they call this, it's called "New Chanhassen Elementary School
Program and Preliminary Concepts ". You may want to look at that. That is
going back to each of the respective commissions and their recommendation will
be coming to you and we're anticipating that that's going to be on for the
23rd of August.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: If I could just make one comment on the memo, or
just a clarification. I was not at that July 19 meeting.
Mayor Chmiel: That's right, you weren't. Alright. Glad you corrected it.
Okay, with that, any other discussions?
Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to adjourn the
meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was
adjourned at 10:23 p.m.
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim 1
1
41
1
1
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 4, 1993
Vice Chair Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Diane Harberts, Joe Scott, Ladd Conrad, Nancy Mancino,
Matt Ledvina and Jeff Farmakes
' MEMBERS ABSENT: Brian Batzli
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner; Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner I;
and Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer
PUBLIC HEARING:
PROPOSAL TO REZONE 11.5 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED PUD AND A2 TO RSF AND
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 11.5 ACRES OF PROPERTY INTO 20 SINGLE FAMILY
LOTS LOCATED JUST SOUTH OF HERON DRIVE, ON THE EAST SIDE OF AUDUBON ROAD,
SHENANDOAH RIDGE, SHAMROCK DEVELOPMENT.
Public Present:
Name Address
Craig Mertz 8561 Osprey Lane
Bill & Vicky Goers 1601 Lyman Blvd.
Lynn Caswell 580 Dodge, Elk River
Doug Barinsky 8731 Audubon Road
' Sharmin Al -Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Vice Chair Conrad
called the public hearing to order.
Conrad: Is the applicant here? Would the applicant like to make any
statements? Are you familiar with the staff report? Agree with their
recommendations?
Lynn Caswell: Yes. Lynn Caswell with John Alden and Associates. I've
read the staff report.
' Conrad: Okay, good. It's a public hearing. We'll open it up for public
comments. Are there any?
Craig Mertz: I'm Craig Mertz, 8561 Osprey Lane. I live about 300 feet
east of the barn on this property. I've looked at the staff report and the
proposed preliminary plat...
11 Conrad: Okay, thanks Craig. Any other comments?
Doug Barinsky: My name is Doug Barinsky. I live at 8731 Audubon. I have
the property that lies directly south of this. I just have two questions.
Is that street that's coming to the south end there, is that a cul -de -sac
or what's there?
Al -Jaff: To be extended in the future.
r
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 4, 1993 - Page 2
r Doug Barinsky: What if that isn't compatible with how I want to develop my
property? Because there's also a street coming out of Bluff Creek right
' now right here which would come into my property.
Hempel: Mr. Chairman, maybe I can address that further. Mr. Barinsky has
been in to see the City Engineer a few times with regard to the sewer
service to the property and so forth. As a part of platting adjacent
properties, we're somewhat obligated to look for future roadway extensions
to tie the parcels together. It's kind of a puzzle if you will to put the
' pieces together. Ultimately we do like to try and eliminate or reduce the
amount of access points onto a collector type street. This situation
though Mr. Barinsky did bring up a valid point. There is already a new
intersection created directly across from his parcel so potentially if Mr.
' Barinsky doesn't use that access to his property, I guess it would probably
become more of a permanent type solution but I guess we would encourage to
see it connect to the south. And maybe eliminate that other access out
' onto Audubon Road depending how your parcels lays out I guess. We'd like
to keep that option open for you should you require it in the future. Once
we give it up, we'll never be able to get another access so we're
essentially giving you two options to service your property.
Doug Barinsky Alright. Rather than make a cul -de -sac out of it at this
point then, it would just be a deadend street at this point.
Hempel: With a temporary cul -de -sac established, yes.
Doug Barinsky: Second question I have is, is that property line there has
a total line of mature trees and I'm wondering what this development plan
calls for in terms of tree protection and I haven't had any survey work
done so I don't know who's side of the property line the trees are on but I
' think they're probably right on the property line. I guess I'd like to
know what the developer does have planned there at this point. It bothers
me a little bit because I came home from work one night last week and on
Bluff Creek, right across the road, they had free cleared a huge stand of
mature trees to make room for part of their development and I'd hate to
come home from work some night and find out that this developer has free
' cleared those trees when they could be quite valuable to the homeowners
that are going to have the lots adjacent to it on both sides of that
property. So could anyone comment on that? And does a development like
this call for a tree plan in terms of what's already on that property as
far as mature trees.
Al -Jaff: The trees that are located to the south.
' Doug Barinsky: There's mature trees entirely along, yeah that property
line there.
11 Al -Jaff: Correct. They are all on this property. Where the road is.
Doug Barinsky: It's been surveyed and determined they're all on that
property?
Al -Jaff: Correct.
1
Planning Commission Meeting '
August 4, 1993 - Page 3
Doug Barinsky: Okay. What is the plan for those trees?
Al -3aff: Okay, the area where the road is going to go through, those trees'
will have.
Doug Barinsky: At this point there's no reason for a road to go through
though because that's not being developed beyond there. Why would one cut II
down trees when there's no.
Hempel: The trees are being cleared to facilitate a turning radius at the
end of that street for fire trucks, garbage trucks and so forth. The home II
pads, the trees will obviously be removed for those. The road right -of-
way. That's about the extent of it. The lot, or the trees along the side 1
lot lines and rear yards are proposed to be left as they are today.
Doug Barinsky: In this process does the developer submit that, that those
trees will be left and is that part of the approval process that the city
has to approve control of mature trees on a piece of property like that?
Hempel: I think Sharmin can address this a little bit more with the
conservation easement. Is that what's proposed?
Al -Jaff: We are requiring a conservation easement. We're also requiring '
that additional trees be planted on the site.
Doug Barinsky: At this point my concern is just the mature trees.
Whatever you require for new planting. '
Al -Jaff: Some of them are going to go with the grading.
Doug Barinsky: Well can you tell me what is going? Is the developer goinli
to free clear that because it will be easier for him to go in and move dirt
or what's the plans? II Al -3aff: On the south is going to be mainly preserved with the exception
of this area right here.
Hempel: The house pads. 1
Al -3aff: Exactly, the house pads. Are you concerned with the southern
portion?
Doug Barinsky: I'm concerned that somebody's going to come in there when
this starts with a bulldozer and just clear those trees out because it's II
going to be easier for them to work without those trees.
Al -3aff: They can't do that. '
Doug Barinsky: What assurance can I have of that that that's not going to
happen?
Al - 3af f: We will have snow fences around it. We will have a conservation"
easement recorded against it. Before they do any type of grading, the snow
fences have to be showing them where they may grade and where they cannot.'
1
11 Planning Commission Meeting
August 4, 1993 - Page 4
11 Doug Barinsky: The trees are more valuable there for the benefit of
selling lots around there eventually and that's why I'm concerned about the
trees. If the developer would like to comment, I'm glad to hear what
they've got to say about it.
Lynn Caswell: The developer in this instance is, as most developers are
aware that if you have a tree on the lot, the lot is more valuable. One of
the situations in here is we certainly, in order to get the utilities
extended to the south line as staff has requested, we have to cut trees in
here. In order to, we can probably on this side of the lot, we leave all
of these trees alone. But when somebody comes in there and builds their
home, they're certainly going to have to clear the pads to build the house.
Have to clear a certain distance away from the foundations.
Doug Barinsky: Those trees are on the property line so it's not very
likely they'd build a house on the property line.
Lynn Caswell: This is a little bit deceiving in that we aren't showing any
trees south of the property line. We're only locating the significant
trees on our site because those are the only ones...impact so there may be
trees to the south.
Doug Barinsky: I think there are, yeah.
Lynn Caswell: In this particular lot, because there's kind of a ravine
that goes through here...grade a house pad in here...trees as we possibly
can on the entire site because trees enhances the value of the
development...
Doug Barinsky: Well, as a more specific question. Is there an actual plan
that has identified what will happen to those trees? Has this already
been.
Conrad: Yeah, there really is.
Doug Barinsky: I don't want to tie up your time tonight. If I could see
that.
Scott: You can have all of ours.
Conrad: Yeah, but it's a good question. We're making light of it but it
does detail what's.
Farmakes: It is something that we're increasing reviewing.
Doug Barinsky: I assume the city is or you wouldn't have hired a full time
forester.
Farmakes: But the trees on the property line, as you can see here, are
shown for the actual property that's being developed. Not for your
' property. They're sited and listed as to the size and nature of the tree.
Doug Barinsky: Okay. Alright, that's all the questions I have really. Is
the protection of the adjoining properties.
Planning Commission Meeting 1
August 4, 1993 - Page 5
Conrad: The co ncern , you know the trees are listed that are going down or
that are there. They're inventoried. I'm trying to think if there's a
bottom line conclusion after what you've talked about. You know we're
concerned about the trees. It looks like we're going to replace those thall
are taken down. Some big ones are going to go down as they make the
cul -de -sac a temporary cul -de -sac. Not a whole lot but they are going to
go down. I don't know if there's a better way to conclude it
Mancino: Is there custom grading or anything? I
Farmakes• . I think that that particular layout to access that property...
the way that the tree line parallels the property. At some point to access
that property you have to eliminate those trees. 1
Mancino: Those trees. I'm just thinking about the housepads. If we can
do some custome grading on those two lots to further reduce.
Aanenson: Yeah, I was just going to say. In that condition number 4 that
talks about the, that Sharmin has in here that talks about the tree
preservation. You might want to add a home placement plan so we can look II
at that and site the home such that it minimizes the tree loss.
Lynn Caswell: I guess I'd just like to add that we will work with city 11
staff the preserve the number of trees lost.
Doug Barinsky: Well that would be a great improvement over what's going o
at Bluff Creek so.
Lynn Caswell: This particular developer does his own grading...
Doug Barinsky: Alright. I assume I can maybe have you show me sometime o '
the survey where your property line is there or where you think it is. That
might help answer some of my questions.
Lynn Caswell: As we continue on in the process, we can stake those out.
Doug Barinsky: Thank you. '
Conrad: Thank you. Other comments.
Bill Goers: Hi. My name is Bill Goers and I own the property to the east"
and to the south of that and I'm mostly concerned about access to that,
also for future development. Have not talked to the developer. We talked
to staff very briefly. We'd just like to get some assurances that whateve
final puzzle that we put had together, that we've got access to some of ou
property because we would not have access from Lyman Blvd the way the
properties are currently situated so we'll need to get access from either 11
Arboretum or through the streets that are put in there. So we'd like to
have the possibility to work with staff and the developer before anything
is finalized. Just for everyone's future ease of grief. 1
Conrad: Thanks. Anything else? Any other comments? Is there a motion to
close the public hearing?
1
11 Planning Commission Meeting
August 4, 1993 - Page 6
■ Mancino moved, Scott seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
1 Conrad: Jeff, comments.
Farmakes: I have no additional comments other than what we've just
' discussed here. It seems to me to be a logical development the way it's
laid out for this small of property.
Mancino: I have a couple of questions. Sharmin, I noticed that you stated
in the staff report, on page 2, that the trees that will be removed will be
replaced. As I look at the landscape plan here, I see that there's going
to be tree removal in the street area and obviously for the house pads and
for the retention pond that will go in on the east side of Lots 11, 12 and
13. Correct? Does the developer, when they remove all these trees, do
they get us another plan, will they give you, staff, another plan to show
where all those replaced trees will go on the development? Because they're
not taking the place of the one tree per lot. They're not taking the place
of the streetscape, landscaping on Audubon. So these are going to be over
and above that, correct?
Al -Jaff: Actually when I calculated the landscaping, I included those
trees that were along Audubon and the one located within the front yard.
Mancino: Within the front yards. So if we take the combination of what we
see on our landscape that parallels Audubon and the one tree per lot, that
1 total is the total of trees that will be removed?
Al -Jaff: Correct. And we're adding an additional 10 trees along Audubon.
1 Mancino: Along Audubon. Did we also take into account the trees that will
be taken out with the Alisa Court at that south end?
1 Al -Jaff: No.
Mancino: Okay. Then what I'd like to do is just make sure that those that
are removed will be replaced and we have the right count and that we'know
where they will be going. On a plan so that you do that with a developer.
A few other questions that I have. I think Dave, I have a question on the
recommendations. On recommendation number 5 about the existing wells and
sewage treatment systems to be abandoned. It seems to be in conflict with
15 as far as timing.
' Hempel: Yes. That's correct. We should probably rephrase, I suggest
condition number 5. The two conditions, one was from engineering and one
was the building department. Just to cover the bases. The wells we were
1 talking about is the existing farm well which I assume is next to the
existing farm house which is located on Lot 10, Block 1. Should that well
be outside of the property lines, the new property lines of Lot 10, then it
' would have to be abandoned per State Codes. If the well is located within
Lot 10, it meets setbacks and is functioning properly, we will allow them
to remain hooked up to that. Until the well fails.
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting 1
August 4, 1993 - Page 7 Mancino: And what about the sewage? I mean isn't it 12 months on one of II
them you have, let's see. The sanitary sewer on Lot 10, Block 1 has to
hook up within 12 months. The other existing ones need to be abandoned
right away?
Hempel: In this situation here, the septic site will probably have to be
abandoned right away due to the conflicts with the other adjacent lots that
are being created. And I question the integrity of the system right now
anyway so it's most likely, it'd probably be more appropriate to have the
existing house be hooked up to the city sewer within 30 days upon being
available.
Mancino: So how do we want to combine those two? What would you think
would be the best?
Hempel: The existing wells outside of Lot 10. Any existing wells outside
of Lot 10 shall be properly abandoned. And sewage treatment. '
Mancino: Okay. Also under recommendation number 8, I would like to add
the words at the beginning. The south end of Alisa Court shall have a
temporary cul -de -sac because the north end will not be temporary. And thell
on recommendation number 22. Where access to the lot shall be from the
interior streets, not Audubon Road. The corner lot, which you have in
parens, were missing one corner lot and I would like to add that in to say,
we have Lots 1 and 2, Block 1; Lot 1, Block 3. Also, Lot 2, Block 2. And
that's it.
Conrad: Good. Thanks Nancy. Good comments. Joe. ,
Scott: Dave, on I think it's Block 1, Lots 11, 12 and 13. Where the pond
is going to be. You'll have to help me out with this. It falls away about,
I think from the middle of the lot it falls away about 30 feet or 20 feet
or something. Could you, and maybe Sharmin I'd like to see how that sits
in there because it seems like it's going to be fairly steep. It has to bil
kind of kidney shaped, elongated, something that's running with the north/
south property line.
Hempel: Right. It will essentially be benched into the side of the hill '
because it's not quite at the toe of the slope so it will be benched or
terraced in similar to like a house pad would be. Sharmin, do you have. II That will have the proper slopes? I just for some reason putting
it in there struck me as being perhaps the slope would be too steep on the
outside. It might be hazardous but if that's not the case. '
Hempel: The grades on the backyard are actually a 5:1 slope which are
relatively flat compared to some other subdivisions recently subdivided
where we have a 3 :1 backyard slope which is fairly steep.
Scott: Okay. I don't have any further questions.
Conrad: Matt.
1
11 Planning Commission Meeting
August 4, 1993 - Page 8
11 Ledvina: Just to take off on that comment. It seems like we're removing
trees to build a pond. We certainly want to provide the surface water
ponding and that treatment but I guess I was wondering, this small parcel
that would be landlocked by the subdivision and the extension of Osprey
Lane from the existing subdivision to the new subdivision. Is that a
buildable area?
' Hempel: Currently it's not able to be serviced by city sewer. Sewer to
this parcel would be extended from Lyman Blvd which is quite a ways to the
' south. Water would be available.
Ledvina: So sewer is not available? So does that mean it's not a
buildable lot in it's existing conditions?
Hempel: That's correct, yes.
' Ledvina: Well I guess, you know and I realize that we have to deal within
the limits of the property that we're working with but it would seem to be
a reasonable thing to try to save those trees, to locate the pond further
to the east in an unbuildable area. And I mean that seems practical. Do
you have any comments on that?
Hempel: Yes. Ideally, it would be a much better location and even could
' be considered interim storm pond until sewer's brought up to this area and
this parcel actually develops where storm sewer's then could be retrofitted
in the street to take the drainage runoff in this area into like a trunk
storm sewer system and extended further on to the southeast. Into more of
a regional ponding area through surface water management plan. There's
really no indication of a regional pond in this area but given the
characteristics down there, I'm sure there's some likelihood that one could
be.
Ledvina: So that area then represents an opportunity for a larger scale
pond to be constructed for storm water in this whole area?
Hempel: To take care of, yes. A couple of neighborhoods essentially, yes.
Ledvina: Has that been investigated at all with the different landowners
in the vicinity?
Hempel: It's something that I would like to pursue with the landowners and
the developer on, definitely.
' Ledvina: Okay. Well I don't know if, I really would like to see that
done. I'm definitely going to add it as a condition or would like to add
that as a condition number 23. That the City staff pursue the relocation
of that storm water pond further to the east on the adjacent parcel. I
' don't know if that condition represents a situation where you'd want to
hold up this application but does the neighboring property owner have any
thoughts on that?
Bill Goers: I haven't given it any thought...?
1
Planning Commission Meeting 1
August 4, 1993 - Page 9
Ledvina: Okay. What do you think about that small area that would be
essentially on the north side of Osprey Lane? Do you feel that would be a
buildable area? '
Vicky Goers: Well, since this week we've talked with Dave and Sharmin at
the office and we were at that time told it was not unbuildable, as I'm
hearing now, so I'd like to pursue this with the staff. I don't even know"
how much land we're talking about...
Ledvina: Yeah, I understand and I'm not trying to resolve anything here II
but I'm interested in knowing whether there's a willingness to try to
evaluate this. And if there is.
Hempel: Commission member Ledvina. If I could just clarify as far as the'
buildability of this lot. I did have conversations earlier this week with
the Goers on it and in it's present state right now it is not a buildable
lot without city sewer or water there. But eventually when city sewer is II
available and extended up to this point, yes. This area would be a
buildable lot.
Ledvina: Okay...and bring that housepad up but that adds quite a bit to II
the expense of that area and it looks like...At any rate, I would like to
see that investigated further. That's all I had.
Conrad: Thanks Matt. Diane.
Harberts: Well I'm really fuzzy on the access, with traffic. I'm not veil
comfortable at all. I think the whole idea in terms of trying to manage
growth is being able to plan for it as well. There's some issues with
Osprey Lane. Do we make a requirement that the developer needs to work a
deal with the owner in order to get that access. What if they can't come
to terms? Where does this sit? You know we've got some access questions
by the owner to, I think this is south. Yeah, to the south of it. There's
certainly some questions in terms of how much access is onto Audubon Road.,
And it's going to happen. I guess I would be inclined to have a better
understanding. Maybe take a step back and look at the entire picture here.
We always try to deal with the issue of bringing these pices of puzzle in II
here with regards to the road system and I think we've got a big puzzle
right here. So I would really encourage some kind of resolution of the
access points, both with Osprey Lane. The parcel to the south. Because o
the issues the owner raised. But then also in terms of, well given the
fact that we've got some future development that's coming here. I'm not
very comfortable with the access points right now. I think if this is
recommended to go forward, we probably want to also...that conservation
language to easement. One other question I have for Dave. Did I understand
on the south end of Alisa Lane, that there's going to be like a turnaround
for the public... Shouldn't that be shown on the map or the site plans
here to get an idea? Aren't they supposed to be put in right now or do
they have to wait until after the road gets punched through, if it gets
punched through?
Hempel: The temporary cul -de -sac will be constructed with the utility and ll
P P
street improvements. The overall, the preliminary plat does not reflect
the additional street right -of -way necessary for it because it would be a II
i Planning Commission Meeting
August 4, 1993 - Page 10
11 temporary roadway easement over those lots. One of the sheets here, the
utility plan does show a temporary turnaround exceeding outside of the
right -of -way limits.
II Harberts: So is that going to impact with, I mean this is in the area of
the trees with the size of the lots or with the housepads, with the grading
II that needs to occur.
Hempel: Some of the grading for the street will necessitate removal of
I some of the trees. Also as those Lots 3, Block 3 and Lot 4, Block 2 are
built on, the driveway and utility extension into the home will also take a
couple of additional trees out of it. So the combination of it, with the
turnaround. One way or another the trees would be lost due to.
II Harberts: I guess my comments really center around the fact that I'm not
real clear on the access...figured out and maybe we should maybe take a
I step back and look at this area because we do have other development coming
in. That's my comments.
Conrad: Thanks Diane.
II
Ledvina: I have a question. For Sharmin. On condition, or recommendation
number 12. It says the applicant shall pursue acquiring the necessary
I easements for the extension of Osprey Lane between Shenandoah Ridge and
Lake Susan Hills West 8th Addition. Can we require them to obtain the
necessary easements? I mean can we strengthen that language? I mean is
I that going to put a kink in their plan totally or maybe you or Dave could
comment on that.
Hempel: To be honest, that was my condition. I'm not sure whether or not
II we can require them as part of this platting because they do have access
from another improved public street. It comes to the issue, I hate to
bring it up here again but the Nez Perce roadway extension. We're hoping,
I in this situation here to work with the property owners. They seem to be
in favor of the project. They're in favor of seeing the roadway go
through. I think we can work out and negotiate seeing this road connect up
I to two subdivisions at this time.
Ledvina: It doesn't require them to obtain those easements as a part of
this to prevent that situation from potentially occurring?
II Hempel: That's true, yes.
I Ledvina: Okay. I guess I would be in favor of that. If it's the staff
recommendation that that Osprey Lane go through, then I feel that's the way
we should handle it.
Aanenson: Make it a condition? We can't make it a condition that they buy
somebody else's property to get access.
Conrad: We don't have control of that.
Aanenson: We don't have control over it.
II
II
Planning Commission Meeting 1
August 4, 1993 - Page 11
Ledvina: But if they have these configurations to the streets. 1
Aanenson: What Dave is saying is the fact that we've laid it out as a I
staff and we see when that property comes in, we've already stated how we
see it being connected and that's why we've been working with them to see
how it's going to be connected.
Al -Jaff: It's our preference that it happens now before those 20 parcels II
develop. But I don't think legally we can require them.
Scott: Well we're going to see, if and when the other parcel comes up,
we're going to see that and that would be a condition that we would place
on that preliminary plat of the parcel in question. That the street needs
to be connected for the development to go forward so I think, that's ,
probably the best time to address it.
Harberts: ...subdivision and roadway the way you want? ,
Aanenson: No. No, no, no.
Scott: In this case though. '
Harberts: ...take plans for it.
Aanenson: No, that's what Dave did. We laid this out. This whole area II
out when this subdivision came in. I think that's what Dave eluded to.
We've laid this whole subdivision how we feel it best accesses and that's
why Dave is saying that road to the south, that the other gentleman was
speaking about, that may not need to go through but this whole area has
been laid out as we see how it can be accessed.
Harberts: It has been laid out?
Aanenson: Yes. ,
Hempel: This parcel was, the one before you this evening was laid out with
staff and there was some previous concept plans in by other potential
developers. And we felt this was the only way it could really develop.
This way we're providing access to adjacent parcels to the south. We're
providing access to the Goers parcel which we hope to connect shortly and I
think that can strongly go forward and also I think the developer would bell
in favor of also negotiating for a ponding easement out there. Even an
interim one that would reduce his cost of ponding on site and be more of a
permanent situation.
Harberts: Mr. Chair, I have a question here. So are you feeling
comfortable then that staff, that the access issues raised by one of the
property owners, and some of the concerns raised by myself, that they have
been addressed?
Hempel: Yes, I feel they have been adequately addressed. '
Bill Goers: I'd like to make a comment about the existing access that
there is on Osprey Lane is a temporary one right now? It is not permanent II
1
11 Planning Commission Meeting
August 4, 1993 - Page 12
access that this original developer and I had agreed upon and they have not
resolved that issue with me regarding that access. That only complicates
...and I'm not trying to do that but realistically that is an open issue
still. Because that was not final access in an agreement that he and I had
agreed upon. The one that he's using right now that he's calling a
temporary one, calling a permanent one should be a temporary access in lieu
' of another one being built at a later time further south. And I've got the
docmentation on that...
' Hempel: Are you referring to Joe Miller's development to the east?
Bill Goers: Yes.
' Hempel: Okay. The existing Osprey Lane that currently dead ends to the
east of your property is the one that Mr. Goers' referring to. I'm unaware
of any type of.
1 Mancino: It's paved isn't it?
Hempel: Yes. It is paved. There's no homes taking access off of that.
That was purely for the future extension basically back out to Audubon Road
at some point. And also service this parcel with the street access.
Bill Goers: He does have permanent deed to that property. He's just got a
temporary deed, and again the original agreement...
Hempel: The property's pretty well developed.
Aanenson: And there's no other access points and it didn't show up on the
title when we did development contract. That seems.
Conrad: It'd be real smart for you to be talking to Dave. You've got to
make yourself comfortable. It looks like, in my mind it looks kind of
' tight. Where the roads are going and I think before this gets to City
Council, you're going to want to express a firm opinion. My only question
Dave is on one point and that's the Alisa Court. By chance, if that
' becomes a permanent cul -de -sac, we probably wouldn't, what easements do we
need if that does? You know it changes in character a little bit and have
we, you know I don't know what the odds are. I'm not sure what the
developer to the south wants to do and our position to require it. I don't
know what our standards are off of, well I'm just not sure. Other access
points into his property. But I guess my question is, if this turns into
permanent, I don't want it designed as temporary. So do we have the right
1 easements to make, or the right leverage to make it permanent and make the
developer more accountable to it as a permanent cul -de -sac? And that takes
me to, you probably design it. If the developer thought it was going to be
permanent, he might do a little bit different design. We don't know.
That's something we can't control but I do want to know that we can control
it in the future if it does become permanent.
Hempel: I believe we can. The thing that would be effected would be the
setbacks of these lots so if it did become a permanent cul -de -sac, you
would probably have a 20 foot front yard versus the 30 foot.
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 4, 1993 - Page 13
Conrad: When the property scheme became developed, would we have the right ""
to give it a turning radius down there? Would we be able to give it the
right?
Hempel: When the parcel to the south? 1
Conrad: Well there's two properties on the property line to the south.
When they came in for, when they were being developed, would we be able to II
have the right amount of easements for a turnaround? A radius that would,
whatever it is. A 60 foot radius or whatever it is.
Hempel: We could require that at the time of preliminary plat. If the
applicant did not wish to have that road extended through his parcel, yes.
We could require that permanent cul -de -sac to be on the parcel to the
south. Mr. Barinsky's parcel.
Conrad: What do we do right now?
Hempel: Well, right now I guess I would still propose to leave it as
shown. Leave the options open. This case the road could proceed. If we
dead end it now and make it a permanent cul -de -sac, there's no way that
road will go through.
Conrad: Yeah, I don't want to do that.
Hempel: So in the future we have another option.
Conrad: Okay. That's my only question. And the only other comment was til
make sure Dave that you can work with the applicants to the east. Or not
the applicants, but the landowners and I'm sure you will. But I guess it's
sort of up to you to be coming in and talking. Anything else? '
Harberts: Matt just noted that the cul -de -sac is 600 feet.
Ledvina: The way I measured it. 1
Conrad: That's the limit right? .
Harberts: Does the cul -de- sac... '
Ledvina: Barely. 1
Hempel: Right, it's approximately 600 feet in length but I think given the
existing Chaska brick house that's situated there, it probably warrants a '
variance or something to the cul -de -sac length.
Conrad: Okay, who wants the power? Who wants the motion?
Harberts: I will. Now we're doing a subdivision and a rezoning? I'm '
going to do the rezoning first. I recommend that the Planning Commission
adopt, or excuse me. Adopt the staff motion for rezoning according to Cas
No. 93 -4 dated 8/4/93 for the Shenandoah Ridge Addition. And the motion
then would be as stated in the report found on page 11. And I further
recommend that the Planning Commission approve Case No. 93 -.
Planning Commission Meeting
August 4, 1993 - Page 14
Conrad: Why don't we do it one at a time. Let's just do one at a time
because there may be more debate on the second one.
' Harberts: Oh, there's quite a bit.
Conrad: Yeah, is there a second to the rezoning motion?
Mancino: I second.
Conrad: Is there any discussion?
' Harberts moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission recommends
approval of Rezoning #93 -4 for property zoned A -2 to RSF for Shenandoah
' Ridge, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall enter into a development contract containing all of
the conditions of approval for this project and shall submit all
' required financial guarantees. The development contract shall be
recorded against the property.
2. The applicant shall meet all conditions of the Subdivision #93 -14.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Conrad: Is there a motion for the subdivision?
Harberts: I did my duty. Well, I wrote everything down so I'll do it
again. I recommend that the Planning Commission, let's see here, adopt for
Case No. 93 -14, preliminary plat to subdivide 11.5 acres into 20 single
family lots, Shenandoah Ridge Addition. Approve recommendations as
outlined in the staff report with the change to number 8. Stipulate that
the south end of A1isa Court shall have a temporary cul -de -sac. That the
language in number 15 state that any existing house outside of Lot 10. Is
there any additional language?
' Hempel: Maybe if I can run one by here and see how it works. The existing
house on Lot 10, Block 1 shall connect to municipal sanitary sewer and
' water service within 30 days after becoming available to the site.
Conrad: Nice wording Diane.
11 Harberts: And that item number 22. That the correction with regard to
what lot shall be included, as Nancy pointed out.
Scott: Lot 2, Block 2?
Harberts: Yes. And item number 23 with regard to the regional pond.
11 Number 24 to include a conservation easement be included as a condition.
And number 24, with the discussion that centered around if this shall
become a permanent cul -de -sac, to make sure that we have the appropriate
easements in place to cover it. And also make sure what the impact is on
the lot. That's it.
Ledvina: I'll second that motion.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 4, 1993 - Page 15
Conrad: Is there any discussion? 1
Scott: I have just one item, and it probably would be considered a
friendly amendment that we want to have the pad locations on the final plat"'
so we can see exactly where the houses are and what sort of impact that's
going to have on the trees as well. I think that was something that we had
discussed.
Mancino: Yeah, I kind of wrote it as, if I could add to that. That the
applicant shall submit a landscape plan that shows all trees that are bein
removed are being replaced by new trees. Some sort of a new landscape
plan.
Conrad: Is that a new condition Nancy? 1
Mancino: Yeah. An amendment.
Scott: On that conservation easement, do you want. '
Conrad: Is that an acceptable amendment?
Harberts: Yep. 1
Scott: Do we want to name the lots that the conservation easement should
be on or is that broad language regarding conservation easements enough to 11
get the result that we're looking for?
Aanenson: It's Block 2, Lot 3 and 4 isn't it? 1
Al -Jaff: You could name it.
Scott: Well I'm thinking Block 1, Lots 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. Block 2, Lot 41
Block 3, Lots 1, 2 and 3.
Conrad: Who seconded the motion? '
Mancino: Matt.
Conrad: Was Nancy's amendment acceptable to you?
Ledvina: Yes. I would also add, I don't mean to complicate this but I - I
would like to clarify condition number 23...regarding the pond. I would
like to see the staff evaluate the potential for relocating the storm water
pond as it exists on the plan, to the adjacent parcel to the east.
Conrad: Isn't that what you meant Diane?
Harberts: Well yeah. When we talked about, because Dave had made the
comment about it becoming a regional pond.
Conrad: But I'm glad you added that. '
Ledvina: It's just to say that they'll focus their efforts in that area.
There may be a possibility for a regional pond in other areas but I want
11 Planning Commission Meeting
August 4, 1993 - Page 16
that specific area to be evaluated for that purpose.
' Conrad: Anything else?
Harberts moved, Ledvina seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Subdivision #93 -14 for Shenandoah Ridge Addition as shown on
11 the plans dated July 6, 1993, subject to the following conditions:
1. The developer shall dedicate the utilities within the right -of -way for
permanent ownership.
2. The applicant shall pay full park fees at the time of building permit
1 application. The applicant shall construct the portion of the city's
comprehensive trail system previously described in this report.
Specifically, from the southern curb to Heron Drive to the southern
terminus of Lot 4, Block 2. This trail is to be 8 feet in width with
bituminous surfacing per standard city specifications. In
consideration for this construction, trail and park fees will be
reduced by an amount equal to the cost construction. Said costs to be
determined by the applicant for presentation to the city with
documentation for verification. Current park and trail fees are
$600.00 and $200.00 per single family unit, respectively.
3. All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored
with seed and disc - mulched or wood fiber blanket within two weeks of
completing site grading unless the city's (BMPH) planting dates
dictate otherwise. All healthy trees over 6" caliper at 4' height
shall not be permitted to be removed. The applicant shall provide the
legal description for the easement.
•
' 4. The vegetated areas which will not be affected by the development will
be protected by a conservation easement. The conservation easement
shall permit pruning, removal of dead or diseased vegetation and
underbrush. All healthy trees over 6" caliper at 4' height shall not
be permitted to be removed. The applicant shall provide the legal
description for the easement.
5. The existing wells and sewage treatment systems shall be properly
abandoned and furnish proof of abandonment to the Inspections
Division. A city permit is required for on site sewage treatment
system abandonment. This should be done prior to commencement of site
grading.
6. The applicant must obtain city demolition permits from the Inspections
Division for structures that will be removed (prior to removal).
7. The address for the existing home on Lot 10 shall be changed to Alisa
Court.
8. The south end of Alisa Court shall have a temporary cul -de -sac. This
' cul -de -sac shall be barricaded with a sign indicating that the road
will be extended in the future.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 4, 1993 - Page 17
II
9. All street and utility improvements shall be constructed in accordance"
with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail
Plates. Street construction plans shall also include a draintile
system behind the curbs to accommodate household sump pump discharge.
Detailed construction plans and specifications for utility and street II
improvements shall be submitted to the City for review and approval
prior to final platting. Final construction plans and specifications
are subject to City Council approval. 1
10. The applicant shall submit detailed storm drainage and ponding
calculations to verify pipe sizing and pond volumes. Storm sewers II shall be designed and constructed to a 10 year storm event and a
retention /detention pond shall be reviewed by the City Storm Water
Management engineer and constructed pursuant to the guidelines II implemented by the City's Storm water Management Plan.
11. The applicant shall include with the street construction plans,
auxiliary turn lanes along Audubon Road. The auxiliary turn lanes
shall be designed and constructed in accordance with MnDot standards.II
12. Applicant shall pursue acquiring the necessary easements for the
extensin of Osprey Lane between Shenandoah Ridge and Lake Susan Hills"
West 8th Addition. _
13. The applicant shall dedicate to the City, the necessary temporary
II
roadway easements for portions of the temporary cul -de -sac (Alisa
Court) lying outside the public right -of -way. The applicant shall
dedicate on the final plat the following easements: 1
A. 20 foot wide utility and drainage easement between Lots 5 and 6,
Block 1. II B. 20 foot wide utility and drainage easement between Lots 8 and 9,
Block 1.
C. Necessary utility and drainage easements for all pond retention/
detention areas.
II
14. The final grading plan shall denote the type of house suggested for
each lot.
II
15. The existing house on Lot 10, Block 1 shall connect to municipal
sanitary sewer and water service within 30 days after becoming II available to the site.
16. The existing house on Lot 10, Block 1 shall relocate its driveway to
access the new street within 30 days after the new street is
II
constructed.
17. The city will access the development for 20 units instead of the 14 II
units as proposed in the feasibility report for Project No. 91 -17.
18. The proposed water line in Osprey Lane shall be increased to an 8 inc
diameter. In addition, the water and sewer lines shall be extended t
the south property line of the plat on Alisa Court (south).
II
II
11 Planning Commission Meeting
August 4, 1993 - Page 18
19. The street name, Alisa Court, should be revised to Alisa Lane to
provide continuity.
20. Staff is in support of a 10% street grade and therefore recommends
approval of any necessary variances to allow the 10% street grade.
II 21. The City will not permit open cutting of Audubon Road for the
extension of utilities into the site.
I 22. Access to the lots shall be from the interior streets and not Audubon
Road. The corner lots (Lots 1 and 13, Block 1; Lot 1, Block 3; and
Lot 2, Block 2) shall take access from Alisa Court and not Osprey
Lane. Driveway access to Lot 1, Block 22 shall be limited to the
easterly half of the lot.
23. City staff shall evaluate the potential for relocating the storm water
pond as it exists on the plan, to the adjacent parcel to the east.
24. A conservation easement shall be placed on the following lots: Block
1, Lots 9, 10, 11, 12, 13; Block 2, Lot 4; and Block 3, Lots 1, 2
and 3. And that the applicant shall submit a new landscape plan that
shows all trees being removed are being replaced by new trees.
' 25. If this shall become a permanent cul -de -sac, to make sure that we have
the appropriate easements in place to cover it.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Conrad: This will go to the City Council August 23rd. Craig.
Craig Mertz: If anybody's going to throw away their packet...
Conrad: Why don't you come up and collect them.
1
PUBLIC HEARING:
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE A PARCEL (50,443 SQ.FT.) INTO 3 SINGLE FAMILY
LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 6661
NEZ PERCE, TJO ADDITION, TODD OWENS.
Public Present:
Name Address
II Todd Owens 6661 Nez Perce
Jim Cosgrove 6679 Hopi Road
I Craig Gagnon 861 Vineland Court
Renelle Ulrich 6581 Nez Perce Drive
Sharmin Al -Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Vice Chair Conrad
II called the public hearing to order.
1
Planning Commission Meeting 11
August 4, 1993 - Page 19
Conrad: Sharmin, can you go through the staff report then in terms of the"
motion and tell us which ones are no longer applicable? And which one's
you'd like to change. You know 1 don't know what's current. This is a II
recommendation not based on that plan. Yeah, just go through them and tel
us if you're comfortable. Number 1 I assume still is.
Al -Jaff: Remains the same. '
Conrad: Number 2 is out. '
Al Jaff: Number 2 is out. A variance is not required anymore. The tree
removal could stay the same.
Conrad: Could. ,
Al -Jaff: The grading will remain very similar. What we have done is, the II grading will remain the same as it was before. Therefore the same trees
could be used as was before.
Conrad: Okay. Point number 4. It seems like it should be the same. '
Hempel: It may need to be adjusted slightly.
Harberts: How do you adjust number 4? '
Hempel: Individual water services shall be extended to each lot. Period.
Conrad: Number 5. Individual grading plans, okay. 6. Development
contract, same thing. 7.
Hempel: That would be revised depending on who extends the sewer and watej
to the property lines. If the city does it, then each lot would be
assessed the $8,544.91.
Conrad: We're getting into a couple changes here. If anybody feels
uncomfortable, we can always table it and have it come back. I haven't hit
something that makes me nervous yet but again, if somebody says they...the '
driveway, number 8.
Al -Jaff: This has a possibility of changing. Before we had a common
driveway between Lot 3 and 2. The area that is shared between those two
lots is...7 ton design, 20 foot wide. If Lot 2 gains access off of Hopi.
Todd Owens: That may be a correction. Hopi is down to the south...
Al -Jaff: I'm sorry. That they woudln't...then they wouldn't need the 20
foot wide easement if they came off of Hopi. If there wasn't a shared
driveway. So that now they have two options. They could come off of Hopi
or they could come off of Nez Perce. If they got a cross access easement
over Lot 3.
weren't very comfortable with having
Harberts: Hopi Road is...we y g a common
driveway... 1
11 Planning Commission Meeting
August 4, 1993 - Page 20
Hempel: Maybe I can translate a little bit better. With this type of
scenario here, Hopi is right over here. Vacation is for a strip of land up
to here. We still have street access. The street is built down to this
part of the development so the option to be left open for development on
this parcel...driveway access through here or also if it betters suits the
builder or the homeowner, to share a common driveway through an...
Mancino: Do you have a preference? Does staff have a preference whether
it's one way or the other?
Harberts: I think based on our discussion we had...that's what I recall
from that discussion. That's why we shied away from that common access.
Conrad: Okay. As I look at it, 9, 10 and 11 should probably be the same.
I see no change that the plan would have on any of those. We'll open it up
for public discussions. I wanted to go through these. Somebody's got to
make a motion and I didn't understand what any of the staff comments were
so. They're simple but I didn't write them down so if somebody's going to
make a motion, think about it. Public hearing. We'll open it up to the
developer. If he'd like to make some comments regarding the new plan or
the staff report.
Todd Owens: I am Todd Owens, the applicant and I'm not going to become a
developer. This is my last time. It was fun when it started but it didn't
progress that way. Anyway, the reason for the big change is I had a
lengthy conversation on the property with Nancy and then she had translated
' that conversation onto Sharmin and this is the end result. And I think
we've tried all along to comply and I want to thank Dave and Sharmin
publicly for their patience with a rookie here. But we tried all along to
' comply with everything we could. We contacted neighbors ahead of time to
discuss what we were doing and in the beginning that went well. I had one
neighbor who in the end who had changed what we had originally talked about
and I think he's here tonight to comment to that. And then I know I have
' one neighbor here who'd like to ask something about a stop sign at the
corner that is on Nez Perce there. The tree, which it's a concern to us
and I know Nancy had the concern when we were talking. With the new
change, the way I've looked at it and in looking at the tree survey, and
actually walking the lot, if the access comes from Hopi versus the cross
access, it shifts the tree. In other words, certain trees are saved. It's
a trade off. The trees just shift places. So I guess on that I'd be
asking that we can work through that with staff. Our objective is to keep
it as wooded, and I think anybody buying those lots, that's going to be
their, that's the beauty of the lots is the trees. So thanks and I'll
comment to any questions you have.
Harberts: I have a question. Do you have any comment with regard to the
...recommended to leave the common driveway?
Todd Owens: I'm sorry, say that again?
Harberts: Do you have any comment if the recommendation is to, it...
allowing the common driveway?
Planning Commission Meeting
August 4, 1993 - Page 21
Todd Owens: It would be nice if the option was open to discuss with
potential buyers. We want it approved and we want to move on. Our
objective personally is, I'm an Owens and you're all aware of the Owens
property situation. You know we're going to buy my folks house and our
objective is to, we've lived here 14 years. I've lived in that house all
my life previous from the 5 year old age. I grew up there. We cross
country skied through Vineland Forest and Lake Lucy development long beforil
they were around so I like the area. We've been there. We're going to
stay. We're trying to move on. We'd like to have the option open but
we're flexible. '
Conrad: Good, thanks Todd. It's a public hearing. Other comments please.
Jim Cosgrove: Hi. My name is Jim Cosgrove and I live on the other side oll
Hopi Road. I am very opposed to vacating Hopi Road. I'm very opposed to
access there. Hopi is a dead end right now. That's why I live at the end
of the dead end. That's why I bought it. I've been there for 7 years and
enjoyed the solitude. The quiet. The safety for children to not have car
coming through there. I feel the time has been very poor on the developer's
part. I'm very opposed to it. I'm opposed to the vacation. I have been '
there, I don't like the development's that gone on the last 7 years and I
don't know what to say other than I oppose it and everybody's gone all
around me as far as just incredible development. I understand that. That'
part of the deal but I really want to put my foot down to vacation and try
to save something for myself. Small lot which I have wooded and I am
really, really will push for this. And I did not receive the agenda so I
am somewhat unprepared. I just read it tonight. I don't know why I did II
not receive it. Sharmin, I talked to you a couple weeks ago and I was
supposed to get it. I don't know why I didn't so I'm sitting here reading
all this stuff and I didn't even realize until tonight that there was a
possibility of access to that lot. I don't know which lot it is but the
upper lot off of Hopi. I didn't even realize that was an option. So I
have a lot of concerns. Here I am.
Conrad: We do have your name as being.
Jim Cosgrove: Yeah, it's Jim Cosgrove. '
Conrad: Yeah. I was just going to say Jim, we do have your name as being
something being delivered to your house.
Aanenson: He got the hearing notice. I think he requested the staff
report probably.
Jim Cosgrove: So I'm sitting here reading this going, um and Todd did cal
me. He asked at one point if I opposed it. I feel like he should have
written me a letter and a request. Not a phone call. Some things like I
that. Yes, I did change my mind on that vacation but I don't think I was
served properly either by a simple phone call. Thank you.
Conrad: Okay, thanks. Other comments. '
Craig Gagnon: Hi. I'm Craig Gagnon and I'm at 861 Vineland Court. I have
the lot immediately to the north of this. And the Lake Lucy Road vacation'
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 4, 1993 - Page 22
runs along my property line as does, well I think perhaps the ending part
of the Hopi Road. I have not, I'm kind of a rookie to this as well and I
have not seen or read the staff report. I have taken a look at some of the
plans. I wonder about the Lake Lucy Road vacation and how that works. It
would appear that half of that road would go to the new development. I'm
not sure what happens to the other half of that road.
Al -Jaff: The right -of -way for Lake Lucy Road was taken from Vineland only
so, we have vacated our rights so if you would like to claim it, if you
want to, you could proceed with that and the entire strip would be, the
entire 33 feet would go back to you rather than half of it to Todd and the
other half to you.
Craig Gagnon: I see. How would I go about doing that?
Al -Jaff: Contact an attorney. I think it's a small claim court or I'm
sorry, I'm not familiar with the procedure but it should be a very simple
procedure.
Craig Gagnon: I will do that and I'm interested in proceeding with that.
That was my understanding that that might be an option and I don't know how
to proceed but I will look into that. I would, in addition to that I would
just simply like to express the concerns about the wooded nature of the
land, as has been described. It is a heavily wooded lot now and given the
house pad requirements for Lots 2 and 3, clearly that would impact the
nature of that quite a bit. So I will look into the Lake Lucy Road
vacation.
Conrad: Other comments. •
11 Renelle Ulrich: Hi. My name is Renelle Ulrich and I live at 6581 Nez Perce
Drive to the north on Nez Perce. And I just wanted to let you know that
Todd Owens has been very professional in dealing with me. I mean he's been
very neighborly I guess. He's always made us very well aware of what he's
been doing and it's fine with us as far as we're concerned because I
' sincerely think that anybody who buys that lot is going to try, is going to
buy it to preserve the trees and to have a w000ded lot so that's not a
major concern of mine. Also knowing that I've got the 33 feet of the
vacated property gives me a little buffer to whatever they do. The only
concern I have is that the corner where Nez Perce turns into Lake Lucy is a
dangerous corner and if you're going to put a driveway there, you've got to
put a stop sign at the same time. Anybody, you know that's a bus stop
' there. There's a lot of kids in the neighborhood and I came up during the
other Nez Perce extension thing to express concerns about a stop sign. I'll
sit down when there's a stop sign there. Until then I'll just keep coming
back to everything and repeating that request. But otherwise that's my
only concern. Otherwise I think it should go through.
Conrad: Thanks. Dave, do you want to respond to a stop sign there?
Hempel: Sure. We can certainly perform an engineering study. That's one
of the requirements for placement of a stop sign or any traffic control
' device in a public right -of -way. I'd like to get the homeowner's name and
telephone number and address and we can start an evaluation of that
Planning Commission Meeting it
August 4, 1993 - Page 23
intersection. I'd also like to bring up one other proposed improvement well
have at that intersection. As you will notice the sight lines going around
the curve is very difficult and the city was attempting at some point here l
to contact that property owner to see if we could work on getting a
temporary construction easement and cutting back that bank that's out
there. Build a retaining wall so we can open up the sight lines as you go '
around the corner.
Renelle Ulrich: That's going to create another concern because...they'll
say hey. There's no cars and they'll zoom...At least today they are force"
to slow down a little bit.
Hempel: Curvature of the road also has something to do with it. You
obviously can't take it too fast or you're going to go off the road.
Craig Gagnon: I would support Renelle's...
Conrad: Okay, good thanks. Thanks Dave. Anything else?
Jim Cosgrove: When you guys were talking about the grading, I didn't
understand that but I have some questions about the grading. If you do, i
you wanted to have access off of Hopi Road, is that really a reality with
the grade that's there existing? I mean that is a steep, and I didn't
really follow what you guys were talking about...
Hempel: Mr. Chairman. The grades are fairly steep on the parcel but they
are manageable from a driveway construction standpoint. They will be
somewhat limited as far as access. It will probably run parllel to the
side of the hill. It's going to be well underneath of 10% grade limitation.
Jim Cosgrove: If that is a fact...now what would happen to my half of that
with the grade if you put a driveway in there?
Hempel: We just expand, or the property owner would just expand on
whatever pavement section's out there and extend it to his garage. There'
be no disruption to your driveway or the existing city street.
Jim Cosgrove: Right. So if you guys put a road down there, and if you...1
grade that would be going to the road to my property? Are you considering
that?
Hempel: We would not be putting a road.
Jim Cosgrove: Well access...to the property. '
Hempel: A driveway. 12 -15 foot wide driveway from the existing street
surface out there back to the new home. ,
Jim Cosgrove: Okay. And are you aware of the grades from the driveway
onto my property? What that would be.
Hempel: There should not be any, we're not, the driveway would not affect
your driveway.
Planning Commission Meeting
August 4, 1993 - Page 24
Jim Cosgrove: I understand that. You're talking about going from the end
g g g g
of Hopi Road, which is a dead end right now. Okay, right there.
Hempel: Here's Hopi and here is your driveway entrance I'm assuming.
Jim Cosgrove: Yes.
Hempel: The driveway would be extended from this portion of the city
street that's out there into the parcel.
Jim Cosgrove: Okay.
Hempel: It would not disturb your driveway access.
Jim Cosgrove: I understand that but it will take, are you aware of what
1 the grade would be off of, the right side going into the property of the
road.
Mancino: Right at that corner.
Jim Cosgrove: ...am I making myself clear? Yeah, right there.
' Hempel: Right here. The right side of the property. Anything to there?
Jim Cosgrove: Yes.
' Hempel: It's well within city guidelines. Under 10% grade.
Farmakes: The grade marks are on the plan that we're looking at here.
Hempel: The contour lines of the property. Those little hash marks are 2
foot intervals.
Farmakes: Okay, but I'm not using. Right where the cul -de -sac is there's
a...what's the grade right there? Does it show that?
Hempel: That elevation there is approximately.
Scott: I think it's 411.
Farmakes: 410. It goes from 411 up to 406.
Hempel: 1039 approximately. 1040 is the elevation. The elevation in the
middle of the lot is about 1036 -1037 so it's about a 3 foot drop only.
1 Jim Cosgrove: Are we talking the same thing?
Hempel: According to the contours on these drawings.
Jim Cosgrove: It's drastically different...
Conrad: Okay, we'll make a note of that.
Jim Cosgrove: That is drastically different.
1
it
Planning Commission Meeting
August 4, 1993 - Page 25
Conrad: Okay, good. Appreciate the comments.
We should validate that an
make sure that that is a possible access. Anything else? Any other
comments? We're in a public hearing. Anything else? Is there a motion till
close the public hearing.
Mancino moved, Scott seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Conrad: Diane. We'll start out on your end.
don't really have anything
Harberts: I d Y Y 9 to add than what we've talked abou
here. I'm alright with the staff recommendation I guess along as everyone
else is clear of what was changed. 1
Conrad: Oh sure. Passes the buck. I'm okay if Matt's okay. There'd
better not be any other contingencies. Matt.
Ledvina: I guess I'm glad to see that the lots have been revised to
eliminate variances. I wouldn't have supported any variances in this
instance but as it's drawn I can see that this is a feasible plan. I thin"
the situation with the access off of Hopi represents an acceptable option.
I think maintaining the option for the shared access is a fairly simple
thing to do. And I think that can be worked out. As it relates to the
vacating the Hopi Drive, the area northeast of what exists now. I think
that would be a good thing for the neighboring property owners because that
would prevent that road from ever going through so I don't see why anybody'
hat's in that vicinity that's concerned about the number of cars would
oppose that vacation. But whatever. I think that the property should be
vacated to the homeowner there. Or the parcel owner. Dave, on condition
number 4. I think can we just eliminate that condition? We said that... I
so eliminate number 4 then, okay. Number 8 then, 20 foot common driveway
may be installed. Use the road may to identify that as an option or what
would you recommend there Dave? '
Hempel: Maybe if I could just run through some of these conditions here.
I'll throw them out to you and see how they sound. Delete condition.numbe
4. Expand condition number 7 to read, the City shall extend individual
sanitary sewer and water service to each lot, (Lot 2, Block 3). Lots 2 an
3 shall be assessed the sewer and water connection and hook -up charge in
the amount of $8,544.91. Both of these fees shall be payable at the time 1
of building permit issuance and may be assessed against the property at
that time.
Ledvina: Can you back, I didn't get all of that. The city shall extend. 1
Hempel: Individual sanitary sewer and water service.
Ledvina: Sewer and water to each lot, okay.
Hempel: To each lot, (Lot 2 and 3). '
Ledvina: To Lots 2 and 3?
Hempel: Right. 1
1
11 Planning Commission Meeting
August 4, 1993 - Page 26
11 Ledvina: Okay. And then Lots 2 and 3 shall be assessed, okay. Alright.
' Hempel: Condition number 8 modified to read, driveway access to Lot 2 may
be from Hopi or a 20 foot wide common driveway across Lot 3 with the
appropriate cross access and maintenance agreements. Cross access
easements and maintenance agreements.
Ledvina: You're on a roll Dave. Keep going.
' Hempel: That would be it.
Ledvina: Okay. And then one thing that's not, or I didn't find within the
staff report is condition number 11 and I haven't seen that before. What's
going on there?
Hempel: That condition came from our building department due to the slopes
on the downside of Lots 2 and 3. They felt that the soils and the steepness
of the slopes may require engineered foundations.
Al -Jaff: We have requested it before when we've had such steep slopes.
But we haven't had such subdivisions lately with steep slopes so.
Ledvina: Okay. I would like to...statement for that condition to read, a
Registered Professional Engineer, or a Professional Engineer registered in
the State of Minnesota shall be required to design etc. And then Diane...
Oh okay, Diane wanted to see a number 12 condition added that staff
' evaluate the need for a stop sign along Nez Perce. Or let's see. I guess
at Lake Lucy. At the intersection of Lake Lucy and Nez Perce. If that
means a traffic study... That's all I have.
' Conrad: Okay, Joe.
Scott: Only one comment. It's never a treat to get significant new
information on a project at the Planning Commission but in this case, it
worked out fairly well but I think you know where I'm coming from. I have
no other comments other than that.
Conrad: Okay. Nancy.
Mancino: My only comment, and thank you for the redrawing of the
development so that we don't have to, as I had told you on Monday night, I
would also not have voted for the variance. I do think that on
recommendation number 3, about the trees, there will be different trees
11 depending on what access we use to Lot 2. For the tree removals. So that
I would like it to read the same. That the applicant will be permitted to
remove only the following trees and just so that staff and Todd get
' together after they've figured out what access that they will be using and
keeping about the same percentage as we have here in this original one
would be fine with me. So that you...the list exactly which trees are to
be removed and which trees aren't. And that's all I have.
Conrad: Okay, thanks Nancy. Jeff.
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting 1
August 4, 1993 - Page 27
Farmakes: I don't like the shared driveway solution. I like the redesign"
of the property. I would prefer that the access be off of Hopi. It seems
to be the logical access to the lot. If there is a gap there, depending oll
the grade, or how you can do it of an area between the trees there with
oaks on one side and basswood on the other. The oaks are quite a bit
larger than the basswood and if you can slip it in inbetween there, it
seems like there'd be little tree loss there. There are several reasons
why I don't like shared driveway access. It seems to me again the criteri
for that would be like a variance. There's no other way to develop that.
On one hand it seems like a logical good use of multi use of property but ji
when you look at single family and how it works out, sharing that much of
piece of property I think in the long run is not necessarily a good idea.
This lot and layout is very similar to what's on CR 17 and Lake Lucy.
There's kind of a goofy shaped lot with a shared driveway going to the bac{,
lot and often they have kind of trucks lined up there. That person does
some pick -up truck type things, construction work and they're lined up in
there and it seems out of character to me to single family area. It's mori
higher density type layout, although these lots are a little larger. As I
said, I like the way that you've redesigned it because I would not have
voted for the variance either. That's the extent. I have no objections toll
the comments about the recommendation changes.
Conrad: I have nothing to add except a comment. When we vacate property,"
assuming we're just following standard procedures, right? Nothing
exceptional that we're doing here. Okay. Any other questions? If not,
I'd accept a motion.
L.edvina: I would move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of II
Preliminary Plat #93 -16 for TGO Addition as shown on the plans dated July
6, 1993 and those dated, or that plan dated August 4, 1993. And subject 11
the following staff conditions with the modifications and additions to
follow. Let's see. Condition 1 shall read as in the staff report.
Condition 2 is eliminated. Condition 3, add the following language. The
staff shall work with the applicant to address the specific trees requirin
removal, depending on the chosen access. The percentage of tree loss shal
remain approximately the same. Condition number 4 removed. Condition
numbers 5 and 6 as in the staff report. Condition number 7 shall be
changed to read, the city shall extend sewer and water to Lots 2 and 3.
Lots 2 and 3 shall be assessed the sewer and water connection and hook -up
charge in the amount of $8,544.91. These shall be payable at the time of 11
building permit issuance and may be assessed against the property at that
time. Number 8 shall read. Driveway access for Lot 2 may be from Hopi
_Road or along the lot line of Lot 3 with the appropriate cross easements II obtained before installation. Number 9 and 10 shall read from the staff
report. Number 11. A Professional Engineer, registered in the State of
Minnesota shall be required to design the foundation of the dwellings on
Lots 2 and 3. Adding a condition number 12. That staff evaluate the need 1
for a stop sign at the intersection of Lake Lucy and Nez Perce. I think I
got them. I don't know.
Conrad: That's good. Is there a second? 1
Harberts: Second.
1
1
11 Planning Commission Meeting
August 4, 1993 - Page 28
Conrad: Discussion.
' Ledvina moved, Harberts seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the preliminary plat #93 -16 for TJ0 Addition as shown on the
plans dated July 6, 1993 and August 4, 1993 and subject to the following
conditions:
1. The plat approval is contingent upon the vacation of Hopi Road being
approved by the City Council and at least 20' x 137.58' of the vacated
right -of -way is combined with the subject property.
2. Deleted.
' 3. The applicant shall be permitted to remove only the following trees
(as shown on Sheet 2). All other trees located on the site must be
preserved and protected with snow fence located 1 1/2 times the drip
' line.
Lot 2, Block 1 Tree Number 10 -18, 29, 37 -39, 41, 42, 44, 98
' Lot 3, Block 1 Tree Number 46 -68, 66, 68 -69, 72, 73
The staff shall work with the applicant to address the specific trees
requiring removal, depending on the chosen access. The percentage of
tree loss shall remain approximately the same.
4. Deleted.
5. Final grading and utility plans in accordance with the City's Standard
Specifications and Detail Plates shall be submitted to the City for
' review and approval.
6. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City
and supply the City with the necessary financial security to guarantee
compliance of the conditions of approval.
7. The city shall extend sewer and water to Lots 2 and 3. Lots 2 and 3
' shall be assessed the sewer and water connection and hook -up charge in
the amount of $8,544.91. These shall be payable at the time of
building permit issuance and may be assessed against the property at
that time.
8. Driveway access for Lot 2 may be from Hopi Road or along the lot line
of Lot 3 with the appropriate cross access easements obtained before
installation.
9. The applicant shall pay a cash contribution into the City's Storm
Water Mangement Fund. The frees shall be calculated by staff in
accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan.
11 10. Full park and trail fees be accepted as a part of the platting of the
TJO Addition. These fees to be collected at the rate in force upon
building permit application. Current park and trail fees are $600.00
and $200.00 respectively.
Planning Commission Meeting 1
August 4, 1993 - Page 29
11. A Professional Engineer, registered in the State of Minnesota shall bil
required to design the foundation of the dwellings on Lots 2 and 3.
12. Staff shall evaluate the need for a stop sign at the intersection of II
Lake Lucy and Nez Perce.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. '
Conrad: This item too will go to City Council on August 23rd. Thank you
all for coming in. 1
PUBLIC HEARING:
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 4 ACRES INTO 4 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTil
ZONED RSF AND LOCATED AT 6301 CHURCH ROAD, CHURCH ROAD ADDITION, GREG REED.
Public Present:
Name Address
Greg Reed 6301 Church Road 1
Jim Way 6641 Minnewashta Parkway
f report Aanenson presented the staff ort on this item. Vice Chair Conrad P
called the public hearing to order.
Greg Reed: Yeah I'm the applicant, Greg Reed. I've been working with Kati
on this and I think we've kind of settled this out the best way we could.
We've kept the 3 new lots as large as possible. I will put a hydrant I
closer. I don't know how far you want closer to there. Because I still
would like, I like the area. I want to build a house on Lot, that'd be Lot
1 I think. Yeah. So I want my access off of West 62nd Street there to II eliminate a little bit less traffic on that private easement. That's all
my comments. Thank you.
Conrad: Okay, good. Thank you. Other comments. Anybody else? Anybody?
Jim Way: I own the lot right.
Conrad: Would you give us your name. '
Jim Way: Okay. I'm Jim Way and I have that lot to the southwest. I just
found out that it's not, that house there is not 2 feet from the road but 11
guess 30. I don't have any specific objectives or anything to the propose
development. That private road you know does go down the north property
line and the only thing I'd kind of like to see some kind of tree line or II
some kind of something to separate it. Make it more private I guess from
that, my lot there. Is that a possibility?
Conrad: How do we do that Kate? 1
Aanenson: Well we do have a, when it's abutting a street we do have a
streetscape requirement. It's a 30 foot wide easement. 20 feet of that, 1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 4, 1993 - Page 30
which we require to be paved as we mentioned in the previous report, to 20
ton design. So if the other 10 foot of easement, if engineering doesn't
have a concern about putting landscaping in there. If you want to make
that a condition. You might want to see if he has a concern with that.
Conrad: It's a private drive. It's all on the applicant's property. Does
' it butt right up to the property line or what?
Aanenson: Yes.
Scott: The easement does.
Aanenson: The easement does.
Mancino: Well there are existing trees there just north of your house.
Will they be saved?
Aanenson: Actually, well there is one tree on his lot that will be saved
but the rest of the trees are actually further behind his house.
' Jim Way: Yeah. Most of the trees are to the east.
Aanenson: Behind. Correct. They're to the east of your house.
Jim Way: Yeah. There's not much along the north property line I don't
think, is there?
' Aanenson: Right, they're past his home.
Greg Reed: There is trees right along here and along here right now. They
will be saved.
Aanenson: But he's concerned about the ones closer to.
Jim Way: Just to make it, you know you've got a driveway. You've got the
Highway 7. You've got Church Road and now you've got another one going in
on the north side so. So it's not too much of a private lot anymore.
Conrad: I think, do we have any standards for that?
Aanenson: We don't on common driveways. You may need something that
provides a better cover like lilacs or confiers or something. I'm not sure
an overstory tree is going to give him the screening that he wants.
' Mancino: But who's responsibility though is that?
Harberts: I think any homeowner has the opportunity of putting in their
own landscaping.
Conrad: But this is a road abutting, really it's abutting. It's a private
road but it's.
Aanenson: It's a common driveway, yeah.
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 4, 1993 - Page 31
{ Mancino: And it's going to have a name and everything. 1
Aanenson: Yeah, for access. For emergency access.
Scott: Is that going to be maintained?
Aanenson: Between the homeowners. The City won't maintain it. ,
Farmakes: Does that have a curb?
Aanenson: No. 1
Jim Way: Well that's all I had so.
Conrad: Okay, thanks for your comments. Are there other comments?
Anything else? Is there a motion to close the public hearing?
Mancino moved, Scott seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in I
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Farmakes: I support the staff recommendations on this application. My '
comments before about shared driveway I think are nullified...And my
condolences to the person who's going to be building on Lot 1. I don't
look forward to shoveling your driveway. On Mr. Way's house. I guess I
share your concern whether they're going to be using a common driveway tha
goes right up to the property line. Obviously it affects the existing
structure on Mr. Way's property. I'm not sure what, if anything, the city
can do about that. But I'm open for any suggestions. As stated, we don't
get involved in landscaping of a private road, private right -of -way.
Aanenson: Normally we don't. In this circumstances again it'd be like
looking at a regular subdivision that requires the 1 tree per lot and mayb
this is a circumstance where we take those, the trees that were required
for those lots and put those in an area and a species that would provide all
buffer.
Mancino: ...trees left for the lots.
Aanenson: Except that there is trees along the easterly side.
Farmakes: I have no further comments then. 1
Mancino: Kate do you have any concern about all these driveways on Church,
you know when you turn off of Highway 7 and you go north. You know you've"
got 1, 2, 3, and now you're going to have 4 driveways right in a row and i
there some sort of safety concern about how close they are?
Hempel: In this situation the amount of traffic at this intersection isn'I
high enough to warrant I guess the concerns that normally would be
associated with the little, if this was Minnewashta Parkway where we have
quite a few more vehicles. The horseshoe driveway, maybe at some point
that's, the southerly driveway on that particular parcel may be fairly
close to the highway but the location of the proposed common driveway is
far enough off where it shouldn't impact turning movements onto Highway 7.11
1 Planning Commission Meeting
August 4, 1993 - Page 32
Mancino: I have no problem with a shared driveway. I live on one. Two
houses are on one and they're big lots. I mean very big lots but it seems
to work out fine. We have a legal easement contract that we, both residents
' adhere to and it's kind of nice to split the snowplowing with someone and
it just hasn't been an issue for us. So I see no problem there. That's all
the comments I have.
' Conrad: Okay, thanks Nancy. Joe.
Scott: To talk about the buffering. Mr. Reed, would you accept a condition
wherein you would provide some sort of understory buffer for your
neighbor's property? This is purely optional for you.
Greg Reed: You mean a tree line along there?
Scott: Lilacs or something.
Aanenson: Or conifers or pine trees or something.
Scott: I don't speak that language but.
Mancino: Maybe the word is, would you consider it?
' Scott: Yeah. It's not something that we get involved with but I figure
this might be, if you would be willing to entertain that, then I would be
willing to put it in as a condition. If you choose not to do that, that's
your option.
Greg Reed: I'm not sure if I want it in there right now.
' Scott: Okay. That's fine.
Greg Reed: I don't know if I'm going to go into developing again either.
It's kind of a lot of work and expense. But I have talked to, I'm going to
live out there. I want to get along with my neighbors so...as sellable as
I can to somebody that wants to buy in there.
' Scott: Okay. I have no comment.
Conrad: Okay, Matt.
Ledvina: No further comment.
Conrad: Nothing? Okay. Diane.
Harberts: I would just add a number 13 of the condition about locating
that fire hydrant closer to the houses as recommended and as accepted by
the applicant and that's all I have to say.
Conrad: Good. The only control on the property line for the driveway, the
private driveway. The only thing we can do is Kate what you suggested.
Our subdivision is one tree per lot so we literally could move those trees.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
II
August 4, 1993 - Page 33
Aanenson: And we do have a streetscape requirement. You know when you're II
on a collector.
Conrad: But that's not. I'm trying to apply something that exists and
not, so the option is to encourage those 3 trees that would have to be per
lot. To put them on that property line. I'm not sure if I like that or
not. It's probably, I guess it's up to somebody who makes the motion here'
But I think that is something that we could require. But beyond that I
have no other comments. Any other discussion? Questions?
Greg Reed: ...where that fire hydrant be? II
Aanenson: I think at this point we just put a condition that you meet the
Fire Marshal's concerns.
II
Scott: Yeah, it's 300 feet.
Aanenson: Well he wants it so it's, you can get it from the hard surface II
on the driveway. So they don't have to drag the hose from the rear of the
home, because that's where it is now. 5o if it's 300 feet, it still may b
behind the house and that's not where he wants it. So if we can leave it
to meet the Fire Marshal's concerns or conditions of approval, I think
that's best.
Hempel: Mr. Chairman, if I could clarify one condition here. Condition II
number 11. It was actually my condition. As far as limiting access for
Lot 1. That could be deleted.
II
Aanenson: Yeah, or I'd just put, or modify to say only the hydrant is
relocated to meet the Fire Marshal's concerns. II Harberts: Which number was that Kate?
Aanenson: Number 11. 1
Conrad: 11. So you're deleting the entire?
Aanenson: Or modifying it to say, only if the hydrant is relocated to mee"
the Fire Marshal's concerns.
Conrad: Okay.
II
Mancino: So there's no 15?
Conrad: Is there a motion? II
Harberts: I'll make it. I recommend that the Planning Commission adopt '
the following motion. Case No. 93 -15, Preliminary Plat to subdivide 3.3
acres into 4 single family lots at 6301 Church Road north of Highway 7 and
adopt the staff recommendation with the modification of number 11 to read
as Kate stated. That the hydrant meets the Fire Marshal's specifications."
That's it.
Conrad: Is there a second?
II
Planning Commission Meeting
August 4, 1993 - Page 34
Mancino: Second.
Conrad: Any discussion?
Harberts moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the Preliminary Plat #93 -15 for Church Road Addition as shown
11 on the plans dated July 7, 1993, and subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the flag lot standards in the RSF district.
2. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City
and provide the City with the necessary financial security to
guarantee property installatin of the public improvements in
' compliance with the conditions of approval for final plat.
3. Park and trail fees shall be paid in full at the rate then in force,
' upon building permit application. A trail easement shall be granted
along the frontage of Church Road.
4. The applicant shall obtain and comply with the appropriate permitting
' agencies, i.e. MnDot, Watershed District, MPCA, Health Department,
MWCC.
5. The developer shall construct the public utility improvements. Upon
completion and acceptance, utility improvements lying within public
easements on Lot 3 shall become City property except those utilities
(sewer and water) lying north of the southerly 30 feet of Lot 3.
Those utilities shall be owned and maintained by the property owner of
Lot 1. The individual house services outside of the easement shall be
privately owned and maintained by the property owner.
6. The construction plans and specifications for the public improvements
shall be in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard
' Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction drawings and
specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council
approval.
' 7. In lieu of constructing on -site retention ponds, the applicant shall
provide the City Storm Water Management Fund with a cash contribution
in the amount to be determined by staff in accordance with the City
Storm Water Management Plan.
8. The applicant shall name the private driveway and the City shall
I install the appropriate street signage. The cost of the sign shall be
billed back to the developer in accordance with the development
contract.
9. A cross access or driveway easement including a maintenance agreement
shall be drafted for Lots 1, 3 and 4.
10. The City will not permit open cutting all the way across Church Road
for extension of utilities. The applicant will be required to extend
the existing water stub across from Meadow Lane on the east boulevard
of Church Road along the private into the development.
Planning Commission Meeting r
August 4, 1993 - Page 35
11. Access to Lot 1 shall be via the private driveway access off of Churci
Road and not West 62nd Street, only if the fire hydrant is relocated
to meet the Fire Marshal's specifications. Lot 4 shall have no accesil
onto State Trunk Highway 7.
12. The proposed private driveway shall be built to the City's private
driveway ordinance standard which is a 20 foot paved surface to a 7
ton design.
13. Erosion control measures shall be consistent with the City of
Chanhassen's Best Management Practice Handbook.
14. All draintile systems disturbed in conjunction with site improvements'
shall be reconnected or relocated to maintain the existing drainage
through the site.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. '
Conrad: It goes to City Council August 23rd. Thank you both for coming'
in. '
PUBLIC HEARING:
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 20 -575 - 20 -595 REGARDING LOT SIZES.'
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Vice Chair Conrad
called the public hearing to order. '
Farmakes: Could you refresh my memory on how we require 2 1/2 acre lots,
when one subdivides and they figure out where those 15,000 square foot lotl
are going to go if they do subdivide?
Aanenson: You have to have at least 10 acres. It's still the 1 unit per
10 acres requirement's still in place. So if you have 10 acres, you can II
take a little corner piece and make it into one lot. You can create one
lot. What we're saying now is it doesn't have to be 2 1/2 acres. It can
be as small as 15,000, or whatever it takes to get 2 septic sites on
because you still have to provide that in the rural area. So yeah, it's i
the anticipation that sewer's going to become available and you don't want
to lob off a big acreage. And we've had requests for those. You've seen
those. The Tich's. People that have come in and say I'm going to hold of
the rest of mine until sewer becomes available. But they want to make the
most sense of their property now.
Farmakes: Yeah. That's usually where we get these common driveways and II
small lots.
Aanenson: Well that's why I think we need to go through and rezone those II
to RSF because we have had requests from some of these RR areas to just do
some splits without rezonings and I don't think we're going through the
process to make...done it procedurally.
Mancino: They can turn out being really funny looking too.
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 4, 1993 - Page 36
i
Aanenson: Right. So again, I don't think it was our intent when we adopted
this to allow those existing subdivisions to further subdivide. If someone,
just because someone's contiguous to sewer, without going to rezoning, it's
basically a spot zone. If you've allowed one person in that subdivision to
split, what that does to the integrity of the rest of the subdivision.
' Really they should be forced to go through a zone change and notify
everybody in that subdivision. Say do you all want to rezone, to change
colors or do you want to remain the same at that point.
Farmakes: At some point in time too I think some of our...are going to
find out, the property that's purchased next to them is purchased with the
intent financially of developing those lots. That's how they're purchasing
the property.
Aanenson: And there is some of that out there but I think we need to let
the whole subdivision be aware of that.
Scott: There's really two things that I see as should existing rural large
' lot subdivisions be allowed to further subdivide if sewer and water are
available. I say no. If there is something that falls outside of that, I
think we need the control to have them rezone and put them in a plat, etc,
.etc.
Aanenson: Right. I think what we're concerned too is that you let the
whole neighborhood be on notice. You can't just let the one person in and
what that does to the other people that bought into that rural atmosphere,
what it does to their.
Scott: Then we have to take a look because that is, we hear a lot of
people saying, well the realtor said this or the developer said that. This
is a situation where people in good faith can go in and say, oh. This is
zoned like this so I won't have someone doing, you know subdividing next
door.
Mancino: Well most of those people really fought for that. I remember
' when the Comprehensive Plan was going through. Timberwood and.
Scott: Well yeah, they didn't want to, just because they had sewer and
11 water available, they wanted to do their own thing. It was, that was one
of those inalienable rights. They have a drainfield or something.
Farmakes: What happens on the large developments, that's just fine because
they dictate where the road's going to go, and we did that tonight. But
that first one that we looked at, was a small parcel and the first one to
develop with all the surrounding properties maybe 5 times as large, it's
kind of dictating where those connectors...
Scott: Yeah. Yeah.
Farmakes: But that's sort of the way, I mean that's the way property
developers.
Aanenson: Although Lake Susan Hills dictates a little bit of that too.
I mean by putting Osprey Lane in, they did a little bit. But you're right,
Planning Commission Meeting II
August 4, 1993 - Page 37
i
II
the first one in does dictate a lot what's going to happen.
Conrad: So this is scheduled to be a public hearing and Kate your idea wail
to present.
Aanenson: Our intent was to bring some language to you but it became morell
complicated and in speaking with the City Attorney, he felt like we should
sit down again and try to make sure we've got all the loopholes and we've
got it worded correctly and I think we just didn't have enough.
II
Conrad: Could I have a motion to table this public hearing?
Ledvina: Are we going to see it next time? Maybe, maybe not?
II
Aanenson: I'll try.
Scott moved, Harberts seconded to table the public hearing on Zoning 1
Ordinance Amendment to Section 20 -575 to 20 -595 regarding lot sizes. All
voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
II
PUBLIC HEARING:
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO CLARIFY THE LANDSCAPING ORDINANCE.
II
Public Present:
Name Address II
Brad Johnson 7425 Frontier Trail
Kevin Norby 6801 Redwing Lane
II
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item.
Mancino: Is sugar maples okay for parking lots? II
Aanenson: Yes. These are changes that Jeff had looked at, our forester, , II
and made comments to.
Farmakes: What was his comments in regard to the property underneath?
Aanenson: The property? II
Farmakes: Yeah. Where you had a discussion here previous.
II
Aanenson: Well we require the 20 x 10.
Farmakes: You control the size of the tree by the amount of property belol
it.
Aanenson: Oh he concurred with that. He felt good about the minimum, the ll
10 x 20. He felt that was a good starting point. Again, that's the
minimum, the 10 x 20 planting area and we put 2 trees in those.
II
II
Planning Commission Meeting
August 4, 1993 - Page 38
1
Farmakes: I was going through parking lots in town farther. Longer
' established parking lots in front of shopping center. Those trees, they're
like in a static growth pattern. That's all the taller they're going to
be. They're only going to be about...
' Aanenson: That's one thing that Jeff did add on page 4 where we had the
concern that Nancy had about the soil prep. He added something that we
should put in fertilization or somehow that there's nutrients given to make
sure that there is growth.
Mancino: Maintenance.
' Aanenson: Yeah, we added maintenance but this even goes beyond that. He
specifically said fertilization. Regular fertilization. Make sure that
they did grow.
1 Farmakes: So with that pad, how much of the trees that we're selecting
here...50% of their maximum growth?
Aanenson: I don't know if I can answer that.
Farmakes: ...these species with the different crown expectations are when
they're mature.
Aanenson: Well we try to pull out the ones, I mean this is a pretty narrow
' list. That would give the best growth and the best canopy but it's pretty
narrow as far as the range of possibilities. Again, there's no conifers in
here and there's no flowering. These are strictly overstories but the ones
' that we did pick overstories are ones that are more salt resistant and have
better growth.
Farmakes: But it's not expected that the overstory will expand beyond the
ground pad below it. So that's 10 x 20 correct?
Aanenson: I don't think that's.
Mancino: Did Jeff look at that...?
Aanenson: Yeah. Yeah, right. I don't think that's true.
' Farmakes: That was part of the seminar that we were at. The trees, they
just don't grow beyond that pad.
Aanenson: I think Jeff felt, if it was the regular fertilization and the
property soil prep underneath, that we can overcome some of that. I can
double check on that.
Farmakes: My point being is that we're dictating, if we don't do like a
percentage of that parking lot into that space below the tree, we're
L dictating how big those trees are going to be. No matter what we plant
there.
11 Aanenson: That's all the comments I had.
r
Planning Commission Meeting
August 4, 1993 - Page 39
Conrad: Okay. It is a public hearing. We'll open it up for public input.
Brad? I wasn't sure which item you were.
Scott: I thought you were for the next one.
Conrad: Yeah, I'm really disappointed. 1
Brad Johnson: My name's Brad Johnson, 7425 Frontier Trail. I have with me
Kevin Norby who's a landscape architect and is a consultant with us now in
the downtown area. We normally don't get active in this type of thing but
normally you also have no, what you'll call negative input normally when
you're doing these type of things along with sign ordinances. So we're
here as a friend of the city but just trying to give you some other ideas.
Relative to your tree ordinance, I suggest you contact legal staff. I thin
you're getting into an area that is an area that is not an area that you
can totally do what you're doing, but I'm not sure. I've been advised by
couple of staffs that are legal people that really the city has no right t�
control trees.
Conrad: Species? 1
Brad Johnson: No, I'm talking about cutting them down. You should look
into that so you don't get yourself into a, I don't, we try to save trees.,
I'm just saying, there are situations and I can see some developments
coming that they're going to have to take quite a few trees down to make it
work and you've got to kind of take an example of one. Gorra's property
around Lake Ann is going to devastate. Not devastate, you know you just
have to cut down trees. And there are parking lots that you have to cut
trees down, and that's just life. If you, normally in our situation as yo
know, and this is sometimes you can over regulate but in the real world
most of our stuff we're asking use for something and normally you get back
the trees and whatever you feel is important in the design of it and a lot
of our stuff is done as PUD's or whatever, and TIF districts so normally
we're not adversarial because we're trying to do it. But if somebody did II
come in with a subdivision that meets all your ordinances and then you held
up, had an ordinance that was illegal which could be trees as I understand
We checked and they said there is State regulations to regulate what citie�
can regulate. Alright. And I think if you read the rules, it does not
allow you to regulate trees. So I'm not sure of that but that's what my
friends at Larkin -Daly say. '
Harberts: Well I think that's an interpretation because my understanding
of public law is what has been the intent and what has been the procedure II
so that cities don't act arbitrarily, so.
Brad Johnson: Yeah. Health, safety and welfare. And then there's some 11
guidelines but I'm just saying, you guys are getting into an area that,
because I tried to save a couple trees and the city cut them down. You
know whatever, so it's a kind of a funny deal. The issue at hand though
that we're kind of concerned about and mainly is because we're planning
Market Square Phase II and also the city, the expansion of the Dinner
Theatre. Not the Theatre but the hotel and the restaurant over there is
just parking lots. And I think in some areas things that seem logical to
the people who look at parking lots are not at all logical to people that
Plannin g Commission Meeting
August 4, 1993 - Page 40
own the parking lots. And very illogical to people that are the tenants of
the buildings that are in the parking lots. Primarily delivered by the
consumer and the basic thing is the consumer likes to go in a straight line
to where he wants to go. The consumer, the highest incidence of, not
I fatalities but lawsuits and damages relate to parking lots in a shopping
center of any kind. Already over at Market Square our biggest problem is
the parking lot. People driving into curbs because there are too many
curbs. People wondering why the curbs are there. You know all of these
11 kinds of things. We're having a lot of problems already over there
relative to parking lots. The consumer does not like to have trees in
front of them when they're trying to get to their place. Anytime you try
' to put islands in, the consumer doesn't like them. And when the consumer
doesn't like them, they don't use the space and the merchants don't make
any money. And thus when Target came in here and went through their thing,
there's a certain pattern they like on parking. It's been proven. They've
' studied it and if you go out into less sophisticated communities,
Chanhassen say to Virginia, Minnesota where they've just built a Target
exactly like our's, except it doesn't look as nice. Their parking lot has
I no islands. That was the best and largest opening they've ever had of a
Target store recently. Better than Chicago. In other words, the business
works. People can get to the door quicker. Now if you think about going
to, I just got back from talking with one of our local merchants today and
the minute they move into some place, they want to know how fast can the
consumer get to their spot. How many spots can they have in front of their
store or they feel they're going to fail, and they do. Okay. So I'm just
' saying, we then start planning a couple of our projects and we found that
we were losing parking if we go along with the current ordinance and that
we're having to move parking away from the doors and we're having all kinds
of problems. 200 square foot, 10 x 20 or whatever you guys were talking
about. 200 square foot island costs a developer $2,000.00 or $3,000.00 or
$4,000.00 just in land. We have to pass that onto the tenant. The tenant
doesn't want it. The increase in cost. Now I'm not saying, there's got to
be something in the middle that works but we see some problems coming with
the whole idea. Thus we've hired somebody that we felt was rational that
could look at these things from a rational point of view and advise us on
11 this. We are going to go through 2 proposals here in the next 2 months and
it would be interesting to try to work both, what is the proposed ordinance
into what we're trying to do. That's where we got alerted. We said well
' wait. We can't do what we're trying to do but I do, you have to realize
that the consumer themselves are not interested in what you're attempting
to do. They don't say it consciously but unconsciously they just don't use
the stores that are hard to get to. And then the next thing is public
safety. And then the next thing is liability. All those kinds of things
are caused by parking lots that have trees. That have anything in them
that interferes with normal passage. Now that's real life and that's the
' other side of the story. We can have the Target folks come in here and all
kinds of people. I asked them the other day. I said where's your major
problem? They says, in the parking lot. What's the problem? Curbs. You
know accidents. You go over there, we've had what, 4 light poles driven
right over so far. You know irrigation systems. Trucks drive through.
Over the curb, rip out the irrigation system. You know. And the ideal
thing, I'm not saying it's the right thing but the ideal thing from the
11 consumer's point of view, once they're in a parking lot. Not to look at
it, but once they're in it, is nothing. And we keep expanding and expanding
Planning Commission Meeting 11
August 4, 1993 - Page 41
and expanding what we're doing. I don't know what the right answer is so
that's why. I just know that that's a problem. We increase costs. We do
everything sort of to drive away the trade so you have to kind of balance
it all out. It's like turning lanes. Kevin, do you want to kind of add t
that?
Kevin Norby: My name is Kevin Norby. I live at 6801 Redwing Lane. I'm all
resident of Chanhassen. I'm also a registered landscape architect. I
contacted Brad Johnson probably a couple of months ago. We've lived here '
about 8 years and I've sort of watched the development in downtown
Chanhassen and as a landscape architect have been a little frustrated with
some of the things I've seen and I saw some of the same problems sort of
occurring at Market Square. And I contacted Brad Johnson in an attempt toll
maybe get involved in some of the projects that I saw he had coming up. I
think Oak Hill and that sort of thing, and wrote him a letter. Expressed
some of my frustration with plantings and some of the maintenance issues.
Being a taxpayer and watching the guys maintaining the downtown and then
seeing Market Square go up and the, what I would consider inappropriate use
of plant materials. I think what the City has tried to accomplish there
with the use of a lot of plant material and screening and shade trees, is II
good thing. But I don't think that it's come off particularly well. And
from a liability standpoint and from a maintenance standpoint, if we're
going to deal with landscaping appropriately, hopefully the ordinances can
be tailored to reflect those sort of issues. I think Brad's concern as a
developer is that of having views to the stores and to the signage and
frontage of the buildings. Also you know snowplowing which is always a
concern. And somewhere inbetween there there's a good balance of using
plant material and providing landscape space. And providing parking and
sort of things that developers are more concerned about. I think over at
Market Square for instance there was a lot of, I mean a lot of plant
material that gets 6 and 8 feet tall in these parking lot islands that
really shouldn't be there. I mean it's a tremendous amount of, a lot of
maintenance. It was interesting on my way over here tonight I stopped and
I almost got hit in the parking lot over there. And just another good
example of how plant material is obscuring, already obscuring people's
views and I've seen the amount of dead plant material over there from
snowplows and it's just a very difficult place to maneuver. So hopefully
we can, I think just using some other sorts of plant material. I think th
use of perennial plants, maybe ornamental grasses, lower vines and ground
covers. Some of the low potentellia, junipers in some cases, rather than II
things like viburinum and dogwood and purple leaf sand cherry which we havil
a hundred of over at Market Square. Those are not only full of disease and
insect problems. Those particular plants but you get too tall, too much
maintenance and from a safety standpoint are going to be a problem.
Aanenson: If I can just comment on that. We eliminate all of those from
the parking lot in this ordinance so. '
Kevin Norby: Okay.
Aanenson: What we're doing for interior parking, I'm not sure if you're 1
aware that what we're looking at is just overstory trees.
Kevin Norby: Primarily trees, right. I/
II
Planning Commission Meeting
II August 4, 1993 - Page 42
Aanenson: Right.
II Kevin Norby: You know on the same hand, with the trees, I think you need
to be careful about use of trees like flowering crabs and maybe you've
II eliminated those also.
Aanenson: Yep. No decorative trees.
Kevin Norby: Right.
Conrad: Kevin, have you been able, have you looked at the?
II Kevin Norby: Yep, I've got a copy right here. Yeah.
II (Brad Johnson was speaking from the audience at this point and all of his
comments were not completely picked up on the tape.)
Brad Johnson: Our major concern...
II Ledvina: Have you provided written comment to the staff on specific
elements of the ordinance?
II Brad Johnson: We just learned about it this week.
Kevin Norby: I was just contacted by Brad I think on Monday or Tuesday.
II One of the concerns that I brought up to Brad was, you know the size of the
parking lot islands and requiring a 10 foot minimum distance to the tree
from the curbing. Is that right?
II Aanenson: No. It's the minimum planting area is 10 x 20.
II Kevin Norby: Right. But you also, I think you have a minimum 10 foot from
the curb to the tree. And then there's another requirement there about a
maximum 350 square foot planting space. To some degree those are contrary,
and maybe what these ought to be, just to make it easier to work with. I
I mean I think it's good to provide large areas to some degree but it also
needs to be a little bit flexible. Maybe they ought to be considered
recommendations rather than requirements as a thought. The other thing I
1 noticed, you talked about all the other areas needed to be landscaped with
shurbs or lawn and not rock. I mean I think there is a place for rock in
parking lots and it really depends on the type of plant material. The
II exporsure. The existing trees or the location of large trees. I mean maybe
that's best left up to the discretion of the landscape architect who's
involved in that project to determine whether rock is an appropriate cover
material or bark and ground covers or shrubs. And maybe there's a, maybe a
II plant list needs to be developed for recommended parking lot shrubs as well
as trees. If you're going to require those in there. Because as I see it,
that's as big or even more of a problem than trees.
1 Aanenson: We do allow for rocks in certain circumstances. Rocks...
11 Kevin Norby: Looking at the bottom of page 3.
Aanenson: Page 5.
II
II
Planning Commission Meeting
August 4, 1993 - Page 43
Kevin Norby: Page 3 to 4. The remaining area shall be landscaped with
shrubs or ground cover not to include rocks or gravel. 1
Aanenson: Okay, that's interior parking lot but otherwise outside of it,
if you had steep slopes or something like that, there may be other.
II
Kevin Norby: So you're saying no rock in interior parking areas?
Aanenson: Yes. 1
Kevin Norby: I guess that's what I'm saying is maybe, I mean I think it
does make sense to have rock in some instances and it depends on the
situation. The character of the building. Number of trees. All of those,
things and that will influence irrigation and that sort of thing as well.
Those are my comments.
Brad Johnson: ..maintenance, liability, and those kinds of things that w
feel...Market Square where we can see right away you may want to take...
What happens then is that's great but that eats up all the parking. And II
that's what we've...1,000 square feet of the building. You lose 5 parking
spaces, that we lose in parking lot...and that increases the cost...
Conrad: So do you see that requirement Brad. You know the impervious
II
surface ratio is still the same.
Brad Johnson: Yeah, we've thought of all that. We've worked with all
II
these things in the past, and I'm not even sure we can't work with this
one. All I'm just here because we started working with it and...
Conrad: I'd like to, and I'm not sure how to treat your comments tonight II
to be honest with you because I want to hear more. Not that we're going to
totally agree but I do want to know, you're doing the developing. I reall
want to hear your perspective and we probably are doing some things that
are going to cost you money. We are.
Brad Johnson: Not the money it costs us. It's costs, what happens is it II
costs the merchant business. It costs him in long term operating costs.
We pass all these costs onto the merchants. We don't pay for any of this.
I
Farmakes: Let me argue with that for a minute. I'm a consumer. I'm a
consumer at Market Place. I don't have any trouble accessing nor seeing s
that's my opinion as a consumer. Not here as a professional. II Brad Johnson: ...I can show you the traffic accidents on the site.
Farmakes: Okay, but my response to that would be, how many traffic
accidents are at Eden Prairie parking lot? When you get a concentration oll
traffic, you're going to get some car accidents.
Kevin Norby said something from the audience. II
Farmakes: But there's an inherent difference here I think. There's a
conflict. One is the more parking spaces you can get on a large expanse oll
bituminous surface, the easier it is to maintain. The cheaper it is.
II
Plannin g Commission Meeting
August 4, 1993 - Page 44
There's no question. That's played off of the effect of ground cover for
the bituminous surface so that all of downtown doesn't become an exposed
blacktop parking lot. There are conflicts, no question.
Brad Johnson: Somewhere there's a balance. We don't disagree.
Farmakes: At the Arboretum when we went to the seminar and we had a room
full of landscape architects and they discussed this at great length.
Kevin Norby: Parking lot seminar?
Farmakes: Correct.
Kevin Norby: Was anybody there...
Farmakes: Well it varies as you go around the country. Some places in
California that they have an incredibly high ground cover requirement for
parking lots. We don't have anything near that. We were discussing,
' throwing back and forth a percentage, and again Ladd said, it still works
out to be about the same but, and part of what you're talking about is
traffic flow and I'm not sure that the lower lighting signs and Market
' Square was before my time here. But some of the visual sight line
obstruction that I get there is not necessarily caused by mounds or curbs
or landscaping. In some cases it's cross purpose of traffic coming in.
And in some cases the flags on the poles, which are quite low to the ground
and it's the flag sometimes obstruct the view although I don't, I haven't
had any trouble coming around there. The roads that are accessing into the
highway, or excuse me the parking lot, are quite narrow. And particularly
' when you come around Subway, up on the edge as you turn around going out to
Burdick's property. You basically can't see around the corner. And I'm
always very careful when I come around there to go really slow and look
around. So some of this problem also is caused by minimizing the roads as
I'm sure to expand the parking spaces. You aren't losing it.
Brad Johnson: ...that whole traffic system...
Farmakes: Well I don't have a problem with it myself. I don't have a
problem although I know that with any commercial development, there is that
inherent conflict between maximizing your resource and community
requirements to modify how that changes the environment.
Brad Johnson: These meetings need to...deal with the ongoing maintenance
...the people that have to deal with this stuff are...I don't think the
city personally can afford to maintain the streets...It just gets too
expensive. All this landscaping costs money to maintain...Now beyond all
that.
Kevin Norby: ...comes back to a good layout of a parking lot...
Farmakes: So are you suggesting that there be a percentage level or what
is it specifically in the ordinance that you're?
11 Kevin Norby: Maybe a percentage. It may be a recommendation suggesting
for instance, recommending a minimum of 10 foot setback from the curb to a
Planning Commission Meeting
August 4, 1993 - Page 45
tree. But not less than 5 feet maybe or something on that order. To give
you some flexibility. There may be islands that you can get a 10 x 20 arell
and the next isle may be 25 feet. That tree will still grow 20 feet x 20
feet...
Brad Johnson: What happens Jeff is...Market Square, for every 5 parking II
spaces you lose, you lose 1,000 square feet of space. And for every 1,000
square feet...$10,000.00- $15,000.00.
Conrad: Let me take you up on that though. But you still, you still have
the same amount of area to work with don't you?
Brad Johnson: You're putting it in areas where we don't get the credit
for... Talk about green space. I'm not sure what it is. I just know tha
every time I've dealt with islands out here with the Target deal and they
were paranoid on the same subject. For example over here in front of the II
Dinner Theatre. There's an expanse there and I don't know why we don't
have an island...but there is no island. But all those islands are rock.
Okay. Nobody maintains them. And now they're...and I don't like that... II
The only thing we were concerned with was we're trying to work with the
ordinance and we can see that we're going to have some problems...I also
like to be able to lease space...which are being repurchased by the city
because they didn't work... All these things are very important...and
we're just speaking out on a couple of things because I think you've got t
hear our side of the story...
Mancino: Brad, how are the merchants doing in Market Square? 1
Brad Johnson: How are they doing? ,
Mancino: Yeah, the merchants doing. How's Festival Foods? How's.
Brad Johnson: Festival meets it's numbers. A couple of people in there II
who could probably are new to a business or doing a business... The
average life of any merchent in a center is about 7 years. 7 years from
now we're going to have a complete turnover in that center... 1
Conrad: But they're doing okay?
Mancino: But they're doing fine now? t
Brad Johnson: Yeah. They're complaining about parking. Not enough
parking. They're complaining about the traffic flow. 1
Mancino: Are they complaining about parking?
Brad Johnson: ...cost of maintenance. Those kinds of things. That's normal,
Farmakes: All of this is passed onto the consumer.
Mancino: Is part of the problem with the parking because you're just
getting over crowded? More people than you anticipated coming?
Brad Johnson: No. 1
11 Planning Commission Meeting
August 4, 1993 - Page 46
Mancino: Because I know you're doing well.
Brad Johnson: There's not enough parking next to the door.
Scott: Oh yeah, there never is.
Farmakes: It looks like a consumer...
11 Brad Johnson: ...because I'm having to put 5 minute parking signs in
because some guys perceive that the consumer has to get in and out in 5
minutes... That's our normal time. Parking to a retailer is a major thing
and so the minute you put a barrier called a curb or a barrier called an
island, the consumer...Our maintenance cost is very heavy over there in
planters that some people in the sidewalks...and I'm not saying we're
against this thing but just that all of a sudden we've got another new
ordinance. We've had no input. I don't know if it's been to the Chamber.
There's only one guy in town here that does a lot of development, me.
That's all. I'm just here and I'm not saying.
Conrad: Well we're glad you're here.
Brad Johnson: Yeah. And the only reason we didn't comment in writing, we
never have time and the process is, you guys will have these secret
meetings. You have meetings and all of a sudden there's an ordinance...
and there's a couple ordinances we're concerned about. When it gets to
parking. When it gets to signs. We don't think we're always right but we
should...that's all...I look at our center and I say, why don't we have
trees that are...Now maybe there's a place to put it...and unless you're
out a ways from there, it's not as big a deal. So all we're trying to do
is we're in the design mode...and now we're maintaining it and we're seeing
some problems...
11 Conrad: Okay, thanks.
Brad Johnson: So we're here and we sat through 2 hours of...
Conrad: Well I'm just real pleased that you're not here for the sexually
oriented stuff Brad.
Brad Johnson: ...we've got some ideas. Maybe he can communicate to staff
our feelings. That's all. And try to translate it into...
Harberts: Stop lights are going in in a couple of months.
Brad Johnson: No, I'm just saying...
Farmakes: Well yeah. The landscaping comes too close to the end of the
corner.
Brad Johnson: But I'm just saying, the same thing can happen interior...
That's all...
Kevin Norby: Who in the city of Chanhassen, who reviews the plan for the
landscape plans? Is it done by the City Planner or have you've got a
Planning Commission Meeting
August 4, 1993 - Page 47
i
landscape...
Farmakes: The planting on the corner that he's talking about took place II
many years ago. You're seeing a progression. Those rules and regulations
change according to.
Kevin Norby: Most recent would be Market Square.
Farmakes: Well even that's what, 4 years? Things have changed a lot.
Brad Johnson: Oh no. And what you're saying is changes is change but
change with flexibility.
Kevin Norby: ...I'm just asking.
Farmakes: Target will be what, a year old? 1
Aanenson: Keep what current? I'm sorry.
Farmakes: Are you talking about ordinances? 1
Aanenson: We have a city ordinance that we've had qualified people look II at. Then our job is to review the plan to make sure it's consistent with
that.
Farmakes: Target would be a current development. 1
Aanenson: Well I think we all recognized there was problems with Market
Square in the species and we changed that when we did Market Square.
There's no flowering shrubs in the middle of the parking lot. It's all II
overstory trees. And the direction from the Council was, is that's where
we want to be. We want to have overstory trees, trying to create a
different microenvironments in parking lots.
Kevin Norby: What will happen under those trees? I mean according to what
I'm reading here, not rock but shrubs and bark I'm assuming. 1
Aanenson: To be sprinkled, yes.
Kevin Norby: I guess my concern as a resident of Chanhassen, and landscapl
architect, how do we keep Market Street and Market Place from happening
again at a Target or another location?
Aanenson: That's why we're redoing this ordinance.
Kevin Norby: But what I'm seeing here doesn't restrict the use of purple
leaf sand cherry or.
Aanenson: In the middle of a parking lot? Sure it does. You must not
have read it correctly then. Maybe we need to sit down but that's not wha
it says. It's limited to those trees that say parking only and that's onl
overstory trees.
Kevin Norby: I'm talking about shrubs. 1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 4, 1993 - Page 48
Aanenson: No shrubs.
Kevin Norby: Page 4 says shrubs can be used in a parking lot...
Aanenson: I need to take that out.
Kevin Norby: ...recommended list of shrubs.
Aanenson: No. If you look at it, it says the recommended overstory trees
provided on the tree species list so that's limited to those trees and if
it says shrubs somewhere, we'll take that out.
Kevin Norby: Item 5, top of the page 4. Continued from the bottom of page
3...the remaining area shall be landscaped with shrubs or ground cover not
to include rock.
Aanenson: But not to exceed 2 feet in height. That's qualified, excuse
me.
Mancino: But you're saying take that further and write down.
Kevin Norby: Maybe a recommended...because I could pick up a number of
' books that show potentellias...5 feet tall. It depends on the variety so
it might be a list. It might just be somebody who looks at it say, that's
not appropriate.
Brad Johnson: You've probably got to realize, until you develop one of
these and...two major shopping centers built in the downtown area...
Kevin Norby: I think a real appropriate...for parking lots would be the
overstory trees and perennial plants such as daylillies or ornamental
grasses or ground cover...
Aanenson: That's ground cover. Sure, that's ground cover.
Ledvina: Mr. Chairman, I have a question or a comment. Would you have a
11 suggested action for tonight? What would you like to see happen tonight?
Brad Johnson: I think the only issues that we, I think you're on the right
track in protecting us, the developer...ordinance is good for everybody...
I think we'd like to have a chance to lay one of these out. I think we've
got to lay a couple parking lots out...try to lay out Market Square II...
Aanenson: This is based on what everybody felt was acceptable in the
Target site plan. These standards come from that. It's based on the
Target site plan. Interior parking lot of that.
' Brad Johnson...
Aanenson: Correct.
Conrad: Okay, let's move on. We'll be back or talking to you in a second.
' Is there any, if there's no other public comments, is there a motion to
close the public hearing.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 4, 1993 - Page 49
Scott moved, Farmakes seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Conrad: I think, I'm still a little bit, I'm not sure what we're doing
tonight Kate. This has been in here before and we've made some comments.
I liked how you outlined and let us know what was deleted. I think that's ll
really helpful. That makes things understandable to me. But this all,
this is an amendment tonight.
Aanenson: Correct. ,
Conrad: So if we were to go ahead tonight with this, what would happen? '
Aanenson: It would go up to the City Council with these proposed changes.
Conrad: And it would be amended and it would go in and be, it would be
part of the ordinance.
Aanenson: Right. We do have these requirements for landscaping right now"'
What we've done is we've just tweaked these standards to meet the parking
lot standards of the Target. Okay. We already have a requirement that
ground cover. A lot of that stuff's in there already. What we've really,
the major significant changes are, we want to give credit for saving trees!'
that are in a parking lot...substantial area we want to save that and how
we come up with a value. So we put a formula in and said, if there's
significant stand and we can put that somewhere. Maybe it's on the end of
the parking lot. Maybe it ends up being the middle, whatever. But we wan
to save those and we want to give them credit as part of the overall
landscaping value that they have to do so there's a mechanism for that.
The other thing is, we've tried to define overstory trees in the parking II
lot so we've tried to generate a list, what we feel. Now again, we don't
want the tall dogwoods. What we have on Market Square. Agree that those
aren't acceptable. We do want some low ground cover, not to exceed 2 feet"
in height. There's always going to be a possibility something's going to
grow taller. Just like trees are going to have shoots that are going to
come off that need to be trimmed. It's a maintenance thing. That's also II
requirement. It has to be maintained. To say something can't be
maintained, that's just, they have to be. There's going to be storm
damage, whatever. That's a reality that they're going to have to be
maintained. To say something's not going to grow over 2 feet, I think
that's, that may happen but our goal is to try to have it maintained to
that level. So really those are the changes. We already these in here.
We already have a landscaping value that they have to meet. They already
have a parking lot requirement they have to meet. What we've done is we
changed what we want in the parking lot and give credits for trees that
maybe have value.
around, nd I guess I'm just Okay. Before we go g J ust going to ask the
Commission. If you want to entertain Brad and Kevin to come back with
written comments or with a plan as they see it, to see how this works. Orli
if we're comfortable to react to it right now. If they came back, you kno
I guess I'm not sure I'd want to extend our, you know we've spent an hour
on it or something like that right now. What's the feeling? Do you want 11
Planning Commission Meeting
August 4, 1993 - Page 50
to react? Do you want to get more input? I think, I'm sure we could get
more input from Kevin and Brad.
Mancino: Well they certainly have the possibility to bring that back to
the City Council.
1 Conrad: They could do it at the City Council level or we can have them
come back here. It's whether we want to see it.
Kevin Norby: How urgent is this?
Aanenson: Pardon me?
11 Kevin Norby: How urgent is this?
Aanenson: The direction from the Council is they, it came from them. They
want to have it done so I would say it's urgent. They wanted it done 6
months ago so.
Brad Johnson: We are...an ordinance is an ordinance...Like he said, give
us a little bit of...
1 Conrad: Okay, what's the Commission's pleasure? Do you want to react to
it tonight and move it on and Brad and Kevin will have a chance.
Brad Johnson: ...because by the time it gets to Council we're going to
have input...
Conrad: Right. We know that you'll follow it and I'm glad you are. I
guess I'm just trying to figure out if we want to see it back here or if
we'd rather just sort of let you talk to the Council and that's what I'm
posing right now.
Ledvina: Well Ladd, I think it's always good when you have a new model
that you test the model to see if you get some decent results and it's
excellent if you have a real world situation. And if they're willing to
work through it and talk to the staff about how things fit.
Aanenson: It is and it isn't because the expansion of Country Suites with
the restaurant, I mean the parking lot's already been, it's not like taking
a Target site plan and.
Ledvina: I understand that. It might not be the perfect situation for
testing it but still.
Aanenson: It's going to be tough, yeah.
1 Ledvina: There's concerns that may come up that will come up in the future
and if you can make the changes now, it's certainly much easier. I think
' if they can do that inbetween the time of now and the Council. I'm always
sensitive to sending stuff up to the Council that's somewhat unfinished but
if it's the Council's desire that this stuff be worked through on a short
timeframe, then I would support moving it tonight.
1
Planning Commission Meeting II
August 4, 1993 - Page 51
11
Conrad: Well if we get it right and work with them, it typically goes
through Council much better. Right now there's a good chance, if they poke
some holes in it, it will stop. '
Mancino: It's going to come back anyway.
Conrad: Well it takes time. But you know, Kate you're telling me they II
want to see it fast.
Aanenson: Well you know, this came from Councilman Wing and again, it was"
based on a model. It's based on the Target model. Yeah, there's going to
be problems retrofitting onto an existing center with a large parking lot.
Where the hotel is. Country Suites and that expansion is a large parking II
lot that the city has behind there too. I mean this is going to be a
unique situation to try to implement that but.
Kevin Norby: The other one is... II
Aanenson: Yeah, I've seen that and there's a lot of impervious surface on
that one too. 1
Brad Johnson: Yeah, that's in a PUD...
Aanenson: It goes way beyond the impervious surface and we've seen the II
expansion and there's very limited landscaping.
Mancino: So we already have a model. We have Target as the model here. II
Aanenson: Right, that's what I'm saying. It wasn't pulled out of the sky.
It was pulled out of, and we went through that last time we looked at it. II
What exactly the Target site plan had and.
Ledvina: But this is a new ordinance and it's, there's new elements here.'
Aanenson: Well, no.
Farmakes: It's kind of an argument, grab bag argument though. It's an
argument of many different things. One is the cost of simply putting in a
island and maintaining landscaping. The other is the design itself. Is it
too rigid of what we're doing, which has nothing to do with what I just II
mentioned previously. The type of trees that we're using. If we're goingli
to cite examples that are circa 5 years ago, 10 years ago of development
here, that's why this ordinance is being revised.
II
Aanenson: Again, I think you have to go back and look at this. This was
tweaked. I mean originally it used to say the minimum area of a planter
strip was 64 square feet. So we've increased that size saying, you know '
nothing's going to live in that. A lot of the stuff that's in here we've
just changed. Modified.
Farmakes: In talking to City Council members, it seems to me pretty clear"
what the intent. Kate, do you feel that...I mean it seems the intent of
what they wanted to do with this was fairly clear. And the question is, 11
how do you go about always achieving it in an ordinance.
II
Planning Commission Meeting
August 4, 1993 - Page 52
Conrad: Well what do ou want to do right now? Do you want to react to it
Y g
tonight and send it on or do you want to bring it back?
Farmakes: I'd be comfortable with doing that. Your comment that you made,
they prefer that we work this out first. So I'm kind of split on that.
Harberts: I'm a little confused in terms of what can we work out right
now. I mean we're trying to guess what the Council.
Farmakes: Well to give a reaction to whatever their solution. I'm
comfortable with passing it up I guess. There are conflicts, no question.
11 Conrad: I guess my only comment would be, with Kevin here, I'd literally
go down line by line and have him organize his thoughts so I could see what
he's saying versus what we've got. That's what we haven't done tonight.
11 He's sort of given us some thoughts but I don't know, I can't react to
them. Whether I buy them yet. They're not, there just isn't anything to
react to yet.
Farmakes: ...comment in some cases and on others, as far as the rigidity
goes, that would be a concern. It is a problem that occurs on occasion
here with the rigidity of what we're requiring. On occasion what our
intent is isn't always what winds up happening.
Mancino: Is it a rigidity or is it a baseline?
Farmakes: I'm comfortable with the way it was but I'm not out there
designing road traffic into our islands. I'm comfortable with Market
Square. I think the problem with Market Square personally has more to do
1 with how the traffic is confined rather than parking lot. Whether the
traffic is confined into close proximity to the stores so people all will
want to park right there and then the traffic is running up and down in
those areas. So they're backing out onto the oncoming traffic lanes. So
there's some inherent problems there that have nothing to do with tree
islands.
Conrad: Nancy, what do you want to do tonight?
Mancino: I could go ahead and pass it on. But I also would like to hear
or read Kevin's suggestions. 5o I'm split too.
Conrad: Anybody? Joe?
Scott: I'd like to see it again. I think this is a good sanity test. You
know the difference between having a Target where it's pretty much the
sky's the limit. Here's the property and having plenty of opportunity to
tweak versus a retrofit. We've got two retrofits, major retrofits. I'd
kind of like to, well I would definitely like to see it again.
Conrad: Kate, for some reason I just have a feeling that our upcoming
agendas are full. At least the next one.
11 Aanenson: Well you're going to look at the revised landscaping ordinance
in general at the next one too so. My only concern is, you know you want
r
Planning Commission Meeting
August 4, 1993 - Page 53
to go back and look at the whole landscaping because we just made
modifications to reflect specific concerns that Target raised. So if
they're going to look at it, basically it sounds like they're going to looll
at the whole.
Scott: Well no. I would just, Kevin I'd rather see, I didn't sense that II
you had a problem with the ordinance the way it existed but mostly with th
changes. So if you could just specifically address the changes, because I
think that's the thing that I was reacting to. I took it as a given. It
was working fine. Now we're a little bit smarter about what we're doing s�
here are these tweaks, as you like to call them. Kevin, if you just go
after those and you know, I'm simple minded so keep it to a page. And then
we can just go. This is great. This is silly. You know. You know bring!'
the issues forward so we can react to them. Or I can react to them.
Conrad: Yeah, but literally based on our report we'd like you to go down
and say this doesn't make sense. This does make sense.
Scott: Yeah, and why.
Conrad: And Brad, I still don't understand the cost in terms of taking II
away your parking spaces. That's an issue to me but I don't understand it
because there's still enough area there. We've taken 200 feet to put a I
tree but there's still 200 feet.
Brad Johnson: Sometimes, the parking all has to be out in front of the
store.
Conrad: I understand that. II Brad Johnson: Personally we just, I've just gone through this...and it
always comes down to we need 4 more parking spots. I don't know why...
Therefore we lose $100,000.00 in...
Conrad: But I don't think. My assumption was, this is not taking away
those 4 parking spots. That you've still got them there.
Brad Johnson...
Conrad: Now that I buy but. Well, no. I don't buy exactly the way you II
term that. It's not maybe where you would want to have put them but.
Farmakes: But in the end, the consumer always bears the cost for any of
this.
Brad Johnson: Here's what I'd like to do. We can go, I can have Kevin...
make the plan...and see what problems we have...
Conrad: Well yeah. That's what we'd like you to do.
Brad Johnson: ...a concept and I told you, I wish I could move... 1
Conrad: Well anyway. If you could be back in 2 weeks or whenever this
gets back there, and we'll walk through it with the 2 of you. We'd like t
1
11 Planning Commission Meeting
August 4, 1993 - Page 54
understand a little bit more any concerns and then hopefully we can move it
out of here. Is that agreeable to everybody here? To bring it back? Okay.
i Aanenson: He'd have to have something to me by the 11th to get it in the
packet. The packet goes out.
Mancino: Did you hear that?
Aanenson: To be on the 18th, you'd have to have something to me by the
11th.
Harberts: That's next Wednesday.
Aanenson: Or if you just want to put something in the packet without any
staff input, that would then at least a day to look at it so that would
give me Thursday to look at it. The packet goes out Friday.
I Harberts: I don't think it's smart to rush it through. If we're taking
time, let's take a look at it appropriately here.
Scott: Because it is forever.
Aanenson: Well, if you wait until September 2nd, we're looking at that
site plan on your agenda anyway so.
Conrad: What?
Aanenson: The hotel expansion and the restaurant is on for September 2nd.
Mancino: And we want to have this in place to look at.
Brad Johnson: Well we assume we're...the new ordinance to be quite honest
with you.
Harberts: Then that site plan is going to be subject to delay, I think in
all fairness here.
t Aanenson: Unless you can work it out the same meeting.
Conrad: Well, I'd like to see them back here in 2 weeks.
Brad Johnson: From a practical point of view...
Harberts: I think the attempt will try to be made in 2 weeks.
Conrad: Okay, let's try to do that. Any other general comments about what
was in front of us tonight?
Mancino: I have one comment about the calculations. And that is that they
be done by a specialist. An arborist. Professional.
Harberts: Horticulturist?
Aanenson: Qualified.
1
Planning Commission Meeting 11
August 4, 1993 - Page 55
Mancino: Qualified forester, etc. And that also they, not only would they
do the formula. That person do the formula but decide if the significant
trees are worthy of preservation.
Conrad: My only question Kate is, where did this formula come from?
Aanenson: I attached it on the back. r
Conrad: It was in the attached? And that's, somebody's logically gone 11
through that.
Aanenson: Minnesota Extension Service.
Conrad: Makes sense to you? You like it? '
Aanenson: Yeah. That's what you'll be seeing with the new landscape II ordinance, the tree preservation aspect. That same formula. That's what
our forester is using.
Conrad: See I've really not thought about how this all works. 1
Aanenson: It's how do you give value if there's something out there and
you think it's worthy of saving but how do you know. You have someone
inspect it to make sure it is worthy of saving and then how do you give itil
a value, so that's what that formula represents...
Conrad: Is there a motion to table this? 1
Scott moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission table Zoning
Ordinance Amendment to clarify the landscaping ordinance for 2 weeks. All II
voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CITY CODE AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 10, REGARDING SEXUALLY ORIENTED BUSINESSES.
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Vice Chair Conrad
called the public hearing to order. For the record, it was noted there wa
no one in attendance in the audience for this item.
Harberts moved, Mancino seconded to close the public hearing. All voted ill
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Harberts: I have no other comments. 1
Ledvina: No.
Scott: I wanted to ask something. On Section 10 -162 for location. I'd
like to add number 5 where it says.
Ledvina: What page are you on? 1
Scott: Page 12. Where it says within 500 feet of. I'd like to add as 1 1
number 5, a city owned or operated facility. And also, city owned or
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 4, 1993 - Page 56
operated facility or property. Maybe that's too, city owned or operated
facility. Number 6. City owned property.
Harberts: Rather than city owned, how about publically owned because I'm
thinking transit facilities. It's not city owned but it's publically
owned.
Scott: My intent is to have so many of these 500 foot radii things around
I the city that it's okay, you can be in the middle of Market Boulevard.
Okay, this is where you can do this. I'm sorry, it's a right use so that's
my intent.
' Aanenson: So city owned is like the bus shelters?
Scott: Yeah, or public facility. Roger can do.
' Harberts: Public facility. So that would also have to include like a
school district building and things like that.
Scott: Well yeah. So you know what I'm getting to. Public. Yeah, public
owned facilities. Or property. So if we own a lot.
' Harberts: Or a tree.
Ledvina: But we talked about this a year and a half ago Ladd. If we do
that, we have to make sure that that doesn't totally eliminate.
Conrad: It has to be possible someplace.
Ledvina: 500 feet from a road? I mean you're going to have a long
driveway.
Conrad: It would not be legal is that was.
Scott: Well that's what I mean, Roger can.
i Aanenson: The facility thing may work.
Scott: Yeah facility. That makes sense. The facility or building.
1 Ledvina: Public building or something. I don't know.
Scott: Public parks adjacent to it. I'd just like to see something,
because City Hall. Public... Just have him take a look at that. If he can
do something that's enforceable.
' Ledvina: City Hall or whatever. Or library or.
Scott: Yeah, facility.
Aanenson: We'll get a definition of facility.
Scott: Facility I think would work but.
Planning Commission Meeting
August 4, 1993 - Page 57
Ledvina: Just so we don't effectively kill the ordinance.
Conrad: See the trouble is, they could take you to court and you could
declare the whole ordinance invalid if you can't find a spot. If somebody
came in and because,of that they couldn't fine one location that was
possible. 1
Scott: Well that's why, I mean.
Conrad: But if they can't find a location that's possible, then we're
discrim.
Scott: Well Roger won't do it. Roger won't put that in then but I think
we have a legitimate reason to use a city owned facility as another one of
these.
r
Ledvina: I agree with that. 1
Aanenson: The public works building, that's separate.
Scott: Yeah, it's a publically owned facility. Except I'd like to see it
expanded just a little.
Aanenson: That's a good comment. '
Conrad: Nancy anything?
Mancino: My only other one, that was church. Why he didn't pull out
church or religious organizations. I think we have a lot of public
sentiment about that. ,
Scott: And also too, there are churches who rent space. So it's not just
a church but a. 1
Aanenson: Well that's the same with a daycare. Sometimes a daycare is in
the middle of a shopping center, which may have an arcade or something nex
to it so.
Scott: That's a good point but then not only just limit it to a church,
physical building, but. 1
Aanenson: It doesn't have to be in a residential zone, right.
Conrad: Okay, anything else Nancy? 1
Mancino: No.
Conrad: Jeff.
Farmakes: No comment.
1
Conrad: I have nothing. Is there a motion? Who wants to take credit for
this?
i Planning Commission Meeting
August 4, 1993 - Page 58
Scott: I move that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council
approve the proposed ordinance as amended to include in Section 10 -162, to
include as item 5. City owned or operated. Or excuse me. Publically
owned or operated facilities and /or property. Number 6. Church property,
whether physical.
Mancino: A meeting place of a religious organization.
Scott: There you go. A regular meeting place of a religious organization
subject to city attorney's input.
Conrad: Is there a second?
1 Ledvina: Second.
Conrad: Discussion.
' Scott moved, Ledvina seconded that the Planning Commission recommend the
City Council approve the proposed City Code amendment to Chapter 10
regarding sexually oriented businesses, amended as follows to include in
Section 10 -162:
' 5. Publically owned or operated facilities and /or property.
6. A regular meeting place of a religious organization subject to City
Attorney's input.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
•
NEW BUSINESS:
' Farmakes: I have some new business. I'd like, Kate if you would review
the meeting Minutes in regards to Target, when the architect was in here.
I forget what her name was but.
1 Aanenson: The architect? Yeah.
Farmakes: They had the architect making presentation to us with the charts
and so on. We discussed lighting and as I recall, we discussed colors of
lighting fixtures. As I recall. I don't know if we did that before the
meeting or if records were taken or not. As I recall it was a natural
colored lighting and she was referring to the rust color that we have on
some of our lighting out here. They're fire engine red. They're even a
brighter red than what they've got on their building. I don't know if
that's a primer but I would suspect it's an attempt to create an attractive
1 parking lot.
Scott: That's the finished color. I was out there two days ago on site
and that's.
Farmakes: It's a brighter red than what they've got on the building and
that falls in line to what we're talking about on Highway 5. Creating,
1
1
II
Planning Commission Meeting
August 4, 1993 - Page 59
II
using architectural features and we're accessories and creating a color to
attract a situation. This bright. 1
Conrad: Okay. So what is Kate going to do, look at the Minutes?
Farmakes: Well I would like to see what the commitment is or what our I
expectations were on that. I don't know whether the City Council changed
or...to that request or what. Looks wise I think it's a real departure
from what we have going down in street lighting to that area.
1
Mancino: And I would like to.
Farmakes: I think it's contradictory to the Highway 5 intent...of the I
architectural requirements.
Mancino: And I'd also like to add the height. It just seems unbelieveably '
when you're on Highway 5 now you're going to be blinded by the light.
Farmakes: We also had a discussion on the height.
Harberts: Don't they have the down turned ones like we were required to
have?
I
Mancino: Yeah they are.
Aanenson: Yeah, and they have to be off by 10:00. 1
Harberts: They have to be off at 10 :00?
Farmakes: I know it's been a long time and... II
Aanenson: You know I don't recall the discussion on color unfortunately. '
Farmakes: We had a discussion on the street lights. I remember we had a
rather long discussion about that. About the light leaking out and so on.
Aanenson: We did talk a lot about the candle foot level at the property I
line.
Scott: And the lighting element does protrude below the bell of the I
reflector.
Farmakes: Well at the time she was here they were still working out some '
of the specifics. Materials and so on.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Vice Chair Conrad noted the Minutes of the Planning I
Commission meeting dated July 21, 1993 as presented.
Mancino moved, Scott seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor 1
and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m.
Submitted by Paul Krauss I
Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim
1