3g. minutes �C
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL BUDGET MEETING
DECEMBER 9, 1992
1 1 a 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 Dimler, Councilman Workman
and Councilman Mason
' COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Wing
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Todd Gerhardt, Todd Hoffman, Jean Meuwissen, and
Tom Chaffee
1993 BUDGET HEARING:
' Public Present:
Name Address
Albert Dorweiler 1565 Bluff Creek Drive
Marie Schroeder 6430 Pleasant View Lane
' Bruce Birkeland 1140 Willow Creek Street
Jim Pehringer 1010 Lake Susan Hill Drive
Jim Emmer Yosemite
Kelby Bailey Pleasant View Way
Herb Kask 115 Pleasant View Road
Tom Devine 7640 South Shore Drive
Frank Kurvers 7220 Kurvers Point Road
Mayor Chmiel: First of all I'd like to extend a welcome to each of you for
coming in this evening. This is our Truth in Taxation hearing, which is today,
December 9th, our 1993, is our tax levy and budget. We will have an additional
meeting which will be held at Council, the final public hearing this coming
Monday on December 14th. The Council meeting starts at 7 :30. Once again let me
again extend another welcome to you. This is the budgeting process that started
in August of this year. The City Council has met in five work sessions to
' consider budgetary constraints that will be faced in 1993. To establish goals
for the 1993 budget and to listen to the department heads discuss the pros and
cons of changes in service levels if funding levels were to decrease. The 1993
budget, as I mentioned with those items previously said, five work sessions of
' City Council. It also identifies constraints. It establishes goals. There are
cuts in every department yet posts attention to providing enough funding for
needed programs within the city. Those meetings that we had resulted in a
proposed budget funding expenditure of approximately $524,000.00 higher than
annual revenue. The City Council's final action challenged the staff to meet
the goals as adopted during the process and submit a balanced budget. Our 1993
budget constraints were a 12% growth yield which is 12% more in services
I i recognizing that the 12% new growth through construction will add 12% demand for
services. Including street maintenance, street lights, police patroling and
1
City Council Meeting - December 9, 1992
recreation, etc. Two, the State tax shift from the higher valued homes,
II recognizing that the State imposed and shift in property tax burden, which
reduces higher valued homes, could without proper planning raise taxes on a
lower valued homes. Again recognizing that the new State mandated sales tax on
II cities will be adding a 6.5% sales tax to all equipment purchases. Vehicle i
costs, paper, and supplies. This is just something that was instituted back to J
the cities by the legislature back in July of this year. Again recognizing that
the cost of living, although being down, will add 3% to 4% to the 1993 costs of
II heating buildings, lighting streets, providing fuels for our vehicles. And also
that the efficiencies can be realized for growth which hopefully can offset the
impact of the cost of living and sales tax. Lastly, recogonizing citizens
II concerns for escalating cost of providing government services and a basic
dislike of property taxes as a way of paying for those services. Our 1993
budget goals will (1) maintain the service level. By that I mean we're using a
portion of the 12% increase in new construction values. No more than 3.5% to
insure that services continue at levels comparable to 1992. (2), as it protects
the lower valued homes from State tax shifts, we are using approximately 7% of
new values to fund tax decreases provided to higher valued homes. Do not allow
I lower valued homes to pay for the cost of the tax shift mandated by the State.
(3), set the operations budget at no more than existed in 1992. (4), we're
going to provide adequate funding. No more than 1% to 2'c for new programs
regarding the Chanhassen Senior Center and the additional police patrolling that
we will have. And (5), the last item is to insure that no tax increase occurs
as a result of our budgeting process. I'm happy to report that our staff has
met the challenge of the City Council and I present to you a balance budget
which meets all goals within the constraints previously mentioned. As it shows
here my hero, I feel like we hit a home run just like Kirby Puckett does when
he's in a clinch. We've done the same thing. j
II Councilman Mason: We don't make as much money though.
I Mayor Chmiel: Well, just a few dollars less, you're right. Our revenue budget,
our 1992 versus the '93. The general tax levy for '93 is less than the general
tax levy for last year, 1992. Covering our revenue budget for '92 versus '93,
homestead credits is up $7,300.00 over last year. As we continue with what we
' have on our expenditure budget, this is also with our '92 versus our '93. We
are also able to meet the goals that were established limiting the cost
increases for new programs from 1% to 2%. One of the other factors that has
I become known of course is now our senior center. Our senior center, $23,740.00
specifically funding for the Chanhassen Senior Center is included as well as our
additional police coverage for an additional $48,000.00. The cost of increasing
I the police patroling. Well this additional $48,000.00 means that we will have
two cars on the street during the critical hours that we need them rather than
having one before. But at all given times in the need that arises, we within
the city can have 6 patrol cars here within a minute to 2 minutes. So we do
I have good backing for what we're receiving. The cost, if I remember correctly,
is somewhere in the middle of that, with that $48,000.00 increase, is roughly
about $400 and how much? I have it hidden here somewhere. I did write it down.
$438,000.00 for police protection. Now if we were to continue or try to put in
our own police department, we've run a study on that to see what that cost would
be and that cost alone would run the City $1,500,000.00. So we're trying to do
the best we can with the amount of dollars that we have available. I'd like to
cover the expenditure budget which is also for the '92 versus '93. When you add
1 2
1
City Council Meeting - December 9, 1992
the cost of these new programs to the 2.6% increase in operating costs, the
expenditure budget for 1993, increase 4.8% over 1992. The City Council's goal
was set at no more than a 5% and we're staying right in there. Just to cover a
portion of your city regarding your tax dollars. The City in itself has 18.8%.
I believe when this Council first took over, it was at about a 25% so that has
decreased which is a definite plus. What does it mean? It means that the city
portion of the tax bill is down. On our next item of 10% to 12% lower tax rate
for higher valued homes. This will decrease in amounts of up to and for a high
value homes, that total amount. Normally, as I was pounding on many doors and
I'm sure Council has done that as well, we found that people were complaining
because of what taxes were on our higher valued homes. When they said they were
paying $15,000.00 and some $18,000.00, I swallowed very hard. I knew from what
I was paying it was high, but not that high. And I think there has been an
inadequancy for sometime. Somewhere it has to start showing some changes. For
our lower valued homes that we will be having, there will be no tax increases
for those lower valued homes. They should be the same as what they were last
year. Or maybe a little less provided you did not have a re- evaluation of your
property in this last year. I'll put a clarifier because that has been done.
And that has been done of course by the County. As I look at it, we're going to
see that most Chanhassen residents will experience lower taxes in '93 and I also
put that clarifier, most. Not all. With that, I would like to now turn this
over to Don and have him go through the balance of the process of the rest of
our budgeting and as to some of the reasons why and so forth. So with that I'd
like to turn this over to our City Manager, Don Ashworth. Don.
Don Ashworth: Thank you Mayor. Even with an asture budget and less taxes for
most residents, some taxpayers may see an increase over last year taxes. The
question becomes why. The answer is really two fold. One, changes in property
values or two, tax levies by each of the jurisdictions. Property values are
determined on the basis of square footage of the home, the type of construction,
location and condition. Another factor would be new construction. If you've
added a deck. A new addition, the value of your property reflects those
changes. The third factor is the tax levies themselves. Property taxes paid
for services from several levels of government. School, County, City and other
regional services. As noted by the Mayor, the City of Chanhassen takes
approximately 19% of the tax bill. For those owners that did hit into an area
where their property was re- evalued, maybe I can just share this with the
Council. Most of the areas were on the east side of Lotus Lake, north side of
Lotus Lake, and north part of the community. As we went through the Board of
Equalization meeting from this past spring, we had seen that areas such as
Chestnut Ridge had not been valued, re- evalued for 4 to 5 year period of time.
They were sitting with sales ratio comparing what houses in that neighborhood
were selling in comparison to what the Assessor had on the books at a level of
about 81%. Fox Hollow, 4 to 5 years. 82%. Lotus Lake Estates, 7 to 8 years.
72%. Colonial Grove really had no comparable sales but it had been 7 to 8 years
since it had been brought up to date. The Heights, 83%. Near Mountain, 4
years. 81%. Pleasant Acres, 3 to 4 years, 79.9%. For property owners living
in those areas, and seeing an increase in their taxes as a result of
re- evaluation of their property, I feel for them because my own property ran
into that category from two years ago. The fact though is when we allow values
to stay at a depressed level for a 7 to 8 year period of time, those
neighborhoods really are not paying their fair share of the overall property
taxes. Again, I'm sure we'll have some who will be speaking in terms of '
3 1
City Council Meeting - December 9, 1992
whatever percent increase that they had in their property. Most of those, my
11 guess will be properties that were under valued and probably have been under
valued for a number of years. Again, the third factor in what taxes you will
pay are the tax levies themselves. When the Mayor was reviewing the tax levies
as they dealt with the city, those tax levies will be the same whether you're in
School District #112, Chaska or if you're in School District #276, which is
Minnetonka District. However, those people in the Minnetonka District #276,
have seen an approximate 18% increase in their taxes as it results from the tax
1 levy created by the School District. Those owners who are here protesting the
level of those increases, we should be encouraging them to attend the Minnetonka
School District hearings and make those protests known. But the fact remains
that the City of Chanhassen's tax rate will decrease from 1992 to 1993. Back
again to the distribution of the tax dollar, again as noted by the Mayor. The
City, takes approximately 19% of that tax dollar. Finally, just to highlight the
overall budgetary picture. We believe that we have met the goals set by the
City Council. We've set a property tax level for 1993 which is less than the
property tax level for general operations that was set in 1992. The budget as
it deals with expenditures, we have maintained the Council's goal of no more
than 2% to 3% increase in the operational budget from 1992 to 1993 for existing
operations. As noted by the Mayor, Council did ask to see the senior center
properly funded to insure that we would have additional police coverage. In
' total those expenses plus existing produce a 4.8% increase in expenditures for
operations from 1992. Again, the goal set by the Council. Finally, and maybe a
little additional background is necessary. The State did change how taxes would
be calculated on higher valued properties. There is no free lunch. When taxes
are taken away from one group of owners, it is very possible to see those go
back onto another group. The City Council was very direct in stating that
whether it be a lowered value home or higher, that they did not want to see a
tax increase as a result of the city's budgetary process. What that forced us
into doing was taking the cost to subsidize those higher valued homes and to
take that out of the growth that we would have ordinarily seen. The growth that
normally would have paid for the 12% new blocks of streets. The 12% new lines
of sewer and water. The 12% additional cost for police officers. Again those
costs do include our senior center, our additional police coverage and at this
time Mr. Mayor I would recommend that we open the hearing for public comments.
Mayor Chmiel: Very good, thank you. But prior to doing that, I think one of
the other things that we did at last night's, Tuesday night's meeting.
Don Ashworth: I think it was Monday wasn't it?
Mayor Chmiel: Monday night? We've had so many meetings going, I'm not sure.
We asked for an additional reduction of $5,000.00 more from the budget which I'm
assured that we can also get. 5o with that I would like to have those of you
who would like to get up and provide your comments to the Council at this
particular time. I'd just like you to state your name and your address and your
concern. So this is your opportunity to come forward and indicate your
concerns. Don't be shy. Talk to us just like you would anywhere else. But not
1 in the same way. We're on the air.
Albert Dorweiler: I'm Albert Dorweiler at 1565 Bluff Creek Drive. I've got a
concern and a question. Bluff Creek is a Chanhassen street right?
r
4
1
City Council Meeting - December 9, 1992
1
Mayor Chmiel: That's correct.
Albert Dorweiler: I feel that because of the belly dump trucks that's going by 1
there every 3 minutes, I think that that decreases my property. Saturday
morning about 7:30 they pound that road. One right after another. Hauling dirt
from Chanhassen here and to Moon Valley and hauling sand back. Hauling loads
both ways. They're beating that road and I don't see in the near future why I
should have to pay for improvements on Bluff Creek when TH 101 is open. Why
aren't them trucks using that. Them trucks are way over loaded. They're not
tarped. They're over the sides. There's a danger factor there. I called the
Sheriff's Department and they didn't seem to do much about it. I know they were
speeding. I was doing 30 mph and they were pulling away from me. I don't think
that if this continues, I don't see why I should have to pay that much property
tax. Isn't that a State Highway? Because TH 101 is empty. I think they should
be using TH 101.
Don Ashworth: I, as many of the Council members may have also received, a
similar complaint.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, did I receive a call from you as well? '
Albert Dorweiler: No you haven't.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, because I have received several calls from several people
on your road and I know that last Friday we did have the Sheriff's Department
out there with their weight, checking the weights of those trucks. Making sure
that they were being maintained with that weight level. And from my
understanding in talking with some of the officers that were there, that has
been met. They were directly at the right weight level of all the checks that
they had done. My understanding was that they did it for better than 2 hours.
At that particular day.
Albert Dorweiler: When was that? '
Mayor Chmiel: Last Friday.
Albert Dorweiler: Last Friday? That was after Thanksgiving there. '
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. And they were still hauling though.
Albert Dorweiler: I mean why aren't they using TH 101?
Don Ashworth: I don't think with those big belly dumps you'd really want them
on TH 101. We have been trying to work with the contractor to get them to come
up County Road 1 by the Lion's Tap. Up the road to 1 and then back over that
way. We've not been real successful. They assure me at this point in time that
all hauling will be completed prior to this weekend. And I'm taking him for
that.
Albert Dorweiler: I just wonder on occasion, on improvements and stuff like
that. I mean them belly dumps are wrecking the road. The average citizen who
lives along that road, I mean they get more use out of the road than what we get
out of it, you know. 1
5 _ '
City Council Meeting - December 9, 1992
Don Ashworth: In the construction of the road, it was built to State Aid
standards for truck traffic. We don't really like to see the level of trucks
that have occurred on that roadway and I think the Council is aware that Target
had wanted to fast track their project. In the process of doing that, they
employ contractors to let's get this thing graded this Fall. Get it done, ready
for foundation. An offshoot from that, from the fast track process, is exactly
what Mr. Dorweiler is referring to. And that is that it is causing grief for
other property owners who have to see those trucks literally in front of their
' property. And I did receive calls again from the Inn, Mr. Waritz, Mrs. Waritz,
and I can't think of the other owner. I agree. Not a good situation.
' Albert Dorweiler: It's not really service. I mean that's not really service.
I mean as far as I'm concerned, as far as the city of Chanhassen, it's not that.
You -said you want to be a service to the community I mean. You know, you're not
really being a service by this happening. Why can't they put up a stop sign by
Hesse Farm? That'd discourage them. Slow them trucks down. Anytime they get a
stop, that would discourage them. If you put up a stop sign by Hesse Farm Road
there, I think that would eliminate them.
Don Ashworth: Well again, the trucks will be done tomorrow or Friday at the
latest. I don't know if Hempel was successful in getting any percent of those
' trucks to go over through the Eden Prairie route or not. I really don't think,
given the length and the size of those trucks, that you'd want them on TH 101.
I think that they'd be a definite hazard there. And again, that truck traffic
should cease tomorrow or Friday at the latest.
' Albert Dorweiler: Yeah, but that's been happening all summer long though I
mean. Any development that goes on, they use Bluff Creek. I mean you know to
say this is going to end for this winter, you know next spring.
Mayor Chmiel: But what happens next year?
Albert Dorweiler: What happens next year. I think you alleviate the problem if
you just put up a stop sign or a speed bump or whatever to keep them trucks off
of there.
Mayor Chmiel: We can't put speed bumps because that costs the City money.
Especially is someone wrecks their car or whatever they're driving. So that
makes us liable. So speed bumps are something that's out. I'm not sure from a
safety aspect whether a stop sign is warranted but what we could do is bring
that before the Public Safety Commission and review that to see if there is a
need for that situation of putting a stop sign there.
Albert Dorweiler: See I've got a blind hill too you know and trucks going both
ways like that, you talk about safety of TH 101 you know, I'm in the same
' situation.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Legally I don't think, in fact I know, legally there's no
way of telling them that they can't go on that road. And that's part of the way
that we sort of get our hands tied. But there may be something we can do. I'm
not sure but maybe we can look at.
11
6
City Council Meeting - December 9, 1992
Albert Dorweiler: Well you said that Chanhassen don't have money for speed
bumps you know. 1
Mayor Chmiel: No, I didn't say.
Albert Dorweiler: You know. what I'm saying? Okay now, improvements now. Now
the road is wrecked. Now where's that money coming from? You know. You know.
I mean if you can keep them trucks somewhat off the road, who gains? The
homeowners and the city. ,
Don Ashworth: I will pick up on your suggestion Mr. Mayor, that this item be
put onto a Public Safety agenda and I'll have Scott Harr contact Mr. Dorweiler
to invite him to that meeting to discuss the possibility of a stop sign. I
agree with your comments that under State Aid standards, you're not going to be
permitted to put in a speed bump.
Albert Dorweiler: Well thank you.
Marie Schroeder: I guess, well I'm Marie Schroeder from Pleasant View Lane and
I guess we belong in the category of the older home. We moved down there in
1950 and you said that it would go up no more than 18%, or did I misunderstand
you?
Don Ashworth: No, and in fact your neighborhood is one of those that I
identified. It's been a number of years since the properties in that area had
been re- evalued. That that area was re- evalued during this past year. That in
that process, if your value moved from *60,000.00 to $80,000.00 or *70,000.00 to
*90,000.00 or *100,000:00 to *120,000.00, you're going to see a much larger than
18%. '
Marie Schroeder: Well our's...27%. That's an awful lot.
Don Ashworth: That doesn't surprise me because you're getting a double hit. '
One is a 20% increase as a part of that re- evaluing your property. The second,
as a result of the School District. It's too bad that both of those things had
to occur at one point in time, but they did and I don't know how much we had to
say about either or those two things happening at the same point in time.
Marie Schroeder: We don't even have a street light. We pay for our own
security light down there. I think we should get something out of it.
Don Ashworth: I would strongly suggest, and I don't know if you recall getting
a notice of what was called a Board of Equalization meeting that occurred in
March - April.
Marie Schroeder: I don't recall that. ,
Don Ashworth: It was during that timeframe. You should have received a notice
advising you as to when to come in and discuss the proposed value that they were
putting onto your property. Because it was the value that they set this past
spring which drives, you might say, the amount of property taxes that you're
going to end up paying in 1993. And again, you are being hit with two portions.
One area that may be of benefit to you is that the circuit breaker laws are 1
7
t
City Council Meeting - December 9, 1992
still in effect and for people who had a generalized increase, as you did, your
taxes cannot increase by more than 10% and that is not.
Marie Schroeder: How often? You mean for each year or what?
Mayor Chmiel: Each year.
Don Ashworth: So for 1993, if you would take a look at what you paid in 1992
versus 1993, you cannot be paying more than 10, and it's slightly more than that
with the way they do the calculations. Those forms are available at the
Chanhassen Library. And if you use that for 1993, in getting a rebate. Of
' everything over 10%, then come back in before this group in that February -March
timeframe of '93 so that we can relook at the value of your property and
determine whether it is too high.
Marie Schroeder: Okay.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you.
Bruce Birkeland: My name is Bruce Birkeland. I live over on Willow Creek.
I've had a 30% increase in my taxes. I've got a 35 year old home. I've been
' out of work for about a year. Is there anyway to get any recourse or have this,
is there anyway for me to go back and have this run backwards? This is
*11,000.00 over what it was supposed to be worth and hell, it's getting
impossible to pay the damn taxes.
Mayor Chmiel: Do you have an estimate or valuation done on your property by a
realtor or an appraiser I should say?
1 Bruce Birkeland: Well I haven't had in 3 or 4 years since I bought the house.
' Mayor Chmiel: That sometimes is, we've had that happen where the price of a
home was adjusted and it was too high. They had gone out to refinance their
home so they had to have an appraiser review their home and come in with a price
on it. And it was lower than what that was, what the Assessor. The County
Assessor automatically did drop those back down upon Council's request.
Bruce Birkeland: I'd have to have it resurveyed in other words and then go back
to the Assessor?
Mayor Chmiel: Well that's one of the things that can happen. Also have an
opportunity in February- March, when we have our.
Don Ashworth: For each of those people who have spoken, thinking that their
value was too high. That it should not have been changed from this past spring.
' I did talk with the County Assessor's office and two things. One, is they are
not going to allow future, they're not going to allow this 7 or 8 year timeframe
before people are brought up to date. They pledged that they will attempt to
' keep those values closer to where they should be on a timely basis. So an
individual doesn't see a 20%, 30%, 40% increase all at one point in time.
Bruce Birkeland: I don't think the people in my neighborhood have been able to
II sell their darn homes lately either. I'm really kind of getting worried about
1 8
1
City Council Meeting - December 9, 1992
it frankly.
Mayor Chmiel: I can understand that. 1
Bruce Birkeland: My neighbor's tried to sell his for months and nothing.
t t Don Ashworth: The Assessor suggested that I take down those names of those
people who again feel that their values were too high and they'll come out, I
don't want to say immediately but within the next month and look at the value of
your property. Look at some of your neighboring property. They can provide you
with what i'll call a sales ratio statistics so they can tell you how many
houses in your neighborhood sold. What they sold for and what that sales price
was in comparison to what the Assessor had on the books.- So in other words, the
number of houses that sold for $80,000.00 versus the number on the books for
$80,000.00.
Bruce Birkeland: Okay, do I get the Assessor's name from you or do I leave my
name?
Don Ashworth: I've taken down your name. Maybe it would help, do you have a
phone number?
Bruce Birkeland: 474 -6507. It's spelled Birkeland. ,
Don Ashworth: And the name is Orlin Schafer. He is the County Assessor. There
are two field assessors that work Chanhassen. Ann. ,
Mayor Chmiel: I was trying to think of her name.
Don Ashworth: And Steve Just. And Ann, I think it's Rest. We'll have someone '
get a hold of you.
Bruce Birkeland: Okay, appreciate it. Thank you. ,
Don Ashworth: Could I have your telephone number as well?
Marie Schroeder: 474 -8911. ,
Don Ashworth: And then Albert.
Albert Dorweiler: 445 -3321.
Don Ashworth: Thank you. ,
Jim Pehringer: Hi. My name is Jim Pehringer. I'm at 1010 Lake Susan Hills
Drive and I attended the meeting last year and voiced an opinion of keeping the
tax increases to a minimum and I want to commend you for not only doing that but
also taking our comments to heart and doing the best that you could to reduce
that. So I want to make sure that it's positive comments come your way in light
of some of the other comments of personal situations where people experienced an
increase. That's unfortunate. What I wanted to explore was, in the handout you
indicated that leading these two new expenses, the proposed increase for police
1 coverage and funding the Senior Center. Unfortunately I came in a few minutes 1
9
11
City Council Meeting - December 9, 1992
late and I might have missed this in your presentation but is this issue of
11 adding additional police coverage, is this still in the proposal?
Don Ashworth: Early in the process the Council identified that we have not
adjusted the number of hours of patrol for quite a period of time. It is an
area that the Sheriff made a presentation before the Council discussing our
patrol level. That we're really falling behind in that area. There are a
number of times where we're' not able to respond to a call because the officer,
like a typical DWI will take an officer off the street for 3 hours. If you have
any type of a call during that 3 hour period of time, you're not going to make
it. If you have somebody in your backyard, they'll pull a squad out of Waconia
' to check that. But if it's an other type of minor incident, it just won't be
responded to for a period of time. It's still a proposal. The Council does
have the ability to say no. We do not want that additional squad in our
community. But I think that the Sheriff made a very positive statement for why
that was necessary and I heard the Council say, yes. If there's any way to keep
that expense in the 1993 budget, do it.
Mayor Chmiel: We're looking at our budget increasing with the Sheriff's patrol
of about $48,000.00. That is putting another car on the streets to do
patrolling. Making sure we're deterring problems that could increase or could
' happen. Last year our total budget for the Sheriff's Department was
$390,000.00. With the $48,000.00 of course we're up to $438,000.00 this year.
At the same time we have those two cars, we also have the ability of having a
floater plus another car plus two other cars to come in. So we can have 6 cars
here within a minute to 2 minutes. If we were to go to our own police
department, and I've done a study on this, the total study cost to put a police
department in operations within the city is $1,500,000.00. So I know that we're
' saving money by doing this but yet we're still getting good protection. And we
just instituted one of our CSO's, which is something brand new. Of course CSO's
we had. They take care of the dog problems, ordinance problems and things of
that nature. To keep those officers free and their cost is very minimal in
comparison to a police officer. So I guess the point I'm trying to make is that
our CSO, there's been a new arrangement made between the Sheriff's Department
and the city in having him work for the Sheriff's Department and being allowed
i to do what the Sheriff Departments can do. Our CSO's can issue tickets. Can't
do other certain things. But under this new, and I think that we really have to
give the Sheriff a very big plus, to say yes, he can do this and we will have
him under our jurisdiction. Even though he will be working for the City and
still not being paid as much as what regular officers are. So we're really
trying to do these kinds of things that we need, and still hold down those
dollars.
Jim Pehringer: Well I would like to strongly encourage you to consider adding
additional police protection. Whatever effect that may have, I think it's very
' important to maintain the security in this community and the sort of values that
people are seeking when they move here.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. We're still providing all the services that we can
without making any real cutbacks plus the fact of not increasing tax on your
home unless the re- evaluation has raised.
1 I
1 10
1
City Council Meeting - December 9, 1992
Don Ashworth: Well I should, if I may Mr. Mayor. We did see the 12% increase
in new construction values, and it does relate to the 12% new streets, sewer
lines, and what not. But also a portion of that represents infilling and so
on Kerber Boulevard where we were plowing snow this past year, putting 10
additional houses along that street really did not increase our cost. It's
through certain efficiencies such as that that we were able to pick up the cost
associated with the additional sales tax. Pick up the cost of, well just
general cost of living. And not have to force those back onto you or I as
property tax payers so I really am happy with this budget. '
Jim Pehringer: Okay, thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else? '
Jim Emmer: My name is Jim Emmer. I live on Yosemite and I'd like to preface my
remarks by saying that from what I can gather, you're doing a good job of
containing costs and running an efficient city. My problem is that the
evaluation, which I know you have nothing to do with, went up 15.8% and my city
of Chanhassen taxes went up 24%. I'm sure it has something to do with this game
that the legislature is playing and I guess they're going to continue to play
it. But for whatever it's worth, and I understand we have a new legislator with
us, whatever pressure you as a municipality can put on, I think that we need a
truth in taxation law. I think we need to know that if we're going to get an
increase in valuation, we'll know what our taxes are going to be. This is
ridiculous. My total tax increase is 39% and part of it, the biggest part of it
is the Minnetonka School District. I was at a similar meeting last night at
Carver County and it's a definitely a forward pass on the part of all these
communities to the State legislature, so. I would think that maybe you would
have an ear there because this is razzle dazzle. There's no way a citizen is
going to know what's going on from year to year and has a 10% increase or better
than 10% increase last year. The circuit breaker works for people on lower
income but the tax goes on. I mean it works for one year so that's really sauve
that lasts only a little while. So I think it has to be said that we don't have
a good system and let's simplify it so that people know what they're doing. The
fact that this comes out after elections is somewhat irritating. I think that
can be addressed at the legislature as well. Thank you very much. '
Councilman Mason: Those are good points. It would be nice to see the State do
the same truth in taxation that they've forced the cities and the counties and
school districts to do.
Mayor Chmiel: I bet you'll never see it happen.
Councilwoman Dimler: He will introduce that legislation.
Councilman Workman: If I can make a -quick point. I guess it doesn't amaze me
but we have a lot of questions about assessed values tonight and that's not what
this hearing is about but it's complicated enough that it happens in May, or
whenever we've had those and I've sat through 4 of those. That's some of the
justification about my running for other office, not necessarily higher. That
people do get the double whammy that Don Ashworth talked about. Minnetonka
passes a referendum. A big one and then the value of their home goes up and
it's out of control. And it's going to their mortgage $200.00 a month 1
11 ,
I/
City Council Meeting - December 9, 1992
or more. I think what ought to happen is that people, you ought not to be able
11 to escrow your taxes into your mortgage, because if I was writing that check
every month, and the taxpayers are writing that check every month, boy would
they be honed in on what's going on with their tax dollars and there wouldn't be
any surprises once or twice a year when truth in taxation, which is kind of a
funny word for what goes on.
Resident: The banker sees to it that that's stuck into your mortgage. You
don't have any choice...and that sticks too but.
Councilman Workman: I've got plenty, and the four assessed valuations in the
' springs that I've gone through and the four budgets that I've gone through and
I'm happy to hear some positive comments. I think we've done, I mean we've
tried to, and we've gotten a lot of letters that don't maybe reflect what I've
seen because we've really held the line. But boy there's so much work to be
done down there in St. Paul and that's all I've done for 4 years is scream about
that and hopefully I can go do that.
Kelby Bailey: What specifically have you done and what specifically do you plan
to do about it?
Councilman Workman: At the City level? What we've done is not raised your city
portion of your taxes.
Mayor Chmiel: In the last 5 years.
Kelby Bailey: Is there anything you can do on the County or School District
level?
Councilman Workman: I'm a soon to be legislator. 1 of 201. I have more to do
with your property tax bill right now as 1 of 5 people but the School District
is going to be asking for $50 million from you probably in March.
Councilwoman Dimler: You're from Minnetonka I believe aren't you.
Councilman Workman: From Chaska.
Councilwoman Dimler: He's in Minnetonka.
Councilman Workman: Well Minnetonka just asked them for however million.
Councilwoman Dimler: Minnetonka asked and got.
Councilman Workman: Was it $18 million?
Resident: Yeah. Somebody gave themselves a hell of a nice raise. Approximately
the salary of two teachers as I understand it. Kind of like me and my brother
have been out of work for over a year...can't get a job...
' Councilman Workman: So that's why I feel good and I would have liked to have
slashed your taxes 20? of the city if it were possible. We talked about, the
1 original reason I jumped in was because the public safety expenditures that
we're including and we talk about that as almost a national model because what
12
1
City Council Meeting - December 9, 1992
11
are we paying for our police contract, $400,000.00? We could be paying Si
million very easily if we had our own police cars and police officers and
employees, which is an expensive hobby. But we're getting fantastic police
coverage. We are concerned about Flying Cloud Drive, Bluff Creek and some of
these other areas that maybe didn't have as much. That's the conversation I
remember having that we didn't, that we weren't getting enough, people out
there weren't seeing the cop cars once a month out there.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, weren't seeing them enough. That's true. '
Councilman Workman: But there's plenty to do. The people who really have
control of the legislature don't necessarily have this city and this area and my
soon to be legislative district in mind when they do an awful lot of things.
And so that hopefully will change. I don't think it will be this year but over
the next half a dozen maybe because the suburbs are kind of getting sick of
shipping their money out of town. But that's, I'll be old and I'll need a
circuit breaker.
Kelby Bailey: I have a couple other questions. '
Mayor Chmiel: Would you state your name please and your address?
Kelby Bailey: Yes. My name is Kelby Bailey. I live on Pleasant View Way. 1
I also am a northern Lotus Lake resident in the Minnetonka School District.
I have a few questions. You mentioned that the houses in my area hadn't been
assessed for 7 or 8 years. - My particular house had not been assessed since it
was built in 1980. That was information given to me from the Carver County
Assessor's office. I know it's not your responsibility or your area but can you
give me a reason of why they're not assessed more frequently than that?
Mayor Chmiel: Unfortunately, in one way you were fortunate. To escape that for
those 12 years but now it's going to catch up. And why they missed you, it's
hard to say. Maybe they were there when you weren't home. And if both people
are working, it becomes rather difficult. But that still is no excuse for that
and that's why they're saying that they will do this within a 3 year period.
Don Ashworth: And in defense of Oriin's office, which they then did get a 11
second assessor, but we're issuing 300 to 400 single family permits each year.
That means that there's 300 to 400 parcels that have to be individually
reviewed. We're doing upwards of 1,000 building permits that additions,
decks, whatever. Each of those need to be reviewed. It had been to the point
where the assessor's office was solely getting out looking at each of these
new additions and not having the manpower to insure that the entire neighborhood ,
was being re- evalued. And that hurts twice because those people who do put on
an addition, they're entire parcel is brought up to the current standards. So
let's assume if their property was 5100,000.00- or-$80,000.00, it should really
be at $100,000.00. :put on an addition for $10,000.00. All of a sudden now
they're paying $110,000.00. - Their taxes are based on $110,000.00. Well if each
of their neighbors are stilt at $80;000;00, that's really fair. And on the
other side, that entire neighborhood could_be sitting at $80,000.00 when a
similar valued home within the rest of the community is at $100,000.00, that's
not fair either. I really believe that the County Board has provided the
1
13 1
t
•
City Council Meeting - December 9, 1992 _
additional funds and manpower to ensure that that type of thing doesn't happen
11 again. To go for 12 years without being re- evalued, that's terrible.
Kelby Bailey: I guess my second point that I want to make, I thought it was
ironic that you mentioned speed bumps because the road that I have to access to
get to my house, Pleasant View Road, has a few hundred of those right now and
has for some time. I'm just curious if you're, if the taxes for the residents
in North Lotus Lake area are going up because their houses are being assessed
higher, why isn't that road getting fixed? It's been like this for as long as
I can remember. There's very heavy traffic from residents. There's also a lot
of construction with heavy trucks driving on it. I'm wondering if there's any
plan for the City to do anything about repaving or reconstructing the road? I'm
wondering if you're waiting for the construction to settle down a little bit so
there's not as much heavy traffic on it or what is the plan? I think you
understand what I'm talking. Pleasant View Road goes between TN 101 and Powers
Boulevard and it's very heavy traffic because.
Mayor Chmiel: When you say speed bumps, you're talking.
' Kelby Bailey: I'm talking pot holes. I'm talking I have to drive over gravel
and it's supposed to be a paved road and I'm talking large areas of gravel. It's
' the only major access between TN 101 and Powers Boulevard, in that area and so a
lot of people utilize that. And there's a lot of new development in that area
so I'm just wondering what the plan is for that.
Resident: You try to walk down there and they're coming through there at 40 -50
mph.
•
Kelby Bailey: That's another thing.
Mayor Chmiel: There is a speed of 25 but that's another thing too. You're
right.
Kelby Bailey: Is there any plan in the works?
Don Ashworth: The City has carried out a rating system for all of the roadways
within the community. As a part of that, we can tell you how poor your road is
in comparison to another roadway. That's kind of the good news. The bad news
is, we don't have a funding source in place that can take care of those roadways
that once they have gotten past simply being able to maintain them. We do have
a seaicoat program. We try to keep in good condition those streets that are
still saivagable. When a street gets to the point, Chanhassen Estates is a good
example, where literally the entire road base is gone. We do not have a funding
source in place that could take care of that. The one source would be to redo
the roadway and to charge the benefitting properties. In other words, each of
the property owners living along the roadway. We have looked at that and Chan
Estates is a very good example where we went through the feasibility. The cost
estimate. We were at I believe $2,000.00 to $3,000.00 per household, and that
of course could be carried out over 10 -15 years, and the neighborhood basically
came back and said, we don't want to pay $2,000.00 to $3,000.00 per household.
That's not a very good answer but it's the best one I have.
1 14
1
City Council Meeting - December 9, 1992
Kelby Bailey: I'm willing to pay my share if my road is decent. All I have to
do is, it's almost a stone throw away to look over at my neighbors across TH 101
in Eden Prairie where their taxes are probably higher than mine. I'm willing to
pay higher taxes to have a decent road so I don't wreck my car. All I have to
do is look over at their roads which are beautifully maintained. Resurfaced all
the time and I've just seen ours over the years deteriorate more and more.
There comes a time when a road gets too bad and you need to do something about
it. As far as now I haven't heard of anything going through our neighborhood
asking our neighbors if we want to pay a higher tax for it. I, myself am
willing to pay a little bit higher tax in order to have the road maintained.
Mayor Chmiel: Maybe what we could do is have our City Engineer give you a call
and tell you where we are with that particular road on our schedule, and that
might be something that could resolve that problem.
Kelby Bailey: I just think the least they can do is, when there's construction 1
in the area and the road breaks down so bad that there's gravel all over it, the
least they could do is...Lotus Lake area going up but yet I see the maintenance
of our roads going down, and that's what displeases me tonight. '
Don Ashworth: Could I get your phone number?
Kelby Bailey: 470 -5003. '
Don Ashworth: Would this be a number I could get you during the day?
Kelby Bailey: During the day it would be 545 -1550.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else? Yes sir. 1
Herb Kask: Herb Kask, Pleasant View Road. 115. This gentleman talked about
Pleasant View Road and I've lived there since 1959 when it was gravel and when
we built Near Mountain development across the street from us we protested County
Road 62 going through. Near Mountain Boulevard all the way over to Powers Road.
And we pledged the Council at that time, when we decided we didn't want County
Road 62 going through that beautiful piece of property, that we would not
complain about Pleasant View Road, and I'm not here to complain about Pleasant
View Road. And I believe the Council at that time took us at our word. I have
a proposed property tax statement for 1993. Increase 31 %. Or 38% for the
County, 32% for the City, 55% for the School District, Minnetonka, and a total
of 47 %. And besides that, they re- evaluated by property by 19,000.00 and I
don't think that that's really right but no one of these things I have any
problem with except the re- evaluation. And I believe my house is worth what
they say it is, at the County. I can sell it for that much. I hope that
everybody else's taxes in this room they can say the same that I say about mine.
I don't want anybody to say that my house is, I can sell it for $83,000.00 and
then have somebody else here say, oh I can get 50 %more than that for mine than
mine's evaluated at. It's kind of like buying a used car. You always figure
you're the one that's getting stung until somebody else that's in authority can
tell you, I'm doing the same thing. I'm getting stuck the same way. Thank you.
Don Ashworth: I think as I mentioned earlier, bringing up that area produces
more equality throughout the community and I honestly believe that you can go
15 1
11
City Council Meeting - December 9, 1992
into any of the other neighborhoods and find that the values in those
11 neighborhoods will approach 95% of, -the selling price in the neighborhood will
be 95% of what the Assessor has it on the books for. You try it for 100%.
Herb Kask: Will Ursula Dimler say that same thing?
Don Ashworth: I'll say that as it deals with my neighborhood, which is a block 1
away from Ursula's. I don't know if you heard the question.
11 Councilwoman Dimler: I'm just looking at mine here.
Councilman Workman: Our evaluation?
Don Ashworth: The question was, do we honestly believe that each of our
properties are within 95% of what we would sell for. I personally believe that
I am right at what I would sell my house for. I don't think I would sell it for
much more than that. I don't think that I would lose much.
Councilwoman Dimler: Right. We're right in the ballpark.
Mayor Chmiel: I think it's a ballpark figure. It really is.
N Herb Kask: All five of you can say that?
Councilwoman Dimler: I can say that about mine.
' Councilman Workman: My home was completed in January so I have a partial, I
think it's still a partial valuation of mine. I was in talking to you about my
tax statement, believe me.
Don Ashworth: Well Tom is fortunate, he has a lot tax only and he will go onto
, Y 9
full value the following year. And that's just part of the State laws.
Councilman Workman: I keep moving so I just have a lot tax.
Mayor Chmiel: He moves from lot to lot. Yes sir.
Tom Devine: I'm Tom Devine. I'm at 7640 South Shore Drive. You're all to be
commended on doing a good job on the city's budget this year. There's certainly
the County, the State and the Federal government could probably take a real
learning lesson is watching what you people probably have worked on here. My
issue that I wanted to just ask, I haven't had a chance to digest this or
research this but at this point, with the introduction of milfoil in Lotus Lake
this past summer, I know that the City responded and did allocate some funds to
start working on that issue and as I understand it, hasn't really been, the
1 first approach of whatever has been done, was not very effective here this
summer. And I was wondering if there was funding in this proposed budget to
again deal with the issue on a more aggressive manner over the course of this
next year, this next summer. And I think if there's anything to be learned by
the other cities and the other municipalities that have dealt with the milfoil
problem, it's much easier to deal with it in a very small scale initially than
it is to tackle it after a year or two or three or four years after it's had a
chance to seed itself and get carried around on the motors and drop all over the
11 16
1
City Council Meeting - December 9, 1992
lake. I don't know what's in this budget this year to address that and I would
hope that that consideration be given to aggressively attacking the problem and
figuring out what needs to be done to take care of it on the initial stage.
Don Ashworth: Todd Hoffman, I'm wondering if you could address that question.
Todd Hoffman: Mr. Devine, to address your question. Again in 1993, $15,000.00
has been allocated under the environmental protection budget to deal
specifically with milfoil and other nuisance weed problems in the city. The
city does have an agreement with the Department of Natural Resources to carry
out a cost sharing control on Lotus Lake so the Department of Natural Resources
will pay up to 50% of the cost of controlling of milfoil.
•
Tom Devine: So there's $15,000.00 allotted for the whole city or for just that
project?
Todd Hoffman: For the whole city.
Tom Devine: And how, just approximately, how would that divide out then? I
don't know where those funds are being used but.
Todd Hoffman: Dependent on which lakes are being targeted, milfoil growth on
Lake Minnewashta is to the point to where anything other than the type of
control mechanisms that they're using on Lake Minnetonka, will not be effective.
Spot control on Lake Minnewashta at this point is out of the question so
spending any money on Minnewashta is not being proposed...The Department of
Natural Resources has shown a very strong interest in working with the city in
that regard. That's one of the reasons they signed the Joint Powers Agreement
to fund the control of milfoil in Lotus Lake. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Right. There's supposedly something new found in a larvae that
will start taking control of milfoil. As I talked to a friend of mine at the
DNR, he said it seems to be the right thing for eliminating it completely. But
they're studying it just a little more to see if it could go in different
directions for the rest of the greens within the lake. And hopefully, from what
I've heard, and from what he has told me, that it really looks to be the best
thing they've come across. So hopefully it may come up with something. Anyone
else?
Frank Kurvers: Good evening. My name is Frank Kurvers and I live at 7220
Kurvers Point Road and I'm going to congratulate the Council also. I think
you're in certain areas you're doing a good job but there's still areas that are
not covered. And the ones I want to bring up here and everybody so far eluded
to what's the problem really here. And I'd like to know as far as the tax
increment district, how does this effect this budget?
Don Ashworth: Does the tax increment district effect? '
Frank Kurvers: Yes.
Don Ashworth: If the tax increment district were to cease, there would be no
change in the levy over what you see today.
17 1
1
City Council Meeting - December 9, 1992
Frank Kurvers: That's true because the residents are paying all the bills.
11 Don Ashworth: I'm sorry.
11 Frank Kurvers: Right now we have paid since 1978, City Hall, City Hall
remodeling, Fire Station, Fire Station remodeling, street lighting, street
maintenance, police protection, fire department ladder truck, new employees to
serve the district and you're saying it won't change right? That's right
because we picked up the bill since 1978.
Don Ashworth: I do not agree with that position. I would invite Frank to come
in. We prepared a report. It's called, "Who Wins under Tax Increment ". Who
loses. The cost that Frank referred to as being born by the general public,
within the current budget, the cost for employees and other costs are
approximately $300,000.00 to $400,000.00 that is not being paid by the general
citizen, but is being paid directly by that district. For each of the examples
that you gave, I can give another example of where you as a citizen did not have
to pay. For example, we have a very beautiful park at Lake Susan. It was paid
entirely through tax increment. You mentioned City Hall. The courtyard area
was paid for through tax increment. The parking lots, as we sit here today,
were paid through tax increment. All of the major improvements within the
downtown and every one of us as citizens would have seen some portion of those
bills. In addition, your analysis does not consider that from the State
perspective, the city of Chanhassen is considered as an industrially poor
community. For 1993, $1,019,000.00 flow back to the City of Chanhassen to help
reduce general property taxes because we are a fiscal disparities winner. The
tax increment district ceases and over $2,100,000.00 flows out of this community
and goes to the metro area. Specifically, Minneapolis and St. Paul. We, as
taxpayers, lose those tax dollars.
Frank Kurvers: Well, I've got a quote here from Scott County, which says.
Property taxes levied by Scott County and Shakopee School District are high
because much of the property is taken off the tax rolls. A new study says that
the taxes on the remaining property therefore must be higher. The study was
conducted by an accounting firm of Olson, Field and Company which was retained
11 by the governmental units after a tax revolt rumbled through the Minnesota River
bottom last year. In some cases taxes have doubled. Tax increment financing
districts, which are created by cities to encourage development, take the
property off the general tax roll until the cities develop and costs are paid
for. With revenue from taxes on the project itself, while the project is off
the tax rolls for the city, it also generates no tax revenue for school
districts or the county. In order for those entities to raise enough money to
operate, they must raise the taxes on other properties to replace the income
lost by putting some land in the tax increment district. Also, the city has in
effect lost property values for taxing purposes through the metropolitan area
fiscal disparities. I understand that law but we're, I disagree that we're
gaining.
Don Ashworth: You know there are.
Frank Kurvers: The County also, just let me read this. The County also lost in
the disparity pull until 1988 when to pull then it was paying into the
consultant's report. The Shakopee School District, which is mostly within
1 18
1
City Council Meeting - December 9, 1992
Shakopee is caught between city and state policies. The report said, citing
lost of property tax and the city financing district can reduce the State aid
from the State. The report said, that taxes per capita are high because of the
County's relatively low population. The report said, there is nothing officials
can do to change the impact of fiscal disparities distribution formula when the
projects built with tax increment financing, such as the K -Mart warehouse,
Canterbury Downs Racetrack, are paid for. Then the tax revenue from those
facilities will go back into the general treasury.. Up until this time has
anything gone back into the treasury? 1
Don Ashworth: Yes.
Frank Kurvers: Besides the money that you're saying that you took out of those 1
funds.
Don Ashworth: If the district did not exist, we would not be receiving the
fiscal disparity distribution that we're receiving. Second, I agree. Certain
counties, and in fact I would probably say a majority, have said that tax
increment districts hurt them. I would say that many school districts say that.
But, as we're talking, the Carver County has taken a position that the City of
Chanhassen should not cease this tax increment district. That it is a benefit
to Carver County. That they would recommend to this Council that that district
not cease. There has been cost sharing proposal back to the County_between *3
and *5 million to Carver County that would not have occurred if it were not for
tax increment dollars. The School District has passed a resolution saying they
do not want to see Chanhassen cease our tax increment district. _The dollars
being shared with the School District are more than they would receive if -that
tax increment district ceased. _ _ _ _ ___ ... ._ _ _
Frank Kurvers: The only trouble is, Minnetonka residents will never see one
dime out of this which you're talking about. Nothing. _You're taking and the
distribution they'll never see. And all the people that are here from
Minnetonka School District are paying for it and they'll never receive it. Once
it comes back on the tax rolls, it's going to be in Chaska School District.
Don Ashworth: As it deals with cost sharing with the Chaska School District,
those comments are correct because the tax increment district and where
potential dollars could be lost is within the Chaska School District. Not the
Minnetonka districts. So therefore if the district ceased, the people would not
be sharing in that tax base. Again, a comment that because you've had to pay
for additional costs living in the Minnetonka District that's supporting the
general city, I continue to say, _I mean we're proposing to_have tax increment
build a library, a new library for our community. If you've been in our
library, we're crowded. We cannot adequately provide the services in that area.
We're looking to a conference center_within_the downtown area. Again, there was
major renovations that occurred within the downtown...I'11 go through those 11 other examples of Lake Susan Park. Well, I think that_the list .of positive
things that you have not had to pay for exceeds those type of. general costs that
may have been an increase back_to.your property.__And I agree with the ladder
truck, the Fire Station. _ _
Frank Kurvers: Well you can debate it and all you want to debate it and I can
bring you just as many facts that it's hurting us in Minnetonka as you can give 1
19 1
1
City Council Meeting - December 9, 1992
1
me that it's doing me some good. And I talked to the County Assessor, which
you're saying the County is all satisfied. Well that's not necessarily true.
I mean we can all bring up points that you talked to this guy and it's all fine.
Well I can find people that will say it's not what you just said.
Mayor Chmiel: I don't think this is a debating issue here.
Frank Kurvers: I think itrs an issue as far as taxes.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, and I don't disagree with that Frank. But I think what I'd
like you to do, if you have an opportunity, is to come in and sit down with Don
again and go through the processes of what you're saying. Pull together your
figures from one side to the other and then reach a conclusion.
Frank Kurvers: Well I know I can show you that it's costing us money.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, and I understand what you're saying.
Councilwoman Dimler: Can I make a comment at this point?
Mayor Chmiel: Sure, Ursula.
Councilwoman Dimler: We do have a meeting set aside especially for that purpose
on December llth. This coming Friday at 10:00 a.m.. I believe it's going to be
in your conference room Don and I'd like to invite you and all the other
citizens that are concerned about it because I know there are more of them out
there. To come in and express those concerns again and I know Don is going to
show us how the citizen actually does benefit or make a good.
Frank Kurvers: Y eah, they sure benefit as far as Canterbury Downs. The city
of Shakopee when it's belly up.
Councilwoman Dimler: The whole State benefitted from that.
Don Ashworth: The parties that will be present will be Dave Clough representing
the School District, who will be saying he does not believe that the District
should cease. Jeff Priess who is their Business Manager who will say that he
does not believe the district should cease. Dick Stolz, the County
Administrator who will say that he does not believe the district should cease.
Frank Kurvers: ...I talked to the Administrator at Carver County and he told me
that the opposite, so you can get anybody you want to tell you...
Councilwoman Dimler: Frank, may I clarify that Mr. Mayor? Dick at first did
not like the idea but we made an agreement with him that these roads in Eastern
Carver County here, in Chanhassen especially need, that are also county roads,
really need to be upgraded. And so we came to an agreement that we would
allocate some of those dollars to those roads and then they were in favor.
1 Because now the County is benefitting as well as the School District will be
benefitting and so my concern was that everybody's benefitting except we don't
know how the citizen fares and that's why we're having this meeting.
1 20
1
City Council Meeting - December 9, 1992
11
Frank Kurvers: Well I think that if you think it so strong that everybody's
benefitting, I think that we should have a committee to look into this total
project and if this project is benefitting the entire citizens of Chanhassen,
I'm 100% for it. But I think we'd better put it on the table and show them that
it is.
Councilwoman Dimler: And that's what this meeting is trying to do.
Mayor Chmiel: I think one of the points you're making Frank is that Minnetonka
School District, being in that you're situated, is not benefitting from the TIF
but being in Carver County does and will benefit you from the County aspect.
And having those taxing dollars come back into the County. From that standpoint
it will benefit you, but not as far as the School District is concerned. You're
right. And it can't.
Councilman Mason: I guess I'd just like to make a comment, being a member of
City Council in the Minnetonka School District. I'm not totally ignorant of
some of the concerns that Frank has. I feel,•after what I've learned about TIF,
I feel pretty confident that yeah, the Minnetonka School District is not going
to benefit from it but I do think the city of Chanhassen and the citizenry of
Chanhassen are benefitting from it. And it seems to me that that and this
situation is at least as important, if not more important. I think it's clear
we would be in a lot worst shape than we are if we didn't have TIF. And that
does not, my taxes in the Minnetonka School District went up proportionately as
your's did, and I'm aware of that. But I think when you look at everything, I
think we're going in the right direction. • • i
Frank Kurvers: If you look at everything, you've got to look at everything.
Right, and I agree with you 100%. You've got to look at everything. We're only
picking at pieces. We pick out pieces, it all looks good. When you put it all
in one basket, hey. It's been going on since 1978 and I know what the money
that was taken in. I know. I checked and I tell you. You've got to put that
all in perspective. Not just surface things that you see. You've got to put the
total thing since 1978.
Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor? '
Mayor Chmiel: Yes Don.
Don Ashworth: I should acknowledge that the Council has received letters from
owners expressing their points in regard to the 1993 budget. Mr. Charles
Hultner, Katherine Erdahl, Joseph Tersteeg, Dick Hanson, Marjorie Depose, and
Pete Bosch. - 1
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, those are in addition to this?
Don Ashworth: Yes. '
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there anyone else who would like to say something? If
not, we will have a continuation of this public hearing on Monday, December 14th
at 7:30 for the acceptance of the tax levy and budget. And I'd like to.
Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor?
21 1
11
City Council Meeting - December 9, 1992
11
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Don Ashworth: You are correct. We had originally looked to the 14th as the
continued date. However, we were not notified until after we set that date that
I believe it was the Eden Prairie School District, which we have no children
within, that is holding their hearing on the 14th. Their continued hearing. We
cannot hold it on the same date as the County or the School District. For us
that makes it more difficult because we have three school districts and two
11 counties and we came up then with an alternative date for I believe tomorrow
evening.
Mayor Chmiel: I only have 3 meetings tomorrow night.
Don Ashworth: I would hope that the Council would consider that almost all of
the comments made deal with values of property in which we will have the
Assessor getting back with those property owners. I believe that we have done a
good job in terms of meeting the goals of the Council and I would ask if you
would consider adopting the 1993 budget as presented with the reduction of an
11 additional $5,000.00 from the proposed expenditures of the operating budget.
And the corresponding tax levy for that budget.
1 Councilwoman Dimler: Could we make a few comments?
Mayor Chmiel: Discussion, sure.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. I guess one of the things that in your presentation
Don that if it's not properly understood, could tend to upset some people, is
that the higher valued homes, there was a shift in their taxes and it sounds
' like their taxes were reduced which is not really the truth. The only thing
that was reduced was a reduction in the amount of the increase so they too saw
an increase but they saw a reduced amount in the increase than what they had
been getting.
Don Ashworth: As it deals with property owners within the Chaska District,
except for those people who had their property re- evalued, which again was
primarily Lotus Lake and the northern tier, people with values in excess of
$150,000.00 saw an average of 10% to 12% reduction.
11 Councilwoman Dimler: Well yes, it can result in a reduction but the shift was
not a reduction in the tax or in the formula but it was in the reduction in the
amount of the increase. I think that's, at least that's the way Dick Stolz
explained it yesterday. That it could actually result in a reduction but not
necessarily, depending on the valuation of your home. In other words, it sounds
like the people or the people who live in the upper or higher valued homes
actually are not paying as much taxes as. I don't want to leave that impression
because they're paying their fair share.
Don Ashworth: The higher valued homes did see.
' Councilwoman Dimler: Yes, they saw a reduction but that was because they were
paying too much.
Mayor Chmiel: That's right, true.
1 22
City Council Meeting - December 9, 1992
Councilwoman Dimler: See, and I don't want to leave the impression that we're
favoring higher valued homes.
Don Ashworth: We had nothing to do with that. It's the legislature.
Councilwoman Dimler: I know that but I mean that could be an impression that
1
someone would get out of what we had said.
Mayor Chmiel: Good point. 1
Councilwoman Dimler: And also I wanted to ask like Mr. Hanson and Mrs. Erdahl
both eluded to a high increase of 105% and 110% in other districts. Could you
explain what those other districts might represent?
Don Ashworth: Unfortunately I did not get a breakdown from Laurie at Carver
County as to what each of the special districts were proposing to levy. But as
a general statement, those include Mosquito Control, Transit, Metropolitan
Council. We have four Watershed Districts within the community. A property is
only in one of those four but those represent a special taxing district. In
total they.
Mayor Chmiel: Could we have it quiet please so we can hear the discussion here.
Thank you. -
Don Ashworth: They will be levying about 8% of the total tax bill goes to those
special districts for 1993. 1
{ Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. So that explains what those other districts might
be. Okay, thank you. '
Mayor Chmiel: Thomas, any comments?
Councilman Workman: No. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Michael.
Councilman Mason: Don, you're asking for approval of the budget tonight knowing 1
that there will be an additional $5,000.00 cut from the budget?
Don Ashworth: I hear the City Council state that they absolutely did not want 1
to take and create a property tax increase, at least for the City portion. We
are so close to what I'll call exactly the same level as last year, that by
cutting an additional $5,000.00 you can guarantee that, assuming your value
stayed the same, that the City will not, there will be no tax statement out
there that would show the city increasing.
Councilman Mason: I'm comfortable with that. My concern is approving a budget 1
knowing that $5,000.00 is going to go away from it and I don't know where it's
going to be taken -out of before I- approve the budget. '
Mayor Chmiel: We know where it's going. If you'd like to come over, I'll
whisper in your ear.
11
23 1
1
City Council Meeting - December 9, 1992
Councilman Mason: Well yeah, I would.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, I can tell you where it's coming from.
Councilman Mason: You can't get blood from a turnip.
•
Mayor Chmiel: With the pumper that we had from the Fire Department and the
carriage that has been rotting out on it. They estimated that it would be
somewhere in the neighborhood of about $60,000.00 to replace the apparatus with
it as well. We're finding that the bids are much lower and that's where it's
going to come from.
Councilwoman Dimier: Could I make one more comment? I know somebody out here
mentioned what our State Legislature is going to do for us. I know there's a
tax sales association that's going to, well. That will help but they're going
to lobby heavily, if they haven't done so already, to shift more of the burden
onto the homeowners and take it away from business, commercial and industrial.
And I would hope that everyone out here would write a letter to their legislator
and their Senator to voice your opposition to that because this is a special
interest group that wants that shift to occur and of course'the rest of us
don't.
i Councilman Workman: We'll move it to farms.
Councilwoman Dimier: Right. Tax us out of existence.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a motion? Because of the conflict that exists tomorrow
and we have to get this done. I don't want it to appear as though we're pushing
it but I think it's a very reasonable budget and I feel that staff has worked
hard at it, as well as Council, to come up with this so I would entertain a
motion because of the conflict.
Councilman Mason: Considering the fact that most of the issues tonight, well
none of the issues tonight have really dealt with city budget, I have heard no
complaints with what we're proposing for a budget so with that I'll move
approval of the budget as stated for 1993.
Mayor Chmiei: With the $5,000.00 reduction?
11 Councilman Mason: With the $5,000.00 reduction. With the understanding that
it's going toward what has been stated.
Councilman Workman: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Before I call for the question, I
will then entertain closing the public hearing and resort back to your motion.
Councilwoman Dimier moved, Councilman Mason seconded to close the public
hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was
closed.
Mayor Chmiel: Again, thank you for coming down, indicating your concerns and
' hopefully something can be done with this. We won't guarantee it but we always
24
1
City Council Meeting - December 9, 1992
look at that aspect.
Councilwoman Dimler: We need to approve the budget. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Pardon?
Councilwoman Dimler: We closed the public hearing but didn't approve the
budget.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Now I would like the approval for the budget as so stated 1
by Mike Mason and seconded by Tom Workman.
Resolution $92 -139: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Workman seconded to 1
adopt the 1993 budget as presented with the reduction of an additional $5,000.00
from the proposed expenditures of the operating budget nd the corresponding tax
levy for that budget. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 1
Mayor Chmiel adjourned the meeting at 9:07 p.m..
Submitted by Don Ashworth 1
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
25 1
•
1
.5 49
.. of-
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
11 REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 14, 1992
I
I Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.. The meeting was opened
with the Pledge to the Flag.
II COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Mason, Councilman Workman,
and Councilwoman Dimler. Councilman Wing was present through item 2.
II STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Todd Gerhardt, Charles Folch,
Paul Krauss, Kate Aanenson, Todd Hoffman and Scott Harr
II APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to
approve the agenda amended by Councilman Mason to include a comment under
Council Presentations. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
II PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS MAPLE LEAF AWARDS:
Mayor Chmiel: This is a sad time for me to have some of these people leave our
II respected commissions, only because they have done an exceptional job for the
city. The time that they've dedicated. The hours that they have really put a
lot of thought into. Many of the different things that we've done and because
II of that, they have made this a better place to live and I really appreciate that
from each of you. And the Council as well. Like I say, I hate to see any of
' them leave but due to circumstances and time commitments, I understand what
t those are. So with that I'd like to make the first presentation at this time. I
have one here for Victor Hallberg. Vic, would you like to come forward please.
Vic was one of the founding fathers of the Recylcing Commission. He's been the
Chairman since it's initiation in 1989 and he's been involved in the following.
I One which is the drop off center which we have set up here. Curbside collection,
compost site and the compost demonstration site, purchase and delivery of
recylcing bins and survey of residents and businesses to determine who recycles
II and what they want to be recycling. - Vic has been very valuable and has given a
lot of his personal time to our recycling program, which is the most successful
in Carver County, and that's not just saying it. That means it as well. I'd
like to present him with the Maple Leaf Award which is one of the highest awards
II we can present to an individual. We can't give any. cash but we can give you a
plaque because it does mean something to us to give this to you, and let me read
it. The City of Chanhassen Maple Leaf Award presented to Victor Hallberg,
II Chairman, Chanhassen Recycling Commission in recognition of dedicated public
service to the City of Chanhassen... Chanhassen City Council hereby presents this
award to you. Thank you for your . time... =:We really appreciate what you've really
I done. Steve Emmings was next on my hit list but because he's not able to be
here this evening. There's a death in his family and so I will present that to
him at another time. At this time I'd like Joan to come forward. .Joan Ahrens.
It's a real pleasure for me to .do this, to present to you with this Maple Leaf
Award. I know you've given many hours and many times that you'd rather probably
be home with your children and your husband,.but you•did give that time up for
1 the City and I really do appreciate it. So with that I would also like to read,
. II The City of Chanhassen Maple Leaf Award, which is presented to Joan Ahrens,
Chanhassen Planning Commission from 1990 to 1992 in recognition of dedicated
•
`1 1
i
1
li
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
public service to the City of Chanhassen and this is endorsed by the Chanhassen
City Council. From all those members behind me. It's their appreciation and
mine, thank you very much. I appreciate it. The next individual I'd like to
come forward is Tim Erhart. Tim, we tried to reconvince to up for at least a
couple more years but not a very good salesperson. But anyway, I really do
appreciate all the time that you have put into this Planning Commission. I know
you too as well have your children first at hand and that's where it should be.
But I do appreciate all the time that you've extended to the city. Have given
' thought to the needs of the City...with the Planning Commission. And with this
I'd also like to read, the City of Chanhassen Maple Leaf Award is presented to
Tim Erhart, Chanhassen Planning Commission 1986 thru 1992. In recognition of
dedicated public service to the City of Chanhassen and this is too signed by all
the Council people behind you and I, and with that I extend their gratitude and
thank you very much for all the time you've given. It's really appreciated.
' Thank you very much. This next one I would like to present is to Ursula Dimier.
Ursula, Tom and I came onto the City Council 4 years ago and it has been fun.
I've enjoyed it. We've learned many things. We've gotten to the point where it
becomes almost like a small little family amongst the 5. Staff too. I see that
look on your face. But seriously. It has been a lot of time that's been
extended, not only just Council meetings but meetings that we have had to have
within the City on many different varied projects. They're probably too
numerous to mention so with that I would like to extend my gratitude to you for
serving on this Council for the past 4 years and providing us your words of
wisdom. And with this I'd also like to read this. From the City of Chanhassen,
Maple Leaf Award presented to Ursula Dimier, City Councilwoman from 1989 to
' 1992. Also, the Southwest Metro Transit Commission from 1990 to 1992. And in
recognition of dedicated public service to the City of Chanhassen the Chanhassen
City Council, and that includes just the people behind you because your name's
not on here. So with that, thank you very much.
Councilwoman Dimier: Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Oh Ursula, would you come over here and stand on my left.
Thomas, 4 years have gone by quickly. I remember when we were all running for
this back in 1988 to 1989. I was looking, or hoping to try to entice someone to
run for Council. And with that, one day I was driving through Chaska where Tom
happened to be working and I saw his walking on the street. I zipped in real
quick and I said, Tom. Have you ever considered thinking about running for
Council? He said, I don't know. I look awful young. Well I want you to know
Tom, you haven't aged much, although I have. But anyway, it's been again a lot
of fun for me to serve on this Council and there are many things I thought about
' saying tonight but I chose not to. But I really want to extend a thank you from
me, and the Council as well, upon serving your 4 years. And I know you've got
bigger and better things to go and it certainly will be a great thing for me to
present your next Governor, excuse me, the Maple Leaf Award. With all
seriousness, this is presented to Ihomas Workman, City Councilman from 1989 to
1992 and also on the Housing and Redevelopment Authority 1989 to 1992, and
there's also one that they forgot to put on here with the RIB. But maybe we can
squeeze it in...but I'd like to recognize that as well. In recognition of
dedicated public service to the City of Chanhassen, the Chanhassen City Council
and your name's gone but Ursula's back on. So with this, I would like to thank
you very much. Appreciate all your support that you gave and all the effort
that you extended to the City.
1 2
1
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992 NM
Councilman Workman: Thank you very much Mayor.
Mayor Chmiel: This is the second time I've had a cake here. The first was Don
Ashworth's birthday, which was not too long ago. So I thought to carry on
tradition just a little bit more. We have a cake here saying, Thank you Ursula
( and Tom. With this we're going to serve this cake and for those of you who are
sitting here in the audience, as well as you Council members, we're going to cut
it outside and any of you(who would like to disrupt the Council chambers for a
few minutes, that's more than welcome. But one more time, thank you from all of
us as well as staff for the time that you've dedicated to the City.
Councilman Workman: Mr. Mayor, if I could maybe take a couple seconds and maybe
Ursula wants to too. I know I've roasted Ursula before and I won't do that
tonight but it has been an honor and a pleasure. I do move on to another
office. Some would say a higher office but really I don't know that I'll ever
be able to represent the people of Chanhassen as well. Maybe I'm saying this
wrong. As closely as I have on the City Council. You really do get close and
people get close to you and you're able to make those decisions. I cannot
believe where 4 years have gone since election day. I have learned that the
City is in good hands with the staff we have. The City Attorney, Roger and I'm
not going to start naming department heads because I got in trouble on election
night leaving people off. But the new Councilmembers coming on, I know we're in
good hands. I'm going to still be around, as I know Ursula is to continue to
help the City however I can. I now have 6 other parts of 6 other cities and a
little bit bigger job but I do want to say thank you to Don Ashworth and the
Mayor for tricking me into running back in 1988. When I was a 28 year old 1
person. Because it has been an experience and an honor. You do learn an awful
lot. I think I told one of our new Councilmembers, one year on the City Council
3 is like a 4 year degree in itself. You learn a lot about people and policy and
what's good and what's wrong and what you like and what you don't like. But it
has been fun and an honor and I'm going to still be around here a little bit, if
they don't change the locks on me. So thank you very much for the honor.
Appreciate it.
Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah I too would like to say thank you to all the staff. I
agree with Tom wholeheartedly. They are very capable and I've always trusted
them. I know sometimes we've challenged them and that's what we're here to do
because we do want to protect the citizens, the taxpayers as well so, it's been
fun. It has been a challenge. I've grown personally. I've learned to be the
only woman there and hold my ground, which is a challenge for you out there
Colleen. I am very pleased that we will have another woman on the Council and
I'm sure you'll all work well with her as well. And I know that we are in good 11 hands and I'm very, very comfortable. And thank you again for all your
kindnesses in working with me throughout the year. - • .
Councilman Mason: Mr. Mayor? 1
Mayor Chmiel: Yes Michael.
Councilman Mason: I'd like to make a quick comment about the two Council people 1
that are about to leave. When I ran I figured that there would be a certain
amount of disagreement between me and the Council people that are here, and
{ that's true. The nice thing about it is, I never once felt as though I was 1
3
1
_ City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
MI
being attacked personally. I thought all of us maintained an extremely
professional attitude if you will, about the whole thing. The gavel went down
and the arguments would start and the gavel went down and the arguments would
end. At least on the surface. I've appreciated the relationships I've
developed here. I've learned a lot from both of you. I hope that we as a
r Council, with the new people coming in, will work as well as I feel that we have
the 2 years that I've been here. I appreciate it very much, both of you.
Mayor Chmiel: So with that, I'd like to move the agenda forward.
CONSENT AGENDA; Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve
' the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's
recommendations:
' b. Approve Settlement Agreement with MnDot on Burdick Property.
c. Contract Amendment for Surface Water Management Program.
' d. Preliminary Plat Approval to Subdivide 3.9 Acres into 4 lots, Gateway 1st
Addition, Brad Johnson.
' e. Resolution $92 - 140: Accept Public Utility Improvements in Ithilien, Project
92 -13.
f. Resolution #92 - 141: Accept Street Improvements in Kurvers Point 2nd
' Addition, Project 92 -11.
g. Resolution $92 - 142: Approve Change Order. No. 2 for Upper Bluff Creek Trunk
Utility Project 91 -17.
h. Approve Storm Drainage Improvements by City Forces for the Minnewashta
Parkway Improvement Project 90 -15.
j. Consider Request for Extension to Delay Parking Lot Improvements for Quattro
Club Garage, Lot 1, Quattro Addition, Frank Beddor Jr.
' k. Request for an Extension of a Wetland Alteration Permit for Thomas Kordonowy
South of Tanadoona Drive and West of Dogwood Road.
' 1. Approval of Accounts.
m. Approval of Minutes.
' n. Authorization to Contribute $500 of Surface Water Management Program Funds
to the Urban Wetland Management Coalition.
' o. Approval of 1993 Chanhassen Senior Center Advisory Board members.
p. McGlynn Tax Increment District, Confirmation of desire to see School siting
occur in Chanhassen.
q. Appointements to Public Safety Commission.
4
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
r. Approve Development Contract for Parking Deferment, Market Square.
All voted in favor and the lotion carried unanimously.
A. CITY CODE AMENDMENT REGARDING WETLANDS, FINAL READING AND APPROVAL OF
SUMMARY ORDINANCE FOR PUBLICATION PURPOSES.
Councilman Workman: Mr. Mayor, we have a good, everybody's said what a great
ordinance we have here and congratulations Paul. We do. I'm taking this
ordinance with me down to St. Paul and at the appropriate time I'm going to
spring it on everybody down there. One dilemma that I have is, we have
different wetland types. Pristine, natural, ag urban utilized and utilized. We
have a very large utilized wetland near the north side of the Saddlebrook
development. North side off of Powers Boulevard. Are you aware where that is?
South of Butte. You know what I mean? We have a large wetland there.
Paul Krauss: North of Saddlewood? '
Councilman Workman: Saddlebrook. And a utilized wetland is deceiving in that
it's, well it's got some utility. It does something is apparently what it got
it's name from and it's used to catch the things that we don't want moving
downstream. And we created that large wetland. The reason I bring that wetland
up is because it's a very obvious wetland that somebody has now built a shed
almost in the wetland. I mean within feet. We have no setbacks to those
wetlands. My desire would be to actually, if not tonight, because I'm not going
to waste everybody's time this late in the game, but would be to actually make
this tougher, and maybe we cannot by law, make it tougher to create setbacks on
utilized wetland. But everybody that talks to me about setbacks and wetlands,
setbacks points to that shed and says, that shed is 2 feet from the edge of the
water. People are putting white rock, red rock. They're mowing up to the
water's edge. I think people feel we're giving or we have a double standard
with our wetlands. if they did that, why can't we. Are we going to get in
trouble by having that standard?
Paul Krauss: Well, in essence what we try to do is create a hierarchy of
wetlands and by definition utilized are not going to be classified as protected
wetlands. They're manufactured water bodies. They were created for a purpose.
We're still going through the map to make sure that we have them designated
correctly. But basically they were created to impound storm water or to make
sure that water quality standards are being met. Because of that you have to go
in there every 3 years and excavate out the sediment that you were trying to
trap and we don't want to have to go through a wetland alteration permit to
maintain what was created to serve a function. One of the pieces of language
that I managed to get written into the State rules is that by definition those
things are not wetlands. If they were created for a specific purpose, it may
walk and talk like a wetland but•it:really.is one.' To allow to -do what
you need to do. One of,the things that we tried.to do with the.tordinance, new
ordinance was give a little more flexibility to property owners in exchange for
offering higher levels of protection for wetlands and that was one of the trade
offs honestly was diminishing the setback standards in some cases,•.in•some of
the lower valued wetlands. I don't know if that explains it all but I'd be
happy to go through it with you and if you think.
5
1
II City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
Councilman Workman: Paul, I'm shocked to hear you thought that that would be a
good compromise. It's a confusing example to people. Maybe the setbacks
because the developer's required to dig this hole to drain sediment, it's a good
compromise. I can understand that. But it would seem to me then that we
shouldn't maybe allow them to, to be forthright it looks really bad. It looks
like a really bad pond where there are cattails. Maybe, if they didn't mow.
And ducks and geese land on it. And you're right, it looks and walks and talks
like a wetland and it's a signal to people that, it's a very vivid example of
how a wetland shouldn't look so people get a confusing view.
Paul Krauss: The problem that we confronted Tom is that you will have roadside
' ditches and places where a culvert was backed up. Give it a.year or two, it
will look like a wetland. Does that mean it is a wetland and deserves to have
the wrath of the State come down upon the head of anybody that tries to tinker
with it. We thought yes it did. If it was really truly a wetland. If it was,
the Lord put it there and we're going to protect it kind of a thing. But if it
was created, actually manufactured for some other purpose, we may manage it so
that it has wetland characteristics and offers wildlife habitat and what not,
but meantime the water level's going to be bouncing around when it rains because
it's going to receive a lot of water. In the meantime we need to get back in
there with a backhoe every few years and excavate it out because it is a
sediment trap. So I'd have to say it was one of those compromises that was
made.
Councilman Wing: But Paul, I'll pursue this on Tom's behalf because whether we
want to call it a small lake or a pond or a wetland, I don't think we want
buildings and sheds abutting up against because we don't allow it on any other
water bodies and I'll look at it Tom and pursue it in the future.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah I think, if I can just chime in. That at one time was
Kerber Farm. The Kerber's planted corn right where that moisture is of many
II years when we did have rain. The water built up and that crop never came in in
that particular location. And so consequently it was more of a ponding area
than anything else. Even though it was made into what it is, it had a natural
spring in it as well and that's part of the history behind that that I thought
II I'd just throw out.
Paul Krauss: We'll certainly take another look at it and we can bring it back
II up on the SWMP committee agenda.
( Councilman Workman: I would move approval.
! 1 Councilman Mason: Second.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve City Code
' Amendment Regarding Wetlands, Final Reading and Approval of Summary Ordinance
{ for Publication Purposes. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously.
' VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None.
111
6
1
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
PUBLIC HEARING: CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING ON TRUNK UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS IN
SECTION 1ONW AND 9NE; AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. PROJECT
92 -5. Ir--
Public Present:
Name Address
Jay Dolesji 6961 Chaparal Lane
Bill Turner 3501 Shore Drive
Terry Forbord Lundgren Bros, Wayzata MN
Don Jensen Rottlund Homes
Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. This again is a continuation
of the public hearing for this improvement project in Section 9 and 10. At the
last public hearing the question was raised as to whether either one or both of
the developers petitioning for this improvement project would be willing to
provide security in terms of a letter of credit, cash escrow to guarantee their
commitments to the cost associated with preparing the project plans and
specifications. At that hearing Mr. Don Jensen, representing Rottlund Homes
testified that Rottlund Homes Incorporated would be willing to secure their
share of the cost but Mr. Terry Forbord representing Lundgren Bros was not able
to give a decision on that at the meeting. :Subsequent to the public hearing
I've had discussions with Mr. Forbord and he has informed me that Lundgren Bros'
willing to secure their share of the cost in preparing the feasibility study or
preparing the plans and specifications for the project based on their fulfilling
their commitment to the development proposal. And I'm sure Terry will want to
speak tonight on some of the conditions and some of the important aspects of
this related to their purchase option that they've secured which is expected to
expire in April. And also the need to complete these improvements during 1993
in order to allow home building to yet begin next year. One of the key issues
which I think needs to be discussed in association with this is the mutually
agreeing upon a drop dead date for either moving ahead with the project whereby
if the project's not ordered, that basically the two developers would be
reimbursed, or would not be responsible for the cost associated with the
project. As the Manager's comments in the staff report have reiterated to very
well that you know that it's very rare that you will ever have a situation where
all the property owners affected by a project are supportive of the project and
that typically once the improvements are installed, you will subsequently have
orderly development which will occur in that serviceable area. Staff has
presented at the previous hearing and the supporting data are attached again to
your staff report on the expected initial and future ultimate assessment revenue
schedules for the project. Staff continues to recommend and support a 1 unit '
per 10 acre increment trunk assessment for the large lot, small acreage hobby
farm type properties that are not developing or intending to develop at this
point in time. And that future hook -up• charges would be collected upon
development. However, staff recommends that full lateral benefit assessments be
assessed with the project. with that staff believes that the project could move
ahead from a financial standpoint and we'll turn it over to any public
discussion.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Charles. Is there anyone at this time wishing to
address this issue? This is a public hearing. This has been carried through 1
7
11
mg City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992 - -
and continued. is there anyone wishing to address this at this time? Just
please state your name and your address.' -
Jay Dolesji: My name is Jay Dolesji, 6961 Chaparal Lane. I own a small part of
II the Lundgren property as well as some property in the '95 Study Area. I've been
coming to these meetings for many years, starting with the Comprehensive Plan
where the discussion and effort and time was spent by the people here on the
questions of how this area is going to develop and what's going to happen with
it. And those decisions were made back then and it seems as though now we've
gotten to the point where they need to be implemented. It seems as though that
some of the property in that area was omitted. I mean the '95 Study Area for
II somewhat arbitrary reason that the City had. I guess I personally would like to
see that the Council approve the continuation of this project and the orderly
development of that part of the town. Another thing I'd like to point out is
I've been attending the Highway 5 Task Force on the development of Highway 5 and
right now they're in the process of planning for a collector boulevard to go
through that area. The entire length of Highway 5 or the western portion and
this is planned in a timeframe of only a year or two later than what this
II development's going to be. So it seems that this is a timely and appropriate
point to be putting these utilities in and opening that area up for development.
And that added development's going to benefit the town. It has more benefit
II than just a few people in the area. The new businesses that Market Square and
Target and the existing businesses will benefit by the influx of new people into
the town as well. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Jay. Is there anyone else?
Bill Turner: Gentlemen, I'm Bill Turner. For the past almost 20 years I've
II been running a business on TH 41 on a portion of the property that's being
considered for this development. I, of course would like to see this move
forward and I'd like to just mention also that this is an opportunity for the
I City to rid themselves of a non - conforming use and allow us to move into a
properly zoned property hopefully in Chanhassen. So those are my interests
regarding this issue. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else?
Councilman Workman: I would move to close the public hearing, if it hasn't been
II closed.
Councilwoman Dimler: Second.
II Mayor Chmiel: Maybe Mr. Forbord may want to say something at this particular
time, before we close the public hearing.
II Terry Forbord: Your Honor, members of the City Council. My name is Terry
Forbord, 935 East Wayzata Boulevard, Lundgren Bros. Before I talk about this
project I'd like to thank Counciler Workman and Counciler Dimler for your
I service to the community. It's been the pleasure of Lundgren Bros to have the
opportunity to work with you as Council people. Related to this issue, I think
each of you know the position of Lundgren Bros. Know how much we really would
' like to develop this neighborhood community within your city. I think that at
least we've done the best that we can in representing those facts to you. I do
8
1
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992 t
not know what at this point in time what the will of the Council is. If the
will of the Council is to not vote in support of this this evening, then I would
ask that they table it until we can do whatever we have to do to satisfy the
concerns that the Council may gave. From my experience in working with you over
the last 2 1/2 years, I have never certainly had the feeling from the Council or
1 the staff or the Planning Commission that they did not want this project to
continue. But it may not, again I don't know what the will of the Council is
this evening, and if in fact the will of the Council is that they're
uncomfortable with taking action this evening, then I would ask that they table
this until January sometime. Thank you. --
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. ,
Councilman Workman: I would now so move, unless nobody. I'll make that as a
motion. ,
Councilwoman Dimler: To close the public hearing?
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? ,
Councilman Mason: Second.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to close the public hearing.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Councilman Workman: Really, in short, I think we're coming down to the end '
here. Beginning of something. I don't know who's fault it is. It's probably
f the Council's fault but we really haven't given this piece of property, either
1 by restraining our staff or other, any indication that we didn't want to go
through with this. I know we asked some questions about the feasibility and
everything else long ago. It appears as though things do change obviously but
I'll re- emphasize what I said. That we talked about that exact MUSA line 2
years ago or so and it was a lot of work and a lot of pain and to me that's when
the argument was won or lost. And so we open it up and to now not go ahead with
this in an orderly fashion, I think Jay said, to me seems a little bit wrong.
And so I'm going to support it and I'm looking forward to hearing everybody
else's comments.
Mayor Chmiel: Michael. '
Councilman Mason: A couple of comments, and I wonder if Phil could answer this
one. A number of people have asked me why it can't be gravity flow sanitary
drainage in that project and not being an expert, I had no idea. I know there's
been a lot of concern over that. A lot of people feel it could be and if I
could just get a quick synopsis from you on that perhaps, then I have a couple
more things to say. I'll be back.
Phil Gravel: That property can go.
Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to come up to the microphone?
Phil Gravel: I'm Phil Gravel from Bonestroo Engineering. Part of the project
area will, as part of this project, would go gravity to the Lake Ann Interceptor
9 1
1
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
and the Lundgren Bros property is in an area that can go either towards the Lake
Ann Interceptor as we're proposing, or in the future it could go to the Bluff
Creek Interceptor. It's in an area that could flow either way. And the reason
it couldn't go to the Bluff Creek at this time is because that sewer won't be
I built for 3 to 5 or 6 years because it's still got to come up from down on Lyman
where it's currently being constructed. So to answer your question, the project
area could conceiveably go either way and it's more appropriate to bring it the
way it's proposed at this time due to timing.
II Councilman Mason: What's the cost difference Phil, just out of curiousity?
' Phil Gravel: It's pretty much a wash. Not having the Bluff Creek sewer to that
point now, we weren't able to go into a detailed enough analysis to give us a
real accurate decision on that.
1 Councilman Mason: I was really pleased to see that Lundgren Bros and Rottlund
were able to come forth with sharing the cost on the proposal. Or the
feasibility study. My concern is if it does, to use our City Engineer's term,
II go drop dead, the City then is still responsible then? We would bear the cost?
Mayor Chmiel: I don't sometimes agree with that position. That the City should
absorb those costs but...
Councilman Mason: I share Councilman Workman's concern about the fact that this
has been in the hopper for quite some time and I don't know that we've ever
I though that we were going to stop the project. I think there have been some
questions that needed to have been answered. I would, knowing how this city is
growing, I would be hard pressed to, this is maybe kind of a back handed way of
I supporting this. I would be hard pressed to vote against it at this point. I
have some reservations just because of how quickly things are happening but it's
here and it's coming and I think we've done a fairly good job so far.
II Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Ursula.
Councilwoman Dimler: I have some mixed feelings about this one. Of course I
I like what Lundgren Bros has done in our city. They've been excellent. They
always have excellent developments and they cooperate well with our ordinances.
The main thing that I'm concerned about on this one is that I would like to know
' what the progress is that has been made in purchasing of the Song property,
because to me without the Song property the project really isn't feasible. And
if you have major, I mean this project isn't feasible without the Song property.
If you have major loopholes like that, I'm saying that we're not quite ready.
II I'm uncomfortable with the feeling of being told that the City Council here is
pushing the project or not pushing the project. I don't think that's our job.
We're just here to okay or not okay what you bring to us. And so far I'm not
II comfortable with that big loophole in there of what you've brought to us. Does
anybody have an answer to where we are on the purchase of that? Is there any
progress being made on purchasing the Song property?
' Mayor Chmiel: Is staff aware of anything as yet or?
Charles Folch: No, we have not been made aware of any changes on the status
I I that Mr. Carlson presented to the Council at the last hearing.
' 10
1
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Terry, would you like to say something?
Terry Forbord: Your Honor, members of the City Council. Terry Forbord with
Lundgren Bros. As reiterated to you at the last meeting, Mr. Carlson and
Lundgren Bros are working together for hopefully the final closing to
acquisition of the property formerly known as the Song property. These types of
transactions don't happen overnight. The three properties that recently were
approved referenced as the Johnson - Dolesji- Turner property of which you approved
a preliminary plat and what this project is for, were probably in negotiation
for, oh I'm guessing 6 months. At a minimum. They take a lot of time because
there's a lot at stake for people and just the way that Lundgren Bros likes to
conduct their business. We don't like to force things down people's throats. We
like to work with them. Find out what is it they're trying to achieve. Maybe
they have some tax ramifications. There's always a whole lot of things not even
related to the City issues that are very important in a transactions. It's got
to be a very comfortable situation. Mr. Carlson's situation is not unlike those
and in fact it's a little more complicated. He has a very nice, brand new home
very close to the southern boundary of his property. And we've taken a great
deal of consideration to that and not trying to rush things. We spent a lot of
time analyzing the wetlands there. The wooded areas. The ridgelines of the
trees that are within his view corridor of his home. The future center line of
the collector road that goes east /west as well as other factors that are
important to the Carlsons and the decisions so they may continue with the quiet
enjoyment they currently have. Mr. Carlson has indicated to Lundgren Bros that
he would like to sell his property to us and we are trying to work to that end.
However there's all these things that we need to accomplish in order to give him
that ultimate satisfaction because we owe that to him. I guess that's the way
we look at it as part of a partnership in going through this acquisition
process. And obviously he has a great concern too. So in my opionion I think
that we're moving forward in a very professional, diligent manner. We're not
doing anything that we would regret later on. We want to make sure that the
City's going to be happy. We want to make sure that the seller's going to be
happy and obviously from an economic feasibility standpoint, it has to work for
us. So again, in my opinion those things are working very positively. If he
did not want to sell, Jerome would make that very clear and he would say go
away. That is not what he has said but there are a lot of things yet to be
answered. In my opinion, I believe that that property will develop and I
believe that that property will develop faster if this project is ordered.
There's no doubt in my mind because that's the way the system works.
' Councilwoman Dimier: Okay. And my other concern is then if we go ahead and
authorize the preparation of the plans and specifications and this doesn't come
to pass, then we bear the cost so I'm a little uncomfortable. I feel like we're
putting the cart before the horse here.
•
Mayor Chmiel: Richard. '
Councilman Wing: I think the variety of subjects have been covered. I guess
I'd just go back to Tom's comments. When I came on the Council the
Comprehensive Plan and the MUSA line were brought up and accordingly because
staff stated or the City stated that we're out of developable land and we had to
move the MUSA line, which was a thorn to me because as Terry just said, once you
move the MUSA line and you open up for sewer and water, you are going to develop '
11 '
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
faster. And I don't know why we want to develop faster. And I couldn't
understand why we were so concerned about being out of developable land just so
we could develop faster. But it's done. When we moved the MUSA line, we opened
this area up for development and I think the day that was done we really,
whether we liked it or not, approved this project. That's why we moved the MUSA
line to develop. So there's no one here speaking against it. Everybody's seems
to be speaking for it and I don't have any reason not to with one exception. If
we're going to start running across open country to provide sewer and water to
' outlying development, and I realize they aren't going to happen all in order. I
just want to make sure that we're not forcing developable. We're not forcing
someone to sell their land. That we're not forcing out seniors and that we're
just not creating hardships for people that would prefer to be left alone.
' We're done that with the 1 unit per 10 acre so I guess it's .hard for me to vote
against this. I think we've sort of already made the decision to do it. The
issue comes down to some very fine points. Who's going to pay for what studies
' and when and I'm assuming these things are going to roll. So maybe it really
isn't a point to argue about at this point.
' Mayor Chmiel: I guess I see two different things here. One is sort of a major
issue with the Council being as it is now. Two going off and two additional
coming on. I'm not sure what position they may take or could possibly put this
particular project down. And I'm not trying to speak for them but I'm just
trying to cover some of those aspects of it. And the majority may be different
than what it is right now. They may favor the project or maybe not favor the
project. But my own thinking on this would be to have had the new Council on
' board to come up with that kind of decision making and I was going to, Tom's
giving me the smirky smile there. I was going to bring the issue forward to say
tabling of this at this particular time. But here again I'm not sure. The
other concern that I have is one of the things too that Richard picked up on. I
' don't want to see the forcing of this but more of less the hardship that is born
by the other people in and adjacent to that particular area, and I do have
concerns for those people and I've indicated that the last time that I had seen
' that take place. The other thing too is that, my understanding is that
Lundgren's are willing to put up the $40,000.00 plus, or whatever it was. I
don't remember the total dollars right now but the additional dollars for doing
' the plans and specs. And yet if the so choosing is of the developer not to
continue with this, then the City turns around and eats those costs. Terry?
Terry Forbord: Your Honor, I did not interpret that in the staff report and
that is not the position of Lundgren Bros. The position is that if the City
renigs, the City should pay. If Lundgren Bros renigs, it should be solely our
responsibility. Excuse me for interrupting.
Mayor Chmiel: No, I appreciate you. Normally I wouldn't allow it but I do
appreciate you getting up and doing it at this particular time because that is
something that I wanted clarified. And I think by just saying it the way I did
caused that little bit of flame to come up and that's good. But anyway, that is
part of some of my concerns for this. So that was one of the things that I had
mentioned or that I'm stating of tabling this for the next.
Councilwoman Dimler: I will second your motion to table.
1
1 12
1
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
m
Mayor Chmiel: Well, I won't entertain a motion as yet because I do want some
discussion. --
Councilwoman Dimler: Oh, I thought that was your motion.
Mayor Chmiel: I do want some discussion. Tom. 1
Councilman Workman: I agree with all the discussion and Mayor and Ursula, I'm
going to respect you guys to the end. I think we have a unique situation here
in that we have in the path of any kind of development, maybe things we didn't
really, we talked about them during the Comprehensive Plan update but I don't
think we really recognized the impact of a large 175 acre Eckankar property. We
didn't, who knows what Prince Roger Nelson's going to do. The Song property.
That large tract that they don't care if they develop it in 20 years maybe.
Jerome Carlson. Not your average property owner. He doesn't need to develop.
Probably won't. All these big tracts out in the middle that potentially would
never have to develop so we have the Dolesji's and the Turner's and people on
the other side who are going to be, could be trapped. Now is that our problem
or is that our worry? I guess it doesn't have to be. If we were thinking
about, Eckankar was thinking about developing. If the properties on the way
were kind of in a gradual 5 year, we're thinking about doing it. We're on our
way to thinking about doing it. Not that I want to force them to do it. I
think it would be different. But those properties are now out there and within
the MUSA line and want to take advantage of that and are not because of, not
what is our problem or our fault. You know Jerome Carlson has some of the most
successful businesses in town as the memo states, and we did the exact same
thing to get his businesses in there. So he understands what's going on here.
I think everybody does. The frontage road that was mentioned from Powers Blvd.
all the way down to TH 41 is going to cause some problems. Eckankar doesn't
have any desire to develop the bottom portion of their parcel. They don't want
a road through there. So do we lose the opportunity for that road to go all the
way to TH 41 from Powers Blvd if Eckankar won't allow us to at the very
beginning of that road? I think we're taking action to make sure that it does
happen for safety reasons, etc.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I don't disagree with some of your analogy but the City has
a right for condemnation to take that property, of which we more than likely
will do. But yet the road in itself is a necessary evil for the access into
Lake Ann and also for the safety of the residents within the community. To have
a parkway or a service road in and adjacent to that. To Highway 5. ,
-
Councilman Workman: And that's necessary for us. What's necessary for the
property owners further to the west is something different. We just happen to
have the power of condemnation. _
Councilwoman Dimler: But then they have paid. We won't pay them for...pay to
have it done when they don't want it.
Councilman Workman: I'm just trying to make the point that we're never, ever
going to have every parcel from Powers Blvd out to TH 41 in agreement with this ,
Council or the next one or the one after that as to when's a good time to do
this. And it's a tough decision but I'm prepared to make it and that's why I'm,
this Council did the work on this for 2 years so I'm ready to make the decision.
13
so City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
Not leave it to people who may not want to make the decision you know in
""', January.
Mayor Chmiel: Well yeah, but I only introduced that for additional thought into
what the whole matter is. Because they will still come back for the
finalization of what's being proposed. This is just the plans and specs.
II Councilman Workman: My problem is the last two meetings we've done the exact
same thing. This will be the third meeting in a row that we've done that and we
maybe shouldn't have gotten it onto this agenda but I'm hearing the same, we're
doing the same tabling to learn more about it and I don't know what else there
is to learn. It's just, I think it's just a tough decision. .
Mayor Chmiel: Well it's a tough decision and tabling is the easy part of it but
' yet I'm trying to enter in all the things that are our concerns or that have
been concerns over the period of time that we've discussed it. I'm just
- reiterating again some of the things.
' Councilman Wing: I want to piggyback on Tom because everytime we table it, I
keep asking myself why. I mean let's either not develop or let's develop. Let's
either move or not move but we keep tabling it but what's changed. Tom's
' comments that it's the same issues and the same discussion and it's kind of
almost wasting my time. Let's either move or not move. Tabling it, if that's
what we choose to do, let's be up front and simply not develop and let's not go
at it all this time. I'm happy with that. Let's put a 12 month hold on this
whole thing until we can clarify the air and see what Jerome's going to do and
what all is going to occur. But in lieu of that, nothing's changed and I think
that I'd like to see this Council that has the history and the background and
the education, that's worked with this thing from ground zero to make that
decision to move or not. Now the final plans can well fall on the new Council
but with all due respect, I think this is the group that has the background and
history to really make the decision whether to more or not move. So if we're
going to table it, I need to know why and what are we going to accomplish. And
if there's not a specific reason to table, then I'd like to drop this whole
' issue for a few months and look at in the spring when the trees start to bud
Mr. Mayor.
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I'd like to speak in favor of tabling obviously.
' Sometimes when you table it gives people a chance to move and I know they want
the Council to be the impetus to get the whole thing moving and I don't know if
we should play that role. I think they ought to come together on their own and
come to us and bring us a completed plan with all the properties aligned.
Mayor Chmiel: I don't know if Mr. Carlson's out of town or not but I would have
' expected to have seen him here this evening and to take a position. And not
being here gives me the position of maybe he doesn't care of what way it really
goes. And so I would entertain a motion.
' Councilwoman Dimler: I move to table.
Councilman Mason: Why don't I get my two cents in here first. I would have to
' concur with Councilman Workman and Councilman Wing. I agree that this has been
on our desks for quite some time now and I don't, I've heard property owners
' 14
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
saying they want to go for it. I haven't really heard any real cogent reasons
from the podium at this point to say no...
Councilwoman Dimler: The reason I would like to table it is so that they can
get their act together without having us. I just resent anyone wanting us to be
the impetus so the whole developments goes. 1
Councilman Mason: I guest I don't see us as being the impetus here. Somebody's
asking. '
Councilwoman Dimier: Obviously somebody's playing games with the land.
Councilman Mason: Somebody wants a feasibility study. It petitioned. It
is in the MUSA line. It's their right to do that so I guess I don't share your
concern on that.
Councilwoman Dimier: Yeah, but also bring us what you really want. Don't play
games is what I'm saying. I think they want us to be the impetus to get the
whole thing going and then they'll all jockey around for best position for 11 themselves. That's the way I see it. So I think it's premature.
Councilman Wing: The only person that's come in and asked for this has been
Lundgren Bros specifically to develop one parcel and even come in with plans and
I thought it was rolling. All of a sudden it hinges on giving them sewer and
water but they're in the MUSA line and I guess I'm kind of surprised we're not
giving them sewer and water. They're not asking for anything except sewer and
water to their land in the MUSA line. My only question would remain, is there
anybody enroute that's getting clobbered and I don't see anybody.
Councilwoman Dimler: Well they're not here tonight but obviously with the huge i
assessments.
Councilman Wing: But see on the assessments, I don't see any. There's a
$1,600.00 one and an $830.00 one. I don't see anybody getting hit. If I saw a
$32,000.00 assessment against some family or somebody that owned 10 acres, and
Rottlund is. '
Councilwoman Dimler: Have the assessments come down since last time?
Councilman Wing: They're all here and the highest one I saw was about, maybe '
you can address that Charles. I'm not going to explain that.
Charles Folch: Yeah the assessment roll that is contained in your packet is the
same roll that was in your last packet at the previous Council meeting. There
have been no changes. You have one roll or schedule that shows the predicted
initial assessment revenue schedule and you also have one that predicts an
ultimate condition. In the initial schedule basically have used the policy that
you established on similar projects for the large lot, small acreage. 10 acre
increment hobby farm type properties were only assessed 1 trunk unit per 10
acres and that's what you'll see accordingly in that initial assessment roll.
Laterals, the full benefit of the lateral assessment has also been incurred in
that schedule and that primarily effects the properties that are intending to
develop.
15 '
1
.11 City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
All .
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. What is this Brett Davidson for $46,000.00?
ch: Is that, you may looking that under an ultimate condition.
Charles Fol t, y u y be loo ing at t n.
II If potential units that could be generated.
Councilman Wing: Total assessable.
II Councilwoman Dimler: Okay ...is that initial conditions?
Mayor Chmiel: That's Appendix 8, Initial Conditions.
II Councilwoman Dimler: But that seems rather high for me to put on somebody.
Phil Gravel: Councilperson Dimler. Staff asked us to prepare three difference
1 initial scenarios and I think you're looking at page 12. Are you?
Councilwoman Dimler: Wherever these, it says $46,416.00.
' Phil Gravel: Right. That is a scenario where we assumed that Mr. Davidson's
property would also develop. I'm sure you're aware that the Rottlund Companies
I is in an agreement to develop the Klingelhutz property adjacent to the Davidson
property and it's our understanding, and staff's understanding that they're also
talking to the Davidson people about developing their property. So one of the
1 three scenarios we looked at was to include the Davidson property. I think if
I you would look at say Sheet 6. I'm sorry, Sheet 9 has a scenario where
Davidson's property does not develop and in that case the assessment there is
$3,868.00.
1 Councilwoman Dimler: Okay.
Councilman Workman: Can I make a motion?
II Mayor Chmiel: Sure.
II Councilman Wing: There's a motion out to table isn't there?
Councilwoman Dimler: Nobody seconded it.
' Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, nobody seconded it. I see that I think we should move on
with this and I agree with some of the analogies that we've had here on changing
at least my mind. I see that we have to come up with a conclusion as to how and
I what direction we're going to go. And I think we've sat on this long enough.
We either approve it or not approve and I would entertain a motion.
I Councilman Workman: I would make the motion simply as stated in the December 9,
1992 staff report. Charles' letter to Don Ashworth on page 3. Do I need to
read that?
II Don Ashworth: Basically what you would be doing is ordering the project and
requesting that plans and specifications be prepared.
II Councilman Wing: Could I clarify that? The sewer and water will be running
south on Galpin to pick up the Klingelhutz /Rottlund proposal? There's two
1 16
•
i
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
1
separate issues here. Is that the one we're looking at where we're going to run
south on Galpin and pick up that area and west to the Lundgren? 1
Charles Folch: At this point that's correct, yeah. Its the full project.
•
Councilman Mason: I'll second the motion. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Motion's on the floor with a second. Any other
discussion? 1
Resolution #92 -143: Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to
authorize the preparation of plans and specifications for Project 92 -5 as a MSA 11 429 public improvement project with the costs of the project assessed back to
all lateral benefitting property owners and simultaneously requiring that
Lundgren Bros and Rottlund Homes put in place a letter of credit or other
security to guarantee the costs of the plans and specifications. If they decide
not to move forward with their development plans or ask that the city not award
the construction contract, the letter of credit would be cashed. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
(Councilman Wing left the meeting at this point.)
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER APPROVING MODIFICATION NO. 12 TO THE REDEVELOPMENT
PLAN AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE CHANHASSEN DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT.
Todd Gerhardt: Mr. Mayor, Council members. Included in your packet is a public
hearing notice for Modification No. 12 to the Redevelopment Plan. Under this
plan you have approximately four modifications that exist. One, is for land
write down for the Target store. Two, is the acquisition of Taco Shop and Apple
Valley Red -E -Mix. Three is.
Mayor Chmiel: Can I have it quiet in the Council Chamber please?
Todd Gerhardt: Three would deal with the conference center /recreational center
land acquisition and development. And four would be that the HRA commit certain
dollars for additional expenditures which will be the mutual benefit of the HRA
to Carver County and School • District #112 for roadway improvements and land
write down for future school -site development. This is a public hearing under
State law. • :.-
Mayor Chmiel: This is a public hearing. Is there anyone wishing to address the
Council at this particular time? This is your opportunity. 1
Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor. We did receive today a letter from the School
District supporting the plan amendments. I distributed a copy of those to all
Council members. It should have been in your separate pile of handouts.
Mayor Chmiel: If I see no one wishing to address this, can I have a motion to
close the public hearing?
1
17 1
11
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dialer seconded to close the public
hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was
closed.
' Councilman Workman: I would move to approve.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second with discussion?
' Councilman Mason: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: Discussion?
' Resolution 192 -144: Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to
approve the resolution approving Modification No. 12 to the Redevelopment and
Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Chanhassen Downtown Redevelopment Project.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
AWARD OF BIDS: NORTH LEG TRUNK HIGHWAY 101, PROJECT 88 -22B.
Mayor Chmiel: Charles. Where is Charles?
I Councilman Workman: Mr. Mayor, understanding that he's out probably setting up
sewers or something. I think it's fairly simple. I had a question for Charles
today about how do we award bids and recognizing why we're awarding them. How
' do we award bids when we don't know how South Shore Drive is going to be treated
and he told me that MnDot has decided to leave that intersection alone as the
plan stated, which is a right -in and a right -out. And it would leave West 77th
Street alone which means for those Council members remaining, less politics in
' the coming year. So I've been keeping an eye on this. Obviously I live nearby
and it seems to be a most satisfactory way to go. I would move approval if we
want to by-pass Charles a little bit.
Councilwoman Dimler: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Motion on the floor with a second. Thank you Charles, we
appreciate that.
Resolution 192 -145: Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Disler seconded to
award the bid for the Trunk Highway 101 North Leg Realignment Project No. 88 -22B
to C.S. McCrossan Construction Inc. in the amount of 11,488,449.04. All voted
in favor and the motion carried.
' UTILITY BILL APPEAL. STATEWIDE AUTO SALVAGE. LAVERNE VASSAR.
Mayor Chmiel: Who will cover this for item number 5? Charles are you going to
1 cover 5?
Don Ashworth: I can. This item had been tabled from the last meeting as Mr.
Vassar had questions of billing associated with a few other parcels. I had Dave
Hempel review each of the parcels that Mr. Vassar questioned and the Council has
a copy of that report. I continue to find his property being treated equal as
others and would recommend that the bill as established continue in place.
1
18
11
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992 1
( Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Mr. Vassar. 1
LaVerne Vassar: I'd like to know what the City of Chanhassen is furnishing me
for $1,200.00 last year and $900.00 this year? And I'd like a letter to that.
What you're furnishing me for what I'm paying for. Because you're furnishing me
blue sky is what you're furnishing me.
Don Ashworth: Paul, would you go through some of the objectives that are trying
to be accomplished through the storm water plan? Or potentially cite the
documents that Mr. Vassar might come in and review to basically respond to the
question he just posed.
,LaVerne Vassar: That's not what I asked you. I asked you what you're
furnishing me. That's what I'm asking you. What you're furnishing me. Not
what your plans are. What you're furnishing me at today. 1
Don Ashworth: But a plan represents what it is this city is attempting to
accomplish. 1
LaVerne Vassar: Well that might be 100 years from now.
Don Ashworth: I don't think it will be quite that long. Paul, could you.
Mayor Chmiel: Paul, would you like to address that?
Paul Krauss: Well, to put it in context. I've been asked by several '
homeowners, or a number of homeowners, where does my $3.22 every quarter go to
because I want my improvements now. You often find that there isn't a specific
improvement, certainly not one that $3.22 a quarter buys but what we've done to
date with the Surface Water Management Program. You saw one of the results
tonight when we developed our new wetland protection ordinance. That's now in
place. We have the entire city drainage basins modeled. We are now having
development install appropriate on site ponding and water quality control
improvements. We are developing and have developed a lake protection plan.
We're going to be doing some construction projects this winter and spring to
improve lake water quality in a series of lakes like Lotus Lake, Lake Riley.
We've developed an educational program. Our planning effort is going to be
completed later this spring and from there on we'll be doing a series of
projects all around the community having a direct and beneficial impact on water
quality and storm drainage. . - - -
LaVerne Vassar: You still haven't answered me, what you're furnishing se.
You're charging me a usery fee for something I'm not getting. Blue sky. That's
exactly what it is.
Mayor Chmiel: Do you have a response to that? •You•needn't but. 1
Paul Krauss: Well, you know the only response I-can give is there are going to
be improvements all around the community for the betterment of the entire
community and all it's residents and corporate citizens as well. _Not everybody
is going to have a specific construction project in their front yard but the
entire community will benefit. The Minnesota. River will benefit. Our lakes and
wetlands will benefit. And I think the idea behind this was that this is a
19 1
1
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
community wide program. The purpose of this program was not to show individual
benefit for each person, each household, each business contributing. But in
total everybody benefits.
Mayor Chmiel: In the long run basically is what you're saying that everybody
within the city directly benefits from the assessments that we're putting to
with the proposals that we've had running with our respective'positions that
we've taken with the group. Okay. So with that Mr. Vassar I'm going to call a
question on this for discussion with Council. Mike, do you have anything to
say? Thomas?
Councilman Workman: No I don't.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, nor do I. In looking and reading what I've seen within the
memo, I do concur with what's here. And with that I would call a question or
motion to accept the surface water utility bill for Mr. Vassar and the Statewide
Auto Salvage PW207B.
1 Councilman Workman: Is that a motion?
Mayor Chmiel: I will make that a motion.
' Councilman Workman: I'll second it.
Christine Haur: Can I ask a question?
Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Yes, I'll give you the floor at
this time. Would you please come up to the podium and state your name and your
address please?
Christine Haur: Christine Haur. I'm the other half of him. How is Chanhassen
benefitting from this program from an auto salvage place? That's what I'd like
to know.
Mayor Chmiel: I think as Paul has indicated, not only with the auto salvage is
doing and what's benefitting from that but the entirety of the community is
benefitting from what we're doing to clean the lower watershed district as to
what we're proposing.
Christine Haur: Okay, I still don't understand how the community is going to
benefit from an auto salvage dealership with water runoff.
Mayor Chmiel: Paul, maybe you can go into the Minnesota River water proposal
which has come forward on the clean -up portion of that. And this all ties in
together with that as well.
II Paul Krauss: Well, yeah. One of the underlying goals of the program is
virtually all our water that runs off the community and off your site, winds up
1 in the Minnesota River. Minnesota River is the most, it's the worst polluted
river in the state. The Governor has set a program to clean it up. The Fedearl
Environmental Protection Agency is suing the Metropolitan Waste Control
Commission to clean it up. The long and the short of it is, if the river does
II not wind up appreciably cleaner by 1994, everybody living in the Minnesota River 1
1 20
1
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
1
basin and the metro area is going to suffer and there will be direct costs
attributed with very expensive improvements to the Blue Lake and Seneca
{ Treatment Plants that won't accomplish a darn thing but will satisfy the Federal
suit. They may well shut down business and development in the southwestern
suburban area. There's any number of calamities that really are serious. I
mean this is the Federal Government suing State and Regional Government. I mean
they've already thrown down the gauntlet. Chanhassen's water quality program is
one of the best in the region. We in Eagan have had pioneering efforts in the
Minnesota River. Everybody is going to do that. Be doing that. Either
voluntarily or by force, one way or the other, in the very near future. We're
way ahead of the game. Now that's, if you want to know, that's going to be
direct costs born by every residential and commercial property owner in the
Minnesota River basin. We're doing it much cheaper, much easier and a much
better plan. -
Mayor Chmiel: Right. Tom. '
Councilman Workman: Mr. Mayor maybe, I'd like to maybe ask a parcel specific
question and that being Mr. Vassar's specific parcel. Do we know to what extent
Mr. Vassar's parcel is polluting wetlands and the Minnesota. I know his
property's surrounded by Federal land. Has the Federal Government taken steps
to assure us that his salvage yard isn't in fact a potential super fund site?
Paul Krauss: Well, unfortunately kind of for me it gets into the area of
conjecture and hearsay. We know that, well I've had conversations with Tom
Larson who runs the Minnesota Wildlife Refuge. He is concerned about potential
runoff from this site and it's impact upon wildlife habitat in the valley. But
f there's no specifics that we're aware of at this point in time, and frankly our
program isn't designed to deal with super fund type issues. We've also heard,
{ well the County has inspected the site. The County Environmentalist. Scott, is
that the position? Has inspected the site in the past. They found no direct
violations, I think it was 2 years ago. So while there may be some suspicions,
there's no.
Councilman Workman: What would be the City of Chanhassen's liability in this
situation were it to be found to be a super fund site? '
Paul Krauss: Perhaps that's something the City Attorney can respond to. I'm
not sure of the answer.
Roger Knutson: You probably have no direct financial responsibility unless some
of our cars were there. If they are, potentially...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. And with that I'd like to call the question. Motion's
been on the floor with a second.
Councilwoman Dimler: What is the motion? '
Mayor Chmiel: The motion is that Mr. Vassar still is required to pay the amount
as indicated for the surface water utility bill, referencing PW207B. '
Councilwoman Dimler: The rate stays the same you're saying?
21 1
1
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
Mayor Chmiel: That's correct.
11 Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, thank you. -
I Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Workman seconded that no credit or adjustment be
made to the surface water utility bill is warranted at this time for the
Statewide Auto Salvage. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
APPROVE AGREEMENT WITH CITY OF SHOREW00D TO PROVIDE UTILITY SERVICE FOR A
RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION, NORTH OF KOEHNEN CIRCLE, JEFF WILLIAMS.
' Paul Krauss: Thank you Mr. Mayor. In 1987 the City approved an agreement to
serve three lots off of Koehnen Circle in Shorewood on this subdivision site for
an earlier property owner. At that point in time the City was going to provide,
originally water and then, I'm sorry originally sewer and then ultimately water
II service. Access was going to be provided by a private driveway to these three
lots. The development was never built. I've asked the City Attorney for an
opinion and we believe the original agreement is still in force. It was
II endorsed by everybody but the development never took place. Mr. Williams
acquired the property, or is in the process of acquiring the property and
inquired as to the possibility of revising the plat. The plat would be revised
' to allow 5 lots, all again in the neighboring city, which would be served by a
public street to Koehnen Circle. It raised a number of issues for us in terms
of intercommunity cooperation. In terms of fees. In terms of possible
annexation. In terms of a number of things and what we ultimately did is
II Chanhassen staff, the developer, met with the Shorewood staff to try and iron
out the issues. Frankly we went into that meeting thinking that annexation was
appropriate since we're going to be providing on the face of it, access, sewer
I and water and utilities. Then it's only reasonable to think that since we're
providing most of the services, we should reap most of the benefits. However,
we did have a lengthy discussion and it seems that there are a number of
I instances back and forth across the Shorewood city line where in cases we have
developments that use their parks. We have properties that drain their way.
The reverse is true and that since the principle was already established of
having a cooperative agreement to handle this, that we should work along those
I lines to develop a new 1992 cooperative agreement to handle this. What we came
to terms with is outlined in terms of potential set of resolutions that are in
the staff report and briefly, basically as we discussed, Chanhassen would
I provide sewer and water services and we would maintain them. The developer
would be responsible for all construction in a normal manner subject to a
development agreement. We would bill the residence in Shorewood directly for
those services. We would also bill them for a surface water management fee
because the water's draining down into our community. Since the site does drain
south, we do have some concerns because we don't, at present we're not convinced
there's sufficient ponding provided on site. One of the things that's still
I needs to be resolved and it's more of a technical matter, is to have their
engineer work with our engineer and Bonestroo to figure out how much on site
ponding is needed to meet Chanhassen standards or volume and for quality and to
the extent that that can't be provided on site, we're going to want the
developer to pay into our SWMP fund to build those facilities downstream and we
may need to build those facilities immediately, if a potential flooding problem
would result and then that needs to be worked out. But again it's more of a
II technical problem and it is outlined in the proposed agreement. We agreed that
11 22
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
we would seek a park dedication fee since there are numerous situations where
our residents use their parks and it was really unclear as to, you know if there
was any preponderance of benefit one way or the other. The new street would be
built to meet City of Chanhassen standards. The new street would be maintained
by Shorewood. That section that's in Shorewood. Shorewood, in kind of a unique
twist realized that they'd have to send a snowplow down there anyway so they are
agreeing to plow our street in the process of getting to this street so there's
a little bit of a cost advantage for us. As with the earlier agreement, Koehnen 11 Circle's a pretty inadequate street and built to an old standard and not in
terribly good shape. It needs to be upgraded at some point in the future. We
will have institutionalized the fact that those 5 lots in Shorewood must
contribute towards the improvement of Koehnen Circle. So I mean there is an
advantage here. Yes, there will be more traffic on this street but on the other
hand, when the dollars need to be expended to improve Koehnen Circle, there's
more homes to distribute it against so the cost per household would be less. The
proposed plat exceeds, I mean if it were in our community, it exceeds our
standards for lot size. These are fairly good sized lots. - One of the reasons
we wanted to get this agreement onto the Council tonight is first of all to get
your review of it and input on it._ But also to provide an opportunity for any
neighborhood residents that were with this, to be given an opportunity
to speak. To the best of my knowledge the neighborhood residents really haven't
been involved in this since 1987 when the original agreement was made. This is
2 more lots than the original - proposal and a lot of time has passed since then
so we did notify all the residents. Now I don't know if any are here tonight. I
haven't been contacted by them but we did notify them.' _
Mayor Chmiel: Let me ask the question Paul. Is there anyone here regarding
this item this evening? _ _
Paul Krauss: Well good. With that we are recommending that the Council 1
authorize entering into an agreement with the City of Shorewood based upon the 8
principles established here. If you do approve it tonight, what we would have
the City Attorney do is draft it up, put it in legal language for your signature
Mr. Mayor and the City Manager's and then we'd get it over to Shorewood.
Shorewood has told us that they are awaiting your action before they take action
on the plat but they have every reason to believe that the plat will be
approved.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Sitting here and thinking about some of these things
that we've got. I'd like to put one more condition on there. I know that we
have had discussion with Shorewood staff indicating that they are not in
agreement to expand our boundaries. I'd like to offer a sacrificial lamb as our
City Manager to go before the City Council and what I'd like to do is to put the
additional condition. Not to stop the project but an appeal to the City of
Shorewood Council to acquire just one lot of those 5 and I'm going back again to
those CBDG funds that we are toying with back and forth. With the Federal
government as well as the Secretary of HUD. Because of the elimination of our
homes on Highway 5 which were in Hennepin County. This then would give us one
residence and possibly would, without going through additional legislation, be
introduced by the Senate and House. Maybe we can work out some kind of an
arrangement with the City. So I'd like that as one more condition in there.
Councilman Workman: Motion to approve? '
23 1
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
1
Mayor Chmiel: Any discussion? Anyone wishing to address this at this time?
11 Councilman Workman: I'd move approval.
Mayor Chmiel: And a second?
1 Councilman Mason: Sure. If he moved, I'll second. Sure.
Mayor Chmiel: Any discussion?
Councilwoman Dimler: I think it's well thought out.
1 Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded that the•City Council
authorize entering into an agreement with the City of Shorewood and the
developer to provide utilities and access in a manner consistent with the
1 guidelines outlined in the staff report and directing the City Attorney to draft
the agreement for the appropriate signatures. The developer will be required to
enter into a development contract with the City of Chanhassen concerning public
improvements. Resolution of matters dealing with storm drainage shall be
resolved to the satisfaction of the City of Chanhassen prior to issuance of any
building permits in the proposed subdivision. Also, that the City Manager go
before the Shorewood City Council with an appeal to acquire just one lot of the
II 5 to qualify for CBDG funds. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
OAK PONDS /OAK HILL, LOCATED NORTH OF WEST 78TH STREET BETWEEN KERBER BOULEVARD
1 AND POWERS BOULEVARD, LOTUS REALTY:
A. PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR 112 RENTAL UNITS AND
105 TOWNHOMES AND A CLUB HOUSE /OFFICE ON 27.04 ACRES OF PROPERTY.
B. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR A SEDIMENTATION BASIN ADJACENT TO A CLASS B
WETLAND; AND MODIFICATION OF AN EXISTING SEDIMENTATION POND.
1 Public Present:
Name Address
Brad Johnson Lotus Realty
Arvid Ellness Arvid Ellness and Associates
I Kirk Willette Arvid Ellness and Associates
Kay Halla Halla Nursery & Landscaping
Bill Dolan Engineer
Dave Callister 7540 Canyon Curve
1 Tim Anderson 7550 Canyon Curve
Bob Bohara 7510 Canyon Curve
' Kate Aanenson: On November 4th the Planning Commission recommended approval of
the preliminary plat and the site plan as well as the PUD approval. This item
went before the Planning Commission. Took a couple hours of lengthy discussion
with the neighbors and they certainly have a lot of concerns. I handed out to
you a letter addressed with today's date that identified their four areas of
concern I would still like to see addressed. Just to go back and revisit this,
when this project first came before the City, it is zoned R -12. The staff
1 worked with the applicant to proceed with the PUD zone because we felt with the
1 24
1
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
development contract and the PUD agreement there were certain things that we
could assure to make sure it got put in the project. I'm going to go through
those specifically but what I'd like to do at this time is just revisit the
original concept plan so I can show you where we moved as this project has moved
along. If you'll recall back in July when it went through conceptual approval,
this was the original project. It had three 16 unit buildings and I think the
staff would concur and you certainly did and the Planning Commission did and
I know the residents did, that the 16 unit buildings were too big in their
massing and their view from the residents. So the developer did eliminate
those. In addition, some of the other things that were taken out of the
original proposal was the trail along the backs of the oak trees. The neighbors
felt that this was an intrusion into their privacy. There is deer in the area
and they wanted that left in a natural vegetative state and that's again one of
the things that we could put into the PUD agreement. And we agree with too that
that area below the line of the oak trees should be left in a natural area.
Again some of the other issues was the orientation of the buildings here and
those have been reoriented. And then the other major issue was the buildings up
in here. The most northerly ones. Again, too large and too close to the
neighbors and then the fact that they were rental. Having said that, the plan
that we're putting forward today has been revised to reflect a different
configuration. Those 16 units were revised and are now a series of 8 unit
buildings and this area up in here was revised to be single family and again the
face of those have been broken so they have a singular townhouse look to them.
What I'd like to do is just go through. Again, the total number of units has
been decreased. It originally had 240 units. It's now been decreased to the
single family, I mean the rental units were 72. Excuse me. The owner occupied
was 72 and 168 rentals. That was in the original proposal. It has now been
reduced to 217. A total of 23 units have been eliminated since the original
proposal. The owner occupied has been increased from 72 to a total of 105 so 33
more units are now owner occupied. Again this directly reflects a concern that
the residents have. Again, that also reduced as this project went along the
total units per acre. The net, which is 9.6 which is significantly less than
what she could get under the development proposal. So the staff feels that the
massing of the buildings, the smaller type units, plus the fact that he's way
under the density is all positive as far as the changes that have been made.
Again some of the concerns that the neighbors have is the proximity to, this is
really the critical area now. The orientation and I know that the developer has
to try to reconfigure those but again that's a concern and I'm certain he will
address that specifically but again that's a factor of the grading. And one of
the concerns that the staff had when this first came forward is to look at
preservation of the topography and the trees itself. One of the things that the
residents asked for was concern about lighting in the rears of the buildings.
Certainly that's something that will be put into the development contract and
that lighting plan has been shown on the site plan. Staff feels comfortable
that meets the neighbors concerns. In addition, the residents were concerned
with the roofline and these two buildings in here and then 1/3 portion of this
will have a different roofline look to it trying to reduce the massing of the
building and give it a more residential, or similar look to the homes in their
neighborhood. Again as I mentioned before, the neighbors were concerned about
maintaining that natural look around the wetlands and that's certainly something
we would put into the PUD contract that that be preserved and that a minimal
area behind the units be maintained and the rest would be left in a natural
area. The other concern was screening and the timing with the landscaping plan.
25 ,
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
Behind the buildings, again what would be ideal was to leave the existing trees.
In addition there was concern that they wanted some high growing, deciduous
trees. Some fast growing deciduous trees to do some blocking but in addition
those would loose their leaves so there was additional conifers put in. In one
of our meetings with the residents, the idea was put forward that some trees
should be left out and then when the buildings went in, let me back up. The
landscaping should go in first, even before the buildings goiin so they have a
chance to grow. Because that would be in Phase 2, we would recommend that the
landscaping go in with the first building in Phase 1. But then some trees be
left out and at the time that the buildings are put in, the neighbors would have
the opportunity to look at the sitings and see where the trees would be put in
' specifically to do them the most benefit as far as blocking views so they can
enjoy the privacy of their backyards and that's something again we would put
into the PUD contract. In the most recent...reflected changes since the last
Planning Commission meeting. We met and we looked at how these could be pulled
forward. They were both pulled forward approximately 5 -6 feet to try to get
them further away and save some existing trees. One of the conditions that
the Planning Commission had that has been met was a traffic study, and I put the
recommendations of the traffic study and those certainly can be met by the
developer. One of the things that the staff has requested that the residents
give consideration to put in the PUD agreement is the color of the buildings and
' we'd like to hear their comments on that. And I mentioned the trail being taken
out. Again that was a concern of the residents. I'm not going to go back
through the whole of the PUD zoning but I would just like to say, reiterate the
fact that the staff feels that under the PUD agreement we feel that this is the
1 best way for this project to go forward and we would recommend approval, as did
the Planning Commission, of the preliminary plat, the PUD and the site plan
approval.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you Kate. Is there anyone at this time wishing to
address Council? Brad.
Brad Johnson: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. My name is Brad Johnson. I
live at 7425 Frontier Trail. I'm the developer. I'd like to introduce the
other members of the team that are here tonight. Kay Halla, who is the
Landscape Architect. Bill Dolan who is the engineer for the project. Arvid
Ellness of Arvid Ellness and Associates who is doing the planning of both the
units along with Kirk Willette and Kirk will be speaking for the architectural
group. What I'd like to do is just briefly summarize for you where I think we
are on this project but go back a little further to 1986 when this was
originally zoned to R -12. I don't know why it was but as part of both the then
' existing comprehensive plan that the city had and also as part of the zoning
ordinance, it was zoned to be a R -12 unit. I think as all part of the James
acquisition, for those of you who remember. Uhen he bought all the property he
decided that the back portion of it should be R -12 which is the old Kerber Farm.
And then later on when Saddlewood was done, or Saddlebrook, Rick Murray had one,
about 5 or 6 acre parcel that was remaining that was north of what is now, south
of what is now is the ponds and so at that time that also was zoned R -12. The
property to the west is zoned R -12. The property directly east of this is zoned
R -12 and the property south of this is our highest density, commercial property.
So at that time I believe they felt that that was the proper way to go about it.
I believe at the time, in talking to Rick, why he did it the way he did. He
felt that at the time the ponds that are now there but the previous fields and
1 26
1
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
1
things like that, and the wetlands would be the buffer which is probably
anywhere from 150 to 200 feet between this particular project and the land
there. In 1989, or 1988 and '89 a previous project was presented. I had the
priviledge of following that each time at one of these meetings. It was not
really accepted very well by the then Council and basically I believe it was
tabled and sort of died. That particular project was a for sale townhouse 1
project. I believe most people when they looked at that project assumed that
this would be a high density rental project and didn't know how to grasp it. At
least I did. I remember I was kind of surprised when somebody came in, with a
low density, for sale project on what was perceived to be a high density rental
project at the time. So I think everybody was a little bit surprised and
weren't quite ready for what they saw. It was turned down primarily, as I
listened, was because it pretty much destroyed the site. It just flatten
everything out and we had townhouses and really very little remaining of the
existing trees and of the existing terrain on the north side of the property.
In 1989, as part of that possibly, and also as part of the Joe Miller project
over here, the zoning ordinances were revisited and this property was identified
as one of those that could be done as an R -16 by a conditional use permit
through PUD if you provided the proper amount of parking. So all I'm really
saying here is that historically it's been focused on as a for rent project with
high density and that's been sort of the trend in this. I'd like now to quote
to you out of your comprehensive plan, which this Council adopted in 1991 with
the guidance of this particular group here. And these are things you probably
are aware that are in this particular document but the first one is that the
goal of the comprehensive plan is to achieve a mixture of development which will
assure a high quality of life and a reliable tax base. Now this is a plan that
you adopted. The plan should seek to establish sufficient land to provide for a
full range of housing opportunities. These opportunities require adequate land
be designated for medium and high density land uses. The City, that's you, will
seek to discourage the conversion of these areas to lower density uses to insure
that the goal of housing diversity can be met regardless of various market
fluctuations. Later on you have also got in here that, and this is probably why
we're using the PUD. Housing development methods such as the PUD, cluster
development and innovative site plans and building types should be encouraged to
help conserve energy and the physical resources of the site. Then we talk about
what is high density. The high density category, which includes units with a
maximum net density of 16 units per acre accommodates apartments and higher
density condominiums. Within this category an average gross density of 8 units
per acre has been used as a recommendation for projects. This particular
project by the way, at this point, has exactly an average gross density of 8
units. And then for those of you that are concerned about us aging seniors.
Individuals in the empty nester segment represent 6% of Chanhassen's population
in 1980. Typically empty nesters desire higher quality, smaller housing units
once they decide to leave the single family homes which they raise their
children. It is not unusual for empty nesters to consider attached forms of
housing which eliminate the need for continuous exterior maintenance. At the
present time there is a need, this is 1991, for housing to accommodate this
group. At the present time there is a need for housing to accommodate this
group high quality, high amenity townhouse type, condominium type, or one form
of housing which may help satisfy the empty nester demand. I guess I'm just
reading this to remind you that this Council wrote this book encouraging this
type of development as recently as one year ago. With regard both to this and
the fact that the last project probably did not take into consideration the 1
27 1
1
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
aspects of this particular we basically sp p is project, have b y said well,
whatever happened last time we don't want to do it again. So we decided that
we'd try to preserve the oak trees that are on the site. Presently I believe
we're eliminating 2, at the most. And at the last Planning Commission they said
we could eliminate 1 or 2 more if it helped the neighbors. You know to try to
' move some units around. So far we're trying not to do that because I think much
of the, and I'm just trying to'balance it out. Much of the discussion so far
has been done based upon what people will see when they look at this. And we
' also have to remember from the architect's point of view, what will you see when
you're in there because this is where the people will live. So we have to kind
of maintain some of the trees and things that are there. Another thing that
we've tried to do is not to disturb the hills to the north. And in doing that,
' we have come up with three types of units. One type is the 'standard townhouse
unit that's being developed successfully throughout the community, and that fits
nicely on flat property. We have a row townhouse which is now on the northeast
1 corner which is designed to fit on a hilly slope. The reason we haven't had a
lot of those types of units in there, as we get up and try to build a townhouse
on a hilly slope, it gets pricey. It gets kind of expensive to develop and we
don't know if the market's here for that and that's our risk. And then finally
we've designed a shared entry dwelling which fits nicely on the hills to the
northwest. And we think we've tried to accommodate the site and the unit type
in order to achieve that. We also feel that at the present time in today's
' market that this site is marketable and it's possible for us to predict that
we'll be done with the project within the next 3 to 4 years. And that's what
we're really comfortable with. Combining in our case the units to the north
' and the units to the south. Each one is different. Each one we feel will fit a
particular market. That there's a need at the present time. I would like now
to ask our three, three of the people just quickly review where we're coming
from at least on the site plan and the landscaping, just to bring you up to
1 date. So Kirk Willette will review briefly, the architectural plans and if you
have any questions of him while he's going through that, Kirk.
Kirk Willette: The overall plan is very similar to what we started with as far
as the buildings themselves, although we have, as Brad mentioned, created a new
type of unit to the northeast corner in order to provide some for sale units up
in this corner as the neighbors were concerned about the rental units. The open
area. The changes to the site plan have occurred as we've downsized from 260
units in the original plan to 217 units that we have currently. As Brad
mentioned, the shared entry units that go along this ridge are a size that are
' much smaller than these row homes and also the townhomes. One, in that they
have a single car garage which does have less space. And the units themselves
are a little bit smaller than what these respective unit is. The reason that
they are located on this side is because this side has the most...on the site
and we wanted to work the buildings so they would sit and work with the natural
topography of the site as much as possible.
Mayor Chmiel: Could I just interrupt you for just a quick instance. You
mentioned something about single car garage.
Kirk Willette: For these units.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Accommodating one vehicle? One car garage?
u 28
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
Kirk Willette: Yes. For each unit. And then additional surface parking across
the street from that... As I mentioned, we were trying to maintain the
topography and follow the natural hillside because these buildings sit high. At
the peak of the hill and then step down the site as the hill steps down. And
that whole tree line follows very close to that same hillside and buildings as
they've been placed. The buildings, there are three. Three types of buildings.
This would be the shared entry buildings. They are 8 and 12 unit buildings. On
the street side, they have garages and a unit above them. On the backside they
have three units. The units that are closest to the neighbors to the north are
this type of building where it's mostly a 2 story building with a third story
dormer in order to lower that roof line and be more compatible with the
neighbors. These are the townhomes that step along the south side of the site.
They are an 8 -plex type building. Four units on each side. Each unit is
approximately 1,400 square feet. They have each one has their own two car
garage. They also have a basement area. And then this building, these are the
row houses that are occurring on the northeast corner and they are about the
same size. 1,400 square feet. They each have a two car garage. Most of the
work that's been done just recently has been in this area as we've worked with
the neighbors and tried to pull these buildings down so we get more distance
from their units as well as preserving the trees that have been surveyed in this
area to save those trees.
Mayor Chmiel: How much further down did you bring that? 1
Kirk Willette: These two buildings actually came down. This building came down
about 10 feet. 10 to 15 feet. This one came, we tipped the corner end probably
about 5 to 7 feet and by doing that we did, we were able to save another
existing tree.
Councilman Mason: So the stakes that are there now don't reflect that change, 1
is that right?
Kirk Willette: Right. The building has moved away from the trees... Any
questions?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. The single car garages with additional parking facilities.
What total number of units is that going to consist of? How many units totally
with single car garages?
Kirk Willette: With the single car garages? That's going to be 112 units. And '
then there's 1 1/4. The total parking is 2 1/4 cars per unit...
Mayor Chmiel: Paul, were you going to say something? '
Paul Krauss: Well Mr. Mayor, I'm sure you recall that we amended this ordinance
specifically because of concerns that were raised the first time this came up on
this site. What we have here is kind of an amalgam of a couple of different.
The ordinance was developed specifically to deal with zoning, you know R -4, R -8,
R -12, R -16 districts. And what it says is efficiency units must have 2 stalls,
1 of which must be enclosed in a garage. One bedroom and larger, 2 stalls, 1
1/2 of which must be enclosed in a garage. And what we've actually got is an
amalgam where you have all the owner occupied ones with 2 car garages.
29 1
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
Kate Aanenson: Plus some visitor parking.
Paul Krauss: Plus, well yeah. Plus exterior visitor parking and rental ones
have.
Kate Aanenson: 2.25. I just double checked.
Paul Krauss: So the ratio with enclosed? In the rental.
Kirk Willette: Is 1.
Paul Krauss: 1 to 1, which is pretty much what we've had. If you look at the
typical, you know a more typical apartment building, they've'only got the one in
the basement. Remember we went through the analysis that showed there was no
way to get more than 1 on a footprint of a typical 3 story building. So in
essence it meets the intent, which if you distribute it across the board, I
think we pretty much met the intent of the ordinance.
Mayor Chmiel: My concern is total number of units. Those are going to be
rental. You may have maybe 3 people within each of those rental units. You
could conceiveably have sharing those costs. Therefore you're going to wind up
with three vehicles. Automatically. What does that do with the congestion
within that area? And I don't know if parking is going to be allowed on the
street for the emergency vehicles coming in.
' Kate Aanenson: The average is, including the single car garage and the visitor
parking, would be 2.25. I think that's what Kirk just said and so there are, 1
bedroom units and a number of 2 bedroom and 3 bedrooms so I think the
distribution works out that with the 2.25.
Mayor Chmiel: Looking at the worse scenario, you'd wind up with 117 more needed
parking spaces and you'd only have 2 and a 1/2 you said?
Kate Aanenson: 2.25 average.
' Mayor Chmiel: 2 1/4. And how does the rest of that fit in looking at a worse
scenario, if it were to happen?
Kate Aanenson: I think the distribution works out because you've got 1 bedroom
units too.
Mayor Chmiel: Davenports that fold down and make into daybeds and I say this
because I know it's happening with some kids that I know that are in apartments.
Where they have a 1 bedroom apartment and there are 3 people living in it.
Kate Aanenson: Well frankly the ordinance doesn't address, and the owner
occupied doesn't address having even visitor parking. I think that's why we
felt it was important to put additional parking in.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I'm just concerned about parking within the area.
Kate Aanenson: Right, so we did make them put additional parking in the owner
1 occupied area too.
1 30
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
11
Kirk Willette: In the apartments that we've done, and we've done thousands of
units in the metro area, typically we've been 1 1/2 to 2 cars per unit for
rental and there's not been problems with parking and that has been...
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, that's always the statement that comes forth but once it's
put in, we have to live with it and that's my concern. 1
Brad Johnson: Mayor, as you'll recall, we did the Heritage Park Apartments...
we're running at about 1 1/2 cars...you can go over there anytime during the
evening and you'll find...
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, except you're talking 82 units with the Heritage, is that
correct? Total numbers? And we're talking totally on this 112 units. 1
Brad Johnson: Right. So we've got, we've increased the numbers. We're way
over the standard. Right Paul? '
Paul Krauss: Yeah, I think so. But Mr. Mayor, additionally.
Mayor Chmiel: Assure me. 1
Paul Krauss: You can trust me. What we have is each rental unit here will be
given a garage. I mean it's not optional like it is in many buildings where you
decide I'm not going to rent this so everybody parks outside. So we have a
pretty good comfort level that we will have excess parking. Surplus parking.
That ratio also only applies to the rental units. The owner occupied have a
greater perponderance of stalls because they have two car garages. You can park
out in front of them and then there's visitor parking as well. So there is a
lot of flexibility in this plan.
Councilman Mason: I'm not sure if this is the time for this question, so if
it's not.
Mayor Chmiel: Try it. ,
Councilman Mason: And I understand there's some grading constraints but as I
look at this plan and as I see where the owner occupied units are and what their
view will be of downtown and I see where the rental units are going and what
their view will be, I think if I was going to buy something, I'd rather buy
where the rental units are going to be. If that makes any sense. With that in
mind, why can't some of those units be flipped around?
Kirk Willette: The reason is the land is such, the topography is such, the hill
starts right in this area...and it basically is having to flatten this site out
in order to get the type...to be built on that area. Because these buildings
need a much larger, flat pad than what this type of building needs. And this
worked on this side because of a gentle slope, fairly even slope that goes...
Brad Johnson: We've been asked this question about a thousand times.
Councilman Mason: I'm sure you have Brad. I haven't been privy yet to that so 1
go for 1001.
1
31 1
1
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
Brad Johnson: Originally we would have liked to have done what you've suggested
okay. But we did not plan...in order to live by your comp plan, the city's, and
not reduce the density, we have to, in addition to making the site financially
...we have to keep, the type of plan that the townhouse plan is a one floor and
it's not stacked...live up and down. In the total plan for the shared entry
units, they're stacked units. We can go 3 units and they...and we've tried to
work it out and maintain some type of density on the site, which is what people
have asked for and it just doesn't work. Because the type of unit that sells
needs a flat surface. We haven't been able to figure out...and by putting any
of those types of units over here, I think that's...get back to where we were in
1988 or '89. Took all the oak trees on the hill.
Mayor Chmiel: How many oak trees are there really? Two? three?
Kirk Willette: There's a cluster here of...which are on a high point of the
site. There's several, 5 or 6 that are in this area...and then there's one, a
couple...
Mayor Chmiel: How about the major area that we're concerned with? The upper
portion?
Kirk Willette: There are not oak trees along this side. There's some scattered
down here. These are large trees.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess I'm just to ride a little bit on your...your discussion.
' I see those rental units to me would make more sense abutting to the residential
development with the 8 unit sales and 10 or 12 that we have being proposed in
that particular area. The other aspect I look at it from having the rental
units down below which will be facing some of Charlie James' property. We're
going to be getting the same kind of discussion coming back again to Council at
a later time whereby what's going to be going in, in front of them, towards 78th
Street. I can see us in the discussionary thing. Maybe we won't be here but
it's going to come up. But it's going to come up, no question in my mind. Be
it abutting something to residential that's there would have been more logical
r in my position, even though the topography, you're saying doesn't allow it.
■ Brad Johnson: What I'm saying is the topography and financially, it won't work.
We can't put enough units over in here to sell them. This unit is probably a
'
$90,000.00 to $110,000.00 unit, which is higher than the current standard in the
marketplace. The ones that are selling are in the under $90,000.00 range for
this type of unit. Now all I'm saying is last time this project was presented,
this type of unit was on this side and you turned it down. Flat.
11 Councilman Workman: One car.
Mayor Chmiel: No, that was not the issue at that time, and I remember that.
Brad Johnson: The topography.
' Mayor Chmiel: It was some of the trees but it was the single car garages
without the additional parking that was there.
1
1 32
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
1/
Brad Johnson: But it turns out that we have tried, and I don't know how else to
explain this, to try to put this here and here to here. We dropped another 50
units in the process. I think that the risk that we're taking is, first of all
the developer takes the risk. Not the City. And the developer feels that this
type of unit is equally sellable in here with trepidation. He's going to build
some up, or we're going to build some up in here. We're not sure they'll sell
because of the price and we don't want to be stuck with a bunch of them all the
way through here. We want to complete the project.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. One of the other things in selling those units, contained '
in the sales clause, they indicate to the south of those proposals that
commercial is going to be developed.
•
Brad Johnson: We went over that this morning with the attorney and he indicated
yes, and that we should have full disclosure, we probably would do it, put full
disclosure much as what was done with Saddlebrook. You know you give them a
plat. You show them a plan and you show them the use there. You don't know
what's going to happen here but yeah, after going through...have happen is that
later on there are people who discover that this is what it will be. What will
really happen if we don't have these units here, we probably wouldn't shift.
You still have for sale over here but I don't think you'd solve the problem.
Mayor Chmiel: How can we resolve that corner up there Brad? Can we eliminate
one of those 8 units?
Brad Johnson: Yeah, I think so. As a matter of fact we have a plan for that. 11 Remember we've been working with the neighbors and this is sort of like a, first
of all we eliminated all the for sale and for rent that we had here. Then we
eliminated the for rental that we had here, and that was decided at a previous
meeting. You guys don't remember that we negotiated that. We did that...and we
met with the staff here and we're concerned. So we can plan around it. The
only thing we don't foresee that we can do is shift, so simpily shift. I really
question in the zoning process, and Roger can address that, that you address for
sale or for rent. I don't think there's anything in your zoning code that
allows that.
Mayor Chmiel: Unless it's going to present a problem for a later time for the
Council.
Brad Johnson: Yeah. I agree with your comments. I would be more than happy to
assure you that a full disclosure would be made to every owner exactly what's
going to happen down there, if we knew. You know, and we can say, it could be
like, we've got how many plans? We've got quite a few plans for this area,
right?
Mayor Chmiel: None yet.
Brad Johnson: Oh no, we've got the conceptual plans that we did as a part of
the Target presentation... What we can show you, Kirk why don't you just show
them. This particular area seems to be the sensitive area. We would prefer
that this site...into obilivion. We know, and I think Arvid will verify this,
very little activity happens out in the back of a rental unit. Just go walk
around Heritage and see how many people... They just aren't there and we have
33
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
1
all those houses in my neighborhood and Ursula's neighborhood for years. I
don't see any activity anywhere, in those areas. So I don't think you get the
rental activity, but go ahead and show what we can do now. What we're trying to
do is manage the process and do what the...
Mayor Chmiel: I've got another, question, I think Tom has. Tom.
•
Councilman Workman: Well I want to be home before 8:00 a.m. I think we're
' spending a lot of time focusing on what is the south side of this project. That
isn't going to change. I have my own conceptual of the south side and down
below is Chicken Friendly, Taco Bowl and your Pizza and Lube place and those
people are going to have that problem no matter what. And it's going to smell
and it's not going to look pretty and I don't think we're going to be able to
worry about that tonight.
Mayor Chmiel: But that should be thought about is all I'm saying.
Councilman Workman: Right. And you and I have different perspectives this
' evening. But it's going to happen. I'll tell you what, the people in Chan
Estates fought and fought and couldn't believe that somebody would build a
McDonald's on the corner of Highway 5 and of course they knew that something
' commercial was going to be built there and these people, there's no way that
Brad's going to be able to convince us that he's going to tell everybody that
buy those units that there's going to be a Pizza /Lube joint down below. It
doesn't matter anyway. I don't think it matters. In the context of a PUD,
which I think this is a PUD, we can ask a lot of those questions. If you guys
want a PUD. I think what we should do is spend our time, what we should do is
be focusing on this grassy knoll, as we'll call it. That is the focus of the 1
11 neighborhood that's really here tonight. And so not to rush anybody along
prematurely, I just think that's where the problem is. The rest of the project
slopes away and faces Eckankar and Highway 17. And so what I think, we met on
Friday, good heavens. A meeting at 5:30 on a Friday afternoon. I mean we're
working overtime with the neighborhood and Brad to try to figure out that piece
and I think we should focus on that. Maybe the neighbors can start to input on
that.
Brad Johnson: Why don't me just show you what we've...implement certain things.
And I went into that meeting saying the only thing I can't do is switch the end
' unit type. This could be a condominium. This can't... If we put these kind of
units, they would go downhill...so what we did is change it and basically from
their point of view...
' Kirk Willette: We've eliminated one building. We've eliminated 4 units in a 12
unit building through here and then changing this 8 unit building, which pulls
the building back from this corner which is the closest to the north property
line, approximately 30 feet at least from the property itself. And it also
provides more open space on the site...
' Councilman Mason: Put that up again will you?
Councilman Workman: You're pulling one out and it goes from how many units?
Mayor Chmiel: So you're eliminating 4 units.
34
11
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
1
Councilman Mason: Eliminating 4 units by making one a 12, okay. And that pulls
that 30 feet back from those stakes then is what you're saying?
Kirk Willette: Right. Well actually this is pulling it back even more because
what's underneath here is what we've already pulled down.
Councilman Mason: Okay. •
Kirk Willette: From this corner, or it's 25 feet down...30 feet from where this
building stuck out here.
Councilman Mason: Where does that put that in relationship to the top of the
hill? 1
Kirk Willette: Are you talking in this area?
Councilman Mason: Yeah. '
Kirk Willette: This is the flat area of the hill right here. Right now right
here. And these buildings, the first floor would be located just about on that.
What is the...
Brad Johnson: And in addition to that...shield it so Kay, if you want to talk
about landscaping. Because that seems to be the concern. A lot of things that
have gone by and we're trying to address. The only way we can sort of soften
this landscape so Kay, you can talk a little bit about what we're doing and
then...
Kay Halla: Generally that...make it quick. When I first started the project,
so the oaks were...and also that Highway 5 corridor, that view. And the north
view with the neighbors I think came... Anyway...saw the site what I tried to
do is keep the species that grow with the oaks and the lindens. Use generally
species that are found...that are found in the same areas...and also to get a
good mix of evergreen and shade trees. And not use too many ornamentals because
you get more for your buck with shade trees. More screening and more shade.
Also, with all the parking lot, our priority was to use deciduous trees in the
parking lot areas and try to use the evergreen trees to screen within the site.
To screen buildings and with the...screening on the north end so that they...
And on the Highway 5 corridor...use sumac to form a natural...and then also to
make sure the deciduous and evergreen trees along the south end of these units.
A concern was snow removal and so I tried to keep deciduous more toward the
parking lot area so that snow can be dumped underneath them and the evergreens
more in front of the units themselves. And then again around the north end
where the homeowners are concerned, it kind of progressed. Originally I had a
lot of evergreens back here and then after the last meeting they were concerned
that the evergreens, they grow slower and they're shorter to begin with. A 2
1/2 inch deciduous tree will be 14 feet or so...so they asked to get a mixture
so I tried to provide that. And also in this area, these are existing linden
and elms and the ones that look like little flowers, those are the oaks. So
where there were deciduous, I tried to go ahead and try to put some evergreens
inbetween so that in the winter you have some screening. I didn't want to do
too many areas where the shade was real heavy just because I was concerned how
the plantings would take over and if they would survive. There have been some
35
1
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
concern even after this plan from the neighborhood to get more, maybe some more
deciduous in behind these evergreens and possibly go with some larger trees...
With the, I suppose we could propose that but there's...I don't know what
exactly those...can do. I know there are certain residents... I think we need
to get a machine operator and maybe see if that would be possible...these trees
I are a lot more defensive so that is something for that developer to consider, if
it's in the budget. Basically that's about it. Are there any questions?
I Brad Johnson: I think our proposal for landscaping is, this is the preliminary
plat and prior to...prior to the final plat we would move the, you know change
this corner around and bring it back up another 35 feet. Switch the unit, and
secondly come in with a new landscape plan for not only this area but relook at
the knoll. In talking to the neighbors tonight, they're not even quite sure
what,should go in there so it would be for Kay to focus on that and come up with
a plan that does what you can...throw in trees but they may all die when they
II plant them so...and that type of thing. We are willing to try to figure out how
to put in some larger planting trees when the pad probably is built...and get in
there at that time. The question is when can you get in there with a tree
I spade. We're willing to say yeah, we'll do that. Kay says they have access to
a 12 and 14 foot pines, you know everyone wants to throw pine trees in there but
there is access...within reason we're willing to try to do that...but we can't
I have a tree every foot...The only concern that we have is if we plant them too
prematurely down here, they have to be watered and until somebody's here to
caretake on the site...
I Kay Halle: ...you have to do it at different times of the year. Not when
they're...at this point Brad expressed to me at the last meeting if I could try
to get faster growing deciduous trees behind these units so these are mostly the
red maple which is faster growing than sugar maple and the oaks...
Brad Johnson: And the other one was...lindens and whatever are down here. The
' big trees that you see. We could come back with another row farther down the
hill...so I think we're willing to come with sort of a forest back there if we
can figure out what is necessary. In addition to that...Are you interested in
learning about the storm water end of it? I would guess you are, since that's a
II major topic. If so, Bill Dolan...
Councilman Mason: Is the City comfortable with the storm water issue?
II Kate Aanenson: Well we have the WAP on as the next item. We were prepared to
do that secondly. We're certainly comfortable with the way it's been handled.
We hired, they contacted Bonestroo to.
II Paul Krauss: Yeah, it's being taken care of.
1 Mayor Chmiel: Being addressed?
Paul Krauss: It's being addressed and I know early on the residents raised
concerns of introduction. Well, altering the ponds substantially in front of
their homes and I think we've basically avoided all that and are taking the
water a different way.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Maybe we can just.
1 36
r
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
11
Councilman Mason: Yeah. I mean just from my experience from the surface water.
Mayor Chmiel: Comfortable with that. 1
Bill Dolan: Unless you have additional questions why. We've read all the
reports and worked with all the engineers. As a matter of fact, we were meeting
right up until last Friday to'iron out all the details.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you. '
Brad Johnson: So with that we'd be glad to answer any questions as this goes
on. I'm sure there will be some concerns from the neighborhood but our point is
that we're trying to address as much as we can. We have reduced a lot of units.
We have changed a lot "for sale ". From rental to for sale. I don't know how to
handle the political problem on the south side but I think we can do that
through disclosure. But that's going to be for sale anyway. I don't really see
ourselves.
Mayor Chmiel: Get something down.
Brad Johnson: And I think you're right. I mean I think the neighbors here
would like to have had better disclosure at the time. It's up to us to do that.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. So with that, is there anyone wishing to represent the
group?
Dave Callister: My name is Dave Callister and I live at 7540 Canyon Curve. '
Since everybody seems to be referring to the comprehensive plan, I guess I'd
just like to point out one of the key words that Brad Johnson pointed out in the
comprehensive plan was quality of life. That's why my wife and I moved here.
That's why probably, that's probably the number one reason why people move to
Chanhassen is because of the quality of life. It's certainly a nice place to
live. The reason that we're here tonight is to, because we all want to maintain
that quality of life that we have currently and also we want, or we'd like to
think that we are stakeholders, not only in our own properties but in our
neighborhood and our community. And we all realize and we've said this numerous
times before, we realize what the property is zoned for. We know it's high
density residential but the reason that we are here is we want to see the best
possible project come out of this so that the City can live with it. So that
the neighborhood can live with it and so that each one of us individuals can
live with it. Our objective is to minimize the impact of such a large scale
project on our neighborhood and our own properties and the city as well. With
that said, I'd like to refer to a letter that you received, you should have had
passed out to you this evening from the neighborhood. We did have a chance to
have most of the neighborhood get together last evening and to kind of come to
some sort of a consensus as to what we felt were the major issues with this
proposed development. And the result of that meeting is in front of you this
evening. First of all the first concern would be an effective and orderly
transition between high density residential and low density residential. Given
that this is a unique situation where there is no gradual transition from R -12,
R -8, R -4, this is a unique situation and we would still like to encourage the
developer and the City Council to explore the possibility of switching all or a
portion of the units as proposed. I know you've had a lot of discussion on that
37
11
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
11
this evening and I'm sure you'll have, you may have a little bit more of that
tonight. The area of most concern is the 4 apartment buildings that directly
face the single family homes or the knoll, as has been referred to earlier. 1
That's the first concern. The second concern is to reduce the density on the
north side of the development. Neighbors are concerned with the clustering of
buildings. In some cases it almost looks like a train. They're so close
together and they weave in and out. It's a concern of the neighborhood that the
density is so high with those buildings in that particular area. If we would
lose, or if losing one of the buildings would be a problem, we would suggest
that the developer most that loss of units or transport it to another less
sensitive portion or less sensitive area of the project. I realize we've had a
change proposed tonight. I think that's a good step. I don't know, I can only
speak for myself as to whether that's a solution to that problem or not. Third
concern is to increase the distance between the single family homes and the
buildings. As you probably know, if you've been out to the site or been by the
site, both the proposed buildings and homes are both located on facing slopes.
And being on facing slopes, there's an inherent problem because you don't have
the natural visual and sound buffers. With a flat surface you have trees and
buildings that tend to soak up the noise and that sort of thing but when you're
on a facing slope, you're looking straight across and that distance seems much,
much smaller. The last issue or fourth issue here would be with screening. The
' neighborhood is extremely concerned with the number, size and location of the
trees located on the proposed landscaping plan. In fact, just for an example on
one of the buildings, one of the 8 unit buildings that's facing the single
family residential area, there were three 6 foot spruce trees and two 2 1/2 inch
' diameter American Lindens. Screening that building from the neighborhood. The
neighborhood feels that that is inadequate and we've had some discussion on that
this evening. But another thing to keep in mind is when you put a 6 foot spruce
' tree on a slope below a building, you're really only screening probably 3 feet
of the building itself. So you're putting a 35 foot high structure up and
you're screening about 3 feet of it. So you know, that's very limited screening
' as I see it. Another point that I don't know if everybody's aware of it. If
you've been out to the site, you're probably aware of it is that the trees are
much more dense on the western or northwestern area of the property. In the
north central area they are much more sparse and there are not a lot of trees.
In fact there's a bald spot when you go right up, you could see all the way
through to the top of the hill without any existing trees. These are the major
concerns that we came up with and that we would like to have the Council and the
developer focusing on. Many of the other concerns are outlined in the staff
report, which you have in front of you. The neighborhood only wants what's best
for the neighborhood, the city and each of us. Not only now but I think it's
important to keep in mind that we want what's best for us in the future and we
need to take a look at that. One point I wanted to make, and when we were
talking about single car garages on the rental buildings. I used to live in
apartments like that and I can tell you, a lot of people who move into a one
bedroom home or a two bedroom home for a 6 month period of time, they don't use
their garage for a vehicle. They use it for storage. And so that could be a
problem with the number of parked cars up there as well so I think that needs to
be taken into consideration. Is that people do use those for storage,
especially when they're moving from one place to another. Or such as we did
when we moved to town. We moved to an apartment for 6 months before we built
our house and I think a lot of people do that and they use those areas for
38
1
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
1
storage. So with that I'd like to thank you for taking my comments, and I don't
know if anyone else has anything to say but thanks.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. I know what you say when you say storage because I
have two of my sons with their davenports and snowmobiles and it leaves very
little room for my car. It can be a 3 car garage but I doubt it. Is there
anyone else wishing to say anything more?
Tim Anderson: Hi. My name is Tim Anderson. I live at 7550 Canyon Curve and I ,
am standing up here just to reiterate what Dave said about our concerns.
Especially about setbacks and buffers and the effect that the facing slopes have
on the distance or our, what seems like maybe a 300 foot buffer on a flat map
seems much less when you're looking out your dining room or living room window
and I hope that's considered in further discussions tonight. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else? ,
Bob Bohara: I'd just say a couple words, concentrating on that eastern knoll.
I'm from the western part of it. Maybe I should be Saddlebrook West or
something. Not all concerns have to do with that knoll. Some of them have to
do with the wetlands that are below my property and how they're handling the
runoff. Some of the things that the city are requiring like a bith path on the
side of Powers there, which is going to have to be -built up very heavily there
close to the wetland and the sedimentation pond on the property, which the last
time I saw it was also real close to the wetland and kind of cut into the back.
Once again you've got to remember that this is not flat land and there's a lot
of hillside there. I think sometimes we just look at these top views and say
everything is alright. We can put an extra pond here or build a bike path here
and it's not true right along CR 17 or right along Powers I mean. It's quite
steep. You're going to have to do a lot of digging and a lot of building up.
The same would being cut for any sedimentation pond near that wetlands. So I'm
concerned about those areas too. And in general, we are always going to be at
cross purposes because we have an amenity there. I'm probably the oldest
homeowner in the neighborhood, being there about 3 years and seeing all the rest
of it build up around me. But in those 3 years we had the amenity of that open
area and it's a very good amenity. One of the reasons, quality of life to live
there is we bought the house because of the way it looked. It's a large lot and
it has that on the back. Naively we didn't ask what could be built there.
Perhaps naively we thought that such a nice site would be protected and left in
the condition it was in. It's next to a school. It's next to downtown. Next
to other parks. In fact, if you look at Eckankar, it's pretty much open too and
we lived through that part too. Next time we'll ask. Last time we didn't.
That's on our burden but it is a nice site. We want to make sure that the best
possible is done with it. Ue will never see exactly eye to eye but I think that
for the good of the community we'll have to come up with what's the best we can.
I'm Bob Bohara from 7510 Canyon Curve. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else?
Kirk Willette: Could I just, I just wanted to say one thing. I understand the ,
concern, especially about the concern of the buildings and looking over what is
a valley created with the ponds and I think one thing that we've tried to do to
help that is that the building's closest to the north property line, dropping 1
39
1
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
those down to the two story buildings and trying to make those buildings set
lower as they're viewed from the neighbors to the north.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you.
Arvid Ellness: I'm Arvid Ellness and I've been listening tonight to see if
there's any gaps that we could fill in our presentation and I think most of the
' things have been argued and positioned from previous meetings and in some of
those presentations I made them myself. I don't know in looking at the plan,
and I guess we've all struggled in the course of the last 6 months as we worked
on this development, what to do about some of the issues that have surfaced. I
don't know that we can place the buildings and configure them in any way that
will lose the impact of their presence to the neighborhood. I think that large
open space and the land down there maybe should be defined as, in conceptual
' thinking, as an outlot because that would be the buffer. I think that we always
thought that space represented the change that was appropriate. I think that in
placing in the consideration and I defended it in one of the earlier meetings
' with the Planning Commission, the idea of keeping the ownership on one side
versus the other. It was primary because of the building types and I think that
it would be much more objectionable architecturally to place those larger
buildings with a configuration of the flat plan that they have to have in the
11 large space over on the other side. And if we did, they wouldn't be any farther
away from the neighbors and I think they would represent a lot larger space of
building in terms of mass and shape and size. They are a bulkier building. So
' I think from the standpoint of all our considerations that we've heard and the
arguments that we made, that open space, preserving the trees is about as good a
development as we can perceive for that site. The only other alternative that I
can think of would be to fall back into some plans that were done back in the
80's where we develop apartment buildings. Where we develop a much more dense !
development than what's been characterized here. So in defense of what's been
done to date, I think there's issues raised by the owner and I think we've tried
to respond to them as best we could. But I think we've come up with what I
think is one of the best plans for that particular development that seems to
work not only for the city. The best it can for the neighbors, but it's also a
' project that can sell, be marketed well in the lines of the developer and the
contractors that are going to be involved in the project. So I think we've done
what we can and I hope that you'll look on it on a favorable way. Thanks.
Mayor Chmiel: With that I'd like to bring it back to Council for discussion.
Michael.
Councilman Mason: I met with some of the residents on Saturday and had, I
thought a very pleasant discussion. I understand their concerns and I shared
with what happened to my neighborhood in Carver Beach when I was gone on
vacation and came back and found 4 lots with trees on their sides. It seems to
me that most of the issues, with the exception of perhaps number 1 on this sheet
that we got today, it sounds to me like these issues are being addressed. And
for my feeling with this explanation here about what would have to happen to
move the owned units to the other side, just doesn't seem workable to me. Just
as I think it would totally destroy that hill and then you folks would end up in
a lot worst place than you have the potential to be in right now. My personal
feeling is I wouldn't be happy looking at that. Certainly I kind of wish we
would have seen this new plan right away and I think I would have saved some of
40
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
my questions. uestions Certainly things have been moved back. I think that's a real
Y
positive thing. The distance has been increased. I am concerned about the
screening. I think the point that was brought up over here, if you're on a
hill, a 6 foot tree doesn't cover up 6 foot of home and I, with the problems
with the spade truck and what not, I think the screening needs to be pursued but
I don't think that that in itself is enough to hold up a preliminary approval.
But I'm by no means done with the landscaping yet and I guess in a way I know if
Councilman Wing were here, he'd be talking about that too so I'll try to fill in
his shoes a little bit. This may not be the time or the place but I'm going to
do it anyway. This issue of density and diversity I think is something that we
as a Council need to look at and need to address. We don't have diverse housing
in this city. And somebody making $7.00 an hour working at some of the
businesses in town, I don't even think could be able to live in these rental
units and I think that's something we do need to address down the road. So I
guess I'm throwing that out for now. I think we're moving in the right
direction with this. And it becomes, sitting on Council it becomes increasingly
difficult for me to balance people's concerns that already live there to
concerns about a building that's going to be going up because 3 years down the
road, they're going to be in the same position as the position I'm in living
here for 8 years as a position that somebody lived here for 20 years. I mean
that's an ongoing battle and it's a real tough one sitting up here. It's that
old balancing act thing. I feel like this is moving in the right direction.
Mayor Chmiel; Okay, Thomas. '
Councilman Workman: So let's table it. Second on that? You know I mentioned
when I was accepting my award this evening for whatever it is I did for 4 years,
that I was a young lad when I ran for Council and now I'm still young but old.
And the faces in the audience of the residents kind of match my face and my
family and they have new homes and not, some of them aren't all so young but
people who do have and want to have a vested interest. If I lived there and I
put myself in their place, if I lived there, would I want to look at this?
Would I have any control? Probably not. I want to thank Arvid for his not so
subtle threat that, we'll build all apartment buildings on the top of this hill
if you push us too far. Not that long ago when I was a very young person and I
ran around the hills of Chaska up on 17, they ran into the same thing. One of
what I would call the most beautiful hills in Chaska, bluffs, full of oak trees
is now a mobil home park because a Planning Commission didn't want to do what
they wanted to do so the developer said, well we're going to do what we want to
do under certain rights and that's what they have now. Albeit, it's a fancier
mobile home park than most but it's a regret that the city has had ever since.
So the bottom line comes down to dollars and who needs them now and who can
wait. What can sell on that hill doesn't mean it's in the best interest of the
city. And so you try to give and take and you try to move and you try to get
what you can. Do we want this hill full of all apartment buildings? I don't
think our public safety department can afford it. I don't think the developer
would do it. I don't know if I'm willing to push him but, I think they have
Swede's working for them. So that's why I kind of said, let's try to work on
this knoll. It sounds to me like, from a meeting that I had, the conversations
that we had in a small group on Friday afternoon, it sounds like we're kind of
coming in to focus with that. I think somebody's going to make an awful lot of
money off this hill. If they can't afford, well and I'm not ignoring that
they're removing some buildings and moving some things back. But we'll have to
41
11
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
II
screen these buildings. I think that's without question and I think it has to
I be done properly and it has to be shown in the plan very accurately in how it's
going to be done. I don't think these people care if it's done 6 or 9 or 12
months after the building's in there, just so it's done and it lives and it
stays there. It will be a refreshing relief to not see the building but as long
1 as it lives. Our city is lacking, you know I thought as I leave the Council
about all the things that I wish could be and should have been and maybe I'll
still provide that list to the City and then they can throw it away and do what
II they want with it. But we do, and I've seen on the Planning Commission docket
blending and mixing and those kinds of issues for 4 years and I don't blame
them. I know we're busy and there's a lot of things going on. What with us
1 promoting and ramrodding growth, right Ursula?
Councilwoman Dimler: Right.
II Councilman Workman: So it does come down to what I call the smaller things and
not on a grander scale. There's going to be future Council worries with the
south end but very difficult to work on those tonight. I'm not getting a
II feeling from the neighborhood whether or not what the developers have proposed
is what they're willing to accept or not. At risk is throw the plan out. No
planned unit development. Let's develop it the way we want to. Cut down all
the trees. Level the hills and put all apartment buildings up, right? So how
II
far do you push the goodwill of developers who are only trying to do the best
for the city and hopefully shield the people who already live there. I know
that these people, the developers, as professional as they are, know exactly
1 that this is always going to be their biggest problem. Dealing with the people
who are already there and that's what Chicken Friendly and Pizza and Lube are
going to have a problem with down the road too. And they're going to be
I required to build a big fence on the bottom of a hill that doesn't make any
sense either. So if the neighborhood is in any way acceptant of removing one of
the units, or in aggregate removing or reducing it on the knoll, 4 units, I
don't know how much further we can go. It sounds to me like in Mr. Callister's
1 comments he's proposing of the two 8 unit rentals out front, to remove one
completely and move the one back. I guess it's down to that. I think it goes
without question that we're going to ask for screening. And so it comes down to
II whether or not they lose 4 or 8. I don't know how that sits with the Council.
As a side note, it would appear Paul that the ponds are utilized ponds?
II Councilwoman Dimler: Yes they are.
Councilman Workman: So the neighbors could mow down to them, build a dock?
II Paul Krauss: Well, there's an interesting history to this.
Kate Aanenson: Actually when that Saddlebrook subdivision went in, the wetland
1 in the most, was actually caused by one big wetland except for the pond that's
adjacent to Kerber. That was not classified as part of the wetland but when
they went in and did the mitigation, somehow it got converted to storm ponding.
It was classified and the neighbors were always treated, when they came in for
II
variances and the like, that as a storm retention pond. So we considered it as
an ag urban to maintain those setbacks. And when we viewed this proposal, we
treated it also as an ag urban and maintain certain setbacks. But technically
II under the NWI maps way, way back when Saddlebrook went in and prior to that, it
II 42
1
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
II
was not technically the most, the one, the most easterly one adjacent to Kerber
was not a protected wetland. It was treated as such when Saddlebrook went in.
But the other two, yeah. II
Councilman Workman: So if one of the neighbors wanted to build a deck, they II aren't going to have a problem with the 75 foot setback?
Paul Krauss: Except that the new ordinance decreases the setback.
Councilwoman Dimler: If you count it as urban. II
Kate Aanenson: Right. So it does.
II
Councilman Workman: 20 feet?
Kate Aanenson: 40 feet isn't it?
II
Paul Krauss: It's 40 feet if you...
Councilman Workman: Nobody's going to have a problem? II
Kate Aanenson: No. i
Paul Krauss: It gives them move flexibility in essence.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other comments?
II
Councilman Workman: Well I guess we're leaning towards which plan, as I laid
out, I guess I would lean towards taking the density out of that knoll and
II
making it the...
Councilwoman Dimler: Can you make that part of a motion? It's really tough to II say anymore than what has already been said by either Mike or Tom. I guess I
share the concerns as well with the screening and I think we can deal with that
at a later time and taller trees, or whatever. I think because this is a
preliminary site plan and plat approval, that there will be many more
II
opportunities to amend it and therefore at this point I'd be willing to go with
it. I support the PUD because I think that gives the city more control. I
think staying with R -12 could yield ever worst problems for everybody concerned
so at this time I think that a lot of the bugs have been taken out. I see the II
two sides coming closer together and I know there will be further negotiations
in meetings to come but I think at this point we're at a good point to go ahead II and approve this.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. I have three things. Landscaping, landscaping, and
landscaping. Within that specific sensitive area. I think that's going to have
II
to be done. I don't want to take a position now of saying landscaping be done
when we can lean back on a machine operator and say no, we can't get one in
there to put it in. I want a definite. No maybe's. No guesses. Somehow with II the single car garages, that still bothers me some, even though we're meeting
all these things.
Kate Aanenson: Can I interrupt for a clarification on that? 1
43
II
II
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
1
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Kate Aanenson: That came up at the Planning Commission meeting and I think what
they had recommended, and we certainly can put that in the PUD agreement is
that, and this is included in the owner occupied units, is that there be a
statement that said no storage could be allowed in the garage facilities.
Mayor Chmiel: That was going to be my point. I'm glad you brought it up.
Thank you. And I'd like to see that contained within that as well. How do we
police it? It's going to be a problem. Policing would be a real concern. I
don't think you can do it and I don't think we're going to do it, even though we
could have a police person around. But anyway, rather than reiterate all the
' other things that everyone else has said, I think that some of the things are
getting closer. And yet I see some of the concerns of the neighbors and I too
met with them last Saturday and looked at this from their decks and there is
' some of those concerns there. So with that I would bring it back to Council for
any other discussion. If no other discussion.
' Kate Aanenson: Can I make two clarifications? Todd Hoffman pointed out to me
that on the conditions for preliminary plat approval. Number 7. It says park
and trail dedication fees. Trail dedication fees should be struck because
they'll be constructing a trail so it should just be park fees will be paid.
Mayor Chmiel: Item, which was that again?
Kate Aanenson: Page 14, number 7.
Councilman Mason: So it's just the park?
Kate Aanenson: It would just be park. And then to follow through with that.
On page 15, number 4. It says a 20 foot wide trail easement shall be dedicated.
And you'd want to add, and construction of an 8 foot wide bituminous trail.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussions? Can I have a motion?
' Councilman Mason: Before we get that.
Mayor Chmiel: We have two things to go on with the motions. One is for that
preliminary review of the planned unit development. For those numbers now. If
those numbers are going to be changed, then that has to also be changed. And
then with the wetland alteration, I don't see any problem with that other than
what staff has contained within the condition.
' Roger Knutson: This is also approval of the preliminary plat.
' Mayor Chmiel: That's right, yes. And preliminary plat.
Councilman Workman: I'll make a motion. Preliminary review of a Planned Unit
Development for 104 rental units and 105 townhomes and a clubhouse /office on
' 27.04 acres of property with staff recommendations. I'm not sure how we want to
address.
44
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
Mayor Chmiel: Well each of those changes. With additional screening required
in the northeasterly portion of the development in the Phase 2 rental area.
Would that clarify? Now we're not saying total numbers either because we don't
know total numbers. And I would say that under those conditions, leave that up
to staff determination of making sure aesthetically it's going to resolve the
problem.
Councilman Workman: I'll make that my motion. Just as a sideline, the
townhouse development that abuts my property was asked to put evergreens in and
they did. I was on the Council when we asked them to double the number of
trees. This was before I had an interest in my property. And if that was
doubled, I'm amazed. '
Mayor Chmiel: Maybe you want to put total heights of trees to be contained in
that area. I don't know if you want to get specific and name species. ,
Councilman Workman: It's hard when you get to caliper inch and height and type.
I guess I would want to leave it so that Council could still review it.
Mayor Chmiel: They'll have that opportunity as it continues.
Roger Knutson: Mayor, maybe I could suggest that if you wanted to say bring
back before the final plat or with the final plat, a landscaping plan that will
be subject to your approval and that will leave it open.
Councilman Workman: And as a final note to the motion, the reduction in rental '
units to be...
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? Have we covered that in the entirety now? Do
you understand what he's saying?
Kate Aanenson: You reduced it to 4? '
Paul Krauss: By 4.
Mayor Chmiel: By 8. He's saying 104 rental units and 105 townhomes and a club '
house. Is there a second?
Councilwoman Dimler: I'll second it. '
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, discussion? Mike, do you have some discussion?
Councilman Mason: I'm curious as to the from 4 to 8 reduction. Councilman
Workman.
Councilman Workman: Well because of the building on the east is enlarged and '
I just don't think you're really gaining what you want here to break it up by
doing that. If you're looking for some relief, I don't think you're getting it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, we have a motion on the floor, as so stated previously with
the, that's with also the bituminous trail to be added into that one. The 8
foot wide as an additional condition. And the elimination of what was the other
item you mentioned?
45
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
Kate Aanenson: The trail fees be eliminated.
I . Mayor Chmiel: Is that acceptable to the motion and second? The additions. Any
other discussion?
II Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Disler seconded to approve Rezoning to
PUD 192 -3 and Site Plan Review $92 -3 as shown on the plans dated December 2,
1992 and December 7, 1992, and subject to the following conditions:
I 1. A "No Parking" restriction shall be designated along the entire north side
of Oak Pond Road. Appropriate "No Parking" restrictions /signs shall be
placed on the private service drives and northerly side of Oak Pond Park.
2. The grading and drainage plan shall be modified to include erosion control
measures in accordance with the City's construction site handbook.
3. The appropriate drainage and utility easements shall be shown on the final
plat for all utility and drainage improvements. A conservation easement
shall be dedicated to the City over the wetlands on the parcel. The final
plat shall indicate all wetlands located on the site.
' 4. The entire public street (Oak Pond Road) from Powers Boulevard to Kerber
Boulevard shall be constructed with Phase I of the development.
5. A traffic study on Powers Boulevard, as requested by Carver County, shall
be conducted by the developer prior to requesting final approval.
6. Apply for a wetland alteration permit for th elocation of the trails and
' possible location of sedimentation pond before final plat approval.
7. Park fees shall be paid in lieu of parkland dedication.
8. Number of parking spaces, including handicapped, must meet the parking
standards as required by the zoning ordinance.
9. Fencing shall be placed around the oak trees to minimize impact during
construction. Protected trees lost due to construction must be replaced on
a caliper inch basis in accordance with a plan approved by staff.
10. A lighting plan shall be submitted for the interior private roads. A 20
foot manicured area shall be maintained along the north, east and west
property limits, anything beyond shall be left in natural (non- maintenance)
state.
11. Compliance with the Building Official's conditions as shown in his
' memorandum dated October 19, 1992.
12. Compliance with the Fire Marshal's conditions as shown in his memorandum
' dated October 21, 1992.
13. The applicant shall enter into a PUD agreement and development contract and
submit the necessary financial securities.
1 46
1
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
14. Compliance with conditions of preliminary plat and wetland alteration
permit. 5
15. Additional landscaping will be required in the northeast corner of the
property to be submitted and approved with the final plat approval. 1
16. Removal of an 8 unit building with the Phase 2 construction.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. 1
Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Disler seconded to approve the
Preliminary Plat PUD $92 -3 as shown on the plans dated December 2, 1992 and
December 7, 1992 and subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and
provide the City with the necessary financial security to guarantee proper
installation of the public improvements and compliance with the conditions
of approval for final plat.
2. The applicant shall obtain and comply with the appropriate permitting
agencies, i.e. Watershed District, MPCA, Health Department, MWCC and Carver
County. 1
3. The developer shall construct the public utility and street improvements
within the right -of -ways or easements to City standards and dedicate upon
completion and acceptance to the City for permanent ownership and
maintenance responsibilities. The remaining utilities outside the easement
and right -of -way shall be privately owned and maintained by a homeowners
association. Detailed constructin plans and specifications including
calculations for sizing of the utility improvements shall be submitted for
formal approval by the City prior to final plat approval.
4. A 20 foot wide trail easement shall be dedicated to the City, and 1
construction of an 8 foot wide bituminous trail, along the westerly portion
of the site adjacent to Powers Boulevard. The applicant shall dedicate to
the City the necessary easements to provide for the extension of Oak Pond
road to Kerber Boulevard.
5. Construct CSAH 17 to provide for a southbound left turn lane and a
northbound right turn lane at the intersection with Oak Pond Road. Both
CSAH 17 turn lanes should be a minimum length of 320 feet in order to meet
MnDot design standards.
6. Compliance with conditions of site plan, rezoning, and wetland alteration
permit.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilman Mason: I will move approval for wetland alteration permit for
sedimentation basin adjacent to a Class A wetland and modification of an
existing sedimentation pond.
Councilwoman Dimler: Second. 1
47
1
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
moved, seconded to approve Wetland
Mason Councilwoman Dimler s pp nd
Alteratin Permit $92 -11 with the following conditions:
1. The limits of the sedimentation trap shall be limited to the 944.0 contour
adjacent to the Class 8 wetland.
' 2. The existing two storm water ponds shall be limited to modification as
proposed including the weir and outlet structures.
II 3. Type III erosion control be in place around the construction boundaries of
the wetland.
II 4. A cash contribution to the Surface Water Management Program Fund, as
determined by the city.
II All voted in favor and the motion carried.
APPROVE THE 1993 PARK ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
II Todd Hoffman: Park and Recreation Commission developed the attached proposed
1993 Park Acqusition and Development CIP over 2 meetings in August of this year.
On it's completion the Commission unanimously approved a motion made by the
II Commissioners mentioned to recommend the City Council approve that park
acquisition and development fund totaling a $150,000.00 as itemized on the
attached sheet. I am comfortable with the improvements proposed in the CIP and
I the expenditures they represent. One caveat to that statement however is that I
I will not hesitate to recommend a reduction in expenditures if I see that we at
all fall behind in revenue forecasted for 1993. Upon saying this, it is staff's
recommendation that the City Council approve the 1993 park acquisition and
II
development capital improvement program presented by the Park and Recreation
Commission. If Council has any questions on any specific improvements or on
park development in the city in general, I'm prepared to answer those. One
additional note is that as you know, we are now charged sales tax on these type
of purchases so we're losing purchasing power in this fund of about $10,000.00
on that $150,000.00 which essentially means we do not buy one neighborhood
I playground in 1993, unfortunately.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. The only questions that I have is, on the $65,000.00 that
we're looking at for Lake Susan. Is that a fairly accurate cost?
I Todd Hoffman: I hate to say it's a ballpark cost. It is fairly accurate. The
lights at Lake Ann Park, the baseball field lights which were constructed there
II were in that $60,000.00 range. Although they've been existing for some time.
The standards which we have at Lake Ann are top of the line and we can reduce
those somewhat to try to cut some costs.
Mayor Chmiel: That's a concern because I think it seems like a low figure. And
in order to get the proper amount of lighting, I think there can be some
standards cut too still to provide the proper amount of lighting for that field.
II Todd Hoffman: Certainly. We don't want to get down to telephone poles but
something adequate.
' 48
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
1
Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions?
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. I'm going to do something different than I normally i
do. Rather than ask for a reduction, I'm going to ask for an addition. And
this can come out of the contingency fund. I have been asked by certain
residents that walk the trail on Kerber, on the east side, that they're ,
overlooking the pond, the Chanhassen Pond Park. There's a nice sign there. If
we could put a bench there so that they could stop and rest and overlook the
pond. On the Chanhassen Pond Park. '
Mayor Chmiel: We do have one of those benches sitting down here. I don't think
it will cost us anything.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. Because that's a beautiful spot for it. People can
sit down. They can overlook that pond. They can rest. They can meditate.
They can do whatever they want and maybe it won't cost us any more or it could
come out of the contingency fund.
Mayor Chmiel: We do have a bench here. '
Councilwoman Dimler: Can we do that?
Todd Hoffman: We sure can. There are plans, not for benches but for acceptable 1
picnic tables so they would serve the same purpose in that area.
Mayor Chmiel: I like a bench. Okay, any other discussions? '
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the 1993 Park
Acquisition and Development Capital Improvement Program as presented by the Park
and Recreation Commission, with the additional of a bench being placed along the
trail on Kerber Boulevard overlooking Chanhassen Pond Park. All voted in favor
and the motion carried.
APPROVE 1993 POSITION CLASSIFICATION AND PAY COMPENSATION PLAN.
Mayor Chmiel: I would so move that.
Councilman Workman: Second.
Councilman Mason: With one question. Mow can anyone understand that cube on '
page 6? Boy I tell you. I mean I actually made an attempt to figure that
blankety blank thing out.
Mayor Chmiel: It's not too bad really.
Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the 1993 Position
Classification and Pay Compensation Plan as presented. All voted in favor and
the motion carried.
CONSIDER LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR SMOKE -FREE DAYCARE FACILITIES. 1
Don Ashworth: Council requested this item in the packet. I believe you
distributed a second.
49
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes, this is actually sample le of the resolution that
P
we'd like to have passed with filling in the name of the body of Chanhassen City
11 Council. This has come up last year and I believe you saw that Senator
Hottinger introduced it. It did not get any hearings. He's like to reintroduce
it this year and he'd like to have cities send in their support.
Councilman Mason: I'm all for it. I think it'd be great.
Councilwoman Dimler: I support it as well. Tom, you said you were going to
call some people. Did you have any family daycare providers?
Councilman Workman: I talked to two of them and they already basically
' instituting it and they are smokers.
Councilman Mason: I'm in the same situation. My daycare provider does smoke
but does not smoke during.
Councilman Workman: It's real terrible walking through the garage but.
' Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, this is basically so they don't smoke during the
hours of operation only.
1 Councilman Mason: Absolutely.
Councilwoman Dimler: Good. Thank you. I move approval.
11 Councilman Mason: Second.
Councilman Workman: I'd just like to commend Mrs. Dimler for her solid
leadership on issues just like this.
Resolution 192 -146: Councilwoman Disler moved, Councilman Mason seconded to
1 approve a resolution for a Smoke -free Family Daycare Bill. All voted in favor
and the motion carried.
UTILITY RATE ADJUSTMENT, CONSIDER SECOND HALF INCREASE.
Mayor Chmiel: I looked at this and I really started thinking about it and
when I looked at seeing what's happening as far as our charges are concerned.
' As much as I detest seeing us increase costs, the costs have to be born back to
the residents but I feel that it's really a necessary item to pursue and I would
like some additional comments.
Don Ashworth: I should note that the Council is asked to approve this. We do
have the ability to put a few lines on each utility bill and we will put in
' there that this, that the entire amount of this increase is attributable to
additional payments from MWCC.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. With that as a condition I would so.
' Councilman Mason: I don't think it would placate too many people but good.
l 50
1
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Because we don't know where that's going to go and that
think has just been jumping up, jumping up, jumping up. And before you know it, (�,
we'll be at $900,000.00. Before you know it, we'll be at Si million. 1`
Councilman Workman: Is this a first reading?
Don Ashworth: Utility rates are done by resolution. •
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a motion with a second? 1
Councilman Workman: So moved.
Councilman Mason: Second. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion?
Resolution #92 -147: Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to
authorize the second half utility rate increase with notification to residents
that the increase is due to MWCC increase. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
Councilman Mason: Very quickly. And I wish there were more people here. With
the meeting coming up tomorrow at Chanhassen Elementary for information on the
referendum. I am not a resident of the District #112 part of Chanhassen but as
a teacher and as a parent and as a concerned citizen, I hope a lot of people
( show up at that meeting and I hope a lot of people push the issue of a
referendum. Because I'm afraid if there isn't one, the kids that go to school
in District #112 will be in unfortunate straits. So I hope a lot of people show
up tomorrow night, 5:00 to 6:30.
Councilwoman Dimler: Where? '
Councilman Mason: At Chan Elementary.
Bob Bohara: Mr. Mayor, could I say something...under Council Presentations? I '
was here earlier as you may remember. I have a related by separate issue I'd
like to just mention to you, and this is more for you Mr. Mayor and Councilman 11 Mason, since the other two of you are lame ducks. During this Oak Pond thing
it's been kind of an education in local government. I've been through lots of
Planning Commission meetings and lots of City Council meetings and one thing
that concerns me is that at the last time, the preliminary review of the planned
unit development that occurred at the Planning Commission meeting, I feel that I
and the rest of my neighborhood was ill used by the Planning Commission. They
took the last part of the meeting to lecture us one at a time on our '
responsibilities, duties, when to do homework and when not to. This is the same
committee that members admitted during the meeting they hadn't attended the
previous time that this came up, nor had they read the notes. The tone was
condensending and arrogant. I don't think that it's appropriate for a committee
of this type. As a homeowner and a resident of Chanhassen, I expect not just
empathy from my local government but a great deal of sympathy. This is not my
job, as you probably realize. Whenever we go up against developers, it's ,
51 ,
•
1
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
11
usually a David versus Goliath situation and somebody like a developer comes,
maybe every other meeting. Whatever, and they know you. They know the
procedures. They know all this. So besides a fair hearing of us, I also expect
empathy and even sympathy because you are all residents. You know what we're
going through to do this. And I feel we did not get either empathy nor sympathy
from it. From these people. I'm not even sure about the fairness because they
proceeded to vote on it admittedly not having read the notes or attended the
meeting. As I say, it's for the two of you. I understand that the members of
that Commission will be up for re- appointment I guess is the right thing to say
and you ought to look into what's going on there. The other thing I noticed is
that a lot of times it came up, what we decided 10 years ago. Okay, we'll go
with what we did 10 years ago. Well this is a fast growing community in the
fastest growing edge of a large metropolitan area. You have to look at what you
did 10 years ago but you have to look at what reality is today. And when you
don't do that, you lock yourself into mistakes that you're going to pay for
every year after this. So I've used my 2 minutes. I just want you to think
about the people you appoint to these positions, because they represent you as
well as deal with the public.
Councilman Mason: A quick comment on that. I, after reading through the
Minutes, some people on the Planning Commission did comment about the demeanor
of some of the other commission members and how they agreed with what you had to
say.
Bob Bohara: It was the worst public hearing I've been at.
Councilman Mason: And with the people I met with, this would have come up at
some point anyway, but as long as we're talking about it now. I believe it was
Mrs. Callister, but I'm not sure, was so angry after that meeting that she went
home and wrote a letter and put it in a drawer somewhere and I encouraged her to
send it to the city and address it to the Mayor and City Council where it would
get put in the Administrative Packet. I think your concern is being addressed
already and I share it with you.
Bob Bohara: I don't expect to come out of one of these meetings more
sympathetic to Brad Johnson than I do to the representatives of my community.
Mayor Chmiel: Appreciate it.
' ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: DISTRICT 112 YOUTH COMMISSION.
' Councilwoman Dimier: Did anyone apply?
Todd Hoffman: A person applied today...
' Councilman Workman: Mr. Mayor, maybe this is a decision that ought to be left
until the next Council.
Mayor Chmiel: No, I think you'd better act on it. I think we want to get
somebody there right now.
Councilwoman Dimier: She's working with youth already at St. Hubert's.
' 52
11
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
U
Mayor Chmiel: I would so move.
Councilwoman Dimler: Susan Hurm.
Mayor Chmiel: As an appointee for the District 112 Youth Commission.
Todd Hoffman: Again just to clarify. That would be a recommendation. The
Youth Commission actually makes their own appointments.
Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, that's a recommendation. Second. 1
Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilwoman Dialer seconded to recommend the appointment of
Susan Hurm to the District 112 Youth Commission. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to adjourn the meeting.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:00
p.m.
Submitted by Don Ashworth 1
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
53
1
11 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 2, 1992
Chairman Batzli called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
' MEMBERS PRESENT: Ladd Conrad, Jeff Farmakes, Brian Batzli, Matt Ledvina,
Steve Emmings, Joan Ahrens and Tim Erhart
' STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planner 1I; Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner I;
Dave Hempel, St. Engineering Technician; and Todd Gerhardt, Asst. City
Manager
PUBLIC HEARING:
BEISNER, LTD. PROPOSES THE CONSTRUCTION OF GOODYEAR TIRE AND ABRA
' FACILITIES ON PROPERTY ZONED BH, BUSINESS HIGHWAY AND LOCATED SOUTH OF
HIGHWAY 5, NORTH OF LAKE DRIVE EAST AND EAST OF THE CHANHASSEN EMISSION
CONTROL STATION:
A. REPLAT OF LOT 2, BLOCK 1, CHAN HAVEN PLAZA 3RD ADDITION INTO 3 LOTS.
B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO LOCATE AN AUTO SERVICE RELATED USE IN THE
' BH, BUSINESS HIGHWAY DISTRICT.
C. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 5,397 SQUARE FOOT GOODYEAR TIRE BUILDING AND A
6,494 SQUARE FOOT ABRA FACILITY.
' Public Present:
Name Address
! Thomas N. Thompson 1011 Butte Court
Michael Koenig 8005 Cheyenne Avenue
Tom Kotsonas 8001 Cheyenne Avenue
Sharmin Al -Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Batzli: Did that correspondence, was that written after the current?
Al -Jaff: Yes.
Batzli: So they had seen these?
Al -Jaff: No, they haven't seen these.
Batzli: Okay. And another question. Your first condition of the site
plan review talks about the applicant preparing revised architectural
' plans.
Al -Jaff: Correct. We hadn't seen the plans at the time when we wrote
this report. We don't usually do this.
' Batzli: In view of the plans that we now have, that were hand delivered
to us, would this condition change? Are you asking for something in
addition to what was hand delivered to us?
Al -Jaff: We are still asking for dormers on the Goodyear building.
r
1
1
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
December 2, 1992 - Page 2
Batzli: Otherwise staff is, finds that the current revised plans that
' were hand delivered are acceptable? That's staff's position, other than
the dormers? Okay. If the applicant would like to make a presentation
regarding any of the conditions or revised architectural plans, why don't
' we do that right now.
Al Beissner: Mr. Chairman and members of the Planning Commission. We
have taken the time and effort we think to revise to reflect what came
' out of our meeting a couple of weeks ago and we did meet and if there was
a timing problem or a gap it's because we were under some pressure to try
and get it done in time and I hope what we put together reflects what
meeting we had with Jeff was helpful in bringing forward. I have my
architect here and I have some colored renderings of what you see there
that will better reflect. We even have an elevation taken from or drawn
from a view from Highway 5. That we'll show with our berming and you'll
' virtually not see any cars at all that are parked there. Where as you
drive right now by the McDonald's and the Emission Control building, you
can see the pavement and you can see cars that are parked there. My
architect is here and I'd like to at least show you our color landscape
plan, building plan and elevation plan if we could.
Batzli: That'd be fine.
Al Beissner: We were also under the impression, and mistakenly so
obviously that we could put signs on all four sides of the building. We
didn't in our original drawing and we can modify that to what city
requires.
Batzli: In order for the camera to see these, they're going to have to
be slid over more toward the podium.
Al Beissner: I'll start out briefly explaining what Johnas did in here
with his detail. First one is just basically a colored site plan showing
the existing lot that's not being developed and the two lots with our
coverages. Green area to asphalt and to building area and as before, we
' have met the requirements of the city of Chanhassen. We've also in this
elevation, in this landscape plan, put in the additional trees that were
requested last time that we were here. This is an elevation taken from
' Highway 5 and this is what your view will be with the berming that we
have proposed and that's in place. If you look closely you can see a
couple of cars drawn in here. With the normal standard size American
car, that's probably about how it will look from the freeway. If we get
' some bigger campers or things, you'll see at least the tops of them but
you won't be seeing grills. You won't be seeing headlights. You won't
be seeing anything like that with the proposed berming that we have.
' This was the same berming we had last time but wasn't illustrated as it
is here. This is the proposed Goodyear elevation, and we do have in the
drawing 2 weeks ago, we did have gables on the end of the roofs here. We
now have introduced the gables on the sides and have broken up a lot of
it and I think put some of the detail into the Goodyear store that we
didn't even discuss last time. And this is the Abra store. The one that
we put a lot of time in and discussed last time and it doesn't look even
close to what it was last time. And I'm'again trying to interrupt what
everybody wants architecturally is difficult sometimes and I don't know
11
1
Planning Commission Meeting
December 2, 1992 - Page 3 1
still if this is all that we had in mind but we think it's gone a long
way in accomplishing what we had to do as far as screening our rooftop II
unit. Creating something different than what you will see in any of the
drawings that we've had. This is the elevation from the freeway and as
you saw in the berm, the berm would come across here and you'd only
probably see the top. This is the elevation that you would see from Laki
Drive, if the trees were down. The trees aren't down so it's there.
This is the elevation as you look from the Goodyear store and this is th
back elevation that faces east. And like any good architect, when he
thought we could have signs on all four sides, we put them on. We didn'
proposed it the first time and we can take some off. So the architect is
here, Johnas Blumental, if you want to ask him any questions about it, II
feel free.
Johnas Blumental: I guess I can answer questions or explain what we aril
talking about. These are mansard roofs and they enclose equipment.
These docks...spots, they are mansonary recesses to give a little more
interest to it. The idea is created to break up the roofline but
obviously these are not downtown buildings. There is no pedestrian
traffic walking by... As what you can see from Highway 5, and people tha
are out in the parking lot, so like I mean when I read the report about
dormers for a Goodyear, instead of putting several small dormers, we are ll
using one larger dormer and breaking up the roof line. That was the
idea. And we are also breaking up this roofline on the end of the
buildings so there is not that, pardon me for the expression, a barn
look. And we are creating the peaks and we have a...because we have in II
this case, there is really attic effect on...we need some louvres for
roof ventilation anyway so we are oversizing them I mean for the
architectural effect. In a way this probably is probably very telling
elevation of the entire site because this is what the public will be
seeing. They will see the different roof lines and so on. And as Al was
explaining about the cars, berms for me have an elevation shown here on 11
side. Usually the berms are 4 feet higher than a parking lot. And
normal car is 4 -4 1/2 feet high so it might be that the car top, 6 inches
or so might show. That is... '
Batzli: Is there something architecturally or some architectural reason
why you don't want to put the dormers that the staff is requesting on the
Goodyear building? ,
Johnas Blumental: My understanding was, we talked about the dormers in a
meeting...the report. And we made one big dormer instead of several
smaller ones because the reason why I mean that that will be more
noticeable from the highway than I mean several small things.
Batzli: So you feel that breaking up the mass of the building has been II
accomplished by the one large dormer?
Johnas Blumental: Right, yes.
Batzli: Anyone else have any questions?
Ledvina: Was there any attempt to coordinate or propose the coordinatiol
of building materials between the two Goodyear and Abra buildings?
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
December 2, 1992 - Page 4
Johnas Blumental: Actually they are very similar in a way. I mean they
are concrete block and moving some, I mean one is ivory color. One is
beige color and so everything is coordinated. They both have stripes.
I mean obviously the Goodyear has different color stripe and things like
' that so we felt very comfortable that they are two individual buildings
but they are coordinated obviously. It's not the same design.
Ledvina: One of the comments that we had at our last session related to
the possibility of having the same type and color of building materials.
Maybe the same types of roofing materials and things like that. I don't
know, was that discussed with Jeff at all?
Farmakes: We were not defining materials at that point. We were talking
about architectural issues of bringing light industrial to what we would
' consider I guess more of a retail type building where we had more
detailing. And we were not, there's only so much you can do in one
meeting. I think that the next step maybe would be to consider to look
closer at the materials that they're talking about.
Johnas Blumental: My comment would be that the materials would be,
should be complimentary but not necessarily the same and that's what we
are trying to do.
Farmakes: The blue that you have issued on the Goodyear building. Is
that indicative of the blue that you're proposing there?
Johnas Blumental: Not exactly I mean. This is our print. It's rather
regular blue color that Goodyear uses but it's not exactly the final
' selection. I was just trying to illustrate that it is going to be blue.
Al Beissner: We will get color chips from Goodyear on what they proposed
' and what they use and what is their standard and this is about as close.
When Johnas asked me, this is about as close as we could come we thought
to duplicating it.
Farmakes: That's a colored stone?
Al Beissner: Yes...And the other thing that I think, to answer your
question, we talked last time if we wanted the buildings all to be the
same or be in a shopping center kind of look and they're small enough
here so they can be individual, almost like homes. You don't want the
same home repeated but yet you don't want a very inexpensive rambler next
to a very expensive two story. So we did take that into consideration
trying to do it but we didn't, it would be virtually impossible to try to
get Abra and Goodyear to be identical because each company seeks for
their own identity so we thought we did that. If you would like, I have
the prints that I had here 2 weeks ago that we didn't like. If you want
to rehash that and refresh that?
Batzii: No.
Al Beissner: No. Okay.
Planning Commission Meeting
9
December 2, 1992 - Page 5
Farmakes: The color, the proposals that you're doing here for the
exterior is far different than the samples that you brought in
previously. Do you have samples here?
Al Beissner: No, I don't have samples here. This, the Goodyear, in
their specifications have what their talking about and they have
different shades of what they have. We went to a lighter shade here to
try to coordinate with the lighter shade that Abra has. They will give
us their samples and say these are the, this is the color that are in thil
specs that we can choose from but they're shades of that.
Farmakes: The shingling that you're putting on the roof, is that a
raised type shingling? The sample that you had was sort of a black,
•
shingle.
Al Beissner: That was from their colored rendering that they supplied AI
that basically was their standard throughout the country. We don't have
samples of the colors of the shingles that we'd like to use yet.
Farmakes: But you anticipate that it's going to be close to what you 1
have here in the color renderings?
Al Beissner: Yes. We used the black one before. They had a blacker an"
a grayer and the blue tone. Now we're going into a beige and a lighter
and we can do that.
Johnas Blumental: The idea is that the roof would be a little darker
than the building.
Batzli: Okay, thank you. Have you had a chance to look at the staff 1
report? Are there any conditions that you don't agree with at this
point?
Al Beissner: Well the only one I think we had a misinterpretation about
the dormer thing and when Johnas came up with this big dormer as opposed
to the small ones, I think when we talked about dormers last time we put 1
the smaller ones in and that's.
Farmakes: I think the issue of dormers that's not functional. It may
let a little more light on the inside. It may create a little bit more
problems for the construction. The issue of dormers again is if you look
at the mass of the roof there, there's nothing much breaking it up.
These large expanses of nothing being broke up are typical of more
industrial type structures. It is more of an aesthetic thing than
functional.
Al Beissner: I think when we put that up before we had one solid roof 1
and then we were throwing in, you know small dormers here and there.
Here Johnas thought it was better to go with bigger ones on each side
than say 6 smaller ones. And again, I don't know. The dormers were, ar
false dormers. They don't provide any light inside the building.
They're just there for the aesthetics from the outside. Other than that
I don't have. 1
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
11 December 2, 1992 - Page 6
Farmakes: I have one question on the Abra structure. You know have I
believe a garage door on both ends of the building, is that correct?
Al Beissner: We've always had a garage door on both ends of the
' building.
Farmakes: You have?
' Al Beissner: Yes.
Farmakes: Okay. That was my error then.
Al Beissner: This is, that's for the paint line that begins at one end
and comes out the other end at the back of the building. If you have a
' site plan, that's always been there.
Farmakes: And then that's the air conditioning vent?
Al Beissner: That was the problem we had. It's right over here. It's
right over here.
Farmakes: The north elevation then would be the side that's facing the
highway?
Al Beissner: Correct. And if you get back to, that will face the
highway. We still have the grove of trees that's between us and Lake
Drive that someday will probably come down but they aren't coming down
when we're developing this.
' Batzli: Thank you. I'd like to give any member of the public here
tonight an opportunity to speak. I would ask that if you can keep your
1 comments fairly brief, that would be appreciated and also please step up
to the podium and give us your name and address prior to speaking for the
record. Would anyone from the public like to address the Commission?
Tom Kotsonas: Tom Kotsonas. I live at 8001 Cheyenne Avenue, Chanhassen
Estates. I'm not too sure how brief I'm going to be but I've got a
statement to make. I spoke to you last time also when we talked 2 weeks
ago and I wish to again street some of my concerns and point out that as
far as our neighborhood is concerned, that both of these businesses are
an extremely negative and will have a negative impact on our residential
' neighborhood. And would like, if they are going to go through, to keep
several things in consideration. The buildings, as been talked already,
should be as pleasing and the roof line should be imaginative. Something
noticing as they're driving through Chanhassen, looking at the new bank
' building. I thought that was an imaginative design. The Country Suites,
the new Market Square mall. Also the roof line again, for such a large
building, large site is rather well developed I thought. Another thing
to keep track of is what's going to happen to trash and cars left
overnight as we talked about before and the layout of the buildings,
I don't understand and maybe they could point out where these things are.
What are we as a neighborhood going to be facing? Is all the traffic in
and out of the garage doors going to be facing our neighborhood or is it
going to be facing the highway? That's something that should be
11
Planning Commission Meeting
II
December 2, 1992 - Page 7
Y II
considered so that what we're looking at Also the trees and the
evergreens that are going to be planted, that they're strategically II placed so that they do give us privacy and and our neighborhood privacy
so that they're not all on the highway side. Or'facing the emission test
center which does nothing for us. So that when that third lot does get II
developed someday, which probably will be in the near future, that
whatever goes there, we also are well protected from whatever goes therell
and whatever is developed. And keeping these things in mind then, please
keep in mind that the site should be developed so that not only the owne
but the neighborhood and the city of Chanhassen can be proud of whatever
goes in there and whoever enters into Chanhassen coming through the east
end can look at that and say, well that is a well developed, well
designed, commercial site. Okay, thank you very much for the opportunitil
to speak to you tonight.
Batzli: Thank you. I was actually pleased that you noticed some of thell
new roof lines. We put a lot of effort into trying to, thank you. Than
you for your comments. Would anyone else like to address the Commission?
Mike Koenig: Hi, my name is Mike Koenig. I live at 8005 Cheyenne Avenul
and I guess a couple of my concerns is there seems to be a lot of talk
about how we're going to put a berm up to block it from Highway 5 but
what about on the other side where taxpayers are going to look out their,
back windows and see this all the time. This grove of trees that you're
talking about, right now I can look out and see all the way through it.
That's not going to help us at all. Another question, a sign on all 4 1
sides of the building. Is this the lighted sign that I'm going to look
out my window at night and see lighted signs? That's not real appealing.
My taxes, or real estate property values were raised last year and this II
going in is definitely going to not increase them. It's going to lower
them and at least if it's going to be there, let's put some trees or
something. Evergreens or something to block it from us. Thank you.
Batzli: Let me ask you a question. From your window you say you can seII
through the trees. Is that because the leaves are down?
Mike Koenig: Right. 1
Batzli: So you prefer to see something green all year?
II
Mike Koenig: From the time that they're, in the fall when they drop
their leaves until they're full in the summer again, you can see all the
way through there. Obviously something's going to be going in there
II
before long and they won't be there is another concern too.
Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the commission? II
Is there a motion to close the public hearing?
Emmings moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. All voted i
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Batzli: Just by way of introduction, to those of you who may not have
attended a Planning Commission before, we're now going to ask each one oll
the commissioners for their comments on the plan. From time to time
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
11 December 2, 1992 - Page 8
people do have questions right in the middle and we'll try to entertain
those questions if we have time at the end of each commissioner's
comments. Joan.
' Ahrens: The only issues we're discussing are the architectural issues?
Batzli: Pardon me?
' Ahrens: The only issue we're discussing is the architectural issues?
Batzli: You can bring other issues up.
Ahrens: Well I didn't attend the last...but I'm glad to see some
progress here in the architectural plans. However, I don't think that
' they are creative or attractive...along Highway 5. I think that they,
I like the...I think you did a good job on those.
Farmakes: They'll be copyrighted next week.
I Ahrens: I like the dormers along the roof. I think that's nice. I like
the brick on the front of the Goodyear building. We need buildings like
' this. Too many cities have buildings like this towards the entrance of
their city and...and I think that we need to provide that...our city will
be proud of...As far as the trees, I think if these people think that
1 there's not enough trees in there, there should be some more trees...
Batzli: Jeff.
' Farmakes: I share the concerns about the car care development center
developing on it's own on that end of town. We've had a long discussion
on this. I'm not going to repeat myself, about our ability to control
the development there. I think that the applicant, in the meeting that
we had, had made a start with this. They have taken some of the elements
that we discussed. It's not the intention that the sketches that we
worked on were to be done verbatim. It was simply to be used as a tool
to communicate what the city is looking for and the quality of
architecture. Not necessarily that we have a comtemporary building or
that we have a theme building throughout the city. Or that sort of
' thing. We weren't discussing style as much as issues of detail and
quality of materials and things of that nature. Typically with car care
type structures you wind up with the very minimum it takes to do the job.
' That's the type of light industrial use that you often see with these
type of buildings. It is not something that I think would be in the
interest of good planning to be putting next to both the entrnace to the
city and single family residences. Very close by. I too would like to
see landscaping, evergreen type to be a year round barrier continued over
on that east side of that property on the lot that's yet to be developed.
We need to also be thinking about how to incorporate the pylon signage
with this new type of architecture that we're looking at. I'd like to
see the detailing that they're working on, whatever it winds up being and
the building to also work it's way into the pylon itself. The signage is
an issue that has yet to be resolved. I think it's a major issue
considering the single family residents close by. Actually in materials
that are being used on the buildings I think would also go a long way in
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
December 2, 1992 - Page 9
helping the discussion here. Perhaps at the next round here we could
discuss those more in detail rather than a colored magic marker. I know
obviously when a client.is looking at what they're going to buy, they se
a sample. It would be helpful I think to assess the quality of the type
of the building if we could see some samples. I think the Goodyear is
perhaps more cohesive as a design than the Abra. I think the work on th�
roof needs to further modify. I like the different approach the client,
the applicant has taken to the color. Again that they're attempting to
be less obtrusive and relying on their signage to identify their positio
and not the gawdiness of the structure. I think it needs work, to sum i
up but I do believe that we're no longer on step one, where we were at
the last meeting. '
Emmings: I've got a couple of questions. When staff says they'd like to
see more dormers on the Goodyear building, what have you got in mind
there? All the dormers, do you want a bunch of them or one more?
Al -Jaff: We want the roof broken up more. You still have a long roof
line on the building. If we can break that up someway and the thought II
that comes to our mind is, dormers. I don't know if that helps.
Emmings: Well you don't have a specific? 1
Al -Jaff: No. We don't have a specific design.
Emmings: In your condition number 4 on the site plan review you're
talking about an additional 16 evergreens on the south side of Highway 51
Is that in addition to the landscape plan that we've seen?
Al -Jaff: Those have been shown on this plan. The plans that were '
submitted to you on Friday reflect that, yes. So we no longer need
condition number 4.
Emmings: Okay. For my two cents worth on the way the buildings are
looking. I agree that, I think the landscape plan looks pretty good.
Perhaps there should be some more evergreens to the south but otherwise II
think it's a pretty nice landscape plan that we've seen. I don't really
have any reservations about the Goodyear building. I personally don't
like the Abra building. I think the roof line is just too choppy. It
just, the building itself is not something that I particularly like but
have mixed feelings about how far we go with what we like and don't like.
I don't think it's an inappropriate use here in this location. Those ar
my comments.
Ledvina: I generally share Jeff's sentiments as it relates to the
architecture. I guess softening that a little bit. I think the
applicant has gone quite a long way in this process and I'm sensitive toll
that too. He's spent a lot of time and money in developing many
different concepts. I would have hoped that we could have zeroed more 11
into what we really want at this point because there has been a lot of
effort on both sides and I know that. But still I feel we do need some
more work with the building and if it's adding dormers, well that's fine
I generally agree with the landscaping plan. It seems to, from Highway II
I think that will improve the view of the buildings and I'm not too sure
1
Planning Commission Meeting
December 2, 1992 - Page 10
11
about the south side of the site. There are quite a few plantings there
but I don't know if there would need to be some more evergreens in there.
I don't know how staff would feel about that. I really don't see
evergreens. Mostly honeysuckles and things like that. About the
lighting issue, is there a possibility that they could have lighted signs
' on that south side of the building?
Al -Jaff: They're entitlted to one but it's a conditional use permit. If
you want to have non - illuminated signage to the south, illuminated to the
north, I think you have the option to do so. You can make it a condition
of approval.
' Emmings: Can you also limit, if there are lighted signs, can you limit
the time that the lighted signs are on?
' Al -Jaff: It's a conditional use permit, so yeah.
Ledvina: That might be more appropriate. Their working hours. And I
don't know about that. I think that was it in terms of the site plan. I
did have one thing on the conditional use permit. I guess in the staff
report we talked a little bit about the pollution and that ought to be
associated with this development. And I think that the discussion that
we had at the last session related to cars coming in and out of the
facility. The pollution as it relates to more traffic. I guess I feel
that that is really pretty much out of the control of the proposers here
in that they can't obviously keep cars from coming in and out. That's
what they want. I guess your condition number 7, pollution levels shall
meet standards set by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. I just,
there are literally thousands of pollution levels and I don't think it's
applicable. I think they'll do what they have to in terms of their
sanitary discharge and I guess I would just propose that we would delete
that condition. I don't think it's useful. That's it.
Batzli: Thank you Matt. Ladd.
Conrad: I think that the applicant has made some strides and I'm
comfortable with some of it. Most of the issues that were brought up the
last time. I hear the neighborhood concerns and I think if I were them
I'd still be concerned as to how this looks and their impact. Overall I
1 think it's a good site plan. And overall I think it's, based on the
zoning, it's appropriate. I don't have a problem with the Goodyear.
Whether it's the current design or whether it's one with more dormers.
The current design is fine. I really don't like Abra.
Batzli: The roof line?
Conrad: Yeah. The roof. Abra's welcome here but the roof line is just
not, it's not there yet. I'm real uncomfortable with that. I think the
north /south elevations are okay. The east /west is just choppy and the
mansard enclosures of the mechanicals are not good. So real briefly
that's where, I think some good strides have been made and again, as
we're playing around with architecture, we're doing a lousy job folks.
1 We don't have standards to apply. Remember, we took Target. They had a
330 foot expanse and we put one dormer. We put one big block in the
Planning Commission Meeting
9
December 2, 1992 - Page 11
middle of it, okay. So let's be kind of realistic what we're doing.
We've got a building that's a whole lot smaller here so. It doesn't meall
we shouldn't have our standards. It is a gateway. It-is the way people
come into Chanhassen but we don't have those architectural standards that
are real solid that we can apply in every situation here and I get
uncomfortable. I don't want 7 of us designing this building. However, II
don't like Abra. I just don't like how that looks. It's got to change
and I don't think I'm asking for a great deal. I think I'm talking about
that roof line. There's just something wrong with it. '
Batzli: So Ladd, before we move on to Tim, what would you propose we do
with Abra? I mean do you want to see one more shot at it here?
Conrad: I really don't. To tell you the truth, I feel real
uncomfortable talking architecture. Real uncomfortable. The Planning
Commission shouldn't be doing that. We should have some standards out II
there that guide. That guide the developers and the architects and then
we just make sure they follow the standards. We don't. We do have some
power here simply because we do have some conditional use. This is an II
area that we perceive to be an entrance to Chanhassen so I think we havell
some power that can make the developer do some things that we like. But
you know, again I just don't want, I want staff to do that and I prefer 11
to have it go to City Council because they're going to see 5 new
perspectives once it gets there. But it's not going to go up there with,
the Abra building's not going up there with my approval.
Batzli: Thank you. Tim. 1
Erhart: Well looking at the landscape plan, I think there's a lot of
trees on the north side of this site with all the evergreens. It's just
a matter of years and you're not going to be able to see these buildings
from Highway 5 at all. In 10 years so I'm not asking anybody to take
them out but I'd say the landscaping site is pretty good in that area.
The south side we don't know what's going to go in there ultimately. I'
surprised. I guess I thought at the last meeting I thought we had an
understanding with the developer that they were going to make the roof II
lines like we wanted them and Jeff raised his hand to go tell them what II
we wanted. And I think, this is what you did Jeff? Is this your work?
Farmakes: Yes. '
Erhart: Yeah. I think Jeff did a great job and then they came back with
something different so I'm confused because we spent quite a bit of time,
listening to the developer tell us that they've gone back and forth at
the request of staff and that it was staff leading them around the loop
and all this and then we bought that. So then we gave them a chance to
show them what we wanted and they come back with something different. 5�
now I don't understand anymore. But I agree with everything that's been
said pretty much here. Abra is just awful. We've got partial flat roof
and partial pitched roofs and it looks like there wasn't any planning
into it at all so. The Goodyear building, I'd say it's marginal. At
least it has a pitched roof over the whole thing. Certainly it could be
done with a little more pleasing to the eye. I think Ladd you hit it on�
the nose. We pass this up to Council tonight and let them take a hack a
1
11
Planning Commission Meeting
December 2, 1992 - Page 12
it. Probably the best thing to do. I think the site plan's pretty good.
The conditions seem to make sense. I hope it makes the motion to pass it
on with our comments.
' Batzli: Does it make sense to you Tim to require that they put
evergreens in there which will really be interim screening until the
southern piece develops? You've indicated that the northern side looked
' good and would you require them to put a couple more evergreens in on the
south side?
Erhart: When all these trees, essentially this area here is going to
remain in until it's developed?
Batzli: Right.
' Erhart: Yeah. Well in the first place, I don't think so. They've gone
beyond the requirements already on this. Extensively beyond the
requirements. I guess without studying it anymore, my reaction would be,
I think they've done a pretty good job.
Al -Jaff: The...landscaping could be required when site 3 develops.
Because right now you do have existing trees that will provide some
screening. If that would help.
Batzli: You think we should make that a condition? Currently or just
when it develops?
A1- .Taff: When it develops. When site 3 develops. Then we could require
that additional landscaping. Because right now they are providing some
landscaping around the drainage pond.
11 Batzli: Right. But those are hackberries and things like that. They're
kind of low.
Al -Jaff: Yes they are.
Batzli: Okay. My comments are more of the same. I don't mind the Abra
building north and south elevation. In fact, I think there's almost a
' repetition of the shed dormer almost effect from the background to
bringing it in the foreground in the Goodyear building but then I start
designing their architecture for them and I didn't want to do that
either. The side elevations do, we've added depth to the, last time we
talked about how it looked like a set from an old western when you went
to the side and it's just a piece there. We've added depth. We've
broken up the middle. We've added some interesting elements but I think,
from what you've heard from the commission, there's still a problem that
looking at it it either looks contrived or choppy or something doesn't
jell. I think, obviously I'm not going to tell you how to build
buildings but if there's a certain number of people up here and all of
them kind of look at it and kind of go, I don't know. I think you want
to be pleasing to your customers and be visible and want to construct a
11 good building. So with those assumptions, I'm hoping that they'll try to
take one more shot at it as it goes before City Council because I think
they may have somewhat the same reaction. I would have liked to have
Planning Commission Meeting
December 2, 1992 - Page 13
•
11
seen a couple of evergreens shifted to the south. But just to break up
that southern side because we don't know when that particular parcel wil
be developed so I would prefer not to wait with that. I would ask that
whoever makes the motion at least consider shifting some of the trees to
the back. I think we've done a real good job on the north and in fact
I agree with Tim. I think you've got a lot of evergreens and I think well
could move a couple of them to the south side. With that I'll entertain
any motion on the site plan review. Or should we do subdivision first?
It doesn't matter. ,
Conrad: Okay, I move that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
Site Plan Review #92 -3 as shown on the site plan dated September 21, 199
subject to the following conditions. With the conditions as per the
staff report except the following changes. Condition 1, that the
applicant present a revised building elevation for the Abra building
concentrating on fixing the choppy roof line. The second part of
condition 1 is to consider adding more dormers to the Goodyear building II
and be prepared justify it's current design to the City Council.
Changing condition 4. To eliminate condition 4 as it stands in the staf
report but to recommend the shifting of an appropriate number of
evergreens to the south side of the project to do, per staff
recommendation, to heap screen from the neighborhood. That's all.
Emmings: I'll second the motion.
Batzli: Discussion. 1
Emmings: I'd like to have, with regard to the sign. Condition number 3
Ladd. I assume that your motion, because they still have to obtain a
sign permit, you're not, your motion doesn't in any way approve the sign
as they appear on the plans that we have in front of us?
Conrad: No it doesn't. 1
Emmings: Just so that understanding is clear.
Batzli: Well actually the plans that Ladd included in his motion don't 1
have all the signs on it. I mean if we'd really would probably like to
include these new plans in the motion.
Emmings: Okay, I assumed that we were talking about the new plans.
Batzli: Have these been received? Date stamped received by the city?
No.
Ledvina: These are dated November 25th.
Emmings: So are the plans that we're approving the ones that we all got
at home that are dated September 20.
Ledvina: Two of them are September 29th... I/
Batzli: Well, Ladd if you'll reflect your motion to say something folks
like the plans we're looking at tonight, I'm sure that by the time it
11 Planning Commission Meeting
December 2, 1992 - Page 14
1
gets to City Council.
Conrad: Yeah, that kind of sounds like me too doesn't it Brian? Yeah,
the plans I see in front of me. Boy that's just so, I don't even want to
do that.
Al -Jaff: We received those plans on the 30th. The revised plans. Can
we change the date on the site plan to November 30, 1992?
Emmings: Instead of September 21?
' Al -Jaff: Please.
Conrad: Yeah. I would change my motion to reflect the site plan dated
November 30, 1992.
Emmings: And then?
Conrad: I don't need to change 3 Steve.
Emmings: No. I don't think so as long as the record's clear that you're
not, and by my second, I'm not approving in any way any of the signs that
appear on these plans. They're going to have to come back and get those
approved.
Al -Jaff: Do you want to make a recommendation on the illumination of the
signage facing?
' Conrad: Do we do that here or do we do that in the conditional use
permit? I thought that's where we'd put the condition on.
Batzli: Any more discussion?
Ahrens: Ladd, on number 4, did you just change the first sentence? Was
that what you were changing?
Conrad: Number 4 I took entirely out Joan except to move certain of the
trees, and I don't know how many, to the south side. So that condition
no longer applies based on the plans that we have. They have done what
this motion was to, made them do. It's already on the plans so that, 4
does not exist except to shift some of what they've put on the current
plans to the south side.
Ahrens: Including the part about the detailed...
Aanenson: That's city ordinance. That's a requirement anyway so they're
going to have to do it.
Ahrens: Okay. So why was this included in there?
Emmings: That would be before they saw these new plans. The new plans
reflect some of those things I think. I'm not entirely, even though I
11 seconded the motion and I'm going to vote for it, I have to say that I'm
not entirely comfortable taking away trees from the Highway 5 side and
1
Planning Commission Meeting
December 2, 1992 - Page 15
1
moving them back there. I'd rather see them add trees. If we think
they've done a good job on Highway 5, why wreck that to give them a 11 little bit on the south.side.
Ahrens: I agree.
Emmings: So I would leave the north side alone and I'd rather see the, II
would be willing to just leave the south side alone for now until it's
developed and make sure we do a good job of landscaping once we know
what's going in there. But if the feeling is that there should be some II
additional trees back there, then those should be in addition to the
Highway side.
Ahrens: I agree. I mean I can't think of one plan or one development i
the city that we've ever over landscaped. It may have looked great on
the plan. ,
Emmings: Well a good example is the
Conrad: We took of the median down main street I think. 1
Emmings: Yeah but a good example is the Valvoline, the quick oil change
you know. We saw those plans. You know, you couldn't see that building"
unless you got in a helicopter because it was hidden in a forest of
trees. You look at it now and it's up there and you wonder where all
that landscaping went you know, and maybe it will be there in 10 years
but somehow I don't think so.
Conrad: Okay.
Batzli: Amend your motion Ladd.
Conrad: Yeah, I'm going to withdraw my change to condition number 4.
See if you can decide whether you, but my motion or my change would now II
reflec the following. That the, 4 is worded is entirely deleted but that
I'd request that staff review the need for additional screening on the
south side with the applicant.
Emmings: Yeah...
Batzli: Is there any other discussion?
Conrad moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend II
approval of Site Plan Review #92 -3 as shown on the plans received
November 30, 1992 and subject to the following conditions:
1. That the applicant present a revised building elevation for the Abra'
building concentrating on fixing the choppy roof line. Request that
the applicant consider adding more dormers to the Goodyear building
and be prepared justify it's current design to the City Council. 1
2. The applicant must revise plans to include trash screening for the
Abra site with a gate facing east and a second for Goodyear with a
Planning Commission Meeting
December 2, 1992 - Page 16
1
gate facing west. Plans must be submitted for staff review prior to
City Council meeting.
3. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting any signage
on the site. Provide a detailed sign for staff review prior to the
11 City Council meeting. The monument sign may not exceed 12 feet in
height. Sign covenants are to be submitted outlining the use and
limit of one common sign and allowances for its use by the remaining
undeveloped lot.
4. Staff review the need for additional screening on the south side with
11 the applicant. The applicant shall also provide staff with a
detailed cost estimate of landscaping to be used in calculating the
required financial guarantees. These guarantees must be posted prior
to building permit issuance.
5. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the city
and provide the necessary financial securities as required.
6. The applicant shall provide a flammable waste separator as required
by Building Code.
7. Provide a complete, final set of civil engineering documentation to
staff for review and approval.
8. Meet all conditions outlined in the Fire Marshal memorandum dated
October 8, 1992.
I 9. The applicant shall post "No Parking -Fire Lane" signs along the south
curb line on Lots 1 and 2, Block 1. Signs shall be placed at 100
foot intervals and the curb painted yellow.
11 10. Concurrent with the building permit, a lighting plan meeting city
standards shall be submitted.
' 11. The applicant shall pay $7,580. into the Surface Water Management
Program fund for water quality treatment downstream of the site.
11 12. Compliance with conditions of Subdivision #90 -17 and Conditional Use
Permit #92 -2.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Batzli: Is there a motion on the subdivision?
Emmings: I'll move the Planning Commission recommend approval of
preliminary plat for Subdivision #90 - 17 for Chan Haven Plaza 4th Addition
as shown on the plan dated September 21, 1992 with the conditions in the
staff report.
Batzli: Is there a second?
11 Ahrens: Second.
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
December 2, 1992 - Page 17
Batzli: Discussion. No discussion.
Emmings moved, Ahrens seconded that the Planning Commission recommend II
approval of the preliminary plat for Subdivision #90 -17 for Chan Haven
Plaza 4th Addition as shown on the plans dated September 21, 1992, with 11
the following conditions:
1. Park and trail dedication fees to be assessed at the time building
permits are requested. 1
2. Provide the following easements:
a. A standard 5 foot wide drainage and utility easement shall be 1
dedicated along the common lot line between Lots 1 and 2, Block
1.
b. Drainage easement located over the drainage pond.
c. A drainage and utility easement along the easterly 20 feet of Loll
3, Block 1.
3. Enter into a development agreement acceptable to the city. 1
4. A driveway or cross - access easement for use of the existing and
proposed street shall be dedicated in favor of Lots 1, 2 and 3, Bloc
1. The easement agreement shall be drafted and filed concurrently
with a private maintenance agreement acceptable to the City.
5. The developer shall obtain and comply with all necessary permits froll
the Watershed District, Health Department, etc.
6. If construction of public improvements proceed beyond freeze -up,
special modifications to construction practices shall be incorporate"
as directed by the City Engineer, i.e. full depth select granular
material for trench backfill, etc.
7. The developer shall construct the sanitary sewer and watermain
improvements in accordance with the latest edition of the City's
Standard Specification and Detail Plates and submit final plans and I
specifications for formal City approval.
8. Outlot A shall be included with the repiatting of Chan Haven Plaza
4th Addition. The outlot shall be replatted /combined with Lot 3,
Block 1.
9. The developer shall revise the detention pond to accommodate 0.95
acre /feet of runoff below the 927.0' contour line.
10. Erosion control measures (silt fence - Type 1) shall be shown on the
grading plan. Type I silt fence shall be installed along the north,
east and southeasterly perimeters of the plat.
11. The applicant shall reimburse the city for all engineering consultant
fees associated with the storm water study.
1
Planning ommission Meeting
g
December 2, 1992 - Page 18
11
12. Compliance with conditions of approval for Site Plan Review #92 -3 and
11 Conditional Use Permit #92 -2.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Batzli: Finally the conditional use permit.
Ledvina: I move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of
Conditional Use Permit #92 -2 subject to the staff conditions with the
deletion of item 7 and the creation of a new item number 7 which would
read, if illumination is used in signage on the south side of the two
buildings, that illumination would be limited to the operational hours of
the businesses.
Batzli: Is there a second?
Conrad: I second.
Emmings: When it says they have to come in for a sign permit. Who does
that in the city?
11 Al -Jaffa I do.
Emmings: Okay. And is a sign permit a conditional use permit? Is it a
type of permit where you can impose restrictions on things like
11 illumination?
Al -Jaff: Whatever you approve now is going to be my guideline to approve
that sign permit.
Emmings: Well that and the sign ordinance.
Al - Jaff: Correct.
Batzli: We need to add something. Jeff requested that we tie it in
11 somehow with the architecture of the building, at least the pylon. We
kind of skipped over that thought in the first two motions. Is that
something that's appropriate here?
Al -Jaff: Or in the site plan.
Farmakes: As a condition? I thought we weren't approving the signage as
shown.
Batzli: We aren't but if you don't impose a condition now, they would
11 merely have to comply with the sign ordinance. They wouldn't have to tie
it in architecturally.
11 Farmakes: Yeah, I think that's what we do with Market Square. We ask
them to do the same thing. I don't see why that's any different.
Batzli: We can't I don't think. Move to amend? Would you like to move
to amend the motion?
1
11
Planning Commission Meeting
December 2, 1992 - Page 19
Farmakes: I thought the motion was made already.
Batzli: Yeah, but you .can move to amend it We'll vote on your ,
amendment then.
Farmakes: I'll move to amend it. 1
Batzli: To include architectural equivalent standards on the pylon?
Farmakes: That would be with the signage design. When they do it.
Batzli: Is there a second? 1
Ledvina: Second.
Batzli: Okay, any discussion on the amendment? '
Emmings: I want to be clear on what it is. Because I'm not. What you
want to do is see some kind of architectural compatability between the 11
sign and the buildings.
Farmakes: To the monument sign.
Emmings: Now how do you define that?
Al -Jaff: You can make a condition to see the signage before it goes up.II
Farmakes: Yeah, I thought that's what we were doing.
Al -Jaff: So you can review the signage separately. I mean you pass this
but we'll bring the signage in front of you.
Batzli: Okay. Does our motion accomplish that? No. 1
Emmings: We're getting real tangled up here aren't we?
Aanenson: You can either spell out the standards or ask to see it again,
That's really your two options.
Ledvina: Well, why don't I just, I'll amend my motion to add an 8th 1
condition which would say that the Planning Commission shall review the
actual signage for this project.
Batzli: Okay, is there a second to that?
Farmakes: Second. 1
Batzli: Okay, let's vote on Jeff's original amendment.
Farmakes moved, Ledvina seconded an amendment to the motion to include all
condition that would require architectural standard equivalents to the
signage designs. Farmakes, Ledvina and Ahrens voted in favor. Conrad,
Erhart, Emmings and Batzli voted in opposition. The amendment failed byll
a vote of 4 to 3.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
g
December 2, 1992 - Page 20
1
Batzli: Okay, so that motion fails. We're going to vote on our second
amendment. Is there any discussion on that amendment? So that we see
the sign back in front of us at a later date? Okay, no discussion.
Ledvina moved, Farmakes seconded to amend the motion to include an 8th
condition which would state that the Planning Commission shall review the
signage proposal for this proposal. All voted in favor and the motion
for the amendment carried.
Batzli: Is there any other discussion on our amended motion, conditional
use permit now in front of us?
Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Conditional Use Permit #92 -2 subject to the following
conditions:
1. Compliance with conditions of approval for Site Plan Review #92 -3 and
Subdivision #90 -17.
2. No outdoor repairs to be performed or gas sold at the site.
' 3. No parking or stakcing is allowed in fire lanes, drive aisles, access
drives or public rights -of -way.
4. No damaged or inoperable vehicles shall be stored overnight on the
11 Goodyear and Abra sites.
5. No outdoor storage shall be permitted at either site.
6. Noise level shall not exceed OSHA requirements or Minnesota Pollution
Control agency guidelines at the property line.
7. If illumination is used in signage on the south side of the two
buildings, that illumination would be limited to the operational
hours of the businesses.
1 8. The Planning Commission shall review the signage proposal for this
project_
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING:
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE CITY CODE, SECTION 18 -37,
EXEMPTIONS CONCERNING SUBDIVISIONS.
1 Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Batzli
called the public hearing to order.
Erhart moved, Emmings seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Batzli: Tim, do you have any comments? We're on the subdivision
ordinance.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
December 2, 1992 - Page 21
11
Erhart: No, I don't have any comments?
Conrad: Me either. • 1
Ledvina: No comment.
Emmings: No.
Farmakes: No comments.
Ahrens: There was a typo in here.
Aanenson: Yes, it's been corrected. 1
Ahrens: Okay.
Aanenson: Paragraph (c)?
Ahrens: Yes.
Aanenson: Yep, got it. Yes, it's been corrected.
Ledvina: Mr. Chairman, I did have a question for staff. In the
introduction here, I guess I was wondering, are we reducing the level of
review for these types of subdivisions then that come in front of us?
Aanenson: No. What we are, we're saving them actually the time and whet
it's pretty straight forward and there's no dedication required, we're
saving them time and expense. If it's straight forward, it's just a
matter of doing a legal description. That's really all we're doing.
It's the same level of review internally. Between engineering and
planning.
Ledvina: Okay. That's it. 1
Batzli: I have no comments. Is there a motion? ,
Emmings: I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of
the amendment to Chapter 18, Section 18 -37.
Batzli: Is there a second?
Conrad: Second. 1
Batzli: Is there any discussion?
Emmings moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend II
approval of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend the City Code, Section
18 -37, Exemptions concerning Subdivisions as presented. All voted in
favor and the motion carried unanimously. 1
I/
11
11 Planning Commission Meeting
December 2, 1992 - Page 22
1
PUBLIC HEARING:
11 WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR A SEDIMENTATION BASIN ADJACENT TO A CLASS B
WETLAND AND MODIFICATION OF AN EXISTING SEDIMENTATION POND FOR THE OAK
PONDS /OAK HILL PROJECT LOCATED NORTH OF WEST 78TH STREET. BETWEEN KERBER
AND POWERS BOULEVARD. LOTUS REALTY.
Public Present:
Name Address
Bob Bohara 7510 Canyon Curve
Jack Thien 7570 Canyon Curve
Bill Dolan Meadowwood Engineering
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item.
Batzli: Can you tell us what the status of the overall project is with
City Council?
Aanenson: They've submitted everything to date to be on for preliminary
approval for the December 14th meeting. Preliminary site plan approval.
Batzli: This is a public hearing. Is there anyone that would like to
address the commission? If the applicant is here.
Bill Dolan: I'm representing the applicant. Mr. Chairman and members of
the Commission. My name is Bill Dolan. I'm a consulting engineer and
I'm representing the developer this evening. We have, as Kathy said,
reviewed all the reports and everything and we agree with the reports and
the method of handling the storm water. She also eluded to the fact that
they're still working on the costs and of course we want the right to
review those costs too. But other than that why we agree with it.
Batzli: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone that would like to address
11 this Commission?
Jack Thien: Hi. My name is Jack Thien. I live at 7570 Canyon Curve and
I'm just curious being that my property is adjacent to that one
particular pond on the east end, in what way that might effect my land or
my property, if at all.
Aanenson: The pond along Kerber?
Jack Thien: Yeah.
Aanenson: Maybe Dave can specifically.
Hempel: The proposed development will not raise the elevation of the
11 pond. The improvements that they're proposing on the pond is to modify
the outlet control structure to, as you may be aware of that when we do
get a good rainstorm that the water over tops and essentially washes out
11 the berm from time to time. City crews have gone in and tried to modify
that to rectify that problem. In the past there's been cattails and
1
Planning Commission Meeting
December 2, 1992 - Page 23
debris getting stuck in the pipe itself thus causing the overflow
problem. What's being proposed here this evening with the overall
development is modifications to those berm areas with what is called a II
broad crested weir. It's essentially a notch irr the berm that provides
emergency overflow should 100 year flood take part. That broad crested
weir is designed so it will not wash out like it has in the past. That
is done with rip rap rock and from an aesthetic standpoint, what is
proposed is to backfill over that rip rap material with topsoil and re-
establish the vegetation so you will have, similar to what is out there II
today with the exception of the elevations. There will be a, I believe
it's a 20 foot wide gradual slope with a V notch so at the low point of
the overflow, be approximately 18 inches lower than the rest of the berm
Bob Bohara: Bob Bohara, 7510 Canyon Curve. Where is this sedimentation,
new sedimentation pond going to actually go? 11 Aanenson: This is Powers Blvd. The edge, would be the southerly edge.
Bob Bohara: Right at the edge of the road there? My only concern was,
as on the road side, that's very steep there and going up the other way NI
it's also, it's not as steep but it's still fairly steep there and I
don't know where you're going to get any significant volume of water in
that area without significant cuts and they're already cutting from the
top to add that road on there so I don't see how it all goes together.
Hempel: Mr. Chairman, I can address that. Essentially what they're
providing here is a sediment trap or sediment basin. It is not designed
to handle the 100 year storm event. It is designed to handle the 5 to 10
year type storms which our storm sewers are designed for. It's strictly
for a sediment removal prior to discharging into the wetlands and furthe
on down the stream.
Bob Bohara: Is there going to be erosion problems from the road side? II
Or you don't know yet?
Hempel: Well we don't believe so. Not with the measures, the slopes I II
believe will be a 3:1 slope and will be re- vegetated with native grasses
and so forth.
Bob Bohara: How close to the actual roadway... 1
Hempel: It is outside the road right -of -way.
Aanenson: And the bike trail.
Hempel: And the bike trail, that's correct. 1
Bob Bohara: That was the next question. How does that, and were you
going to have to build up for the bike trail too or something?
Hempel: I believe the bike trail will be basically notched into the si
of the hill and a retaining wall possibly on the inside slope to retain
that. 1
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
December 2, 1992 - Page 24
Batzli: As you have it illustrated Kate though, the dark line is the
right -of -way line. That's not the edge of the tar, is that correct?
Aanenson: Correct.
Bob Bohara: Okay.
Batzli: Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to address the
Commission? Is there a motion to close the public hearing?
Conrad moved, Erhart seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Batzli: Joan, do you have any comments?
Ahrens: No. Except for on condition number 4. I think it should read a
cash contribution in an amount determined by the City.
Batzli: Anything else Joan? Jeff.
Farmakes: No comments.
Batzli: Steve.
41 Emmings: No.
Ledvina: I did have a few questions and number one, a general comment
that I have and it relates to the report itself. I know that there might
be some concern to work this through to City Council and I don't know
maybe catch it up with the other things that are going on with the site
but we talk about the drainage plan for this project and throughout the
staff report we've cited areas C, D, E and G, etc. And from the
information that's given to us we really can't evaluate what those
drainage areas are.
Aanenson: You should have been given a drainage plan with this.
Ledvina: We do have a water plan with this but it doesn't, to my, maybe
I didn't catch it but I don't believe that there's a delineation of how
the different drainage areas, from what I saw. 5o I think that would
have been helpful.
Aanenson: That was a mistake. You obviously got the wrong set of plans.
You should have gotten a copy of them.
Ledvina: There's a different set of plans that goes with this proposal?
Aanenson: Yeah. There's one that shows the A, B, C, yes.
Ledvina: Okay. So that was a concern that I have. I think that from my
evaluation of what's provided here, it all seems to fit together but I
11 don't have a real solid way of making my own evaluation. So just in the
future if we can make those changes. Or I'm sure that's, we have the
information that should be provided that's discussed in the staff report.
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
December 2, 1992 - Page 25
1/
One of the comments from the engineer's report relates to the erosion of
the wetland. Currently there's a meandering channel in the middle of th�
wetland, as I understand. The engineer's indicated that the flow rate
from or the flow to the wetland as a result of this development will
increase. I guess I don't understand what the provisions are going to b
to mitigate this situation. It seems to indicate some work, some
additional work that would have to be done downstream and if that's not
part of this project, how do we insure that that happens without further
damage to the wetland? 1
Hempel: One of the improvements proposed at these berms is what we call
a surge basin at the bottom of the outlet to dissipate the energy of the
runoff through the storm pond. The water quality issue is being dealt
further downstream with the Eckankar pond. That pond has been designed
to take in the consideration the additional runoff generated from this
site. We're controlling the runoff underneath Powers Blvd with a contro
rate structure so that we maintain the pre - developed runoff rate on this
site and underneath the culvert to the west of the Eckankar property.
Ledvina: Okay, so you mentioned a surge basin at the outlet of the 1
wetland, is that correct?
Hempel: At the berm, yes. The downstream side of the berm at the
outlet. The end of the outlet pipe, that's correct.
Ledvina: Okay, is that part of this proposal? 1
Aanenson: The second retention pond you're saying?
Hempel: The second retention pond. 1
Ledvina: Oh, the second retention pond.
Aanenson: Not the wetland.
Ledvina: How does that deal with the issue as it relates to the erosion"
and the wetland which is downstream from the second retention?
Hempel: That erosion we believe has transpired over the last few years 11
with the overtopping of these two storm retention ponds. By correcting
the outlet of these two retention ponds and providing surge basins, we
hope to mitigate the erosion downstream.
Ledvina: So by equalizing the flow, we won't have a situation where
there will be a concentrated large volume of flow?
Hempel: That's correct. We're hoping to regulate it and keep the '
velocities down.
Ledvina: And you believe that will be the case even though the volume, I
the runoff volumes are?
Hempel: Based on the hydraulic models our storm water consultant has II
provided, he's comfortable with the proposal.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
December 2, 1992 - Page 26
Batzli: Ladd?
Conrad: Nothing.
Batzli: Tim?
1 Erhart: I don't have anything.
Batzli: My only comment is somewhat technical and that is, the motion
that we adopt, we should probably recommend approval of the wetland
alteration permit rather than approve it and we should probably do it in
accordance with the plans stamped October 22nd? Or is there a different
set? Or should we do it in accordance with the staff report?
Aanenson: I'd do it with the staff report because it's, his map's in
here and that's really what it, yeah.
Batzli: Okay. Is there a motion?
Erhart: I move that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
Wetland Alteration Permit #92 -11 with the conditions listed in the staff
report and as described in the staff report.
Emmings: Second.
Batzli: I'll call for discussion and then I'll ask if you would be
willing to modify condition 4 in accordance with Joan's request to read a
cash contribution as determined by the City to the Surface Water
Management Program Fund.
11 Erhart: Sure.
Batzli: Second, do you accept that?
Emmings: Yeah.
Batzli: Is there any other discussion?
Erhart moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #92 -11 with the following conditions:
1. The limits of the sedimentation trap shall be limited to the 944.0
contour adjacent to the Class B wetland.
2. The existing two storm water ponds shall be limited to modification as
proposed including the weir and outlet structures.
11 3. Type III erosion control be in place around the construction boundarieE
of the wetland.
11 4. A cash contribution in an amount determined by the City to the Surface
Water Management Program Fund.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
December 2, 1992 - Page 27
1
PUBLIC HEARING:
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE PUD FOR CHANHASSEN BUSIN
CENTER. THIS AMENDMENT•WOULD ALLOW A CHURCH AS A PERMITTED USE IN THIS
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. THE PROPERTY I5 LOCATED SOUTH OF THE CHICAGO,
MILWAUKEE, ST. PAUL, AND PACIFIC RAILROAD AND EAST OF AUDUBON ROAD.
CHANHASSEN BUSINESS CENTER, RYAN DEVELOPMENT. 1
Public Present:
Name Address
•
William & Marilyn Stewart 17005 Honeysuckle Lane, Eden Prairie
John & Judy McDaniel 6502 Grand View Drive, Eden Prairie
David Bradshaw 6975 Pima Lane
John, Eileen & Rosa Hiltner 2975 Autumn Woods
Heidi Zimmerman 8675 Marigold Circle
Kristy Heglie 1001 Pontiac Court
Troy & Tana Theiser 12790 Primrose Lane, #106, Eden Prairie
Chad Walker 425 Chan View #120
Matt Gustafson 15906 Cedar Ridge Road, Eden Prairie
Richard & Cynthia Miller 425 Chan View
Mark Beiger 1029 Smetana Road, Hopkins
Sandra Stoltz 15200 -18th Avenue No, Plymouth
Sue Hour 8351 Mitchell Road, Eden Prairie
Stephen G. Kern 6540 Devonshire Drive
Richard & Effie Taylor 7365 Howard Lane, Eden Prairie
Mark & Heather Brown 7641 Bittersweet Drive, Eden Prairie
Darryl & Alicia Laube 8471 Pelican Court
Lynette Danz 6540 Devonshire Drive
Tess Husemann 8471 Pelican Court
Yvonne K. Kerm 6540 Devonshire Drive
Wade Peterson 361 Trappers Pass
Martin Andreasen 19330 Vine Ridge Road
Gary & Susan Harju 5985 Mill Street, Shorewood
Randall & Joan Johnsen 8580 Magnolia Trail, Eden Prairie
Ron, Amy and Carol Curie 110912 Von Hertzen Circle, Chaska
Jule Eggen 5701 Bluebird Lane, Minnetonka
Charles W. Mattson 287 Wheeler St No., St. Paul 55113
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Batzli 11
called the public hearing to order.
Batzli: ...are we really approving a change to the PUD to allow for a II
church in general on Lot 1?
Aanenson: Yes.
Batzli: Because they have not actually provided us with any documentati
Aanenson: Correct. But that's what we did like with the National Weathlt
Service. The same thing. We're assuming that they're going to go on. IF
They haven't.
I/
1
Planning Commission Meeting
December 2, 1992 - Page 28
1
Batzli: But in our discussions we're discussing whether a church in
general should be permitted on Lot 1?
Aanenson: Right.
11 Batzli: This is a public hearing. Well first I should ask, is there a
representative of the applicant that would like to address the Commission,
prior to opening it up for general public comment?
Richard Taylor: Richard Taylor, 7365 Howard Lane in Eden Prairie. Member
of the congregation. I don't know just what to say until I find out what
the reaction is of others here. We have been looking for a place. A
building site and many times we come up against various problems. All I
would say is we would be very willing to do whatever is necessary to make
this, any adjustments that need to be made. We're willing to cooperate
with the City Council. With neighbors. Just to give you an idea, our
meeting times, if we had a Kingdom Hall built there, our meeting times are
Tuesday evening at 7:30, Thursday evening at 7:30 and Sunday morning so it
' is not a problem for traffic. We have our own parking. It's a controlled
crowd. It's not loud. And that's about all I can say. If there's any
other questions, then we'd want to be able to talk about that.
Batzli: Is there a standardized building that Jehovah Witnesses normally
would erect? Would it be a problem in a PUD where we might have additiona .
sorts of conditions placed upon certain building types?
Richard Taylor: Our buildings are all very attractive. We showed the cit;
some of the, and we have some plans. I have some pictures of the different
ones with me if you wanted to see them.
Batzli: We have a couple pictures representative, yeah.
Aanenson: If I could just qualify that Brian. We did sit down with them
and go through the whole standards of the zone, including signage, lighting
to let them know that they'll have to meet those standards and it appears
that they can do all that.
Batzli: I have one other question and that is, is there any possibility it
many churches and things nowadays we're seeing preschools and things like
that. Is there any intention on your part to do any of that?
Richard Taylor: We have none.
Batzli: Okay. Does anyone have any questions before I open it up to the
public? Okay, thank you. This is a public hearing. If you'd like to
11 address the Commission, please step forward and provide us with your name
and address.
Charles Mattson: I am Charles Mattson. My address is 2870 Wheeler Street
North in Roseville, Minnesota. My interest in this hearing is relative to
the fact that I own 90 acres of land to the west of this Audubon 92
property. And also I hold a contract for deed on this Audubon 92 contract,
I appear here in opposition to this request for the special use for a
church. First of all I believe it's incompatible with your city's
11
Planning Commission Meeting
December 2, 1992 - Page 29
comprehensive plan. As has already been mentioned, this would remove some
property from the tax roll. I am not opposed to church use per se. Howe r
I do raise two objectives to this hearing as to it's notice. First of a
the notice did say that the property lies east of Audubon Road. Really
lies to the west of Audubon Road, so I wasn't even sure at first if it was
the property I was thinking about. And secondly, it does indicate that
this is to be for a church special use. There was no identification in ILE
notice as to the church and I think the public at large would like to have
your notices to be a bit more definitive as to who the applicant is. I
have no objective in terms of any particular church. It's important tha
any group have a place to worship as they feel they should. However, we rE
dealing here with a group that has some very special doctrinal positions
Down through the years I've always been very patient and spoken with peo c
as they have called at my home, so I'm somewhat aware of their positions.
For example, I could envision the case where there might be some public
cememony held out there at the Chanhassen Business Center and in terms oll
potential litigation, I'm sort of wondering, will there be some raucous
raised as to whether or not the United States Flag should be saluted or
not. Our not saluted but should the Pledge of Allegiance be said. So a
any rate, my position here is not one of economics. In fact in my perso
case it would probably be better to see that this go forward. I could g
paid some money potentially because at the present time this underlying
contract for deed does not have any release provisions in it and therefo
the entire balance will have to be paid off on the contract that I hold
this property before there will be a release made. Or a sale finished in
this case. So I appear here primarily based upon my sense of conscience
and civic duty and it's not one of these things that I particularly enjo
doing but I wanted to make my position know. That I do appear in
opposition to this.
Batzli: Kate, do you have an overhead which shows the parcel more
generally?
Aanenson: With the whole park? 11
Batzli: Yeah. In relation to the map that's up here. Could you point
the property that you said you own currently?
Charles Mattson: My property lies to the west and southwest...
Batzli: South and west of the whole parcel then? 11
Charles Mattson: Right. And I do, as I pointed out, also...92 acres tit
you see there are under my contract for deed.
Batzli: Okay, thank you. This is a public hearing. Would anyone else 1
like to address the Commission?
Stephen Kern: Mr. Chairman and the Planning Commission. My name is
Stephen Kern, 6540 Devonshire Drive, Chanhassen. Member of the
congregation. We've been looking at land here in Chanhassen since Octobil
of '91. We've considered some 23 sites that had some possibilities for us
as far as acreage. And of the 23 sites, we approached the Planning staf
on 7 or 8 of them. During that discussion with Paul Krauss 9 months ago
1
11 Planning Commission Meeting
December 2, 1992 - Page 30
and then later on Jo Ann was involved, problems came up such as being in a
residential area itself. For the most part there's not much precedent for
a church being in a residential area in Chanhassen. Most of them are
downtown or like the Lutheran Church is in an industrial area near
Rosemount Manufacturing. Or issues came up like we're not on a collector
street with particular sites we were discussing or there was covenants in
that residential area holding us back. Didn't really like to see us in a
residential area period. But by our presence often they saw that we were
serious and we're going to be pursuing this until we find a place because
we'd like to be in Chanhassen. We have many, many families here in
Chanhassen that have been here for a long time and we attend temporarily a
hall that's in Minnetonka. We borrow their use there. Also, there was onE
site that was recommended to us by Mr. Krauss and then later on that was
concern about some protected trees in the area or it might be a potential
wetland area. We're not sure but at first we were encouraged to be there
and then later on we were encouraged not to be there. That was on the
southwest corner of Lake Lucy Road and Powers Boulevard. So then that one
was excluded. We were just about to the point to offer a bid to Mr. Kerber
on that property. So we moved on and were working real close for several
months with Mr. Morehouse who's representing a lot of the commercial
development areas and told us how, here's a site that you could fit in
with. It's a preliminary plat condition has been finalized and so on. An(
being that although our buildings, we presented a building as you saw in
the picture. It's called Plan 3 -8 that does meet a lot of the requirement:
as far as the brick structure, roof line, different things seem to be
pretty compatible. It looks much like an office. Like a dental office or
other such type offices, and yet we have many other plans. And also I've
always, not only had these specific plans but we have built halls that are
per se constructed and designed right from scratch too to meet city needs.
And so we don't have any raucouses out in front of our Kingdom Halls. All
the activity is contained inside and 99% is the main meeting of Thursday
night and Sunday morning. Maybe 50 cars might pull in on Sunday morning
and about 35 on Thursday night between 7:00 and 7:30 do they enter so we'd
certainly be helping the traffic problem. Whereas if you had an office
there during the day and we understand there's going to be thousands of
cars per day in the coming years on Audubon, so we'd be solving that
problem. And we have very compatible group for the city and a nice
building for that development and we think it would look good and also
start that development on it's way for future sales. Thank you.
Batzli: Thank you. Is there anyone else? Let me make sure no one else
and then you can have a turn at the end okay? Is there anyone else that
would like to address the Commission? Okay.
Richard Taylor: I've already given you my name. I was just going to say
that we have about 40 -50 congregations in this area. They all, most of
r them have their own Kingdom Halls here. Generally, or all the time they
get along very fine with their neighbors. I know we were going to, the
Golden Valley congregation was going to change and leave their location
there and go to another location. Build a new building and the neighbors
objected to us leaving so after you're there, they'd been there for 30
years, they got to know our people. There's no, as mentioned, a raucous,
whatever be going on there. There's always people that disagree with our
teachings but I didn't think that that is a qualification for building a
1
Planning Commission Meeting
December 2, 1992 - Page 35
I/
2. Lot 3 shall not have direct access onto Audubon but rather from the II
extension of Lake Drive West.
3. Submittal of an acceptable site plan in compliance with the development
standards /guidelines established for this PUD.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Batzli: When does this go to the City Council? 1
Aanenson: Well we've directed the applicant, the owners of the property -
that we'd like to see this final platted and we're trying to push this w: 1,F
the final plat because we've gone in there and condemned to get sewer
through there to benefit their property and we'd like to see them final
plat this. So we're hoping that we can put this all together and do it :1i
January.
Emmings: Is the weather station still, they're still planning to build
weather station?
Aanenson: Yeah, they're supposed to be operational by June of '94 so weir
expect to see them shortly after the first of the year too.
Batzli: Okay, thank you for coming in.
PUBLIC HEARING: ,
CONCEPTUAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL FOR APPROVAL TO REZONE 178
ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT THE SE QUDRANT OF HIGHWAYS 5 AND 41 AND NW QUADRAt
OF WEST 82ND STREET AND HIGHWAY 41, GATEWAY WEST BUSINESS PARK, OPUS
CORPORATION.
Public Present:
Name Address _
1
Michele Foster Opus Corporation
John Uban Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban
Peter Olin MN Landscape Arboretum
Paul Paulson 3160 West 82nd Street
Bruce Perkins 125 West 82nd Street
Harry Adams 115 West 82nd Street
1
David Dungey 105 West 82nd Street
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Batzli
called the public hearing to order.
John Uban: I'll just give my name. It's John Uban, consulting planner
working with Opus Corporation. What I'd like to do is show you some of ilk
things we showed the Highway 5 Task Force so I can kind of reiterate and
discuss a little bit about some of their concerns and comments. And then
show you...illustrate to you a little better what our intentions are.
Since the last time we met, we made some changes to the plan and I think
staff has shown...
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
December 2, 1992 - Page 36
Batzli: Excuse me, before you continue, would it be better for him to
use the microphone for the recording? Yeah, could you do that.
John Uban: I'll show you some of the changes that we have made.
Previously we had industrial all on the west side of Highway 41 and the
concern was, how does this work with the Arboretum and neighbors to the
south and Chaska. And we of course had to address what, we don't know
what's going to happen with the site that was going to be for Nordic
Track and it's for sale now for $1.00 to try and encourage some
development there. But in the past, we don't know if it's going to be a
truck industrial site or a corporate site. There's those possibilities.
But we, this had been the area at the intersection of 82nd and 41 for
some commercial to serve the business area and the traffic and so forth
in this area. And so we, at this time looking at a small business,
service or daycare and gas station, convenience. Basically for employees
of the area as well as people on Highway 41. But we looked also, and
this area is not adjacent to the Arboretum per se but this portion along
TH 41 is and we instead said, let's try and use the attractiveness of the
area and sited then multiple family on this site. And we need, in order
to do that of course, have direct access to TH 41 but that corresponds
directly where we would have access to the larger site. So this works
out just right and we've worked this out with MnDot and this is
appropriate spacing and so forth and works out for them. It also offers
us flexibility and opportunity to work with the Arboretum to secure for
them an access point that they can use in the future also. And so this
can, through an easement that we're willing to work out with the
Arboretum, to give access to the Arboretum. They're interested in
another access point from TH 41. When Highway 212 is completed, they
anticipate more of their visitors may be coming up from the south as they
come out on the faster highway rather than coming in on TH 5. So this
may prove to be a good entrance for them at some point in the future. So
we would continue to coordinate that "with the Arboretum. That allows a
lot of this site to remain an open space. Then the parcel that is also
adjacent to the Arboretum but along 82nd Street, before we had industrial
development in here but now we're showing it, not just industrial but
some office. Also in a single structure in trying to illustrate some of
the controls we can put on that particular site. One, we would buffer
around the edge. Set it back farther. We're also anticipating for this
residential use to the north that a residential driveway can be put in
place right next to the wooded area of the Arboretum. That way it would
take their entrance off of 82nd Street that is in this area. If they
want to be industrial to the north, then we would provide the easement
that they already have and that could be their industrial access. So we
have an option of doing both here at this point. But additionally, the
building itself would shelter the noise and activity of the area to the
east for the area that lies to the west because we would have loading and
the parking on the east side of the building. Totally screened and
entrance then as far down 82nd Street as possible. And that would then
consolidate a more quiet use. Obviously busy during the day as any
business would be but in the evenings and on weekends, that business
would be more quiet. And that is what we're trying to do. Have the
control here so it's a good neighbor for both the Arboretum and the
residents. Basically the same as what Chaska's been doing to the south.
The rest of this has stayed primarily the same except for the water tower
1
Planning Commission Meeting
December 2, 1992 - Page 43
surprised by the development around us, although we recognize that it's I
taken place and now expect it to proceed. We are still not convinced
that the PUD should extend to the west side of Highway 41. In fact that
part of the plan west of Highway 41 seems more appropriately used with
the Arboretum and existing Chaska uses to the south. So we continue to ■
be concerned about the planned development west of Highway 41. The plan
will impact us in many ways. Not the least of which is property taxes.
I called the Carver County Assessor this morning to get an estimate of
our property tax once the surrounding property is zoned PUD. He
estimated that our property tax could jump from $4,000.00 today to around
$9,000.00 at that time. The new plan shows the easement moved to the 1
west end of Lot 20. This was not our idea. It is not clear to me that
moving the easement is in our best interest and at this point we have not
agreed to move it. The staff report recommends that a public street be I
built on the current easement. This seems reasonable to us and we
support it. We would like to see a time table for commercial development
on Lot 20. Not enough information is available yet to understand the
impact on us and our property. For example, if the city street is
constructed on the current easement, how does that effect the location,
size, and orientation of the development on Lot 20? In regards to the
overall project, we're just small potatoes but we do not want the overall
project to lose sight of our property, it's value and it's future use.
At this point we would like our property to be included in the PUD since
it's exclusion from the PUD will be a drawback to the future use of our I
property consistent with the City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan. If
that means designation of our property as PUD at this time, then perhaps
the PUD should not go forward without that taking place. At a minimum,
our property much be planned into the development. Thank you.
Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the Commission?
Peter Olin: Mr. Chairman, Planning Commission. Peter Olin through the 1
Arboretum. I would like you to bear with me for a minute because in the
past meetings I have made some comments and some recommendations along
with the neighbors which I thought would, they were professionals would
be taken into consideration. I don't think they have been and therefore
tonight I'd like to address you, not only as Director of the Arboretum
but as a professional and give you a little background of my professional
background. In 1963, 29 years ago, when I started as a landscape
architect and planner in Hartford, Connecticut, I worked for a firm where
I learned that planners could be more effective at destroying land than
developers because they had the tools to manipulate everything. It was a
poor job but a great learning experience. In Massachussettes in '67
where I learned how good PUD's could be designed while working on two of
them, seminole ones in Amhurst, Massachussettes. In 1970 I worked on a
major regional plan for southeast New England with the New England River
Basin's Commission. In '71 I was working for a planning research firm
analyzing factors that make up the scenic qualities of the State of
Vermont. In '72 I worked on some developments with a landscape architec•
in Vermont, including town plans, zoning ordinances, PUD's, shopping
centers and so on. '73 I worked on several developments in the Boston
area for Carol Johnson and Associates. And from '74 to present I have
been with the University of Minnesota as a Professor of Landscape
Architecture. Teaching both design and planning. I hate to do this but
1
Planning Commission Meeting
December 2, 1992 - Page 44
1 this Gateway West PUD is one of the poorer designs that I've seen. If a
student turned this in I'd give them a D. That's not passing for a
design course. PUD is a unique opportunity for a designer /planner to
I work with iandform and the native environment so that it isn't destroyed.
And for the developer, the way to preserve part of the site and increase
the amount of development, that they would not be able to do under
11 regular development guidelines. For the City it's a way to retain the
character of the land and provide amenities for it's citizens. For the
people who work or live there, it provides a better setting, a more
environmentally compatable and sensitive place in which to work, reside,
and recreate. This plan does none of those things. The road rips across
the iandforms destroying them entirely. The buildings cannot be put up
on most of the lots without either removing the entire hillside, where
we've got 90 feet of drop across the lots. Or massive retaining walls.
The parking lots all face the road making the drive through the site a
tour of parking lots. There's no respect for the Arboretum, which is a
major, as a major regional resource needs major buffering considerations.
A couple rows of trees doesn't begin to do the job to buffer a potential
machine shop, fast food restaurant, gas station, multi family housing or
whatever else they're proposing in there. It does not respect the
importance of entry into Chanhassen on Highway 41. The welcome they
propose will greet people with a gas station and a fast food restaurant.
At Highway 5, where there is only the most sketchy of ideas about
industrial, office, commercial, or whatever have you, there's not much to
say Chanhassen is a different community and you're entering it now. I
think the only thing they did respect was the wetlands, and of course
that's only because the law won't allow them to do anything there, or at
11 least without major access cost to the developable sites. A PUD is the
way to creatively approach development. In this case, the importance of
the site in relationship to the Arboretum and to Chanhassen's major
entries, needs a major creative design development. Certainly the city
entrance needs far more than a circle of shrubs or trees or a berm. I'm
not sure what it is that's proposed exactly. The city wants to protect
this rolling landscape and that is the character and the characteristic
of Chanhassen and it's in your city plan. This proposal will eliminate
it. Actually I'm surprised that the Planning office, again asking the
Planning Commission to give preliminary approval with the very slight
changes made from the first plan which was a very poor plan to start
with. For the PUD you are allowing this developer to make much more
money on this property than he would be allowed to under the conventional
I development pattern, if he were to follow them. You deserve and should
demand a creative development solution for this site at the conceptual
stage. I strongly recommend that you not, no approval be given of this
I plan until a plan is presented that minimally, one, gives the Arboretum a
major buffer of appropriately compatible development. Not just a row of
trees or a berm. Office and light industrial or other 8:00 to 5:00 uses
come immediately to mind and I'm talking about that whole corner. This
is a major resource. And that it not be crowded up against the
Arboretum's boundary. Two, that this minimally respects the rolling
iandform of the site for both roadway and building location. Three, that
it shows at least block grading to indicate how roads, parking lots and
buildings can be placed on the site. Any PUD I worked on, it was
required that we show that we could put those roads and buildings on a
site and it could be graded properly. Block grading means you use 5 or
1
Planning Commission Meeting 11
December 2, 1992 - Page 45
10 foot contour intervals or something that is a little more gross than I
any kind of detail grading. Four, that begins to develop some type of
logical and appropriate entry sequence to Chanhassen, both on Highway 41
and Highway 5. And 5 and finally, to indicate that this development wil
be more than a parking lot tour as one drives through it. Just as a si
thought, the highest and best use of any property could very well be
parkland. Not necessarily commercial and industrial where something than
squeezes the very last dollar out of developing that piece of land.
Thank you.
II Batzli: Thank you. Does anyone else have any comments they'd like to
present to the Commission? .
Bruce Perkins: My name is Bruce Perkins. I live at 125 West 82nd. I'mll
one of the residents south of Lot 20. As I look at the plan, it seems
that Lot 20 sticks out to the west. As you look at it coming from the
south, you have residents and parkland in Chaska. Lot 20 breaks that II
contour. You have a residence to the north of it. A residence and
parkland to the south of it. Why not continue the current use of that
corridor of housing and park area on Lot 20? A single family home, or
parkland covered with trees would be the best to protect the sanctity of
the Arboretum and continue the current use. If Lot 20 and the property
west of TH 41 is developed, for my neighbors and for my family, we would
no longer live in the country. We would live in an industrial park.
Potential buyers of our property would say, these aren't country homes.
These are homes in an industrial park. The residents around Lot 20 would
be severely hurt by development of Lot 20 as anything but a single famil
residence or a park covered with trees. The Arboretum will be damaged di
commercial development on this border as well. Please don't ruin our
country living and our country living experience and don't intrude on th
Arboretum. Office development on Lot 21 seems appropriate but a daycare
or a restaurant or a service business that would operate 24 hours a day
would bring a lot of traffic to our area. This will cause pollution by
noise, light and traffic congestion at a variety of hours. A service
station on Lot 22 is totally unacceptable and if it's meant to service
the industrial park, it should be on the east side of Highway 41, not on
the west side. Lastly, the plan still does not reflect the fact that thil
Paulson house is existing on the lot north of it. They say there isn't
something on record to show that that house is there but a simple drive
out will show that it's there and it should be listed on the plot and the
plan, just so you don't forget that there is a residence to the north. II
Thank you.
Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the Commission? II
David Dungey: David Dungey, 105 West 82nd Street and my neighbors and
friends have pretty much said it all but I'd like to just very briefly
address the traffic congestion issue. If in fact the support commercial
uses that are proposed for the people who work in the industrial park ar
allowed to be in the west side of Highway 7, it simply means that anybody
coming to work who wants to use the daycare center, gas station, must
exit or leave Highway 41, go to the west, do their business and again II
enter TH 41 or cross TH 41 to get to their place of work. If these
commercial support businesses were on the east side of TH 41, people
II
1
Planning Commission Meeting
December 2, 1992 - Page 46
going to work could exit, do their business and get to work on secondary
roads. Not having to get back onto TH 41 again and leave it again. So
from a traffic flow standpoint, I just think it makes an awful lot of
sense to keep any commercial support to the east side of TH 41. And I'll
just cut my remarks there. Thank you.
Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the Commission?
Harry Adams: Mr. Chairman, members. My name is H. Adams. I'm the last
resident in the line of four residents that have spoken tonight, and I
strongly endorse what you've heard from all of the speakers to date. I
would add one thought. I've been in contact as recently as 6:00 tonight
with the planners for the City of Chaska and they would generally be
supportive to those objectives to the commercial properties being west of
TH 41. They regret that they weren't here tonight. They'll work with
your planners as we move forward and make those comments directly to
them. Thank you.
Batzli: Thank you. Kate, will you refresh my recollection one time. The
property in Chaska to the south of Lots 21 and 22, what is that zoned?
11 Aanenson: Industrial.
Batzli: That's zoned industrial.
Aanenson: Then there's the ravine and then you've got residential. Can
I just make a couple other comments? I feel like I need to defend
myself. We've had this problem when we did Lundgren where we came in
with a preliminary plat and we were giving a conceptual...and I'd just
like to, for Peter's benefit, read what the requirements are for
' conceptual approval. And that's looking at the overall density,
identification of lot size and width, the general, general location of
streets. The general location of open spaces. The general location and
types of land uses and intensities, and staging and time of development.
So what we're looking at is conceptual here. I certainly am
uncomfortable with the information. That's why we're saying we need to
go the next step and look at how, what the amount of grading. We
certainly are going to look in detail at the amount of grading and the
cuts and fills but we don't have that level of information here. And
what the applicant is seeking is, are you looking favorably upon this
layout in the conceptual stage so they can go to the next one. I
certainly expect to see modifications as I'm sure the applicant is too as
we move through the process. And I just want to make that clear that it
I is conceptual and we certainly, this is not the depth and breadth of
information that we need to do a thorough review of a project.
Batzli: Okay. Mr. Olin, we'll come back to you if there's no other
comments okay? Is there any other comments? Go ahead.
Peter Olin: The concept in the course of any kind of land development
has to fit on the land...but if the topography is a major factor in a
site, look at the grades on it. I don't see how you could even develop a
concept without...or knowing that that kind of topography should be
developed, and I don't think it can.
M
Planning Commission Meeting
December 2, 1992 - Page 47
Batzli: Thank you. Is there any further public comment? Is there a 11
move to close the public hearing?
Emmings moved, Ahrens seconded to close the public hearing. All voted
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Batzli: Tim, we're going to start at your end. 1
Erhart: The developer's asking for the PUD, correct?
Aanenson: Correct. 1
Erhart: Over a straight commercial /industrial development, what is he
looking to get from a PUD? 1
Aanenson: Again, I think there's a misconception of what they're
getting. What we're getting is we're getting the development standards
that we can tie them to a cohesive storm water management, design
elements, a contract that holds them to this.
Erhart: It works both ways. 1
Aanenson: Well they can come in and split, come in and split off 5
acres. Maybe they want to respond to that. Just chop off 5 acres. 5 II
acres here. 5 acres. Leapfrog kind of thing where right now we're
getting tight development standards to make it cohesive architectually,
landscaping, and all those features, the park issue.
Batzli: But from your perspective, what is the developer getting? Why
are they doing this?
Conrad: You can ask them.
Batzli: I don't want to know what they think. What do you think? 1
Aanenson: I'm not sure what the benefit is to them to do it in the
cohesive, you know marketing wise, they've got a park. I think we're
getting more from them. I'm not sure they're getting more out of it. I'
certainly don't see that as an issue.
Erhart: Well yeah, I'd like John to respond, or someone.
Michele Foster: The reason that we've submitted a PUD application is
because it's our understanding that that's what was going to be required
Quite frankly a PUD process, from a governmental point of view, is far
more restrictive for a developer in many ways than it is beneficial.
Which is not to say that we would not do many of the same things with
development standards and preservation of open space, but the PUD proces
is far more restrictive to us than it is beneficial and we would have
preferred not to do that. But we understood from speaking with staff
that it was important to do that. That it was the only way really that II
the City was going to want to consider that property, and if those are
the rules, then that's what we're going to do. Quite frankly, the Opus
II development which, you know I'll take a little bit of issue too with
1
' Planning Commission Meeting
December 2, 1992 - Page 48
Mr. Olin's statements. The Opus II development in Minnetonka is an award
winning, nationally recognized industrial park. It is not a PUD. The
' things that we did in Opus II we did voluntarily. We were on the cutting
edge of the development process when that park was started. And the
kinds of development and constraints that you see there, while developed
in conjunction with the city, were done voluntarily because that's the
quality of development that we uphold and that we intend to uphold here.
But quite frankly in this case, I think the PUD process is probably a bit
more onerous to us and is far more beneficial to the City because of the
kinds of controls that it gives you. So that's our response.
Erhart: Okay. Yeah, my question doesn't imply that I don't think it
should be done as a PUD. I just wanted to get a response on that because
a lot of the issues being discussed are, who's going to give up what. I
kind of wanted to set who's getting what and it seems to me that I think
we're...
1 Aanenson: The City certainly is. Certainly when we have concerns about
what those setbacks are going to be from Highway 5 and TH 41, landscaping
treatment, that's going to all be part of those development contracts
which we have control over with the PUD and it's cohesive.
Erhart: On Lot 20, there was some suggestion that that should be
residential. Could it be residential?
Aanenson: What the PUD ordinance says is up to 25% of the PUD zone, if
permitted by the Planning Commission and City Council, could be for
alternate uses. If it's in the best interest of the city. And I guess
that's why we were kind of looking for the Highway 5 guidance on that and
' that seems to make sense. You know what is in the best interest of the
City and that's why we really wanted to get their input again. Going
back to Michele had raised a concern that they didn't want to have to,
they feel like they should be able to go forward and we still feel like
there's some issues the Highway 5 Task Force needs to look at.
Erhart: Okay, so you think the Highway 5 Task Force would get into the
Lot 20 situation?
Aanenson: Yes.
Erhart: Even though it's off Highway 5.
Aanenson: Well they're looking at the whole commercial. Where it should
1 be in relation to that, yes.
Erhart: Okay, and the line that everything west of that diagonal line in
Chaska there is zoned residential?
Aanenson: Correct.
Emmings: There's some parkland in there isn't there?
Aanenson: Parkland, residential, yeah. Or open space I believe it is.
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
December 2, 1992 - Page 49
Erhart: What's Opus' response to the concept of that Lot 20 being 1
residential?
Michele Foster: We have two concerns. One of which is a marketing
concern. We looked at the issue of making that site a multi family site!!
after the last meeting and there's two issues there. One of which is we
don't feel there's a market and we understand that isn't necessarily '
always the driving force but in consultation with some residential
developers, that was one reaction. And the second quite frankly is that
from our experience, a good quality office, industrial neighbor is often
preferable to single family homeowners than a multi family development
with lots of traffic and kids and activity 24 hours a day, 7 days a week
And for both of those reasons we decided that that was not the best use
and we felt that we could develop with appropriate standards an office I
industrial use there that would be a better neighbor to the single
family, and maybe even to the Arboretum. I don't want to speak for them.
Erhart: Single family homes developed for what reason?
Michele Foster: Quite frankly we didn't look at single family as an
option. I don't know John if you have a response to that. 1
John Uban: If you'll, although we don't have good information as to
exactly what's happening to the south, we do have this flat industrial
piece which...but what is separating this and Chaska from the single
family that exists on 82nd Street is the large wooded ravine, which is a
good separation. It's a good way to make a transition between an II industrial use, Highway 41, and single family come back this distance.
When we go to the north, you don't have the wooded ravine. I mean it's
just open prairie quite frankly. And so we don't have that kind of
buffering. To put single family in here then, we're really exposing thall
more directly to what even a potential industrial use down here. This
area is much more exposed than to that industrial development. So the
single family here doesn't have that sort of natural buffering up here.
So what we're proposing to do is to lighten our plan for an office
industrial use here. To make it as quiet as possible where we can
control it for the homes that are to the south here. Just moving it back
so directly across from these single family homes is all open space to II
the north.
Aanenson: Can I just add to what John was saying. I think one of the
things, I'm not sure what that use is going to be. I don't want anybody
to think that I'm stating that's what it's going to be but we talked
about with the PUD that maybe this is a site where we say anything on
this lot has fixed hours. No truck traffic. Closes down at 6 :00 where
it's more compatible with the neighborhood uses. Try to make it more fi
in so it's not as obtrusive as having truck traffic all night long or
something like that. That's a possibility too with the PUD zone.
Putting those type of controls on whatever goes on that lot.
Erhart: And our Comp Plan calls for that, what they call Lot 20 is
zoned, or the Comp Plan is.
Aanenson: Is guided for, yes. Industrial commercial.
Planning Commission Meeting
December 2, 1992 - Page 50
Erhart: We're not in any, are we in not a position today to modify that?
Conrad: You can tell them what you think.
' Aanenson: Sure. That''s what we're looking for.
Erhart: If we're looking for residential.
Aanenson: Direction to what you feel the uses should be, yes. All I was
' saying is through the PUD there's another way to approach it. Yeah,
right.
Erhart: I was going to say. It just seems to me that Lot 20, maybe the
' best use is that for residential. I'm not sure you just didn't
contradict yourself when you said at one point that yeah, you can control
it better. Make it compatible with homes there. But then you just said
' industrial commercial isn't compatible with the homes that you would put
there.
Paul Paulson: Excuse me. I just want to agree with what Michele said.
' That as a residence, I think all of my neighbors would agree that we
would much prefer a well done industrial piece of property compared to a
multi family.
Erhart: I wasn't disagreeing with that.
Paul Paulson: I know you weren't but I just wanted to emphasize that
point, and I think all of the neighbors would agree with that.
Erhart: No, I understand that. Well I'll leave that to someone else...
Again, your reason for not allowing retail up in that corner.
Aanenson: It's inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Erhart: Okay. And we expect to have retail on the northeast corner?
Aanenson: Well that's what we're trying to decide as a part of the
Highway 5 Corridor. We briefly got into a discussion that, do we need
some retail at this end of the city and at what scale that should be. And
if it's going to be on 82nd and TH 41, does that preclude anything north?
And again, what scale and what types. Should it be smaller. A series of
20,000 square foot. Should it be one big user. That's something that
the Highway 5 Task Force will be working on.
Erhart: Okay, and you responded that you would like to at least see
conditions 1 and 10 remain where they are Kate? Fairly strongly.
Aanenson: Yes.
Erhart: Okay. That's the only questions I've got right now.
' Conrad: Generally I like how the plan looks. I thought Peter brought up
some good points and I'm sure going to pay attention to those as we go
through this in more detail. But generally to the east of TH 41, on the
1
Planning Commission Meeting
December 2, 1992 - Page 51
surface I'm comfortable. The southeast corner, just so you know where IE
am, and I'm not going to change. It will never be a big parking lot
which may dictate that you're not going to put retail there or whatever.
So retail is, boy you're going to have a tough time selling me on retail'
I just want you to know Okay. And there may be at some point in
time something that came along that I'd look at but right now, I want to
be real clear about that. It's a real important intersection. Lot 20
bothers me. I don't know what to do with that. It sort of juts out
there. I think we just have to real sensitive to the neighbors and the
Arboretum. I'm not sure Kate why, to the west of TH 41 is part of the
PUD. Not real clear to me. Don't think it has to be. The rest does. II
Absolutely, the rest of this is a PUD.
Erhart: Why wouldn't you want it?
Conrad: We've got a barrier called TH 41 between these two and I don't.
Batzli: We already rezoned this as PUD. 1
Conrad: What?
Batzli: I think we already rezoned this.
Aanenson: No, we've guided it for industrial commercial so whether we 11
zone it PUD or not, they could still request. -
Conrad: It doesn't have to be part of it.
Aanenson: They still own it. They can still request to come in for a
commercial industrial use.
Conrad: Why include it? What is the advantage? We can control it? 1
This is just lot, lot, lot, lot. Tell me what the advantage is and then
maybe I'd consider that but TH 41 is the boundary. TH 5 is the north
leg. You know there's some real good reasons for the rest of this being
part of a PUD and I think they've done a good job at the conceptual
level. Right now again I'm paying more attention as we get into the
detail but I just don't see why. 1
Erhart: Because if you don't put it, then there's some guy that buys Lot
19 and he could put anything he wants in there. '
Conrad: Yeah. Within our zoning.
Erhart: Cold storage warehouse in there. 1
Conrad: Possibly.
Erhart: Make that a PUD, we could put some controls on it. 1
Conrad: We can rezone that right now anyway. What's it zoned?
Aanenson: It's A -2 but it's guided for commercial industrial.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
•
December 2, 1992 - Page 52
Emmings: It's A -2 right now?
' Aanenson: Yes.
Erhart: If it's gui how do you stop them?
' Conrad: Anyway. I guess the applicant is asking for some things on
point number 1 and 10 and I think the Task Force, I think there has to be
some accountability from the Task Force. And I think the applicant would
like to hear what that is, and so would I. I guess we typically do a lot
of the zoning here and make those recommendations and I'm not sure what
the Task Force is, what they're doing versus what our role is but I think
we should have a date associated with that. I'm not sure I need to
change the wording per the applicant but again I think we need some input
from the Task Force and this should be on some kind of a schedule. The
' Park and Rec thing, I don't have a clue what they're doing. So I'll just
wait for something to happen on them. In terms of staff's, I've got to
go with the city staff's recommendation in terms of who does the traffic.
I can't make a decision on that. I have to trust our staff. That's all.
Ledvina: I think that the conceptual really has to evaluate the
topography in detail and that's one of the things that I thought we were
going to get when we saw this again, because the topography is just, it's
very critical. You have, for instance in the parking lots of 4, 5 and 6,
which would apparently be leveled. Maybe you could get 10 feet stepping
across the thing or something like that. There's 60 to 90 feet of
contour elevation difference and I just don't ever see that working
without massive earthwork and that's just, it doesn't suit the site. I
just, I think that that should have been addressed with this additional
plan. And I don't know, the applicant has made some changes and open
some things up in terms of the park and worked on that end and I'm sure
has made some progress with this area west of TH 41. Again, you have Lot
20, the potential building pad there is a fairly high elevation and if
you put a warehouse or whatever up there, that's going to be, I don't
think it can be screened very well so I think maybe that would almost
seem to be a site for an office headquarters or something like that. It
looks to be a pretty good piece there but I don't know about an
industrial application there. I guess on the issue of the traffic study,
I would agree with the applicant. I think that we can, the city can
provide some direction in terms of what needs to be done there but the
City would be spending the applicant's money on that and I think the
applicant probably could do that more efficiently with the same results.
' Or acceptable results at any rate. I was wondering, in the Opus response
regarding the Park and Rec, they suggest that, I think the term was used,
suitable controls or the City could do something to insure that this park
area is integrated in a uniform manner. Can you expand on that? What
kinds of things can we do at this point to make sure that a ball, a
softball field would be built in those areas.
Aanenson: On the adjoining property?
Ledvina: Right.
1
Planning Commission Meeting 1
December 2, 1992 - Page 53
Aanenson: We don't unless we buy it. We've had numerous people look at il
that property. It's a significant development problem. It is guided for
multi family so we're at the whim of waiting for development to occur. II
And if that's part of what the ballfield area, they hence wouldn't get
built so I guess that was the concern of the Park and Recreation
Commission. We have a development in front of us and they can get the
property now to make a useable park instead of waiting. It's unknown as 11
far as when that development would occur.
Ledvina: So we have to buy it? '
Aanenson: Well I'm saying we can wait until, we have the choice of
either buying it or waiting for someone to develop and ask for dedicatioll
at that time. There's two options.
Batzli: Well, assuming that it's all one lot, would what we would be
able to get under our current ordinance, include for example the softball'
areas and things like that so that we have a park that makes sense? Or
is this one next door to us small enough that we're not even going to get
enough to put on two softball fields? '
Aanenson: Are you asking me if we can get enough useable area with this,
with Opus' piece?
Batzli: No, with the second one. What would be required to be given to
the City under ordinance on that second parcel?
Aanenson: The same that we're applying here and it kind of fluctuates. II
Like Michele mentioned, it's generally around 1O%.
Batzli: Okay. How big is that lot next door? 1
Aanenson: I don't have the exact details on that.
Ledvina: I guess otherwise I would support the staff and the other
recommendations that were made regarding the Highway 5 Task Force. I
believe that we should eliminate the option as it relates to the retail '
on the corner, so I'd be in support of that.
Batzli: Okay. Anything else? '
Ledvina: No.
Emmings: First off I think, I agree with everybody that it's good for
the city to have this developed as a PUD. My overall reaction to what
they brought back is that it's surprisingly similar to what they brought
last time. I see that there are some differences but it looks a lot more
the same than it does different. And I don't think it does much of a joll
at taking into account the comments we made last time. It is a concept
plan and that's very broad and you read us the stuff that we're supposed
to take into account but there's a lot of specifics on this concept plan '
And there's a lot of specifics on this concept plan that I can't accept,
and those specifics are part of this drawn plan and I don't accept them.
II Planning Commission Meeting
December 2, 1992 - Page 54
II Aanenson: I agree with you. We certainly have those same concerns.
I Emmings: It may be that they should have been left off.
Aanenson: Right. Exactly. I see some of these lines being shifted
based on topography and the like.
II Emmings: Maybe they should have been left off but they're there and I
couldn't live with that.
1 Aanenson: Footprints of buildings, that could have all been left off.
We just needed the lot lines. Exactly.
II Emmings: If they want to do anything close to what's on here, I couldn't
be for it because the grading, I'm totally untrained in this but when I
look at the contour lines on the plan, there are so many lines inside
I some of those spaces that you know the grading is going to be dramatic
and it's going to ruin that piece of property, in my opinion. They
showed us a picture of the Opus Center in Minnetonka that you do
II voluntarily and I don't see those same ideas brought to this plan. I
think what you did in Minnetonka is beautiful and I don't see you doing
it here. So while I applaud you for that effort, I wish you'd come and
do it here. In Minnetonka you have patches of things distributed
II throughout and here you've got it, all the green is shoved down to the
corner into the wetland that you can't use anyway. So I don't see how,
and maybe you have a response but I don't see how you brought those
II concepts or that feeling or whatever it is to this big parcel of property
here. My specific comments with regard to Lot 20 would be, oh! I have a
question first for Kate. When we did that other business park we did
II here tonight. Chanhassen Business Center PUD amendment. We talked at
great lengths on that about the fact that we were butting the industrial
up against residential and we had to have a big buffer yard and we came
up with the buffer yard concept and we put it in our ordinance and if
I I remember right, it called for 100 feet between those conflicting uses
of trees and area that would be left in a natural state. Why don't we
see that here on Lot 20?
II Aanenson: I raised that issue with Mr. Krauss. For some reason it got
put between Mr. Paulson's property and this development which I'm not
I sure makes a lot of sense because if he wants to be included in this PUD,
and become the same ultimate zone, that's not where you want the buffer.
You want to buffer to the east. We can certainly put that in as one of
the development standards.
1 Emmings: It seems to me that all sides of that thing need a buffer yard
and maybe the whole thing ought to be but I could see that with a buffer
II yard, if and maybe a professional office building that's used just you
know, during kind of 9:00 to 5:00 hours that you could put a use in there
of that kind. I don't know if there's a market for it but I don't think
II that that would be, with that kind of buffering and that kind of use, I
don't think it would be a horrible neighbor there. But anything more
intensive than that I'd sure be opposed to. With regard to Lot 1, the
big one on the corner, is there a pond comtemplated right on the corner?
1 •
1
Planning Commission Meeting
December 2, 1992 - Page 55
Aanenson: There is a wetland. A small wetland right now.
Emmings: It's a wetland?
•
Aanenson: Right.
Emmings: Well that's good because whatever happens out there, the corne,
has to be left very open it seems to me and that's real essential. I
agree there should be no retail, even at this conceptual stage we
shouldn't even be considering retail. The idea of a corporate
headquarters, one building that would sit there certainly appeals to me II
more than anything else. With regard to condition one, I don't think it
says anything and that bothers me. It says the Highway 5 Task Force II shall further define the uses permitted adjacent to the Arboretum. So
what? First of all I think you ought to add, and along Highway 5. Not
just adjacent to the Arboretum but also all the way along Highway 5. Yo
know that sounds like an instruction to the Highway 5 Task Force. It
doesn't really say that Opus has to do anything so that bothers me. I
guess somehow they have to be subject to those recommendations or conform
to the recommendations but you can't just say, you can't just tell us II
what the Task Force is going to do because it doesn't make sense in this
context. I don't have problems with the other specific ones. I don't
understand condition 11. That the City Council should consider gaining
input on the design of Highway 5 and 41.
Aanenson: That's the landscape feature. The gateway kind of treatment.
Including that maybe. ,
Emmings: Well when you say gaining input, you want the City Council to
have input or they want input to the City Council? I didn't understand II
what it says. What did it say?
Aanenson: Paul wrote that one.
Emmings: Oh sure. Dump on the guy who's not here.
Aanenson: If I can try to explain what I think he meant. I believe whall
he's saying is that this may be something that we've used tax increment •
money for and kind of create a gateway treatment.
Emmings: That's fine but again. ,
Aanenson: Maybe they should come up with a design. Not Opus come up
with a design feature but maybe we should have another consultant. The II
City Council fund that or the HRA fund that. Come up with a design
element.
Emmings: That's fine but again, that's an instruction to the City 1
Council or a suggestion to the City Council and what this should say as a
condition to their proposal is that they would have to conform to it or
be subject to it or.
Aanenson: Certainly.
1
r
Planning Commission Meeting
December 2, 1992 - Page 56
Emmings: Okay. Can you tell me just, and you probably wouldn't want to
9 Y Y J . Y P
if you could but I don't know. Can you give me a ballpark idea of what
' Lot 20 is worth. I mean nothing that I'd ever hold you to I'm just
curious. What's a lot 'like that worth?
Michele Foster: As an industrial site or?
Emmings: Ah, okay.
' Michele Foster: Just to throw out probably an average type of number.
Maybe $1.00 per square foot with the buyer assuming whatever special
assessments there might be.
Emmings: And then as an office building. Now when you say a square
foot, are you talking about the building that's on it or the land itself?
Michele Foster: No...for the land. They pay $1.00 per square foot of
land.
Emmings: And then is the value as office, if there were a market.
Michele Foster: That's the problem, there isn't. Quite frankly there is
1 not.
Emmings: And as homesite of course it's much lower I take it.
Michele Foster: You're talking about a single family homesite, yeah.
I'm not a residential developer and never have been so I'm not sure I can
help you out there.
John Uban: Paul Steiner, who is Steiner Koppleman does a lot of single
family development. We did talk just briefly about residential potential
' on the site and he said he would never put single family there...on that
particular lot.
Emmings: Because of it's exposure to what's going to be east of it?
Because certainly what's west of it.
John Uban: ...yeah. You know, if for some reason in Chaska, industrial
development had not come up from the south, we would be looking at other
land patterns there but it's how Chaska has really, all the way along TH
41, brought their development right up to the edge. We really have to
address that and it really continues to the north.
Emmings: So when something bad happens somewhere else we ought to just
keep on doing it. No, I know what you're saying. It's there and we have
to recognize it.
John Uban: There's nothing bad about industrial development.
1 Emmings: There's something bad about it when it bumps into the
Arboretum. That is something bad. There we need.
11 John Uban: It doesn't have to be.
1
Planning Commission Meeting II
December 2, 1992 - Page 57
Emmings: Well I guess maybe that's a matter of personal opinion. But i
we say it's bad when development like the weather station which is very
non - intensive, and pretty low profile and everything else butts up
against or has residential neighbors across the street and we require 10
foot buffer yard there to make sure that those uses are separated, and
certainly you'd want at least that much separation between an industrial'
use and the Arboretum wouldn't you? I mean that conflict is greater to
me than the residential industrial one. This one is greater. In my
mind. So anyway, those are my comments.
II Batzli: Okay, Joan.
Ahrens: I agree with Steve that the more this changes the more it stays
the same...I couldn't approve even a concept plan looking at this conce
plan because it's just too specific and I don't like what I see. West
of TH 41, I don't understand, I'm not sure we finished the discussion.
know this is guided in our Comprehensive Plan as commercial industrial.
That doesn't mean we have to rezone it.
Aanenson: I believe you do. You could recommend denial. That's what II
it's guided for.
Ahrens: I know it's guided for that but does that mean we have to do ,
it? Can't we just leave it A -2?
Aanenson: I don't believe so.
II
Emmings: Well now wait a minute.
John Uban: If I could interject. The law, the State law really mandate
that the city rezone it's property in conformance with it's comprehensiv
plan. So when you create a comprehensive plan, approve it, approve the
Metropolitan Council, that then is the guide for your rezoning. And the!'
law technically says that within 6 months of doing a comprehensive plan
you're supposed to rezone all that property. Most cities don't do that.
They wait until a development comes through. But that is the guide for '
rezoning and the city has to then change...
Ahrens: What if we don't rezone it? Will we get penalized?
Aanenson: That's up to whatever challenge they want to take. II
Michele Foster: I think the city would be ultimately challenged.
Basically it will have taken the value of the property that was once
II
there and taken it away without compensation.
Ahrens: But we can amend our comprehensive plan?
II
Aanenson: Yes. That's a possibility, yes.
Ahrens: I think it was probably a mistake in the first place for us to II
ever designate this as commercial industrial.
Emmings: It was your idea wasn't it? 1
II
Planning Commission Meeting
December 2, 1992 - Page 58
Ahrens: You have such a good memory. I mean who cares if Chaska has
industrial coming up from the south. That doesn't mean that we have
to... I think this should stay A -2 and whatever we have to do to
accomplish that, I think that we should do that.
1 Aanenson: Are you talking the whole thing or west of TH 41?
Ahrens: West of TH 41. I know this is not a specific plan John and I
don't know if this was your idea or not. What my little public policy
statements are, but whoever told you that a daycare should go inbetween a
service station and whatever Lot 20 is supposed to be. Industrial. Is
way off base. I mean do you really think a daycare should go in
inbetween uses like that?
John Uban: Daycares go actually where.
Ahrens: Do you think?
John Uban: Yes.
' Ahrens: You think that's appropriate?
John Uban: Yes.
Emmings: We've got one down in our industrial park over here.
' Ahrens: I think it's absolutely crazy. There's one right near Eden
Prairie Center. You drive by there and these little kids are out playing
in this little tiny area.
John Uban: It's a business that where the people want...
Ahrens: I realize that planners can justify this. I personally think
that as public policy that that's a bad use of space. A terrible place
to put a daycare... Those are my comments.
Batzli: Okay, thank you. Kate, on Lot 7, is that actually part of the
Wrase's property right now?
Aanenson: Correct.
Batzli: But they're showing it as, we, the City or they, somehow
1 purchased it and put a water tower up, correct?
Aanenson: Yes. It's our understanding that the policy is, since we need
the water tower, and maybe Dave came help me out with that, is that the
City would be involved as far as some compensation as far as the
establishment of that water tower.
Batzli: But given the fact they have absolutely no underlying agreement
with that lot owner, you know, why would we put it there as opposed to
somewhere in the area?
1
Planning Commission Meeting
December 2, 1992 - Page 59
Aanenson: It may be beneficial to them because they would to stay on the
Y Y Y
property. And if the City does do a condemnation for the whole piece, i
gives them a security as to what the value of their property is that the
bought out. They have a life estate and their first choice is to stay
there. So that may be acceptable. We've met with them and that is an
acceptable option. They're not sure that's what they want to do at this ll
point.
Emmings: Spend the rest of their days living under a mushroom. Kind of il
neat.
Aanenson: There's a concern, you know how close would be the house and
if they did decide to pursue that, the next step would be to see how
close it would be.
Batzli: But why on a conceptual plan wouldn't that be shown on their
property rather than on someone elses that they have absolutely no
interest in the land yet? I don't understand that.
Michele Foster: The history behind that particular location is that, II when we first brought our plan into the city during the summer, that is
the highest point of the property which is where the water tower wants to
be located. And the engineering staff directed us towards that location
We had some concerns about that. Number one, because there will be some '
grading that occurs there and we're not sure yet if it will be the
highest ground. And we thought that there might be some better
locations. As you recall, in our last plan we showed it on the souther"'
part of Lot 1, right across the street from the Arboretum and they
objected to that. We decided that we still needed, therefore we needed
to move it to respond to the Arboretum and we needed to get it towards
where we thought the highest ground was going to be and we felt that tha
might be a solution. It can still go somewhere else but we keep bringing
in proposals and everybody says no and if we can get some direction on
where they would like it, we'd be happy to work with that but we've been
Batzli: Well you understand my objection that you're not putting it on
property you own. You're putting it on, you put it on Lot 1 where your
not going to develop and then you put it on a piece of property you don'
own. That was my objection.
Michele Foster: We felt that there may be a way to be able to allow that
residential use to stay and put the water tower there and still
eventually have a developable parcel if that property owner decided to
move. If we need to move it somewhere else, we will. That's not a big
issue. But we've been trying to respond to a number of multiple
objectives. Obviously we're not succeeding so, we're trying to respond.
The primary concern of the engineering department is it's got to be on II
the highest part of this development, and we'll continue to keep trying
to find that.
Batzli: No, I understand that and my comments will be much more general"
My concern was the location and I appreciate the fact that you're trying
to work something out with those people. I appreciate the fact that in
fact one of our conditions is that you work out the two exemptions
1
Planning Commission Meeting
December 2, 1992 - Page 60
because I think that's important rather than build around the way it
currently looks. I don't like the way that that exemption sits there.
So I hope that that can be worked out. We've kind of beat this concept
versus some detail in here to death and I'm sure that we had a hand in
telling the applicant what they should bring in.• I've sat on this
Commission where we've seen conceptual plans that were sketchier and we
wanted more information. This is a real chicken or egg kind of thing.
I'm sure we wouldn't have liked it had we not seen anything on these
lots. And now that we see something, we don't like it I don't know
what we do about that. In general, not looking at the buildings and
where the parking lots are necessarily going but the roadway through here
and the general layout, at least east of TH 41. Assuming for a minute
they don't grade it flat, and if you just ignored the contours which is
something that Mr. Olin has told us we can't do, I think I'd like it.
But we can't ignore those and then I wonder whether, as part of our PUD,
we're kind of protecting some of that character of the land. I don't
know from this and I don't know if you guys know or if that's something
that you're going to be taking a look at down the line. I think that's
part of our uncomfort level. Is that by what our fear is, is if we
approve this tonight and we see 15 contour lines running through a
parking lot and we're wondering, my God, what are we telling them they
can do out there. And that's something that, I think that's what we're
1 really hesitating about doing tonight and I'm not sure what we can say
about that other than we have a contoured piece of property and we're
putting a big development on it and while it's conceptual, we seem to
need some sort of assurances that you're not going to go out there and do
that. And I don't know how we do that at this stage. But I think you
know what our fears are from listening to us tonight. I don't know if
that helps or not. I think west of TH 41, I agree there needs to be
buffering. My initial hope, after last week, was that Lot 20 would
somehow come back as a real low intensive use or parkland or something
creative out of all of this so that we get a buffer and a large buffer.
Now obviously we've just heard that a $1.00 a square foot, we've got to
use the building alone for 77,000 feet. How many acres is Lot 20?
Aanenson: 9.6.
' Batzli: Yeah, so that's a lot of bucks. I don't know how we'd do it. I
mean I would, the ultimate best use from my perspective of that
particular parcel is open space. As just a big open space buffer to the
Arboretum, and having the two, Lots 21 and 22 be not necessarily
supporting commercial. I tend to agree a little bit, depending on what
we do with Lot 20, I supposed there's some sense, well Lot 19 isn't
' connected to it. I was going to say. If Lot 19 was connected down that
way, then there might make sense that it would support the multi family
housing. But currently all it does is support Lot 20, unless you include
trips back and forth across the highway. And it is interesting why that
wasn't necessarily put on the east side of the road. I think I like Lot
19 better than it used to be. My hopes have been dashed though on Lot
20. They really have. I don't know what we can do about that.
Aanenson: Brian, if I could just add to that. Mr. Paulson had spoke
tonight that he wanted to be included. Maybe that allows them some more
11 flexibility if they can work something out. Pushing something back. I'm
11
Planning Commission Meeting 1
December 2, 1992 - Page 61
not sure, pulling it away. I don't know, gives them more acreage.
I don't know if it helps or not.
Michele Foster: If I could ask for clarification on that. I heard Mr. 1
Paulson say that he wants to stay where he is but he also wants to be
included as part of the PUD and I don't know what, I don't know how to d
that. To me those are two conflicting positions and if the Planning
Commission could give us some direction. Ouite frankly I don't know wha
to do with that. Those two different messages. And I suspect he doesn't
want a public street put in if he has to pay the assessments on it,
because that's not pretty and if I were in his position, I wouldn't want"
to do that either. So if by saying he wants to be part of the PUD, does
that mean he's acknowledging that he wants to be industrial someday. 11 Because that's one, that's certainly an alternative. But I don't
understand and we need some clarification on why...part of the PUD but
wanting to stay residential. If somebody could comment on that.
Conrad: Well we can't. Do you know what you're asking for?
Paul Paulson: I think so. I think there might be a little bit confusio'
maybe by my opening remarks. I intended to just give a perspective on
the way we're looking at the development. How we got out there thinking,
wanting to get away from the city and being out in the country and
thinking that we were far enough to escape development for a while. But
now it's just all around us. Now I do believe I know what I'm asking fo
when I ask to be part of the PUD and that means that our property would
become part of the development and that eventually we would have to leavil
in order for that development to occur. I don't know if that necessarilll
means that we need to leave immediately or if we could be included in the
PUD and then move, have the opportunity down the road at some point when!'
we do feel like we move out, to at that point have it developed. Does
that help?
Ahrens: But that could bring development closer to the Arboretum. ,
Aanenson: Well yes and no. I mean it gives you a bigger piece to buffer
too. Maybe get a bigger piece of residential. I don't know. 1
Conrad: How do you want to buffer the Arboretum? We're buffering a
buffer basically.
Ahrens: I don't think it should be developed.
Conrad: But the zoning right now says it can be. '
Ahrens: Yeah. I think I was opposed to that all along though.
Batzli: We're correcting the record as we go. r
Conrad: We have nothing to stand on. It's not, I don't even know that
that's reality. 1
Ahrens: That what is?
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
December 2, 1992 - Page 62
Conrad: That going to A -2 is a reality.
Ahrens: We don't know that but, we don't know that sitting here tonight.
And we may need to get a definitive answer from Roger about what we can
do. But why eliminate that as a possibility if it may in fact be a
possibility? Just because we don't have that answer tonight.
' Conrad: I don't think it's a possibility.
Ahrens: Well you know, you may not think so but it may be a possibility.
It doesn't do us much good though to say yes, it's not a...
Conrad: I guess, I don't want to stay here all night on some of this
stuff but, I think the best thing we can do is try to get some kind of
consensus. I'm not sure if we have the right 11 motions here. Again,
what these people want to hear is some consensus of our opinion that they
go away with at least 4 people giving them, 4 out of the 6 of us, giving
them some direction. In my mind we've given them some pretty good
direction in terms of what we want on the corner. I think we were pretty
consistent there. I don't know that we've given them direction in terms
of our overall perspective east of TH 41. Is there consensus on that?
Do we like what we see in general but we're tied into some specifics?
I Emmings: Well what is there in general?
Conrad: The road layout.
Emmings: That's it right?
Conrad: The road layout, you've got a corner that's going to be
developed. You've got a park area and wetlands. You can smuggly say
that but that's not bad. You take a look at what's been done around the
wetlands, that's a really nice area. Again, there are some physical
constraints to developing this and it's not a horrendous. Now there may
be some things that Matt's pointed out in terms of some topography issues
that I don't know yet. But I'm just trying to get us to make some, give
them some clues. You know if this is totally unacceptable, then they
should hear that. If it's something that we feel a little bit
comfortable with, we have to give them that direction too.
1 Michele Foster: Mr. Chairman?
Batzli: Yes.
1 Michele Foster: If it would be helpful to the Commission and if there
was a desire to add a condition regarding the grading and that at the
next level of approval where the grading plans would be brought forward,
that if you wanted to direct us that that plan needed to...aren't
probably exactly the right words but that grading plan should respect to
the greatest extent possible the existing topography so that we have that
direction and that you do then have the ability to evaluate us against
that direction when we come back? I don't know if that gives you any
assurances but we would much rather come .away with an approval with those
1
11
Planning Commission Meeting 11
December 2, 1992 - Page 63
kinds of conditions so that we know what you want us to do when we come II
back. Is that going to help?
Aanenson: That's a standard condition in the next phase. Again, I agre1
with what Peter said. There is some concerns about this. You know the
grading. We certainly have that concern and that's what you do in the
next step and if it doesn't meet, just like when Lundgren came in, we
shifted the road. We shifted the lot configuration because that's the
definite objective with the PUD is to preserve that and we don't have
that level of detailed information. Yeah you can cursory look at this II
and say, there's some problems there but we want to see the depth and
breadth of that. And that's certainly a standard requirement in the next
level. 1
Emmings: The flip side of that, what you just said is though, if I were
the developer and you gave me concept approval here with this plan in
front of me and I came in, and you said well. You can't do this because
it's going to require too much grading and it's going to destroy the sit
as we know it, I'd say well why the hell didn't you tell me back then.
You saw where I was going to put a building and you approved the concept
plan anyway. We hear that kind of thing all the time Now maybe you call
tell me we won't hear that from Opus, I don't know but.
Aanenson: But we also have regulations as far as street grades and thosl
kind of issues.
Emmings: Then why are the buildings on here? Why are they there? * *, II
you know you'd think after, it's probably a good thing I'm getting off
the Commission because after I've been this long I ought to know what's
going on and I really don't. I mean I've looked at a lot of concept
plans and this one really kind of baffles me.
Aanenson: I guess the last time we came with the Lundgren one we got th
big lecture on there was too much detail on the Lundgren one. So now
we're trying to go backwards and now the comfort level's not there. So
we're kind of in a bind. I agree.
Emmings: And I'm the first one to say, there on Lot 1 you're not showin1
me anything and that scares the ** out of me so I don't want to approve
it. 1
Aanenson: Well they showed you the four options.
Emmings: No, I know. I realize it's contradicting. ,
Aanenson: We have the same concern. It's what is the appropriate
level? We have the same concern. '
Emmings: But I guess to restate my objection to this concept plan,
overall is this. This concept plan shows me how these people are
thinking about developing this property in a general way. And I don't
like it. And I think it betrays the principles that they've used to suc
good advantage in Minnetonka, and if they can't do at least as good out
Planning Commission Meeting
December 2, 1992 - Page 64
here as they did in Minnetonka, then I'm not interested. That's where I
stand.
Conrad: But then specifically why is it you don't like it? What is it
that you don't like about this?
' Emmings: Because they haven't, the principles that we saw on the plan,
on the Minnetonka plan showed nice curvy roads. Showed pockets of
protected natural area that were left in trees and this one is buildings
from one to the other except down in one corner. It's very, you've got
trees along the street, so what. This doesn't look anything like or
doesn't have anything like the feel of the Minnetonka project. So I
can't tell you specifically but I can tell you conceptually why I don't
like it and that's what we're doing. The specifics, they don't. On the
one hand we're being told not to look at the specifics but still it tells
us how they're thinking about this property and I don't like it.
Conrad: You would break it up?
Emmings: I don't know. I'm not a planner. I know that this doesn't
look like the Opus Center in Minnetonka.
Ledvina: I have a problem with the way this is laid out because when my
11 idea of a concept plan is something that's feasible and I can't tell if
this is feasible. Then I also look at a goal of a PUD is to be sensitive
to the natural features of the parcel, and I can't say that and if it's
not feasible and doesn't meet one of the basic goals, or I don't know if
it meets one of the basic goals, I'm not even at square one yet.
Emmings: But I think maybe this ought to get moved on. Maybe it's time
' for the City Council to take a whack at this, whether we're interested or
not. I think we've beaten this to death and I don't think they could
come back with another plan that wouldn't get the same batch of comments
that they've already gotten. Personally, so I think we ought to move it
on to the City Council. Either with an approval or not. And because
maybe we wind up getting some direction back from City Council too that
1 way.
Conrad: Well we're still waiting. As I see the report, we're waiting
for this Highway 5 Task Force stuff to happen.
Batzli: I don't see that at all.
Conrad: Don't you?
Batzli: No. I don't think the Task Force is going to.
Conrad: Well we're waiting for the Task Force to say here's what some
uses can be and here's how we buffer the Arboretum and we're waiting for
Park and Rec to tell us some stuff.
Emmings: The Task Force is going to make recommendations but won't have
any authority. That's...here and the City Council.
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting 1
December 2, 1992 - Page 65
Conrad: Right, but aren't we waiting for some of that? i
Emmings: Well you're going to have to wait 6 months for that you know.
think. I don't think it's fair to them to just let the thing sit here.
think it ought to go up to City Council. Who knows, they may love it.
Ahrens: This is the same conversation we had when we looked at this
thing before.
Conrad: See I wasn't here the first time. This is brand new. 1
Batzli: This is identical.
Ahrens: This is ridiculous to have to go through the same discussion 1
over and over again at 11:30 at night especially. I mean it's...
Erhart: I'm going to make a motion.
Emmings: Do it.
Batzli: Okay, well let me before.
Conrad: ...basically there's a lot of controversy to the whole thing.
Matt, you don't like it. Steve, you don't like it. Brian, I'm not sure
where you're at.
Batzli: I like the eastern side, I could live with provided they
contour. The western side I don't really like.
Erhart: What you're approving is a concept plan. Does that mean that 1
the streets can't move?
Batzli: They can move.
Erhart: Does it mean that the lot lines are locked in today? 1
Aanenson: No.
Erhart: You're not committing to anything by approving a concept plan so
I don't know what we're arguing about. We're approving that we want a
PUD. That we want this all planned as a whole. That's it.
Emmings: That I'll vote for.
Ahrens: We're just approving this should be a PUD? 1
Aanenson: And giving them some general directions on the types of uses
and give them an idea of where to go.
Ahrens: That there should be a road in there and some buildings?
Erhart: No, we're not even approving the buildings.
Ahrens: Simple.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
December 2, 1992 - Page 66
Erhart: It has been simple. That's why we can't get the consensus here
because we're not being asked to give any. Other than we want this
developed as a whole concept.
Batzli: Well ", but there's a certain degree of when we do give them
conceptual approval of, I think there is a certain amount of general
' layout that we're telling them that we're approving.
Erhart: I think we did it in the Minutes.
Batzli: Okay. Well, my only comments because Ladd cut me off a little
earlier. I agree that the Task Force should have input but I don't want
to wait for them. And also, I think we should delete the shopping center
and on number 11, I still don't know what it is we're doing but I'll wait
for Steve to make that motion.
Emmings: Why don't you make the motion and then I'll amend it. I really
haven't gotten prepared here much.
Erhart: You're always prepared.
Emmings: I didn't think about it.
Ahrens: Is anybody besides me interested in keeping that area west of TH
41...?
Emmings: You're outvoted.
Conrad: I really, that brings up a real important issue. What are we
doing to the west side of TH 41? Are we close?
Batzli: We're screwing it up.
Conrad: Are we close or are we, do they need some guidance? And Joan,
you have some guidance. Say, keep it A -2. I don't personally believe
that that's legal or that we could stand behind that so I'm not
supporting that. But I'm serious about what should we be telling the
applicant.
Batzli: Steve said buffer yards. I said open space, and get rid of the
supporting commercial. I didn't hear any suggestions from that end of
the table.
Conrad: So we buffer the buffer. So to protect the Arboretum we're
going to put 100 feet in between.
Erhart: Of more Arboretum.
Conrad: I really have a, that just loses me on what we're doing or how
we're trying to do that. Do you want a giant berm?
Batzli: No. We don't block the view. We just, we don't put it right on
the edge. We don't build up to the edge.
11
Planning Commission Meeting
December 2, 1992 - Page 67
Emmings: Remember the old King Kong movie, that big wall they had? Well
that's an idea.
Peter Olin: I think, what I suggested was that buffer...I think a
commercial with a lot of controls on it, or I mean industrial, with a loll
of control could be a fairly good buffer. As long as it doesn't come
right up to the border. But commercial development is not a buffer. I
think those are the kind of considerations that should be given to that II
site. It doesn't necessarily have to be parkland. That would be great
but...
Conrad: But Peter, the multi family on Lot 219, that's pretty much away'
from.
Peter Olin: See what you're doing is creating a whole group of people II
living near us then who then start taking over the Arboretum as their
land. Single family, just a few people, we can deal with that but when
you start getting crowds of people, and again we have no idea what... '
Erhart: The Arboretum is fenced isn't it ?.
Peter Olin: Well we do have a fence along the one side there...
Batzli: Okay, well we've stalled while you've drafted your motion Steve"
mmings: Well no I didn't. I was talking to Joan. I'd try this if you
gave me a couple minutes. I don't really know if I want to vote for the
motion. 1
Erhart: Well let me try here.
Michele Foster: Mr. Chairman? ...when you look at, everyone seems to
talk about how intense the property is being developed and we were just
doing some quick calculations and also some comments were made about how
this is not consistent with what we've done in Minnetonka. The best that
we can do, and the reason that the buildings are on there is one of the
things that we needed to address in the plan process is intensity of
development. So we have...some buildings down there to try and figure II
out how much development can this site support. So the building coveragll
that we are looking at is approximately in the neighborhood of 22% to 25%
building coverage. That is very consistent with the Opus II development
In most communities building coverage is going to be anywhere on
industrial property, 30% to 35 %. I think if you approve this plan as it
was, and nobody's asking you to approve the exactly building and parking
because it's not going to get built that way anyway. We all know that. II
That you would be approving a development with about that kind of...and
that's very consistent with the kind of business parks we have developed
in... That's what we would take away as the direction of the Planning 11
Commission. That that kind of intensity is acceptable. Now maybe it's
not but I don't think that, I mean I think that that is a very reasonable
use of the property in the sense that it's... Part of the problem is
looking at this in such a small scale, it tends to...the naked eye what 11
is really going to happen to that property. If direction needs to be
given on grading, then give us direction on grading. With respect to
Planning Commission Meeting
December 2, 1992 - Page 68
what happened in Opus II for those natural features. The difference is,
other than with respect to the topography, a lot of natural features in
Opus II like ponds and woods, are spread out throughout the whole
property. Unfortunately, they aren't spread out all over this property.
There aren't ponds and stands of woods all over this property. If there
were and if there are some that we are respecting, we will respect those.
But it's a different piece of property and where there are significant
natural features, we are respecting those and that's what we are looking
for approval for what we understand the direction of the Planning
Commission to be. I think there are some very basic perameters here that
I would contend are very consistent with the quality of development that
we have done in other communities that we would take away the direction
from the Planning Commission if we were allowed to proceed. We aren't
going to take away that we can have exactly that building with that
parking layout. We understand we need to do more detail...more detail
water retention studies. There's a lot more work to be done. We're just
at the sketch plan process and all we've been able to accomplish.
Conrad: Steve in your motion, are you going to address the uses on the
west side of TH 41 as well as buffer? Have you thought about that?
Erhart: I was going to put those in my motion.
Emmings: What is this, lobbying?
Conrad: Yeah. I want to make sure you do that. I think the applicant
1 asked that we tell them.
Emmings: There are some of these things that I feel strongly about and I
feel like I can address them. There are some I don't know where to go
and that one doesn't.
Erhart: Have you got a motion?
Emmings: Yeah. So I think that to the extent that I missed something
like that, you can amend my motion. I guess what I'm going to do is,
after expressing my great displeasure with this plan and everything else,
I'm going to make a motion to recommend conceptual approval. Now, to
Gateway West Business Park PUD #92 -6 as shown on the site plan dated
September 8, 1992.
Aanenson: It should say, excuse me, November 4th.
Emmings: Of course, I knew that. Dated November 4, 1992 subject to the
following conditions. We'll take the first condition will state that
there's a great discomfort with the plan that's been presented to us but
based on the remarks that were just made by Michele Foster, in that
they're not asking for anything that the plan shows specifically and
their willingness to work with the City to protect the topography and
natural features of this property, I think we can go forward with this as
a PUD. That's going to be a condition and that incorporates all of her
comments and their willingness to work on this with us. The second one
will combine the old 1 and 10 and just say that the Highway 5 Task Force
is continuing to work out appropriate land uses adjacent to the Arboretum
1
Planning Commission Meeting
December 2, 1992 - Page 69
and all along Highway 5 and at the intersection of TH 5 and TH 41. Opus"
should continue to be part of that process and take their recommendation
seriously. The conditions that are in here that were numbered 2, 3, 4,
5, 6 and 7 will stay as'they are but the numbers will have to be changed
Number 8, it says delete the shopping center. I want it understood. Tha
should say, delete the shopping center or any other retail option for Lot
1. The old 9 can stay as it is but would have to be renumbered. Number"
11, I guess what we should say there is that the City Council and the
Highway 5 Task Force, as well as the Planning Commission, are looking at
the design of the Highway 5 from TH 41 intersection area and I think Opu
should be part of that process and again take into consideration and tak�
seriously any recommendations that are made and try to work them into
their plan. With regard to development west of TH 41, any use on Lot 20
will have to be very non - intrusive. Very non- intensive and they should 11
design a buffer yard at least on the north and west and probably also on
the south side of it to keep any activity on that lot and any lots to the
east as separate as possible from the residential and Arboretum uses tha
are around it. With regard specifically to grading. It's the intention
of the Planning Commission, or it's the intention of the City to protect
the natural topography of the site. That's my motion.
Erhart: Okay, I'll second it.
Batzli: Discussion. 1
Erhart: Yeah, I'd like to add another, one more. The last one that you
had. 11. Okay, one more that Lot 19, while it's shown as office, it
appears that Lot 19, we're expecting Lot 19 to be the highest quality
building on that, and in particular as shown on here that it's an office
only. Not office warehouse.
Emmings: Are you talking about 19?
Batzli: 19 is multi family. 1
Erhart: Oh okay. I thought I read it was office.
Batzli: It was on the old plan. If you looked at the box in the staff II
report, it was still listed as what it was originally.
Erhart: Okay. Are we satisfied that we're not going to have a warehousll
there because that's what I was driving to. That's a real unique spot
and that's the one that has the most exposure to the Arboretum.
Emmings: Yeah, because the land really goes down there. You can see II
straight across from there.
Erhart: So we're clear that we're not going to get a warehouse there? II
Ahrens: No.
Emmings: I guess unless you added it, you'd better add it. 1
Erhart: Well that's what I was trying to get to. I thought that was all
1
Planning Commission Meeting
December 2, 1992 - Page 70
office and now it's an apartment so, if you're interested, I'll throw out
an amendment to clarify that that has to be the highest quality, either
multi family or office but that warehouse is not acceptable on that lot.
Emmings: Yeah, I'd, second that.
Batzli: Any other discussion?
Resident: I'm confused whether you're referring to Lot 19 or Lot 20?
Erhart: On Lot 19. The one on TH 41 there.
11 Resident: You're comfortable with multi family there?
Emmings: Not 20.
' Batzli: Well his motion was that it either has to be multi family or
office.
' Erhart: Well let's talk about it a second. Why wouldn't we want it
multi family? Now you're going to get garages. Oh well, that could be
incorporated in the building.
Emmings: I think it's a tough site to do anything.
Erhart: I could certainly envision a very nice quality office building
' there.
Emmings: I think you're more interested that it not be, what I was
' understanding you to say, I thought you were more interested that there
not be a bunch of trucks going in there and it not be warehouse.
Erhart: Overhead doors, I mean from any direction.
Mrs. Dungey: I have to say that as a resident at 105 West 82nd Street,
just south of Lot 20, the noise from Highway 41 that has evolved over the
last 10 years because of all the development in Chaska, has become quite
bothersome. I can't imagine that anyone would want to live that close to
TH 41, especially with all the other industrial and office stuff that's
being proposed.
Emmings: But you know, that's right where they build all those apartment
buildings. You drive up and down the freeway and what do you see on each
side of you? Apartment buildings. And it's hard to imagine who lives in
there and why but they rent them. Maybe to some extent, we don't have a
lot of multi family here and maybe this kind of development will require
that we have some too. So it might not be totally out of the question.
Erhart: Well, we'll leave it as it is and let the Council tackle that
one. We don't want warehouses there.
11 Batzli: Is there any other discussion?
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
December 2, 1992 - Page 71
Emmings moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend 1
conceptual approval to Gateway West Business Park PUD #92 -6 as shown on
site plans dated November 4, 1992, subject to the following conditions:
1. There's a great discomfort with the plan that's been presented, but II
based on the remarks made by Michele Foster, in that they're not
asking for anything that the plan shows specifically and their
willingness to work with the City to protect the topography and
natural features of this property, the Planning Commission will
consider this as a PUD.
2. The Highway 5 Task Force is continuing to work out appropriate land
uses adjacent to the Arboretum and all along Highway 5 and at the
intersection of TH 5 and TH 41. Opus should continue to be part of 11
that process and take their recommendation seriously.
3. A future roadway alignment should be explored through the parcel easi
of the proposed development to see if the proposed roadway is
compatible with adjacent topography.
4. The applicant should be aware of the City's water quality standard
and 100 year flood volume storage requirements in accordance with th
City's subdivision code.
5. The applicant should coordinate with the City's engineering 1
consultant, Bonestroo, for location of the water tower site.
6. Completion of an Environmental Impact Statement. The applicant shall
reimburse the City for the cost of a traffic study for the project.
7. The applicant shall secure a Wetland Alteration Permit. '
8. Dedication of parkland as requested by the Park and Recreation
Commission. 1
9. Delete shopping center, or any other retail option from Lot 1.
10. Work to incorporate two exemptions (Wrase and Paulson properties) toll
the site.
11. City Council and the Highway 5 Task Force, as well as the Planning
Commission, are looking at the design of the Highway 5 from TH 41
intersection area and Opus should be part of that process and again
take into consideration and take seriously any recommendations that II
are made and try to work them into their plan.
12. With regard to development west of TH 41, any use on Lot 20 will hav
to be very non - intrusive. Very non - intensive and they should design
a buffer yard at least on the north and west and probably also on th
south side of it to keep any activity on that lot and any lots to the
east as separate as possible from the residential and Arboretum uses,
that are around it.
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
December 2, 1992 -- Page 72
13. With specifically regard s to grading. It's the intention of the
9 P 1 Y 9 9
Planning Commission, or it's the intention of the City to protect the
natural topography of the site.
14. Lot 19 is expected to have the highest quality building, either
office or multi family, and not warehouse.
All voted in favor except Ahrens and Batzli and the motion carried with a
I/ vote of 4 to 2.
Batzli: Your reasons Joan.
Ahrens: I think that we should look at the option of A -2...
Batzli: And I think I would rather have seen it, some of our concerns
' addressed here. I understand the applicant wanting to go to Council and
I don't know if we've given them enough direction but I'm not truly
comfortable that, although like I said, I like it on paper but I don't
know if it fits on the land and that's what scares me about approving it.
So if they can demonstrate it, I've yet to be convinced. When does this
go to Council?
Aanenson: Next Council meeting is the 14th. I'm not sure that you can
make that. That meeting. Otherwise it will be January 11th. Just a
matter of whether or not we get the Minutes back in time. That's usually
a pretty quick turn around.
Batzli: Thank you very much for coming in.
MODIFICATION NO. 12 TO THE REDEVELOPMENT TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN.
1 Batzli: Okay Todd, do you have a report? Give me 30 seconds.
Gerhardt: If you just want to approve the resolution, that's fine too.
' I mean basically we're making a modification for the three conditions
that I've outlined in our report. We have to modify the plan for the
purchase of, or land write down for the Target development. And 2,
acquisition of Taco and Apple Valley. 3, to spend funds for the
1 conference center, recreational center.
Batzli: So this conference center is going ahead? That's really what I
wanted to know about.
Gerhardt: I'll update you on that. Right now, next Thursday at the HRA
we'll be interviewing for architects. Leonard Parker, Hamel Green, the
Alliance Group, and BWBR.
Batzli: Okay, this is not a public hearing as I understand it. Is there
any discussion? Ladd.
Conrad: No. I think it was well said.
1
I/
Planning Commission Meeting 11
December 2, 1992 - Page 73
Emmings: I'll move the Planning Commission approve the attached
Resolution finding Modification No. 12 to the Redevelopment Tax Incremen
Financing Plan for Chanhassen Redevelopment Project consistent with the
plans for development of the City of Chanhassen.-
Ledvina: Second. Was this evaluated by the HRA formally? 1
Gerhardt: No. It will go next Thursday to them...
Emmings moved, Ledvina seconded that the Planning Commission recommend 1
approval of the attached Resolution finding Modification No. 12 to the
Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing Plan for Chanhassen Redevelopment
Project consistent with the plans for development of the City of
Chanhassen. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Batzli so noted the Minutes of the
Planning Commission meeting dated November 18, 1992 as presented.
Emmings moved, Erhart seconed to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favo
and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:55 p.m.
Submitted by Paul Krauss
Planning Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1