1i. Minutes 11 //6:
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 12, 1993
Acting Mayor Wing called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
' COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Councilman Wing, Councilman Mason, Councilman Senn,
Councilwoman Dockendorf and Mayor Chmiel arrived during discussion on item 5.
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Paul Krauss, Charles Folch, Roger Knutson, Tom
Chaffee, Todd Hoffman, and Don Ashworth
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to
' approve the agenda with the following addition by Councilman Wing: At the end
of the regular meeting the Council will be meeting with the City Attorney in a
closed session to discuss some proposed litigation. All voted in favor of the
agenda as amended and the motion carried.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None.
' CONSENT AGENDA: Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to
approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's
recommendations:
a. Resolution #93 -26: Approve Grant Application to MWCC for 1993 Sanitary
Sewer Rehabilitation Program, Project 93 -7.
b. Resolution #93 -27: Approve Year End Closings and Transfers.
c. Approve Agreement for Vending Priviledges in City Parks, Non- Profit
Organizations.
d. Approval of Accounts.
' e. City Council Minutes dated March 22, 1993
Planning Commission Minutes dated March 17, 1993
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None.
PUBLIC HEARING: CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING ON LAKE LUCY ROAD EXTENSION BETWEEN
GALPIN BOULEVARD AND TRUNK HIGHWAY 41; AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS, PROJECT 92 -12.
Acting Mayor Wing: Item number 2 is a public hearing regarding Lake Lucy Road
extension. However, to take any action on this we're going to need 4/5 vote of
Council. And because we only have 4, I'm recommending that we alter the agenda
accordingly and table this until later in the meeting when we have a full
Council that we can take action on it.
r Councilman Senn: I believe we have to open the public hearing, do we not?
1
City Council Meeting - April 12, 1993
Acting Mayor Wing: We will.
r Roger Knutson: I should just point out. The engineer is recommending tabling.
If that's, as he's suggesting, if you agree with his action of tabling it, you
' can table it with a simple majority.
Councilman Senn: Since the public hearing was scheduled though, do we not need
to still have the public hearing and then table it?
' Roger Knutson: Sure. You can open the public hearing and then just
automatically table it for discussion.
Acting Mayor Wing: Do we want to take public input tonight on this issue?
Councilman Senn: I think we want to if it was noticed that way.
Charles Folch: Yeah, I'm not sure who's going to be here. Most of the people
have contacted me today and mentioned there was no need to attend but certainly
we could open it up to see if anyone's here to talk about it.
Acting Mayor Wing: Well let's then open the public hearing and Charles, if you
' want to just give us a brief overview and then your recommendation for tabling,
and we'll go from there.
Charles Folch: Basically there really isn't a whole lot of new news to report
' since we last held the public hearing on March 8th. A lot of the issues that
were still open ended last time that we've talked about really haven't been
resolved as we hoped they would in this last month. The one piece of question
that we are able to answer to you tonight was in regards to the 60 foot roadway
easement that was granted through the Westside Baptist Church property in favor
of the Gestach - Paulson - Klingelhutz property. We were able to obtain a copy of
the easement document from the property owners. We had Roger take a look at it
and basically its Roger's opinion that this easement, road easement is not
specifically stated for public purposes and really it appears that all that can
be drawn from it is the intention was to give a road access specifically to the
1 Klingelhutz property but that was it. That it was not intended to be a future
road or public road access from those types of rights standpoint. Based on
that, staff's had contact almost daily over the last few weeks with these
' property owners trying to get this issue resolved and it doesn't appear that
things are coming together very quickly but at this point it's staff's
recommendation that we either table this public hearing indefinitely until we
can resolve some of these issues and come to the table with more of a complete
package at that. time.
Acting Mayor Wing: Even with the recommendation for tabling, this is a public
1 hearing. Is there anybody here tonight to address this issue specifically?
I would entertain a motion then.
Councilman Mason: I would move to close the public hearing.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second.
1 Roger Knutson: I think the motion is to table.
1 2
1
City Council Meeting - April 12, 1993
Councilman Mason: We don't have to close the public hearing first though?
Acting Mayor Wing: A continuation. Continue the public hearing. I'd entertain
a motion for tabling on this issue.
Councilman Mason: Okay, I'll make a motion to continue it.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'll second that one.
Acting Mayor Wing: And I believe the motion will be to table indefinitely at
this point on staff recommendation so we won't be setting a date for the
continuance at this time.
Councilman Senn: Charles, do you have any feeling at all for timing on it at
all? 1
Charles Folch: This could take a while. Take a while.
Councilman Senn: And the church definitely is now not a participating party? 1
Charles Folch: Not in the public improvements let's say at this point in time
as they once had petitioned for. But in talking to the church, we're really not
sure what their intentions are. Whether they intend to develop on the property.
Whether they intend to sell the property. At this point in time it's really now
known. They're not telling us a whole lot.
Councilman Senn: How does this affect any of the proposed development?
Charles Folch: Well at this point in time, it does create an obstacle for the
Gestach- Paulson - Klingelhutz property to fully develop their property into a
residential subdivision. If they so choose, they could exercise their right to
build a private driveway along that 60 foot easement and the ordinance would
allow them to build up to 4 homes and have that accessed via the 20 foot I/
driveway.
Councilman Senn: Their limitation is the 4 homes then? 1
Charles Folch: At this point in time, right. Unless a public street could be
constructed through the property. 1
Councilman Senn: And what was the proposed subdivision size?
Charles Folch: Pardon me? 1
Councilman Senn: What was the proposed subdivision size?
Charles Folch: I think there was something like 17 or 18 lots subdivision.
Acting Mayor Wing: We have a motion to table this indefinitely. I'll call the
motion.
3 1
1
II City Council Meeting - April 12, 1993
II Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to table the public
hearing on Project 92 -12, the Lake Lucy Road extension between Galpin Boulevard
and Trunk Highway 41 indefinitely. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
II 1
AWARD OF BIDS: RAILROAD GRADING CROSSING, TRUNK HIGHWAY 101 REALIGNMENT (NORTH
LEG), PROJECT 88- 22B -1:
1 Charles Folch: This morning at 11:00 a.m., the City received and opened bids for
the railroad grade crossing portion of the Trunk Highway 101 north leg
improvement project #88 -22B. A total of two bids were received from the
' project, both coming from local established contractors. Just to your note,
there is a very limited number of contractors nationally that are able to, that
are qualified to perform this kind of work and it appears that the brief bidding
time schedule that we had and the fact that it's a relatively a small scale type
II project may have played a part in these national contractors from taking
interest in this project. But as I mentioned we did receive two bids. The low
bid was received from George F. Cook Construction Company located in Minneapolis
II with a bid of *326,245.00. I should point out that back in 1990 when the Soo
Line had owned the railroad track, we had entered into an agreement to have the
Soo Line construct these crossings and their estimate or the contract amount
I that we had entered into with the Soo Line was $328,000.00 roughly *200.00. So
the bid we did receive today was about *2,000.00 under that. We have made a
reference check of this company this afternoon with the Burlington Railroad and
with the Twin Cities and Western Railroad. We received favorable responses on
II both those reference checks and at this point in time staff would recommend that
the City Council award the railroad grade crossing contract for the Trunk
Highway 101 north leg project to George F. Cook Construction Company in the
1 contract amount of *326,245.00.
Acting Mayor Wing: Just in the process here, could you just real quickly
describe it. Are we talking arms and the whole works?
Charles Folch: Basically the work will involve constructing the rubberized
grade crossing. It will also involve constructing the crossing arm guards. The
II controller for the crossing, which will be integrated with the signal system
that will be installed both at TH 5 and at the intersection of West 78th and
TH 101. And there will also be some early detection devices put up upstream or
' uptrack, if you will on both ends of the crossing.
Councilman Senn: Now this is separate contract from the rest of the
intersection improvements?
II Charles Folch: That's correct. This is a separate contract. It's sort of a
specialized work. If things would have worked out differently with Twin Cities
I and Western Railroad, we may have attempted to bid this under the original, the
overall road improvement contract but unfortunately those two design phases
weren't tracking compatibly because we were still working out some details with
the Twin Cities and Western Railroad who had just taken over the tracks and we
were trying to get them up to speed as to what had been done with the Soo Line
Railroad previously and such. So unfortunately they weren't bid all together
but I'm not sure in this case that it would have made any difference because, as
II I said, there's about a dozen specialized firms that across the country that can
4
City Council Meeting - April 12, 1993 1
do this work. And so I don't know that we would have benefitted by lumping it
as part of a big contract. They would have been the subcontractor anyway.
Councilman Senn: And that was my next question. Are they then a subcontractor
to our primary contractor or what?
Charles Folch: Not in this case. In this case they are a general contractor
under this contract.
Councilman Senn: You're not concerned about coordination or?
Charles Folch: No, we've set them up so that the schedules will hopefully fit
together. In fact this particular contract gives them 116 days to complete the
work so that when Phase I or Stage I of the road improvement is completed, which
will include the by -pass, that the crossing will be complete so we can start the
road phase. So we've tried to set up the completion dates to match both
projects compatibly.
Acting Mayor Wing: Mike, 1
Councilman Mason: No comment.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I just have a question as to when it's going to start.
Charles Folch: We would hope that we could start sometime around the first of
June.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And finish up?
Charles Folch: We'd like to be complete and have it opened up completely by
around the first part of October.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I don't have any questions about the contract.
Acting Mayor Wing: Well to keep this moving it's going to take another motion.
I have nothing to say.
Councilman Senn: I'll move approval.
Councilman Mason: I'll second it.
Resolution $93 -28: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to award
the bid for the railroad grading crossing for Trunk Highway 101 (North Leg),
Project 88 -228 -1 to George F. Cook Construction Company of Minneapolis in the
amount of $326,245.00. All voted in favor and the motion carried. '
Acting Mayor Wing: Moving onto item number 4. Unfinished business. On this
particular issue, both the Mayor and the City Manager have a statement they wish
to make and have asked if they're back in time, that this be delayed
accordingly. How do we just carry this?
Todd Gerhardt: A motion by Council to modify the agenda. 1
5 1
II City Council Meeting - April 12, 1993
II Acting Mayor Wing: And I guess the motion to modify would be, it will be the
next item on the agenda following their return, which hopefully will be very
soon, so we won't delay this other than to wait for them. Do I have a motion to
amend the agenda to move item number 4 as necessary?
II Councilwoman Dockendorf: So moved.
II Councilman Mason: Second.
Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to amend the agenda to
1 move item number 4 so that it will be the next item following the return of
Mayor Chmiel and City Manager, Don Ashworth. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
II NON - CONFORMING USE PERMIT FOR SCHMID'S ACRES RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT. THE PERMIT
SHALL DESCRIBE THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE USE ALLOWED.
1 Paul Krauss: This is hopefully one of the last in a long line of the non-
conforming recreational beachlots that we've been processing. The beachlot is
one of the older ones in the city. It dates back to almost the turn of century.
There was a survey of this lot undertaken in 1981 which showed one dock, about
II 45 feet in length with one boat being stored on the shore. At that time staff
found no boats being moored or docked at the beachlot but that's a pretty tough
standard because if they happened to be out on the lake or someplace on
II vacation, we didn't see them. The Associated requested continued use of the
dock with 1 or 2 boats being docked, a canoe rack, 2 boats being stored on land,
and continued use of the parking at the beachlot. The Planning Commission
1 reviewed the proposal on March 24th. They recommended approval of the non-
conforming beachlot permit for Schmid's Acres with 10 off - street parking spaces, 1
1 dock with 1 boat allowed to be docked, 1 canoe rack and 1 boat to be stored on
the shore. As is typical with these, we basically carry forward the Planning
II Commission's recommendations and we're encouraging you to go along with that.
Acting Mayor Wing: Having lived there for almost 30 years I'm familiar with
I this, just for the Council's information and there generally has been a dock up.
Down, up, down, more or less and it's been real unclear who's put it up and
who's taking it down but I would concur with the request. However, I was
II surprised to, I've had several people come out and although nobody is opposing
what is requested here, I think we maybe want to consider adding a few other
items for the future. It has become a noticeable party site late at night. At
least twice this past summer I helped pick up beer bottles, beer cans, and we'll
II get some input from whoever's from the neighborhood here momentarily but just
some thoughts as we get going. It's been asked that we consider a gate, that it
be posted and there be no parking after 10:00. And with that, if there's
I anybody from Schmid's, the request here that would like to address the Council
at this time, if you could come forward please. State your name and address
please.
II Gary Carlson: Good evening. My name is Gary Carlson and I reside at 3831 West
62nd Street. I'd be glad to answer any questions on our access. It's one of
the least used accesses but it's one of the most publically visible because we
II have the creek that runs through it. The creek is actually included in our
access so we don't try to make use of the creek but we try and leave it in it's
1 6
II
City Council Meeting - April 12, 1993
II
natural state. It's the only, the outflow of the creek maintains the height of
Lake Minnewashta so it's quite important, the outflow. And I hope the city in
the future will address that height of Lake Minnewashta because as the outflow
wash is, and becomes deeper of course it can lead to a lower lake level. And as
the lake fills up at times of the year, and it does, people have come over. Dug
the creek out. You know moved rocks around and said well it's not running out
fast enough. My baesment's getting full of water. And again we at the
Association there have no control over that because no one resides next to it or
by it so I hope the city in the future will, in part of their storm water
control program that we're all now paying into, will address that issue in the
future.
Acting Mayor Wing: How do you feel about the suggestions I made? Putting up a
gate. Posting it. Limiting your hours until 10:00. There's neighbors going to
be on both sides of you now and it has been kind of an isolated area for kids to
go down and park and drink late at night and especially with the new neighbors,
they have at least 3 documented cases of parties that went on until 3:00 in the
morning with noise and debris occurring. So the neighbors are requesting that
to pass this that we request that you put up a gate, post it no parking after
10:00 and limit your hours to meet the city noise ordinance which I believe our
parks close at 10:00.
Gary Carlson: Well I hope there are ordinances in place for disturbing the '
peace in that area and I hope the residents that are now moving in on either
side of our access will notify the propery authorities so that can be taken care
of. No one that I know of in the association does that. That after 10:00
affairs. I do know it does go on down there.
Acting Mayor Wing: Well let's open it up. Let's start with you again Mark. Do
you have any comments or questions?
Councilman Senn: One question. As I look through here it appears that, as it
relates to your request and the Planning Commission's action, you're in
agreement with everything except the issue of a boat launch?
Gary Carlson: This evening I would like to reinstate the boat launch. See
we've been using it and it has been an access since 1914 and since I've been
there some 20 some years. I occasionally do back in and put my boat in there
and some of the other association members also do the same. And there is a
small gravel road that goes directly up to the edge of the lake. We're not
planning on making it a boat launch that the association members would say then
to their brothers, their relatives or anyone they meet to use our launch. We're
not, we don't want to open it up to that kind of use. We want to maintain it
just for the 25 or so families that can use it that occasionally they can't get
in at a public launch or that they're just going to take their canoe down and
launch it for the kids for the day or small boat. We would like to reinstate
the boat launch because it's something we've been doing and it's a grandfathered
thing. We've been doing it since we had the rights to use this property. The
other thing we would like to increase one useage of is the other association
members have reminded me that it looks like I've asked for the boat access to be
set up for me. You know 1 dock, 1 boat at it. There's going to be private
docks on either side of us. The north property isn't developed yet but I'm sure
someone's, the man who owns it is a home developer and the private docks as I
1
City Council Meeting - April 12, 1993
understand on Lake Minnewashta can keep 4 boats. Is that correct, overnight? A
private dock.
' Acting Mayor Wing: No. A private homeowner can have 3. This is permitted and
you're really in this case allowed none unless it's grandfathered. In your case
there was 1 found in 1981. So the only one you're really, through the Planning
Commission investigation, you're entitled to 0 or 1.
Gary Carlson: Well, the whole point of this association is that we're coming
forward to ask you for this.
Acting Mayor Wing: Well let me clarify just.
Gary Carlson: To meet this ordinance but this entire association is on a
private person's property. It's not like any of other associations that own it
in common. We don't even have to pay the taxes on this property. It's paid by
the man to the north that owns about 3,000 feet of lakeshore. So privately he,
it's his dock and he can keep 3 boats on it so you might as well have this
permit to say the same thing. Because this is a private piece of property. We
just have the right to use it. We're not even an association per se. So that's
why I'm saying you might as well make it whatever a private party can keep. If
it's 3 boats, then make it 3 boats.
Councilman Senn: A question backing up on the access or the boat launch. Is
that, or Paul. Maybe this is a question for one of you two. But I mean what
are the deeded rights as it relates to the use of the property?
Paul Krauss: I am not sure.
Gary Carlson: It dates back to when it was first platted. Jacob Schmid.
11 I believe his first name was Jacob, platted it and allowed his relatives and
those that lived on the other plats off lake to have an access to the lake. So
it's left fairly vague in the original plat. It's not like a normal lake access
that says, that's in their conditions of their property when they buy their
deed. They show that they're a member of some of the other associations. Our's
doesn't show that in our deed.
' Acting Mayor Wing: We're going to lead ourselves astray here. Roger, first of
all under definition, is this a non - riparian lot?
Roger Knutson: I've not seen it. I think it's, you're on the lake aren't you?
Gary Carlson: Yes.
' Roger Knutson: So it's a riparian lot. As far as the gentleman's comment about
you might as well give him the same rights as a single family homeowner. If you
had the same rights as a single family homeowner, you should realize you
couldn't put your boat there.
Acting Mayor Wing: That's right. The footage.
Roger Knutson: No, more than that because you can only have your own boats or
boats of immediate members of your family. So you can't have a next door
' 8
1
City Council Meeting - April 12, 1993 1
neighbors or a friend's boat there. So you either qualify as a non - conforming
recreational beachlot or you can't keep your boat there.
Acting Mayor Wing: That's right. Yeah, let's back up because we're misleading
ourselves. This is a grandfathered beachlot under the 1981 ordinance. 1981
boat count and the only thing we're discussing tonight is verifying what was
there in 1981, and I think it was agreed upon that it was not a launch. There
was 1 boat and 1 dock and that's the only issue. What ever you would want or
what ever the other ramifications are, it's not our, that's not what we're here
tonight for. It's only to verify in the fairest manner we can and how many of
these have we done and disagreed with? So if in fact staff and Council is
satisfied that there was 1 boat, 1 dock, that's the issue tonight and that's the
only thing we really have to discuss here.
Councilman Senn: Well Dick, the reason I'm asking about the boat launch is 1
listening to the gentleman talk it appears that it's a non - improved boat launch.
Now a site survey may or may not identify that as a boat launch. I still have a
kind of basic question as to whether there is specific deeded rights relating to
a boat launch on that site. And nobody's been able to answer that question. I
think that's a fair question.
Acting Mayor Wing: I don't know if we're even permitting that in this case.
Paul Krauss: But even if there were specific mention of a boat launch, as far
as our ordinance is concerned it's irrelevant unless it was there in 1981 and
it's been operated consistently ever since.
Acting Mayor Wing: And that's not the case. It doesn't matter what covenants
or any other issues or even deeded rights. The permit is discussing, the
ordinance takes precedent in 1981 and that's what we've gotten hung up on
repeatedly here.
Councilman Senn: Okay, then let me rephrase my question. As far as the
association is concerned, is the association in agreement with the '81 survey?
Gary Carlson: No we're not. I could have gotten several sworn affidavits for
the boat launch. A lot of the people that used to launch their boats are
retired and the new people that have moved in now aren't starting to launch
there but this summer I'm sure they will. The road goes right into the lake.
Acting Mayor Wing: It's not, you couldn't launch a boat there if you had a 4
wheel drive. I mean it's just not a launchable site and if you're dock's there,
then I'm questioning if you could even, now remember we have a dock setback
ordinance that's in effect here. Where your dock, or any portion thereof can't
be within 10 feet of the extended center lot lines. So your dock has got to be
offset 10 feet from your lot lines and now you're talking about a boat launch
and a dock and so on and so forth and I don't know, the Planning Commission's
recommendation in reading their Minutes is to not recommend it and it wasn't
felt to have been there in 1981 or they wouldn't have made the recommendation to
us. And I don't know how we're going to prove it one way or the other. The
burden of proof is on you. Not us and apparently it wasn't presented to the
Planning Commission where they felt it should be approved. 1
9
1
City Council Meeting - April 12, 1993
Gary Carlson: Well as I say, the little road goes straight into the lake and
II we've had the right, the grandfathered right. This is a pre - existing, before
the city was a city so all of the ordinances since then don't change the
grandfathered condition.
II Acting Mayor Wing: That's not true. Roger.
Roger Knutson: If you discontinue the use for 6 months, a year, you've lost
your grandfathered rights.
Gary Carlson: Well we've never discontinued the use.
I Acting Mayor Wing: You haven't launched there for years. I live right there.
II Gary Carlson: I've always launched there. I used to drive, well anyway.
Acting Mayor Wing: Gary, there's enough of a ridge line out there that you'd
1 drop a car over the edge.
Gary Carlson: Oh at time the ice heave is there and you go down with the skids
to your loader and we've taken that off so we have a smooth beach.
II Acting Mayor Wing: Let's keep going. Mike, any comments? Questions?
I Councilman Mason: Well this continues, this whole situation continues to be a
thorn in everyone's side I think and we'll be all glad when it's over. I don't
have, I'm having some questions about this boat launch thing myself. On the one
hand we have Mr. Carlson who says they've been launching boats there every since
II 1914? Give or take.
Gary Carlson: You've got to realize that there's 25 odd families that there was
II no public ramp on Minnewashta for years. How do you think all of these families
used that boat, put their boat in? I mean we didn't go over to McCallahan or
Kenneth Ourr and say, can we back onto your property. We had 50 feet. They
I said there's your 50 feet. Put your boat in.
Councilman Mason: Now you're saying that you could have some affidavits that
said that people have been launching boats there?
I Gary Carlson: People of our association. My neighbors.
II Councilman Mason: I guess I'm curious as to why those affidavits aren't here
tonight?
Gary Carlson: Well Al Gellish is retired and up in Brainerd and Bill Frieberg,
my other neighbor who when the three of us did most of the launching. He's now
in Arizona until later in the spring. And the new families that have moved in,
they will be launching there. I can't stop it. The road goes straight in the
II lake. I would carry forward your recommendation on the gate and an hour limit.
Again, because it's on private property, and then trying to pass out keys to
everyone with the gate. The best answer I guess is as the neighbors get moved
in on each side and get permanent resident there, that they should just call the
police often enough so that the kids that are using that as an all night.
10
City Council Meeting - April 12, 1993 1
Acting Mayor Wing: No, it's not the neighbors responsibility I don't, I don't
want to get into that.
Gary Carlson: I know it's not but.
Councilman Mason: But on the other hand, if I've got somebody down the street
raising cain at 2:00 in the morning, it is my, you know. Somebody's got to
call. 1
Acting Mayor Wing: But if we're asking for a boat launch, it's not a public
boat launch. Then it's got to be somewhat, I don't know of an association in
the city that doesn't have their areas protected, fenced, posted or gated,
especially if there's an access to the lake.
Gary Carlson: Well you can sure ask us to do it and we will. We accept that. 1
We think it is a good idea to be gated and locked.
Acting Mayor Wing: Colleen? 1
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well, I mean this is the only time I've come up
against this particular ordinance and it always seems to be an issue over what
was there in '81 and nobody can prove or disprove it, although at the Planning
Commission you were at, they felt strongly about that to get that affidavit as
to what was there and what people recalled in '81. And the purpose of it is
just to keep these small accesses from becoming publically used. And there's a
reason for the ordinance and since we really can't say what was there in '81
outside of the survey that was done, I guess I'm comfortable with going along
with what the survey says.
Acting Mayor Wing: What the Attorney stated is that unless it's a continued
use, you lose it and in the last year or two, it hasn't been used as a boat
launch. It hasn't been improved. There's no access to the lake. There's no
way to get a trailer in. I mean it's not been used as a boat launch Gary, and I
live there so I don't want to keep debating this with you.
Gary Carlson: Last year it was a continuous ice fishing drive on to get to
their ice houses. Now this year it wasn't because of the improvement on
Minnewashta Parkway. Now all those cars that are driving down our road and
directly onto the lake.
Acting Mayor Wing: Well, there's a couple other issues here that we're
concerned about. First of all we've got, it's been a State or the snowmobile
trail I think has been terminated. That needs to be taken care of. The
neighbors don't want it going through there anymore. I think that's going to
fall back on you to gate it and stop that. Traffic going in and out of there
has been a problem. I think it's up to you to stop that. It's your property.
Gary Carlson: We would like it stopped.
Acting Mayor Wing: My position is, whatever the Council decides here is that I
would ask that you add to whatever you choose to make a motion here. A gate at
the end of the property. That the property be posted as private. And it has
11 1
1
I City Council Meeting - April 12, 1993
II posted hours as all the other city...do which I think are in all cases no more
than 10 :00. Which concurs with the city park times.
Councilman Senn: Dick, it sounds to me like there's a number of issues
1 surrounding this lot. I'm not sure which all have been looked at one way or
another. I guess I'm not sure I'm in agreement with the gate but I think it !
sounds like there's some definite signage and enforcement issues revolving
I around everything from maybe private property to no parking to hour restrictions
to snowmobiling to a whole bunch of other issues I'm hearing but I guess I'd
feel a lot more comfortable and I guess I'd even put it in terms of a motion to
II send this back to the Planning Commission for additional look, and more
specifically at those issues and then resolve specifically also the issue of has
there been or has there not been a boat launch actively going on at the site.
Since whenever. And I think have it come back to us in a little more complete
II state.
Acting Mayor Wing: We have a motion to send it back to Planning Commission. Is
1 there a second? Lack of a second. Motion fails. Paul, any comments on this?
Paul Krauss: I'm not sure. I mean the Planning Commission's dealing with the
same lack of complete information that you are. I'm not certain that they'd be
I able to cast any more light on this. The information we have before us is about
all we have unless there are some affidavits that come before us and Councilman
Wing's pointing, even that information seems to be somewhat contradictory so I
II don't know what else the Planning Commission can do.
Councilman Mason: Yeah. I guess I'll throw this out and see how it goes here.
1 I guess what I'd like to see is if we in fact can get some affidavits saying it
was used as a launch. Because I'm willing to accept the launch if they're
willing to put up a gate and signage.
II Acting Mayor Wing: I think there's enough neighbors that will come in to
testify then that it is not in their time on the lake been used as a launch.
The grandfathering affidavits this won't affect but that's fine. I don't have
II any problem with this.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I think that's a nice compromise.
1 Councilman Mason: I guess I'd like to give then both sides a chance to speak on
that issue and if the launch stays in, I'd like to see the gate. I want to see
the signage one way or the other. But I think the gate maybe would be somewhat
1 dependent on the launch issue.
Acting Mayor Wing: So you accept a motion to table?
II Councilman Mason: Yes. I'd like to make a motion to table this. How long do
you think it will take your friends from out of town to?
II Gary Carlson: The problem with the gate is it's so close to a nice aesthetic
creek. The other thing is we legally have granted the city of Chanhassen access
to our little road because there's a sewer and a collector. The sewer comes
1 around Lake Minnewashta very close to the shore. I think within 15 feet of the
II 12
II
•
City Council Meeting - April 12, 1993 1
shore and then it dumps into a manhole right in the middle of our road access.
Right close to the lake. The City has a permanent easement for that.
Councilman Mason: Okay. Then I guess I'd like my motion to state that I would
like to table this until the City Engineer or his designate can go down there
and take a look at what we could do to get some kind of gate in there and get up
signage and give people a chance to either say whether it was or wasn't a boat
launch. Maybe a month from now. 1
Gary Carlson: If in part of the improvement on Minnewashta Parkway, we'd be
glad to take care of the gate but since the City has the access to that road,
it's mostly to the City's benefit, not to the association, to gate it. It's
mostly to the whole city and that area of neighbors.
Acting Mayor Wing: Well but the way this is, like this is private property and
we're talking about cutting off snowmobiles going through there 24 hours, all
winter long. We're cutting off cars. We're cutting off kids going down there
parking and partying. We're cutting off access for what's private property
which is heretofore been known as somewhat public property. So I think we're
trying to control it and if we're going to have a boat launch, we clearly want
to control access to private which means it's got to be cut off where fishermen
are coming in there. I guess what I'd suggest is if Council hasn't seen it is
to go out and look at this and you make up your own mind. If this is an
accessible boat launch area and if in looking at it, if this has ever been used
as a boat launch. Certainly not in the past year which then denies this
grandfathered, it doesn't matter what the affidavits say. It's irrelevant for
the fact that it has not been used. The fact that it was a boat launch in 1914
doesn't have anything to do with the 1981 ordinance which was discussed here.
So we have a motion to table this for one month. A second. Any discussion.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to table action on the
Non - Conforming Use Permit for Schmid's Acres Recreational Seachlot for further
review by city staff into the issue of a gate and giving the applicant time to
obtain affidavits in support of the boat launch. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
Mayor Chmiel: The reason for our delay is that we were over with the City of
Shorewood trying to resolve our item number 8, which is one our agenda this
evening regarding Deer Ridge. We didn't get a favorable yes but we didn't get a
no. Some discussion's going to take place and between staff are going to
hopefully come up with some kind of resolvement. I think they, the City thought
that we were trying to acquiesce some of their property within the city of
Shorewood and after we got through with our discussions, we were saying that we
weren't trying to take land away from them. In fact I even made the comment
that if all came to all, as far as the taxes were concerned, the City of
Chanhassen would be more than happy to turn those back over to the City of
Shorewood. Just to show that the friendliness was there. Hopefully we'll get a
favorable answer. So with that we'll move on to unfinished business item number
I/
4. Informational meeting, proposed elementary school site.
1
13 1
1
II City Council Meeting - April 12, 1993
II INFORMATIONAL MEETING, PROPOSED ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SITE
II Public Present:
s
i
Name Address I
I Chris Polster 8020 Hidden Court
Henry C. Dimler 961 Western Drive
Shanon Graef 855 Pleasant View Road
I Brenda Welch 101 Choctaw Circle
Lee and Herb Clasen 6351 Yosemite Avenue
Karen & Roy Rockvam 6340 Yosemite Avenue
1 Mary Lou Frerich 651 Broken Arrow
Kathie Kelly 2081 West 65th
Carol Edgeley 7013 Sandy Hook Circle
Rogue Swenson 35 Pleasant View Road
II Dave Robinson 25 Pleasant View Road
Betty O'Shaughnessy 1000 Hesse Farm Road
David E. Albright 7900 First Avenue So., Bloomington
II Paul Knapper Box 516, Watertown
Chris & Judy Martinez Sones 8756 Flamingo Drive
Myrna & Franklin Kurvers 7220 Kurvers Point Road
Mel Kurvers 7240 Kurvers Point Road
I Dennis Dirlam 15241 Creekside Court, Eden Prairie
Jay Johnson 7496 Saratoga Drive
Joe Scott 7091 Pimlico Lane
II Richard Mingo 7601 Great Plains Blvd ;
Joe Betz 8107 Dakota Lane
Len Takkunen 1291 Bluff Creek Drive .
II Dave Clough 1521 Lake Susan Hills Drive
Kelly VonDeBur 1341 Lake Susan Hills Drive
Jerome Carlson 6950 Galpin Blvd
I Mayor Chmiel: Prior to this I'd like to probably pass out to Council. I'd like
to make a public statement. This past week there was an article appeared in the
newspaper and it was signed by Councilman Senn and in regards to this particular
11 item that's on our agenda. I believe there were better ways to find answers to
questions he posed and he appeared to state that our city, county and school
district should work in isolation providing our own programs and facilities.
I find it difficult to believe that Councilman Senn can actually support this
II philosophy and it has only been through the cooperation of joint powers
agreement that we have been able to keep property taxes at the same level for
the past 4 years within the city. No one can reasonably question the cost of
II efficiency of checking out a Carver County book at Chanhassen City Hall. We
surely do not need to have both build a library and operate it here. Our animal
control services contract with our neighboring communities continues to receive
II statewide recognition. Cooperative agreements in the areas of data processing,
assessing, jailing, dispatching, and prosecution has saved hundreds of thousands
of dollars each year. Our contract with the Sheriff's Department has gained
national attention and minimally saves this community $500,000.00 a year. The
il primary emphasis of Councilman Senn's article was again not whether cooperation
with other governmental units is cost effective, and I believe Councilman Senn's
real point was a question as to whether residents living in School District #276
II
14
II
City Council Meeting - April 12, 1993 1
would be somehow subsidizing residents living in the School District #112. I
also believe that Councilman Senn has somehow construed that by entering into a
joint powers agreement that the City and School own lands at Highway 5 and
Galpin Boulevard will come at the expense of residents living in the School
District #276. This statement to publically acknowledge that this contention is
not correct. The proposed school site is located within one city's tax
increment district. Our negotiations to acquire this site have been very
diligent to insure the dollars that would be received by the School District had
our tax increment districts not existed would be the dollars that would pay for
the school site. This public statement is intended to assure every resident
living in School District #276 that every dollar associated with the proposed
acquisition are dollars that are or would have come from School District #112
had the tax district, increment district not existed. The article appears to
place emphasis on dividing a 42 acre joint use site into good lands for the
school and useable lands for the city. Such then producing a higher than normal
purchase price. This type of analysis does not consider the very rudimentary
principles which have guided one negotiation for the past 2 or 3 years.
Specifically the Galpin Boulevar and Highway 5 area is our next residential
growth area. There will be a need for neighborhood park including play
equipment, tennis courts, ballfields, parking lots, etc. in this area. One has
to only look at Chanhassen Elementary School or Minnetonka Intermediate School
to see how a city and school district working cooperatively can meet
neighborhood needs for recreational services. While simultaneously providing
the type of environment necessary for schools. No one really knows that the
property behind Chanhassen Elementary School is half owned by the City and half
owned by the School District. Few care that the tennis courts lighting and
playground equipment were primarily funded through federal dollars with the
remaining dollars then being split equally between the School District and the
City. No one really recognizes that it is the City that schedules all evening
and weekend uses of Chanhassen Elementary School. They're unaware of the fact
that it was the City that built the ballfields technically on the Chanhassen
Elementary School property and that we are the ones who maintain those fields.
What they do care about is that they have an ability for their son or daughter
to play T -ball, participate in Saturday morning basketball games, or to
participate in 3 field soccer tournament at the Minnetonka Intermediate School.
Regardless of what School District they reside in, the proposal before the
City Council this evening provides the opportunity for the City to recreate
exactly the same neighborhood park setting that exists behind the Chanhassen
Elementary School or Minnetonka Intermediate School for those residents who will
be living in our future growth area. The entire site will be seen as one unit
ballfields, school buildings, gymnasiums, and yes, a beautiful wetland area.
The entire 42 acres will be jointly used with the school children having the
opportunity to enjoy the splendor of the wetland area and the city having the
ability to construct an additional gymnasium adjacent to one of the proposed by
the school district. That addition could include locker rooms, associated with ,
adults and any other form of recreational opportunity. The proposal before us
this evening does not bind us providing those additional recreational
opportunities but with 42 acres we will have learned from our one mistake that
was made at the Chanhassen Elementary School or the Minnetonka Intermediate
School sites. We did not properly think of what our future needs may be.
Before I open this meeting for comments from the general public, I would ask
each Council member as to whether they support the public statement that I've
I/
just read. Richard.
15 1
1
City Council Meeting - April 12, 1993
' Councilman Wing: Welcome back.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you.
' Councilman Wing: I guess I'm kind of surprised this is, I guess not surprised.
I guess I don't consider this a controversy, and if there's a controversy I
think it's a narrow one. This isn't something that got sprung on the city or
' the City Council or it's residents or anybody else. This has been a very long
process that dates well back to the 80's: This involved the Planning
Commission. It involved the Comprehensive Plan. Discussion of land use and
11 zoning. These things have been argued by people a lot better than me for many,
any years now. What was going to go where and it's a little bit confusing
because it's really an HRA project. Not necessarily a City Council project.
It's using TIF money, which is a very complex tax situation I guess. The tax
increment financing. And if you don't understand that, it's kind of difficult
to even discuss this tonight but it really has been something driven by the HRA
in the last couple years. It's gotten a lot of publicity and I believe it's
been in the paper consistently. It's been discussed by past Councils and people
that I consider to be very knowledgeable. Representative Tom Workman and County
Commissioner Ursula Dimler are all people that have made this decision well
before this Council sat. I think it's had a lot of public testimony taken over
the years and public input. We look at the wetlands and the protection of the
wetlands and the Bluff Creek protection that we are trying to follow out. It's
in line with that. And what has surprised is that there's been any discussion
of school districts and schools. I live in Minnetonka and discussing this with
neighbors today out in Minnewashta Heights, we're at a loss to see how we're
being hurt by this. So I'm in #276 Minnetonka and I'm not threatened by this.
I'm not hurt by this. I disagree with it. I don't see any connection at all.
Chaska collects their money. Minnetonka collects their's. If there was a TIF
district in Minnetonka, we'd be supporting Minnetonka. There's just absolutely
' no, as hard as I try meeting with staff and anybody that I've been able to meet
in the last month on this issue, I can't find a crossover to support some of the
allegations that were in the newspaper or the discussion tonight. So to me it's
a done deal. It's a part of the Highway 5 corridor study. It's part of the
land use discussion. I think it's a good use of our tax increment money. We're
supporting our schools. We're supporting our open spaces and again representing
#276, I'm going to take the opposite view and I see no threat to #276 taxpayers
whatsoever. I don't think it's an issue. I don't think there's any crossover.
I think it's black and white. So whether we give some TIF money back to Chaska
School District, I'll write in a check or we tend to help them out with this
land and control this land to the City's best interest, which I believe this is.
I think this is a good land use. I think it was a done deal years ago and I'm
surprised we're even debating it again tonight.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well, city staff knows and the City Council knows and
a lot of people involved in the comprehensive plan of the city know what has
gone into this planning for this piece of land and for the school, etc. For the
benefit of everyone here tonight, and it's nice to see a big audience. I'd like
11 really, as a prerequisite to getting into any public statements, a prerequisite
of maybe Don Ashworth you can explain quickly, and I know that's very hard to
do, whatever exactly a TIF works. Who the HRA is. Things like that. And I'm
16
City Council Meeting - April 12, 1993 1
not asking you to do it now but maybe after everyone is done just so we have a
basis from which to talk about. I don't like to speak personally because I feel
up here I'm a citizen of Chanhassen as opposed to a private citizen. But this
is going in close to where I live, therefore I'm more aware of what's been going
on the last several years going into it and I'm completely comfortable with the
decision that I've made that this is exactly where it belongs and it's good use
of land. I do support the statement Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Michael.
Councilman Mason: I think Councilman Wing said much of what I would have said. 11 I too live in the Minnetonka School District and I think that because we're
talking a tax increment district in the Chanhassen /Chaska School District as
opposed to the Chaska /Chanhassen School District, I think it's money that is
well spent quite honestly and I'm hoping that by putting this elementary school
here, people will start calling it the Chanhassen /Chaska /Victoria /East Union
School District as opposed to the Chaska School District because we all know
Chanhassen is now a bigger city than Chaska. However that being said, it's ,
interesting, as I think most of you know, I teach in Eden Prairie. The
elementary school that I teach at, Eden Prairie School District owns 3 feet of
land beyond the school building. The City of Eden Prairie owns all of the
parkland around the elementary school. The City of Eden Prairie maintains all
of the facilities. We certainly have added facilities and continue to add, the
District continues to add playground facilities. However, the City of Eden
Prairie does maintain the grounds and the equipment so I'm a little concerned
about this comingling issue. Be that as it may, this has been in the hopper for
quite some time. Certainly before my brief 2 year tenure on Council. I think
we need another elementary school in Chanhassen. I think it's been in the
comprehensive plan for quite some time to put it there. I think we have an
opportunity to do it and I've stated before I support it. I support, and
certainly, yeah I support what's going on here.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Mark.
Councilman Senn: Well, I don't have a lot I guess different to say than what ,
I put in my comment which pretty much mirrors the comments I've made at, oh
let's say the last 2 or 3 Council meetings that we've considered this. My
commentary or whatever you may want to call it, I don't think was properly
paraphrased in your statement Don. You know I'm not really attacking as to
whether it's a good plan or whether it's a good use of the property or not.
Those may very well be the case but I don't think it is good public policy to in 11 effect pass a school referendum reciting a cost for a school and leave a big
chunk of the cost out. And then to have that chunk of the cost picked up by a
different taxing district which is not part of the entity putting forth that
referendum. I call that comingling and I think it's a good word for it. I 1
still disagree with it but I don't think it's putting the cost where the cost
belong. I don't think it makes any different what school district it is. The
point here, whether it's the Chaska School District or the Minnetonka School
District is inmaterial, as I said in my commentary. And the points would be the
same either way. If Minnetonka School District or the Chaska School District
need to tax their taxpayers for services or facilities which they're going to
deliver them, they should do so. Just as the City of Chanhassen does. Again I
I/
don't think it is good public policy to have them taxed for part of it and then
17 ,
City Council Meeting - April 12, 1993
increase the cost through using the services of another taxing entity. That's
1 the basic crux of what I said in my commentary and I haven't really heard
anything to change my mind on that and the reason I raised it in the first place
is I've heard a number of comments from a number of people who felt the same way
so I stand by that.
1
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. At this time, as I mentioned, I'd like to open
the floor for anyone who would like to approach Council. If they have concerns
regarding this. Don?
Don Ashworth: May I make a couple of comments in advance?
1 Mayor Chmiel: Sure.
Don Ashworth: Potentially responding to some points that Colleen had questioned
and I think it may make this funding issue a little clearer. The City can
create a tax increment district. The primary purpose is generally to see an
increase in your overall tax base as an encouragement to new businesses coming
into the community. What the statutue recognizes is the new taxes that are
being generated by those new firms can be used to help the firm itself can be
used to pay costs associated with major improvements that the community might
look to and they might not ordinarily have other sources. For example, trunk
water lines. Trunk sewer lines. The wellhouse out at Lake Susan. They can
also be used for other public goods. For example we've outlined in our plan
that we would anticipate building a new library and using tax increment dollars
to fund those. The tax increment district takes away very, very minorly from a
school district. It's because of the State formula that you never have an
objection from a school district when you create a tax increment district. In
this particular instance we went back to Jeff Priess who is the Business Manager
for School District #112 and the County Auditor's office and we stated, what
would be the tax impact to the School District because we created this tax
' increment district. In other words, what would be the the dollars that would
have flowed back to the School District if the tax increment district did not
exist. The number that was given to me was $97,500.00. That's the amount of
' money on a yearly basis lost by the School District #112 because of our creation
of that tax increment district. Over an 8 year period of time that produces
$780,000.00. In negotiations with the partnership, with the School District,
with how many dollars that they would be directly purchasing this site from us
1 for, took into consideration that stream of increment that was being lost by the
School District. So if you look at the proposal, it's approximately $900,000.00
and I think $88,000.00 is the total cost to acquire this 42 acre site.
$300,000.00 would be paid directly by the School District and was included in
their referendum. The remaining $688,000.00 would be proposed to be financed by
a bond sale by the City and carried out over actually a 7 year period of time.
If you look at that $688,666.00, and the future cost of interest that would be
paid. Interest would be approximately $116,000.00, which is exactly the same
$780,000.00 that would have been lost in revenue, or that was lost in revenue by
the School District. So as this issue deals with residents in School District
#276, this issue is revenue and expenditure neutral. These are school district
dollars for what could or should have been school district dollars that are
paying the cost associated with this acquisition. The other point, and if I
could, if you could move to the drawing. This was a rendering that we had
prepared that would potentially show how that property might be used for a
18
1
City Council Meeting - April 12, 1993 II
school and as a recreational facility. Maybe Todd if you could point to some
items so people can see them. This rendering shows that the massive portion of
the site is going to remain green. That it will include a major recreational
element in that it includes a soccer field and two baseball fields, and again it
should be remembered. The school district has not reviewed this so final
configuration would be up to them. It would include the school itself as well
as an auditorium area. You can see a larger area that would be to the east of
the school that could very easily accommodate an additional gymnasium. Actually
it'd be on the other side Todd. And again I see that this site would be used
very much the same way that we're currently using either Minnetonka Jr. High or
the Chanhassen Elementary. ,
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there anyone wishing to come up and discuss this with
Council? 1
Joe Betz: Joe Betz, Chanhassen resident and I just want to briefly say that I
think a lot of the key points have already been represented very well. I think
the Mayor's points bring out a lot of issues that are appropriate. I'm not
going to spend a lot of time going over those things. I think I was concerned
when I read the letter in the paper and my main concern came from the fact that
I really believe that it's appropriate for cities to work with the school '
district. And I have been pleased to see that happening in my involvements with
the school district and with the city over the years. And I think that I would
be very disappointed to see that that kind of commitment, that kind of working
together didn't continue to take place. And I think this is just an excellent
example of it taking place in the way it should and I'd like to just reinforce
everything that you have done in the past. Ask you to continue doing those
positive things and allow this use of this property to continue. I'd also like
to use this opportunity to thank the residents of Chanhassen for supporting the
referendum in the past week. So thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Joe. Is there anyone else? '
Chris Sones: Chris Sones, 8756 Flamingo Drive. You stole a lot of my fire here
Mayor. I had a lot of things to say and I think you said them very eloquently.
At the same time Mark, I appreciate divergent viewpoints. I appreciate people
kind of being watchdogs. I don't agree with you but I appreciate that. I made
some calls around to try and get some information to discover exactly what
the Mayor said was very true. It turns out that the city has the elementary
school busy. According to the recreation department, it's busy 6 or 7 nights a
week. And that's city use. In addition to that, the City of Chanhassen also
uses other District #112 buildings that are outside of our city limits. I
understand that we have youth utilizing the Middle School on certain nights. So
District #112 is our district and if it goes outside of our city limits, it
does. I'll be brief. Our city limits actually include Mark, three school
districts. We have a bit of Eden Prairie that have taken a chunk of Chanhassen
as well. I called Eden Prairie and it turns out they've got no buildings, no
school buildings within our city limits. I called Minnetonka and I'm hearing
something that sounds different. Now Minnetonka tells me they've got no school
buildings in the city of Chanhassen. But from what I'm understanding now, you
guys are saying that the Middle School is? Somebody'd better call Minnetonka
and let them know. But I appreciate having one elementary school in District
#112 in our city and I'm for having a second one. Thank you.
19
City Council Meeting - April 12, 1993
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Yes.
II Myrna Kurvers: Myrna Kurvers. Minnetonka School resident. City of Chanhassen.
And number one I am very pleased that Chaska passed their school bond issue. I
think they needed it and that's a wonderful idea for them to have it and as a
Minnetonka resident having just passed our bond issue, we realize the importance
of schools. However I do have quite a few discrepancies with your statement
and I'd like to start with you Mr. Mayor. Your first statement was how
II wonderful it was that the taxes were kept, low. Well that's true. The taxes in
the Chaska School District of Chanhassen were kept low and I don't know of one
resident in the Minnetonka School District, not counting our mil rate, who's
II taxes when down. Our taxes went up considerably. And that's just one point.
Then skipping down to.
Mayor Chmiel: Could I just address that real quickly?
Myrna Kurvers: No. I'd like to finish please. It's my turn. Then to Mrs.
Dockendorf. I realize where you live too and I can understand why you'd
II appreciate the school in your backyard. That's very comfortable. But for
Mr. Mason who teaches in Eden Prairie, it's wonderful to have a school district
completely within your city limits so why wouldn't the city support it. So we
II have this controversy here and I think Eden Prairie should do that. Now as a
resident of Chanhassen, which I'm very proud to be a resident and probably a
resident much longer than all of you here except for a few of us. But most of
you I've been a resident, and very proud to be a part of Chanhassen. I really
fervently know that with that tax increment district in the Chaska schools, that
the services, regardless of what Mr. Ashworth said. The services to the city,
street, light, sewer, fire, whatever, has to be picked up by the Minnetonka
II people. And so when you say that it is not costing us, it has to cost us
considerably. And I would love, I would love to be able to use those facilities
at Chaska Schools but I know as a parent that it was impossible for the school
I children, when my children went to school in Minnetonka, to use the facilities
in Chaska. And I have not heard you mention Tom Berg, our Administrator of
School Services back and forth and how Minnetonka was going to be able to use
I these facilities too. I think the parents would love to be able to drive a lot
closer to use these facilities. But the way I see them being used right now,
they are all used very nicely by Chaska school people. And I think that's fine
if the Chaska people are paying for them. Thank you very much.
I Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else?
Dick Mingo: Dick Mingo, 7601 Great Plains Boulevard. 37 year resident of
downtown Chanhassen. I'm a retired school teacher having taught 30 years. This
situation is a little bit strange. I don't think I've come across anything
quite like this. My first question is, would the school bond issue have
1 excluded this grade school had Chanhassen not agreed to cover the extra costs of
that property?
1 Don Ashworth: The decision made early on was the recognition, the School
District was going to be analyzing what their school needs would be. It was
highly likely that the cities could have gotten into a bidding war for where
those school facilities would be located and there was a potential that if
Chaska potentially would offer the land for nothing, that in exchange for...
20
City Council Meeting - April 12, 1993 1
both the elementary and the high school in Chaska, that that may be a part of
the School Board's decision. We didn't want that to happen. So what we looked
at was the common price for land between the two cities and we came back with a
finding that at $15,000.00 per acre, you could purchase lands in Chaska. We
offered that to the school district that we would guarantee that the cost in
Chanhassen would not exceed $15,000.00 per acre and attempted to let them make
that decision based on what schools they needed and where they should be located
and the monetary portion should not be a part of that consideration. 1
Dick Mingo: That sounds rather strange to me. Number one, I doubt that they
would have built a grade school in Carver or East Union or even in Chaska itself
with the major population center being right here in Chanhassen and is going to
continue to be so and continue to grow. Regardless of that, I still cannot
figure out why the School District, I agree. We should share sites. The City
and schools. I think that's great. I've been in a lot of school districts i
until my last 19 years in Bloomington, we've shared sites. However, I will say
that the school district now charges the city to rent the gyms, etc. at night
for basketball on some of these things. But anyhow, I cannot believe that that
school board would have refused to go ahead with that site. Let them pay for
their half at $23,000.00 an acre. We'll pay it for the other half at $23,000.00
an acre and I can't believe the little maneuvering that went on there to bring
this about. I'm all in favor of the school bond passing. I think that's just I/
super but the situation that we're having I think is very, very strange myself.
I really feel, if we're going to start doing what we're doing, then let's get
the City of Victoria, City of Carver, East Union and Chaska to chip in. Let
them do the same thing for any property where a school goes up in their area.
Thank you.
Jay Johnson: Good evening. My name's Jay Johnson. I live at 7496 Saratoga. '
Just a few blocks from here. I'm on the Board of Directors of the Chan /Chaska
Soccer Club and the Chanhassen Athletic Association. Two of the three biggest
youth sports organizations in the city of Chanhassen. Neither of these
organizations restrict their membership to any given school district, or even
any city. We have kids in the soccer club from 276. We have kids going to
Minnehaha Academy and living in Minneapolis. We have kids from Waconia. We do
not discriminate at all and we utilize District #276 facilities, #112 facilities
and city of Chanhassen facilities and in the future, city of Chaska facilities
as they build soccer fields down there. Also the baseball association, the
Chan /Chaska or the Chanhassen Athletic Association has a lot of children from
District #276. And they're welcome to come down and play on the fields here in
Chanhassen because they're Chanhassen residents and we utilize primarily the
grade school here for that and in the future we'll probably utilize the new
grade school. We utilize anything that we can get on hands on. If you were
here last summer, you noticed down here in these vacant lots, we'd set up T -ball
fields when it wasn't raining and there was less 6 inches of water on the ground
where the kids could play. That's the kind of thing we're up against. As a
sports organization we need ballfields. The only thing I see with this is
there's not enough recreational area around that grade school. I told Don that
earlier today. But we're looking at trying to figure out how we can get 5
ballfields into where we've got 3 now, right here at this elementary school just
to support the number of kids we have playing here now. As the city grows,
that's going to be the growth area. We really need more park and rec space.
And if we can get park and rec space, and co- utilize it with the gymnasium or
21
1
City Council Meeting - April 12, 1993
with the gym instruction, because during the day the school runs their phys ed
is run there during the day. It's a great co -use of facilities. So the school
district will be using Chanhassen properties during the day. It will be great.
As far as co, I think there's a lot of midconceptions on TIF. It's a very hard
concept. It took me probably 3 months and 14 meetings with Don Ashworth before
I understood TIF but TIF money is not taxes coming from the citizens of
Chanhassen. It's coming from the businesses of Chanhassen, The taxes only come
out of the taxing districts that the businesses are in. And those taxes pay for
the streets and whatever. It's paid for ,our new well. It's paid for a park and
this is not money, as I saw when I was on this Council a number of years ago,
that TIF is not taking money away from the citizens of Chanhassen. It is
providing extra money. This business would not be here if it wasn't for that.
Now I think several years ago we worked with the School District and kind of
said, look. We realize these businesses are here. This money is somewhat
hidden from you by the TIF district but because of the State formula, you more
or less make that up. We were saying, let's help you out too with this TIF
money. We've got enough money within the TIF district to help them out and it
at the same time helps the citizens and the kids. I kind of wandered around
here but I think that this is a great thing. The most effective use of a tax
dollar is if several people can use that same dollar and if we went out and we
bought land by ourselves and we went out to only utilize that in the evenings
for sports and recreation, which is similar to what we're going to do in other
places, it won't be as well utilized for the same buck as this land is going to
be utilized. For the same buck, we're going to utilize it all day and we're
going to utilize it all night and we'll utilize it on the weekends. To me this
is a great use of tax money. Especially somebody else's tax money and not mine.
Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Yes sir.
Henry Dimler: I was born right here in the village and I bet there isn't
anybody here that can say that. 98 years ago. But I do have a problem with
this. I live in Minnetonka and I think we're opening the door to something.
This could happen all over the state if we do these kind of things. That's
all I've got to say,
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else?
11 Roger Anderson: I'm Roger Anderson. I live on Sandy Hook Road. First of
all I'd like to echo what the lady said earlier about, and Mayor I'd like to
give you a chance to respond also to the statement about keeping taxes flat. I'm
sure that's correct but I for one had a 60% tax increase last year so I'm pretty
sensitive to it. I'd like to hear some more discussion if possible about, the
thing that concerns me the most is what I'm hearing is that we're paying a
higher price for the property and selling it at a lower price. Or $22.00 or
selling it for $15.00. It sounds to me like we're subsidizing another, or
Chaska in doing this and that doesn't seem right to me for a couple reasons.
Number one, I suspect we're contributing a great deal through our own taxes in
Chanhassen, which are probably at a higher rate. And also I have a concern
being a Minnetonka School District resident in terms of how this impacts me in
terms of why am I subsidizing a property purchase for another school district.
11
22
1
City Council Meeting - April 12, 1993 1
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Maybe you'd like to just address that part of it Don.
And maybe part as well on Mrs. Kurvers.
Don Ashworth: The details as to purchase amount resale, I can repeat those
points. I don't know that they're really germane. At issue is that the dollars
that were lost by the school district because we created a tax increment
district and therefore we're capturing them instead of the school district, are
being used 100% to purchase this site. No more. No less. And again I don't
know that the details of purchasing at $23,000.00 or resale at $15,000.00 is
germane to the bottom line issue and that is that 100% of the dollars associated
with this acquisition could have, or are dollars that would have gone to the
school district had we not created this district. The second part on taxes, did
you want me to respond or did you want to?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Go ahead. 1
Don Ashworth: The City's tax rate has stayed at the same level for the past 4
years. Ms. Kurvers was correct, the biggest tax decreases occurred for those
residents living in School District #112. The biggest increases occurred in for
residents living in School District #276 and again the city portion of that, the
city's tax rate stayed identical with the previous year. The major increase ,
that those owners saw was associated with taxes associated with the school
district. I should put in one caveat and that is, if your property was
re- evalued, you could have seen the dollar amount associated with the city
portion increase but again, the tax rate has stayed the same for the past 4
years.
Councilman Wing: Don I just, some of the accusations tonight repeatedly have
said that those of us that live in #276 are taking it in the teeth and that #276
is subsidizing Chaska School District. And by subsidizing the Chaska School
District, our roads are going to go unpaved and we're going to have to pay more
for city services and I think you stated that for District #276 taxpayers, this
is dollar neutral. And I believe from my research that that is a true
statement. Would you confirm that? That this is not impacting services, taxes 1/ or costs to #276 members. I mean these issues are so incredibly independent, I
don't know where these accusations are even coming from. And my statement is
true, is that correct?
Don Ashworth: Yes. 1
Councilman Wing: Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you.
Dave Clough: Good evening Council. I'm Dave Clough. I'm here really wearing '
two hats this evening. First of all I am a resident of Chanhassen and with that
hat on I would like to say that I would not only encourage but expect my
community to be aggressive in pursuing schools for our community. Whether that
be school sites that are #112, #276, or Eden Prairie schools in the future. As
a resident I think schools in our community enhance the quality of life in the
community. I think they have an impact on the property values of homes in the
community. And furthermore, we generally don't look at schools in terms of
economic impact but we do tend to look at business that way coming into our
23 ,
1
City Council Meeting - April 12, 1993
community. Bringing schools into our community certainly brings a number of
II quality jobs along with it. I'm going to put my other hat on. Most of you are
aware, I'm the Superintendent of Schools in District #112 and in that role the
first thing I want to do is thank the city of Chanhassen, along with the other
II cities in our school district, for the tremendous cooperation that we have
received in this whole effort in dealing with the tremendous over crowding that
we are experiencing in District #112. This school district is really incredible
I in terms of the type of community, joint community efforts that are going on.
And whether we're talking about community values or whether we're talking about
the site acquisitions for schools, joint tax planning. Many of you are aware
the school district, the cities and the school district in Carver County have
11 worked together to try to develop a 10 year tax projection for Eastern Carver
County. I think that the residents of our school district and community can
only benefit by this type of joint effort. I also want to say, and I'm a little
uncomfortable on that some of this comes off as kind of pitting District #112
against Minnetonka Schools against Eden Prairie Schools. I want you to know
that the school districts, just if we talk about those 3 school districts in
particular. I think there is good cooperation that goes on all the time between
those 3 districts. I can tell you that in essence, the Eden Prairie, District
#112, Minnetonka school, there are practically no boundary lines between those
districts. We have hundreds of kids every year going back and forth between
II those 3 school districts under open enrollment, but most of them under just
joint arrangements between the districts. So I want to stress the whole issue
of cooperation. Whether it's with the cities or even between the school
1 districts. Let me just make a few points that I think are important. First of
all I think the district is excited about this proposed elementary school site.
We think it's a wonderful site for an elementary school. As we evaluated sites
in the district and we did start with over 30 in the first run at both
elementary and high school sites. This was our highest rated site for a new
elementary school on a number of criteria. I can also tell you that kind of
back on the cooperation angle. I think the School Board was particularly
II excited about the two sites that were chosen for the high school and the
elementary school in that both sites are the ones identified by the cities of
Chanhassen and Chaska in their comprehensive plans as proposed future school
sites. Both of them. I think when, I think maybe Don mentioned the concern we
had when this whole process began about site selection. We knew what a
potentially volatile issue that could be in this whole effort and so anyway, the
Board is excited that we have a proposed elementary site that is the one that is
11 in the Chan Comp Plan as a proposed school site. And that the proposed high
school site happens to be in the Chaska Comp Plan as a proposed school site.
This is something I really don't like to talk about but I think you need to
II know. What are the implications if, you know the kind of the pre - referendum
agreement that we thought we had on this, would not pan out. I see two
possibilities. First of all you need to realize that the $46.5 million
referendum that was approved, that is a fixed amount. The district has that
amount of money to work with and any additional dollars beyond what were
projected for school sites have to come out of those projects somewhere. Now
let's say that we had to, it cost the district an additional million dollars for
II an elementary site. We have no other way, other than if we were going to bank
it out of our regular capital outlay funds, which is really pretty ridiculous if
you look at that. The only way that we could acquire any additional monies is
to take those out of the projects. It would probably mean some of the repair
and betterment projects that we promised the taxpayers would not get done. Or
1 24
City Council Meeting - April 12, 1993 1
it may mean that 12,000 square feet get cut out of a proposed elementary school
or high school. That would be one implication. The one that I think would be
most likely, very frankly is that the School Board would have to go back and
look at the back -up site for an elementary school. And I will tell you that the
back -up elementary school site is not in the city of Chanhassen. If the Board
had to go to that. That is not the Board's desire. As I say, we are excited
about this site. It is definitely our most favorable elementary site. But the
Board would have to look at one of those two routes if this thing were not to
pan out. I'd like to end back on a positive note of again thanking the city,
the City Council, the city staff. I'm not sure if the Council people even begin
to recognize the hours and hours that your staff people, Paul and Don and Todd
and others have, both Todds, have put into this whole effort. Not just site
selection but serving on the original committee to look at the planning for this
referendum. Working with planners from other cities from Carver County, with
the district's demographer, to really try to get a handle on this whole thing 1
and to make some decisions that are in the public interest. So my thank you to
the Council and to the staff for all of the cooperation that you have shown in
this entire effort. Thank you.
Chris Polster: My name's Chris Polster and I live at 8020 Hidden Court and I'm
here to express my support for the creative plan that our past Council and to a
certain extent at least this Council has proposed in getting recreational
I/
facilities for our children. I'm active with the CAA and we have more than 700
kids right now as part of the CAA. Most of them going to Chaska to play, or
going to Shorewood to play. That includes 276 residents or 112 residents. But
even more important than that is this idea of comingling. This idea of
comingling goes beyond finance. If it wasn't for me, a young person, seniors
wouldn't have a senior center if we told them they had to pay for it themselves.
Ballplayers wouldn't have ballfields if we told them they had to pay for it
themselves. The idea that we would have a City Council, or individuals create
new barriers to cooperation to me is appalling. It's bad enough that black and
white can't get along. It's bad enough that Protestants and Catholics can't get
along. Now we have 276 and 112 that can't get along. For what? For how much
money are we talking about here? I think none but I'd be interested in knowing
how much money are we talking about in the minds of the people that do think
money is more important than the cooperative and peaceful coexistence of a
community. We are not two school districts in this community. We are
Chanhassen. That's all I'd like to say.
Jerome Carlson: Good evening. Jerome Carlson, 6950 Gaipin. Just on the
border. Half of my driveway is in 276 and the other half is in 112 and that's
the truth. I don't know which half pays which but I'm in both. There's been a
tremendous misconception. I came in a little late, kind of in the middle of it
and I have the feeling that residents of 276 believe that somehow some of their
residential tax dollars have been used to buy an elementary school site in
District #112.
Audience: Right.
Jerome Carlson: You believe that?
Audience: Right. 1
25 ,
1
I City Council Meeting - April 12, 1993
I Jerome Carlson: That isn't the way it is.
Audience: Do you believe in tax increment?
II Jerome Carlson: Let me explain, well it's here whether you believe it or not.
1
Mayor Chmiel: If we could let the speaker.
1 Jerome Carlson: The reality is, as a person who has a hat split literally down
the middle, and I mean that in terms of my land. The money that was used to
help purchase that property shouldn't please us more as residents because the
II net effect is that it was money that prior to that decision was not going to be
used in any way that would help defray residential taxes. That money came from
businesses. Businesses. And prior to the communities and the city and the
II school and the county government working together, that money would have only
been used to try to enhance and bring in more business. But instead, these wise
communities of people at the Carver County level, at the city level and at the
II school district level, got their heads together and said, let's provide an
opportunity to charge our residents less in terms of taxing for this new school
bond issue. The bond issue could have easily come out at $47.5 million. And it
would have been passed. But because of the tax increment money that came only
11 from business taxes, not residential taxes, and it has rarely, if ever been
used, in a manner which benefits a broad spectrum of residents in a public
project like that. It literally has had the effect of impacting all parties
II positively. There is a terrible misconception Mr. Senn, and to suggest that the
mr.r could probably have been used to lower resident's taxes is precisely what
oc ;d. It just wasn't understood. That is exactly what has happened and I
01 A's important that we do understand that. And I applaud that and I think
11 that's the message that really ought to come through in the next editorial.
Thank you.
II Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else?
Joe Scott: Joe Scott, 7091 Pimlico Lane. I just wanted to address not so much
I the issue here but how the letter to the editor and this is directed
specifically at Councilman Senn. As we all know, multiple school districts,
Councilpeople are elected at large. This is not a ward system. Consequently,
any time an issue like this is misrepresented for the purpose of, and I think we
11 have Minnetonka School District people sitting over here perhaps and District
#112 people sitting over here, with certain exceptions. I believe that's an
inappropriate means of utilizing something like this. Plus the fact, a letter
II to the editor is something that does not need any rebuttal. This should have
been something that should have been utilized as an opinion where Councilman
Senn's position could be on the Shane Alexander side of the page and then Jack
Kirpatrick on the other so, it's nice to hear some discussion. I think the
I positive thing that came out of this is that this is not a waste of any of our
times. I think we're learning some things. Mr. Carlson brought up some good
points about funding and so forth so this is where it's at and we all know how
II the Council's going to vote so I'm not going to call the question. Thank you
very much.
II Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else?
II 26
II
City Council Meeting - April 12, 1993 1
Frank Kurvers: My name is Frank Kurvers and I would like to know just one
question. Now fiscal disparity is a 60/40 split, right? Okay. I called the
State of Minnesota and I talked to an individual by the name of Loen Moe. He
said that out of Chanhassen the fiscal disparities pays Minnetonka School System
$360,000.00. I said how much do they pay Chaska? He said a million
$600,000.00. So I'd like to have someone explain if this is not costing
anything in the Minnetonka residents, I'd like to have that explained to me. The
numbers. 1
Don Ashworth: Fiscal disparities is calculated on the commercial /industrial
property that you have in the community. If there's two school districts, they
look at the amount of commercial /industrial property in each of the two
districts. In the case of Minnetonka, as it exists for the city of Chanhassen,
there are very few commercial /industrial properties. It's not surprising to me
at all that the amount paid to the Minnetonka District from the City of
Chanhassen is going to be small because there really are few, if any businesses
in that area. I'm sure that that amount recognizes the businesses that we have
on the very eastern portion of the city. Press, CPT, etc. As it deals with
fiscal disparities from, or within School District #112, Chanhassen is a major
winner because they do not see the industrial buildings that we have in the Chan
Business Park because they're within a tax increment district. When that tax
increment district ceases, we will move from a winner under fiscal disparities,
the million you referred to, to a major loser. We'll lose about $2 1/2 million.
Frank Kurvers: That's true but the money you're capturing in the Chaska School ,
District is not redistributed to the Minnetonka. A certain percentage which the
city taxes would be lower. When you capture this money in a TIF district, you
keep it. It never gets in. Now I also found out that the money is handled by
'•e Anoka County Auditor, which is awful strange that TIF, the fiscal disparity
money is handled by the Anoka County Auditor. Now I mean it's really strange
that Anoka County is handling the 7 county metropolitan money. I never knew
that either until I started checking. But as far as the numbers are concerned,
if you had all these numbers on the table, and all the numbers as far as the
money that Minnetonka gets and all the money that gets to Chaska, I would say
there's a discrepancy. The sharing is not equal. The sharing is not equal. 1
Don Ashworth: I would invite Mr. Kurvers and anyone else who is interested to
meet with Mark Lundgren and Laurie Engels at the Carver County Courthouse. The
lady that actually does the calculation. As the fiscal disparities relates to
the city of Chanhassen, the amounts are equal. There is no increase in cost
because you live in Minnetonka District versus in 112. As it deals with the
calculation of the two school's taxes and how much you pay, then the fiscal
I/
disparities does come into play. Again, I offer to set up that meeting. I
offer to let them go through those points with you and you're correct, Anoka
County does do the distribution. When the law was initially established, it was
going to move from county to county and after the first couple years, the other
county auditors said, Anoke County. You understand it. We don't. You keep
doing it. They agreed to do it. They've been doing it ever since.
Frank Kurvers: Well the individual, Loen Moe that's in charge of the fiscal
disparities says he doesn't understand it. I talked to him for 2 -3 times that
he called me back and I asked him another question and he couldn't answer it. 1
And he's the guy that's supposed to be in charge of it. Here we're talking
27
11
City Council Meeting - April 12, 1993
about millions of dollars that nobody really understands. I think it's about
11 time people sit down and say, where's this dollar coming from and where is it
going to go.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you.
Councilman Ming: Don, I don't beleive that nobody understands. I believe you
understand. Is that a true statement? If we had time to sit down and go over
this.
Don Ashworth: I think I understand it fairly well but again, I think that
Mr. Kurvers and those who might support that position would better understand it
if they heard it directly from the person who does the calculations, which is
Mark Lundgren with the Carver County Auditor's Office and Laurie Engels, the one
who actually does the spreading.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. And that's an open invitation for anyone who would
like to have this done so they can try to understand what it is. Yes sir.
Len Takkunen: Hi. I'm Len Takkunen. I live at 1291 Bluff Creek Drive and have
since 1976. I just want to say that one of the things that differentiates
average communities from great communities is the quality of the schools and so
even as a resident of the District 112 portion of Chanhassen, if this same
opportunity were to present itself for the Minnetonka portion of the city, I
11 would support it.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else? If seeing none, I'll bring it
back to Council. I'd like a motion from Council regarding the approval of the
proposed purchase agreement.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I move that we approve the property acquisition for
11 the school /recreation facility at Galpin and TH S.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any other discussion?
Councilman Mason: If I could. I hopefully promise this is the last time I say
1 it. I teach in Eden Prairie. I live in the Minnetonka School District and my
child goes to Excelsior Elementary and I think she's getting more than a fine
education. I represent the city of Chanhassen. The fact that Minnetonka School
District, excuse me. District 276 and District 112 happen to both be in the
city of Chanhassen. I'm up here to do what I think is best for the whole city
of Chanhassen and I quite honestly an getting increasingly disturbed and
perturbed about how I perceive some people feeling there's this fight going on
between residents of 276 and residents of 112. Again, I live in 276. I'm not
here to do what I think is best for the city of Chanhassen and I personally
think, regardless of what district anyone lives in, this is in the best interest
11 of the city of Chanhassen.
Councilman Wing: Thank you Mike.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. With that I'll call the question.
28
1
City Council Meeting - April 12, 1993
Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the purchase
agreement for the school /recreation property acquisition at the corner of Galpin
Boulevard and Highway 5 as presented. All voted in favor, except Councilman
Senn who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1.
Mayor Chmiel: As concerns were mentioned previously. Thank you. 4 to 1. 1
CONCEPT PLAN TO REZONE PROPERTY FROM BG, GENERAL BUSINESS TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT FOR EXPANSION OF AN OFFICE AND MANUFACTURING FACILITY LOCATED AT
7900 MONTEREY DRIVE, WEST ONE EXPANSION. DOUG HANSEN, WEST ONE PROPERTIES.
Paul Krauss: What you're being asked to review tonight is a concept plan 1
approval to rezone a property that's zoned BG and contains Chaska Machine Tool
Company and an adjacent parcel to PUD. I'll just summarize the kind of points
that we were hitting on. We were originally approached by the owner who wished
to expand his property. It's a non - conforming a use. It is an industrial use
in the heart of the city's central business district. However, when we looked
at it in detail and with what has occurred around it, we realized that while
it's in the heart of the CBD, you can't get to it or see it from anyplace else
in the CBD and we looked at what kind of reasonable use can this be put to.
There's an adjoining lot that's owned by our city HRA. Basically the existing
facility sits right over here. The lot that's owned by the HRA is down there in
the valley below Highway 5. We went through and tried to figure out if any
commercial, retail /commercial or office uses could legitimately go there.
Retail /commercial, it's almost as bad a spot for retail /commercial as the back
part of the Dinner Theatre is. I mean you just can't, and that even has better
visibility. You just can't see it. It doesn't have the kind of traffic that
would induce people to come to their business. You've got the whole back of
Market Square. I know the loading dock's facing you. You have the entrance to
the loading docks for Target. Possibly office might go there if there was a
market for office but even then what we're finding these days is most office
users want visibility and you know that they want signs and just about
everything that a retail use wants. What we have is an existing business that
is doing well and a desire, as we usually have, to keep them in the community
and to try to work with them. What that led us to is the conclusion that maybe
we ought do something a little different here, i.e. look to getting some I/
property back on the tax rolls by legitimizing what's now a non - conforming use.
It didn't seem to detract any from the central business district. In fact it's
home to people who work and presumably do their business downtown. The HRA
owned property is not being used for anything at the present time and it's,
we're not sure what we would ever use it for constructively down there. We were
concerned that all the trees that we worked very hard at saving for Target not
be damaged by this and we concluded that none of the trees would be damaged. SO
we came up with the idea of coming up and rezoning this thing to PUD and
actually doing a guide plan amendment that basically legitimizes the fact that
Chaska Took is there. Would allow them to expand but through the use of the PUD
place some pretty significant guidelines on what kinds of uses can be allowed
and how development should look and operate down there. We clearly didn't want
to zone it IOP where then anything goes and you can have a turkey processing
plant or whatever else down there. It's just not appropriate but as a light
office industrial use compatible with what it is now, hopefully incorporating
some aesthetic and landscaping improvements, we really couldn't see what the
harm was. And because of that we proposed that this rezoning and guide plan
29 1
City Council Meeting - April 12, 1993
amendment be considered. We took it before the Planning Commission and they
agreed that it had some merit. So tonight we're bringing forward that request
to you. It is a concept. It's non - binding. Basically we're asking you to look
favorably upon that and if you do, they'd come back in with their formal
' presentation and design package. There is a list of proposed conditions that
has been attached and the Planning Commission added a couple. That basically
placed some limits on what the property can be used for and some guidance as to
' what we'd be looking for when they brought back in a site plan. With that we
are proposing that it be approved.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Paul. Is there someone here from the Chaska Machine
Tool Incorporated that would like to address us?
Doug Hansen: My name is Doug Hansen. I was a partner with Tom Klingelhutz when
we built this building and just to give you a little background. Chaska Machine
is a solid company and they had about 1/3 of the building when we built it and
as they grew they took over the space of DayCo Concrete, Frontier Meats, an auto
body shop, Lakeside Equipment and last was VernCo Maintenance that moved to
Chaska. Chaska Machine is a solid company and they've had steady growth and
they really want to stay here. He approached me about it after talking to the
city that there was a possibility that this could be, they could stay right here
and expand right here. I've got a building and remodeling company with my two
sons called Hansen Home Tech. We, together with Steinkraus Plumbing, would
share about 2,000 feet in the southeast end of the building. A small bay. And
' like I say, this building's been there about 15 years and we've had a good
record with the city and they'd like to stay here and they'd like to expand
here. If you have any questions.
t Mayor Chmiel: Do you have any concerns regarding the recommendation from the
Planning Commission? As well as the conditions that were established on that?
Doug Hansen: From a cost standpoint I would like to maintain the exact
appearance of the addition. What's exposed, the new part is just from here. The
parking lot is right in here now. So the new part is just this end here and I
would like to...a couple hundred feet long... I would like to maintain that
single appearance. Decorative block, two rows of decorative block tied in with
the windows...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Council. Richard.
Councilman Wing: I don't have anything.
Mayor Chmiel: With all the respective conditions that are contained within.
' Councilman Wing: This is just conceptual so I've got a couple comments on
preliminary and final. I just want to make sure that trees are there. But it's
not the time so, I'd like to see it properly landscaped and it will be. That's
all. I think PUD's the way to go. I'm ready to approve this.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: On condition number 8, where transit planning shall be
incorporated into this development. I have a feeling Diane put that in. Does
30
1
City Council Meeting - April 12, 1993 II
that mean there will be a bus turn around? 1
Paul Krauss: Well, I'm really not certain.
Mayor Chmiel: In the front door and out the back. '
Paul Krauss: I mean clearly this isn't going to be large enough to have any
kind of facility. However, what we've been asking business people to do, in
fact Jerome Carlson who was here earlier tonight has been very cooperative.
We've asked them to allow us to work with their employees to survey them and
develop packages so that Southwest Metro can offer to tailor transit service. '
The Dial -a -Ride service or van pooling, or just make them aware of the over the
road long distance services they offer. That's probably going to be sufficient.
I'm not really sure where Diane was leading that one but that's my guess.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay. Other than that, you know I drive past that
area 2 or 3 times a day and I never noticed it until I got this packet. And
went oh, there's a building there? So I don't have any problem with the use. I
think it's a good use for that space.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Michael.
Councilman Mason: Briefly, I shared the Manager's comments about expansion of
industrial use I think is a concern but on the other hand, our fine City Planner
also says that this will be alleviated through the PUD and I agree. It looks
good to me and Chaska Machine I think has done a fine job...
Councilman Wing: But who does the hiring and firing? Since you said the
Manager's comments, my ears perk up a little.
Councilman Mason: I certainly go along with the concept plan.
Mayor Chmiel: Chicken or the egg?
Councilman Mason: Yeah, that too. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Mark.
Councilman Senn: The existing operation, and I guess over the years even a
number of the building tenants down there but Paul, when you talk about PUD's,
how do you exactly plan on controlling the use under the PUD?
Paul Krauss: What we would propose to do Mark is the PUD contract, agreement
that would be filed with the property would set very explicit guidelines as to
what types of uses could be there and how they'd have to limit their operations.
For example, limits on outdoor storage and truck boxes and heavy equipment that
you can hear outside the building and those kinds of things. We can place those
limits on it. The goal is to limit any adverse impacts that might accrue and
really not limit them as to who's going to be occupying the building, because
that can change over time.
Councilman Senn: What's the underlying zoning that remains in place? 1
31 1
1
II City Council Meeting - April 12, 1993
Paul Krauss: It doesn't under our ordinance. Once you zone it to PUD, that is
the zoning. There's nothing underlying it. You basically void out what's under
it. I
II '
Councilman Wing: This would be a great place Paul for automotive uses. Right
behind Target's loading dock and the hardware store's loading dock.
II Mayor Chmiel: For future thought. Any other questions Mark? Okay. I guess I
don't have any real concerns. I think that as Paul has indicated in here that
the concerns can be alleviated through the PUD contract and in that particular
II case I would request a motion for the approval of the concept plan with the
conditions of the Planning Commission. Making sure that, or I should say City
Council recommendations with items 1 thru a, b, c, d, items 2 thru 8.
II Councilman Wing: So moved.
Councilman Mason: Second.
II Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve concept plan request
to rezone Lots 3, 4 and 5, Burdick Park from BG, General Business to PUD,
II Planned Unit Development with the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall receive and meet the conditions of the following
approvals:
II a. Preliminary and Final Plat approval combining Lots 3, 4 and 5, Burdick
Park into one lot with appropriate easements.
t b. Comprehensive Plan amendment changing the land use designation from
commercial to industrial.
II c. Site plan approval for the building expansion.
d. Rezoning approval from BG, General Business to PUD, Planned Unit
II Development.
2. The site plan shall have to maintain the proposed concept plan, with the
II proposal being an expansion of the existing building for use by the existing
use, light manufacturing. A higher intensity industrial use will not be
permitted at this site.
1 3. The expansion of the building shall match the architectural design of the
existing building.
I 4. There shall be no outdoor storage permitted.
5. All rooftop equipment shall be screened.
II 6. The hard cover surface of the site (the three lots) shall not exceed 70 %.
7. Prior to rezoning and development, the applicant shall purchase the property
11 in question from the HRA.
II 32
11
City Council Meeting - April 12, 1993
11
8. Transit planning shall be incorporated into this development.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. 1
DISCUSS TESTING FOR AEDES TRISERIATUS (LASCROSSE ENCEPHALITIS) MOSQUITO ON CITY
PROPERTY.
Todd Hoffman: It seems as though we just put to rest this issue. However, it
is mosquito treating season once again. They are out spreading the briquettes
across our city. I've received calls from residents wondering what is going on
so if you've heard anything to date, they are out. In preparing for the
operations, the upcoming operations of the MMCD, Mr. Ross Green, the District's
Public Information Representative called to ask for a clarification in regard to
I/
the testing for the Aedes Triseriatus or the LaCrosse Encephalitis mosquito in
our city parks. Specifically Mr. Green asked if the district would be allowed
to test for that type of mosquito which can carry LaCrosse Encephalitis in city
parks and if sufficient levels of mosquitoes were found, to apply chemical
treatment. It is important to understand that that has not been the case in the
past. They have never found sufficient levels so it's not as though it's a big
concern but I think they are on their toes so to speak in this regard and they
just want to make sure everything is clear. The staff's recommendation is that
the MMCD be allowed to test for the Aedes Triseriatus mosquito in the city parks
and if populations warrant control, that the application of approved treatment
substances only be allowed upon the city being notified and the area for
treatment having been conspicuously posted 24 hours prior to the treatment. That
was one area that they had agreed to undertake. The posting of public open
space when they're treating. However what they did is posted one 4 x 8 post at
the entrance to the park so we're asking that they make it a little bit more
noticeable. In addition it is requested that staff be contacted prior to their
first testing so we can observe exactly what this testing procedure includes.
From what I understand they go around in areas likely to hold, harbor this type
of mosquito with a vaccum cleaner and if in 5 minutes they suck of 2 of this
type of mosquito, which I'm not sure I could identify them from any other
mosquito, but if they do that, then they'll tell you they want to treat for
LaCrosse Encephalitis carrying mosquito. There is no one here from Mosquito
Control District. I take it with the recommendation in their affirmative, that
they weren't concerned.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you. Any concerns of Council?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Have we done this in past years? Applied this
treatment?
Todd Hoffman: Not to my knowledge in city parks, no. But in other areas of the
city they have.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: No adverse affects? '
Todd Hoffman: Again, not to my knowledge. They've done this on private
property.
Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else? Can I have a motion?
11
33
i
City Council Meeting - April 12, 1993
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I move approval for testing for the LaCrosse
Encephalitis mosquito in city parks.
Councilman Wing: Second,
Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Wing seconded to allow the MMCD to
test for Aedes Triseriatus mosquitoes in city parks. If populations warrant,
the application of approved treatment substances only be allowed upon the city
being notified, the area for treatment having been conspicuously posted 24 hours
prior to treatment and that the Park and Rec Director be contacted prior to
testing to allow for observation of testing procedures. All voted in favor and
the motion carried unanimously.
APPROVE AGREEMENT PROVIDING UTILITY AND STREET SERVICES TO PROPOSED SUBDIVISION
(DEER RIDGE) IN THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION_
Don Ashworth: The Council will recall, we have been looking favorably to
allowing the extension of sanitary sewer and water into Shorewood to allow Jeff
Williams, J. Scotty Builders to be able to develop 5 lots that are in Shorewood.
As we've nearly exhausted all of the processes under which we might receive
Community Development Block Grant funds, we presented at the time that the City
Council last looked at this, the request that the Mayor and I attend the
Shorewood City Council meeting, which turned out to be this evening at 7:00, to
see if we could get their endorsement of allowing one or two of those lots to be
included in a friendly annexation /deannexation process. The Shorewood Council,
I felt that this item deserved additional time. They would like to look at the
ability of the two cities to potentially swap some properties. They would like
to look at what type of commitment that we might be willing to make to the South
Shore Senior Center if we were to continue being a participant under Community
Development Block Grant funds. We did have in the audience approximately 6 or 7
of our seniors who use the South Shore Center that are residents of Chanhassen.
I thought that Barbara Montgomery did an excellent job in voicing concerns the
seniors had as it may, in case of the possibility that we would lose funding. I
think it's fair to say that the Shorewood Council was not happy that the Council
had put the condition, had moved it from let's work with Shorewood to
voluntarily get them to release a lot versus putting it in the form of a
condition. I think at our last meeting Mr. Williams came before the Council
saying, please don't do that. I want to be able to proceed with my development.
I don't want to get caught in the middle of some type of a disagreement between
Chanhassen and Shorewood and literally have him become kind of a pawn that was
caught captive in this whole process. I cannot assure that you Shorewood will
release one of those lots. We asked for a vote from the Council, which really
it was more of an informal where are you coming from type of a position, so that
I would have something, the Mayor and I would have something to report back to
this City Council. All 5 councilmembers stated that they would keep an open
mind in this issue. That they did not want to see Chanhassen lose Community
Development Block Grant status. That they were concerned as to taxes that might
be lost as a result of giving up 1 or 2 pieces. That they felt that the two
staffs would be in the best position to get together, try to develop a specific
proposal that they could look at within 2 weeks. In accordance with City
Council action from 2 weeks ago, a month ago, whenever we heard this item, I
think that you had made it clear to Mr. Williams of your intent to have this
item come back in front of you in the case that Shorewood had denied it. Because
34
City Council Meeting - April 12, 1993
Roger Knutson: Just what you put on your letterhead I suppose when you buy the
house. Your address.
Jeff Williams: So, let's say I build a house. It's in the city of Shorewood
now and 6 months down the road my people that bought the home find out that it's
in the process of annexation. There's no legality on my part that I have to
notify that the people that that lot is in proceedings?
Roger Knutson: I would disclose it to them.
Jeff Williams: That there's a proceedings going on now that might put it into
that.
Councilman Mason: And then I would guess they'd probably be happier knowing
they were coming into Chanhassen.
Jeff Williams: We'll two of the exact same houses, exact same price and we'll
compare them. And we'll see what the values are. If the values are different
too.
Councilman Senn: But Don, isn't it a fair statement that if the resident
decides they don't want it, that it won't happen?
Mayor Chmiel: Well there's a lot of conditions to it. The Board could also say
no because of all the things that are there right now.
Councilman Senn: No, no. I understand that. But it's fairly absolute if the
resident disagrees with it that it's going to happen. Is that true?
Mayor Chmiel: Right. It could.
Roger Knutson: Well in this situation, there's the landowner.
Councilman Senn: No, but there will be a new landowner at the point that he
sells the lot is what I'm saying.
Roger Knutson: But this process will be petitioned by the owner and approved by
the governmental agencies and it goes to the municipal board. At that point
everyone it the circle is in agreement then it will, they'll base it on that
decision. On that information.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: If that decision happens before he sells it.
Councilman Senn: Which depends on Shorewood deciding if it will.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Right.
Roger Knutson: It's possible that someone else would get that lot and jump up
to the municipal board and say I don't want it.
Mayor Chmiel: When will you develop fully the entirety of that parcel? What is
your intent? I suppose what the market bears.
37
J City Council Meeting - April 12, 1993
Jeff Williams: Right now what I find is that they'll be real easy to sell. I
think 3 of them are already sold. A buyer's sitting here. He wants to get this
thing going too but, so I think they'll sell really quickly. Especially if they
find out it's in Chanhassen.
Councilman Senn: How about a contingency in the contract?
Jeff Williams: Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Any other discussion?
Councilman Mason: Well I was going to make a motion if I could.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Councilman Mason: I'd like to approve agreement providing utility and street
services to proposed subdivision Deer Ridge in the city of Shorewood, Project
No. 92 -18 with perhaps a note to Shorewood City Council thanking them for
listening to our concerns and maybe reiterating that the reason we want to do
this is to benefit both cities.
Mayor Chmiel: Very good. Is there a second?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any other discussion?
Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the
agreement providing utility and street services to Deer Ridge, Project No. 92 -18
with the condition that staff be instructed to approach the Shorewood City
Council and request their consideration of a friendly deannexation /annexation
process for the most southerly lot in Deer Ridge. All voted in favor, except
Councilman Senn who abstained, and the motion carried.
11 Councilman Wing: Could I just interrupt momentarily. Mr. Boyland is here and
he's kind of way down under Administrative. Could we possibly move him up,
being he's been sitting here patiently, and then get on with our agenda? Would
it be appropriate to let... Insert 11(a) as the next item Mr. Mayor, just a
suggestion.
Mayor Chmiel: We can move that around without too much trouble. Is this part
of the discussion that we're going to have this evening? No? Good. Okay. You
don't have to leave because you got what you want. You get to stay around.
Okay, let's move to item 11(a). •
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATION: PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE MINNEWASHTA
PARKWAY PROJECT, JAMES AND RUTH BOYLAN. CITY ATTORNEY.
Mayor Chmiel: As you have read, the City Attorney is recommending a settlement
agreement. Roger?
11 Roger Knutson: Just a few comments on it and I'll basically stand for your
questions. This is in conjunction with the Minnewashta Parkway project. We're
38
City Council Meeting - April 12, 1993
acquiring some 4,220 square feet of property, 15 trees and we're taking out a
driveway that has to be replaced. Our settlement figure is based upon a
combination of those costs. Our estimated value and the estimate of what it
would cost to proceed to condemnation. That it's a reasonable settlement and
recommend $15,000.00. With that I'll just stand for you specific questions.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Do you have any questions regarding this? Seeing none,
I'll call a question to the approval of settlement in the amount of $15,000.00
to James dnd Ruth Boylan.
Councilman Wing: I'll so move.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I will second it. 1
Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the
settlement agreement in the amount of $15,000.00 for James and Ruth Boylan for
easement acquisition for the Minnewashta Parkway project. All voted in favor
and the motion carried unanimously.
Councilman Wing: Just a question I guess as we passed. If everybody on the
Parkway had done this, we would have been in real trouble wouldn't we?
Roger Knutson: The cost would have been a lot, lot higher. Yes.
Councilman Wing: Is there anything unique about this property that's different
than the other ones? I mean I understand the old 1817.
Roger Knutson: We took out quite a few trees, although most of them were quite 11
small. 2 1/2 inch trees which is a lot of trees.
Councilman Wing: Which were going to go anyway. '
Roger Knutson: Pardon?
I/
Councilman Wing: I mean it's happening the full length of the Parkway as part
of the project.
Roger Knutson: Nothing else.
CONSIDER AMENDMENT TO THE SOLICITORS ORDINANCE, FIRST READING. 1
Roger Knutson: Don, do you want me to comment on this?
Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to? 1
Roger Knutson: In Scott Harr's absence I'll comment on this. The initial draft
was put together, it was based on, I guess this went to the Public Safety
Committee. It was based upon an Edina ordinance that says you can put up a
little card in your home or business and say solicitors stay away and they're
not allowed to knock. That is the first draft that arrived here I don't know, 2
months ago?
39
City Council Meeting - April 12, 1993
I Mayor Chmiel: Yeah.
Roger Knutson: And the suggestion was made that maybe we should have more than i
that. That we should keep what we have, which is basically a registration
II procedure that's where solicitors and transient merchants have to register with
the City. Pay a registration fee set by this Council before they can go out 1
peddling, soliciting or doing their transient sales in the community. It's a
I fairly benign process but it allows the Public Safety to keep track of who's
running around to people's doors. What this draft attempts to do or does is
combine the first draft of the no knock rule and registration.
1 Mayor Chmiel: I guess I was in favor of having none within the city and only
allowing Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts and things of that nature to do their
solicitation. But I guess.
1 Roger Knutson: I would support a Constitutional Amendment to that effect.
II Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion?
Councilman Senn: What this does is we request that there's been I guess one
insert that I wasn't sure on and that is the pricing on the permits. It
I basically says $25.00 per person, which I assume means per person soliciting.
But it sets as a maximum $50.00 fee per charitable groups and I thought that
when we did that I'd ask if with the charitable groups we'd kind of treat that
1 uniquely instead and set a very minimal fee. Relating to charities.
Roger Knutson: What I have, it says in Section 10 -145, the fee will be set by
II resolution of the Council.
Councilman Senn: Well in resolution, which is unnumbered but the third to the 1
last page in the attachment it says, Now Therefore, Be It Resolved by the
11 Chanhassen City Council that the registration fee be $25.00 per person or a
total of $50.00 for a charitable organization.
II Roger Knutson: I don't know where those numbers came from. I had nothing to do
with their selection so I can't really say any comment.
Mayor Chmiel: Was that something we had previously?
Roger Knutson: I don't know what your numbers were. I assume that came from
Scott's department based upon how much work he thinks it's going to take to do
the registration. The idea of these fees is not to raise revenue but just to
cover your costs. I don't know Mark, I can't comment.
I Councilman Senn: I'd just much rather see, I mean I think I understood from
Scott the basis of the $25.00 per person, which is as it's stated. I mean if a
group comes in and says they're going to send 10 people out, you're paying on
the basis of the 10 people. But for the charity groups I'd much rather see a
I flat fee of the $25.00 no matter how many people. Rather than $50.00. I mean
I'd like to see no fee at all but that probably raises some problems for us too
so. Maybe the $25.00 would be minimal or set as a minimum for charity groups.
II Councilman Wing: I don't know what Scott's reasoning was.
II 40
1
City Council Meeting - April 12, 1993
Mayor Chmiel: Well I think being that this is the first reading, that's
something we can bring back for the second reading and see what we should come
up with for that at that time.
Councilman Wing: I favor Mark's position where it's just $25.00 period. '
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I don't find that, depending upon what charity it is too.
We may not want to have any. So with that. 1
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, is there an easy way to delineate what's a
charitable organization? Do they have to be registered by?
Roger Knutson: 501C3.
Councilman Mason: If I can just ask, under exemptions here. Children age 18
and younger soliciting for school sponsored activities. Is that then Girl
Scouts and Boy Scouts? I mean is that an umbrella term for Girls Scouts and Boy
Scouts?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. I mean you get the groups coming from the high school with
kids going on trips and things of that nature. But I think that's all.
Councilman Wing: See I think this is, well.
Mayor Chmiel: If we were to say, any charitable group within the confines of
the city of Chanhassen. Would that, that probably is a little loose yet.
Roger Knutson: The American Red Cross or the Boy Scouts. Those aren't really
Chanhassen groups. It's really kind of hard to get your arms around. Like if
the Rotary or any of those things that are really, could cross borders.
Mayor Chmiel: Do we spell each of those that we feel don't require? I mean
we're talking Jaycees. We're talking Rotary. We're talking Lions. We're
talking CAA. We're talking just about anything that you can think of within the
community. 1
Roger Knutson: So we're not subject to some protection challenge. What we'd
try to do is if you gave us the list of who you would want to exempt, we would
try to find a common denominator for them. A list by generic sort of terms.
Mayor Chmiel: Could you make sure that you get back to Scott on that Don. Jay.
Jay Johnson: Yeah, as I was just listening to this. There's a difference
between non - profit and charitable in tax's eyes and stuff. Like the CAA's not a
charitable organization but it is a non - profit organization. And so with this
solicitation, if the CAA ever went out and did something, I think in the past
they have, and the kids that were going to England last year, they did some
solicitations. They sold candy and stuff like that. As part of club but
they're not a charitable organization. It's not tax deductible as a charity but
it is non-profit. Then another thing I was thinking of is a non-profit
profit
organization with a unit within Chanhassen. So the Boy Scouts aren't based out
of Chanhassen but they have Chanhassen units here in the Boy Scouts. I mean we
have a Cub Scout pack and we have a Boy Scout troop. And then the Girl Scouts
41 11
d
11 City Council Meeting - April 12, 1993
II are the same way. They have units within the city. The Rotary has it's unit
here in the city. So some terminology like that might get around what you're
looking for.
II Mayor Chmiel: Well, we'll see what we can come up with.
I
Roger Knutson: Yeah, we'll work on that.
II Mayor Chmiel: Okay. All those in favor say aye.
I Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Senn seconded to approve the first reading of
an amendment to the Solicitor's Ordinance. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously.
II ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE TO DEFINE DOCK SETBACK ZONES, FIRST
READING.
V Paul Krauss: Well Mr. Mayor, I'll take a crack at this but is there a desire to
lay it over? No? I was kind of hoping.
Mayor Chmiel: I don't know, I was looking at some of these things here. You
1 know why redo what we've already had in effect, and I think all you wanted to do
was just to put a clarification in there. And that clarification was all that
we wanted. All of a sudden this is all changed around and it looks like we've
II chant'_ the position from where we were before as to where we are right now and
that'z sort of defeating the issue that we were already indicated what we wanted
done.
11 Councilman Senn: Yeah, I had some questions about it before and I guess Kate's
really the one who's worked on this and I guess maybe Paul's comment, it seemed
like it'd be maybe appropriate to wait until Kate's here.
II Councilman Wing: There's going to be no new information. We've taken a lot of
testimony of all the neighborhoods. I mean we've debated this at length. Hour
II after hour and there's no new information going to come in because the issue was
very clear cut. And if she wants to present information, then we've got to
bring all the neighbors back in that weren't there this last time because they
I think it's a done deal and they're protected. So I would move approval of this
with the exception that I would delete Exemption 2. Exemption 1 I think is a
catch up item. So I would move approval of the amendment with the deletion of
Exemption 2, which leaves us where we were.
11 Mayor Chmiel: Previously?
II Councilman Wing: Yep. And it's the first reading. If Kate's got some
information that's pertinent, fine.
Paul Krauss: If she has something new, I'm sure she just didn't come up with
II it. There's got to be a reason behind it.
Councilman Senn: Why did she have 2 in there, do you know?
II Paul Krauss: I really couldn't tell you.
1 42
II
City Council Meeting - April 12, 1993 1
Councilman Wing: Well there shouldn't have been any. There was only supposed
to be a clarification.
Paul Krauss: Unless Roger you have something to add. I'm just not certain.
Roger Knutson: No. What our office worked on is that first definition of
defining what the dock setback zone is as far as 100 foot and all that stuff.
That came from our office. Working with Kate, but the rest of it. '
Councilman Wing: I think that change would be out of order Paul.
Paul Krauss: Which? '
Councilman Wing: The exemption would be out of order.
Councilman Mason: Is there a motion on the floor?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, there's a motion on the floor. 1
Councilman Mason: I'll second that.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussions? ,
Councilman Senn: Question. This is first reading?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Councilman Senn: So that's something that Kate can come in and tell us what
she's doing before second reading?
Mayor Chmiel: Right. With the eliminations as Richard has indicated.
Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the first reading of
Zoning Ordinance Amendment to the City Code to Define Dock Setback Zones amended
by deleting Exemption 2. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. 1
SET MEETING DATE TO DISCUSS THE CITY'S MISSION STATEMENT, CITY MANAGER.
Don Ashworth: City Council had asked that this item be put onto this agenda so
we could kind of look at calendars and make a decision as to when you want to
meet again. That's my recollection. We are meeting the first Monday in May.
We picked that first Monday in May as a work session for.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yes, we're talking about downtown.
Don Ashworth: To talk about.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Downtown. That's what I have.
Councilman Senn: The 5:00 meeting on the 3rd is strictly downtown. No other
issues is what I have written down.
43
il City Council Meeting - April 12, 1993
Don Ashworth: Oh okay. So that's back with this joint HRA /City Council. Try
II to make a decision what we're going to do with downtown. Okay. As it would
deal then with this mission statement, the work we started from a week ago
Saturday. What can be convenient for Council members? '
II Councilman Senn: And that's where you had the tentative 5:30 on the 5th.
1
1 Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, that's what we have. 5:30 on the 5th. You
don't like that?
Don Ashworth: Okay, so you want to go with that then?
Councilman Wing: 5/5 at 5 :30. Chinese again?
II Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah.
Councilman Mason: So there is a meeting on May 3rd at 5 :00?
i II Mayor Chmiel: And one on May 5th.
i Councilman Senn: And the 5th at 5 :30.
II Councilman Mason: I knew about the one on the 5th. I did not know about the
one.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Now I'd like to clear the chambers for a close session and
turn the cameras off.
1
II Roger Knutson: Maybe if we could just for the record explain that we'd like to
discuss litigation on two pending cases. One involving Apple Valley Red -E -Mix }
and one involving the Eckankar property.
II Don Ashworth: Did you want to show for the record though that we would put down
in writing what was discussed here this evening and at the time.
II Roger Knutson: You can do that. It's not required.
Don Ashworth: At the time that these issues are settled, we would make that a
II public document.
Roger Knutson: Yes, you can do that.
II Don Ashworth: I guess that just seems reasonable to me.
At this point an Executive Session took place with the Council and the City
II Attorneys.
The regular portion of the City Council meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m.
II Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
II Prepared by Nann Opheim
' 44
II
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 7, 1993
Chairman Batzli called the meeting to order at 7:37 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Ladd Conrad, Matt Ledvina, Joe Scott, Nancy Mancino,
Brian Batzli, Jeff Farmakes and Diane Harberts
STAFF PRESENT: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner
PUBLIC HEARING:
PRELIMINARY PLAT OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND SITE PLAN TO CREATE 27
' TOWNHOME LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD, AND LOCATED DIRECTLY EAST OF POWERS
BOULEVARD, ADJACENT TO LAKE SUSAN HILLS PUD, PRAIRIE CREEK TOWNHOMES,
JASPER DEVELOPMENT.
Public Present:
Name Address
Jim Domholt 8251 West Lake Court
Andrew K. Olson 8290 West Lake Court
' Gary Kassen
Tom VanAsh 8270 West Lake Court
8320 West Lake Court
Kirby & Susan Paulson 8410 West Lake Court
Ritra Hailing
Don Patton
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on this item.
Batzli: One of our concerns last time was that we might be setting a
precedent for another one of the medium to higher density outlots from the
original PUD. Assume for a minute that we allow this one to go to 40%
impervious and the other outlot is built with a higher density project.
' Do you think that they will also be able to go to 40% impervious with a
higher density project based on what we do tonight?
Olsen: You mean if they'd be doing the 9 units per acre? If they'd be
doing like the stacked units?
Batzli: Yeah.
Olsen: Yeah. I do believe that you are setting a precedent. But to be
honest, those impervious coverages are really low and for the size of
those units or the lots, it's going to be really tough to meet that. Like
the one, you have the long lot, outlot on the west side of Lake Susan or
Powers Boulevard. I believe that they probably will be pushing the 29% or
whatever impervious is allowed on that site. They're all low. They're in
the 20's or the low 30's. So yes. I believe that you will be setting a
precedent. But most likely I don't know that, it's hard for me to say
what the situation is but we might be even recommending that you, even if
a precedent hadn't been set, we might still be making a similar
recommendation.
r
1
Planning Commission Meeting
April 7, 1993 - Page 2 1
Farmakes: Does this wind up being a variance of a variance?
Olsen: What I recommend is that you amend the PUD contract to state that
Outlot C, you know change that.
Farmakes: It just applies to that specific outlot?
Olsen: Yeah. Or you could change it to all.
Mancino: No. I think the recommendation is that we change it to all,
according to the staff recommendations. It is to change all the outlots. ,
A, which is high density and B, C, and D which are medium, all to 40%.
That's in the staff recommendations.
Farmakes: Then do we modify the original? Is that a modification then oll
the '87 agreement and a modification of the '93?
Olsen: No, that would be a modification to the '87 PUD contract. But
then what are you saying, the '93?
Farmakes: Well, I understood part of the question here was you were
discussing that we're not gaining that much more by asking the applicant
to conform to '93 PUD standards versus '87. I understand the contract ha
expired. But as a matter of practicality.
Olsen: Well it hasn't expired but it allows you to bring in new 1
regulations.
Farmakes: Correct. But as I understand it, there was a 5 year grace
period in there and what happens in the future. Does this just deal with
this particular, this development? I mean if we start, being that that's
expired. Or I'm saying it's expired. I don't know if that's the legal II
term.
Olsen: Right, that's not the correct term but yeah. ,
Farmakes: Are we cutting a new deal here?
Olsen: Yes. As far as this site plan, yes you are. 1
Farmakes: Okay, is this going to come back to haunt us?
Conrad: It shouldn't. But the rationale sort of escapes me right now. II
The standard for the R -8 district is 35% impervious surface. So let's
just talk about R -8 districts. So what the staff is telling me is the
standard should be 40 %. I don't care if this is part of this big PUD or II
not. I'm just curious about an R -8 district and that's really the issue
here. What should the impervious surface ratio be.
Farmakes: Is the motivation though of this particular unit on this 1
particular piece of land, is that, should that be implied to other
developments?
Conrad: But if you like what you see, then we should.
r
1
Planning Commission Meeting
April 7, 1993 - Page 3
Batzli: Well we haven't been brought the rationale to adjust R -8's in
general.
Conrad: No.
Olsen: No.
Conrad: But we certainly can address this as this particular property
and I don't know that it sets a standard.
Batzli: See but I don't know that it does. I'd like to come up with a
' rationale for why it doesn't but I'm still troubled by why we should amend
the density for the Outlot B and D until we see what's proposed on those
areas.
Olsen: Yeah, that's fine. I think one of the reasons that we put that in
there was possibly so that if you were comfortable with it on this, that
you wouldn't be setting precedent throughout the rest of the PUD itself.
We weren't you know dealing with the R -8 district at all but there's no
problem to limit it just to amend that condition just for Outlot C.
' Batzli: What scares me is that if they need a certain number of units on
this particular piece of land and they have to go 40% impervious, if you
go with a lower priced medium density unit, of this style, you would need
' a lot more units apparently to cover than, and if we go to 40 %, then I can
just picture the next one coming and saying, well now we need 45% because
these ones aren't as expensive as the last ones. And I have a tough time
' with that.
Conrad: Me too.
Batzli: And I'm willing I guess to go 40 on this provided that we can
demonstrate, at least to ourselves, that they've given us something that
wasn't in the original PUD. I mean kind of a quit pro pro here that you
know fine that there's a demand for this kind of housing. That's
wonderful but if they're giving us additional landscaping and they're
giving us things that weren't really in the original contract, I don't
have a problem I guess saying okay, we'll relax a little bit on the
' impervious here because I don't know that 5% is going to matter. Provided
that we have proper water drainage off of this site but, and I think we
have enough open space here but I really have a problem, and I guess I'm
' relying on you to tell me that we have that and from the staff report it
looks like we have it but.
Olsen: Well there's no question that over the PUD contract they're
greatly exceeding the architectural design that we possibly could have
gotten and greatly exceeding the landscaping. They were only required to
provide 500 per unit. I guess I know it's way beyond that. He could
maybe even give you.
Mancino: Of course it was 6 years ago too.
t Olsen: Correct, but that's all, you know that's the same we have with the
Lake Susan Hills 9th. That's still, that's $150.00 and yeah we know that
II
Planning Commission Meeting
April 7, 1993 - Page 4 II
that doesn't provide you anything now. So as far as those two issues, ye
and I guess that's one of the reasons staff was in favor of this project
was because they were, even to begin with, coming with those additional
architecture and landscaping. 1
Batzli: And the other side of the coin is that let's apply all of the new
standards to this particular parcel and then they probably can't do this '
kind of development at all.
Olsen: No, not this one.
Batzli: Okay. 1
Farmakes: Then what would have to be done? You'd have to rezone the II property then?
Olsen: No.
Batzli: You'd end up with a different kind of unit. II
Olsen: Right. Their project would not go.
II
Farmakes: A 3 story type?
Olsen: Yes. Because you really reduce, with the 50 and the 30 feet, you I
reduce the size. But then you'll be reducing the density. They'd only
build 8 units per acre and 35% so it's just a different project.
Mancino: Right now it's 5.2. The density is 5.2 units per acre. II
Olsen: Well it's lower than that now with the one removed.
II
Batzli: Okay. Does the applicant wish to address the Commission?
Larry Harris: My name is Larry Harris. I'm an attorney in Waconia. I II
represent the applicant and I want to address, I'll try to short circuit
my presentation because it appears that the Commission and staff may have
come to an understanding on some issues but I want to address some points
First of all in relation to Outlot D. I don't know that the Planning
Commission is aware that my client holds an option on Outlot D and
assuming this project goes, and my client anticipates it will, sometime il
approximately a year from now, my client will be back before this city's
Planning Commission with a development plan for the same, I don't want to
say they're exactly the same units because there may be cosmetic
differences. There may be slight floor plan modifications to accommodate"
conditions in the market, but I want to be real upfront and address Mr.
Batzli's concerns about what type of precedence are being set. For this
type of a project on Outlot D, you're going to be looking at approximate)
the same types of densities. I can't give you exact percentages, whether
it will be 38% or 39% but I want to be up front with you that it won't be
the 31% that's in the 1987 PUD agreement because this type of development II cannot work at that. I cannot speak to the other outlots. That is not
part of my client's concern, although I do know that Outlot A, at least
according to the way I read the planned unit development agreement, is
II
1
Planning Commission Meeting
April 7, 1993 - Page 5
anticipated for much higher density than that which is being sought here.
I think it's important for the Planning Commission to understand that my
client has attempted to work with, not only with staff but the adjoining
property owners to come up with a development that works with what already
exists in that neighborhood. This is not an economic issue. If economics
were the motivating force here, my client could meet all of the current
P -8 requirements and get 39 units in that property. The problem is
they're going to be, that there will be under a 35% density but they're
all going to be stacked. They'll have a garage and a half and they'll
probably sell in the $85,000.00 to $90,000.00 range as opposed to the
$130,000.00 to $140,000.00 range. That's not the type of project that my
client feels is appropriate for this site. But one of the things, I think
it's important for the Planning Commission to realize is it would generate
more profit to build that type of a project. A couple other issues that I
think it's important for the Planning Commission to realize. In relation
to the impervious coverage issue. There have been some changes. While
one unit has been reduced in this area, additional impervious coverage has
been added because in recognition of a suggestion by staff, parking
spaces, four guest parking spaces have been added. Secondly, the city has
indicated they want flow thru traffic because of public safety concerns.
They wanted an area such as this widened. It all makes it a better
project. It makes the project look better but the problem is it generates
a higher impervious surface. Unfortunately everything is a trade off. But
this project is considerably below what maximum density is according to
the ordinance, the PUD agreement and your comprehensive plan. The problem
is for this style and this configuration of a lot, it being long and
narrow, the nature is you're going to have long looping streets and it
generates a lot of impervious surface area. I think it's important to
realize that the difference between 35% and 40% in impervious surface area
here is less than 10,000 square feet in an 20,000 square foot development.
And the issue here really isn't necessarily open space. When the 1987 PUD
agreement was entered into the developer, Dunn and Curry at that time,
dedicated a considerable amount of property to the city for parks and open
spaces. I recognize, the impervious requirements is designed to
accomplish two things typically in a city's ordinances. One, to guarantee
open spaces within the development. Two, to indicate that there's land
available for dedication. That there will be parks and open spaces. The
second requirement has already been complied with here because in 1987, at
the time the original PUD agreement was entered into, there was an
appropriate parkland dedication. One of other issues I think is important
for the Planning Commission to realize is that when the PUD agreement was
entered into in 1987, no one knew exactly what type of developments were
going to be proposed for the multiple unit outlot. The PUD agreement left
the nuts and bolts to be worked out when the actual development plans came
in. They suggest that if an actual development plan had been come forward
in 1987 at the time the PUD agreement was negotiated, that the impervious
surface density requirement probably would not have been the 31% they were
in the agreement. That's not to say it was a bad agreement. It's just to
' say that there wasn't a plan in front of city staff and the Planning
Commission or the Council at that time where they could sit and layout and
see. Okay, this is how a development would lay out. This is how we need
' to sit these types of impervious surface requirements. I think there's
one other issue, at least as far as the developer is concerned. We are
here tonight, Greg Hollings the engineer the developer has retained is
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
April 7, 1993 - Page 6 '
here. Mark Jeffries, the landscape architect who's put together the
landscape plan is here and I'll have him make a brief presentation to the'
Planning Commission to show you how the project is landscaped. To show
you that the project is landscaped in a manner that exceeds the
requirements of your new ordinance and clearly exceeds what is required II
under the 1987 PUD agreement. We are prepared to answer any questions
that the Planning Commission might have tonight but because of time tables
and development pressures that Jasper Development is under, we'd like the'
Planning Commission to make a decision tonight. Thank you. First of all
are there any questions that I can answer for the Planning Commission?
Batzli: We might have some for you later. Thank you. 1
Mark Jeffries: My name's Mark Jeffries, Minnesota Landscape Products and
I'm a landscape designer, not an architect... Some of the changes that
we've made, Jo Ann eluded to. We added one boulevard tree to Lake Susan
Hills Drive. Generally, have beefed up the landscape throughout because
we were given a little bit more room to do that when they got rid of a
couple units. Along Lake Susan Hills Drive you see 4 bermed areas that II
were added that were not there. Along the property line which adjoins the
neighbors, there was these 3 trees were added and there were some Black
Hills Spruce trees added this way and everything kind of slid that
direction, which I think there was a concern about screening in that area.
We did have a detail the last time we made the presentation on these
typicals up here and down here which gives you a pretty good idea of, thill
is a typical, a bermed area which flows from some spruce trees into some
deciduous trees which is different from a bermed area which kind of stands
on it's own. One other change that we made, since we were kind of back t
the drawing board on this, we decided, we kind of rethought the ornamenta
trees on the inside and I don't know how closely you go through the
landscape plan but the quantities stayed the same but the number of
species were decreased from 5 or 6 to 3. And that was just a design
decision. Generally deciduous trees, evergreen trees were, numbers were
added and then the berms along here. Those 4 berms were added that were
not there. This is the typical that was a part of your last packet. Wel
I don't know if you had it. I think I showed it at the last meeting and
this is the typical berm along Powers Boulevard and this is the one over
on the adjoining lot line. Just to give you a look at what a profile of
those typicals would look like...trees and lower growing shrubs underneatil
the deciduous trees and over here, Jo Ann talked about some of the plants
that would be planted in this bermed area. Some of them are quite large.
And that has not been a change but some of these plantings along here are ll
shrubs that get anywhere from 5 to 15 feet high so some are really like
small ornamental trees...That's about all I have to add unless you have
any questions.
Batzli: I'm having a mental block. We talked to the other, did we talk
to the other applicant about salt spray or was it this one?
Olsen: It was the other applicant. And we have sent, met with the DNR II
Forester to confirm what's good and what's not good as boulevard trees.
Batzli: Did we decide that the Black Hills Spruce, there's a lot of them"
a long Powers Boulevard there, are there not? Are those good with salt
1
Planning Commission Meeting
April 7, 1993 - Page 7
spray or are we so far away we don't care?
Olsen: Well right now we're so far away we don't care. What we're doing,
we're meeting with the County next week and we'll be finding out then
' exactly how close the street will be coming. You know there's still that
alternative that we might get some land back. But I do have that list now
of what's good as boulevard and we're going to be comparing that.
' Batzli: Did the tree committee look at that?
' Olsen: No.
Batzli: Is that something they want to look at? Looking at our list?
' Olsen: Oh the list, yeah.
Batzli: Yeah. They're going to review that?
Olsen: I thought you meant each specific plan.
' Batzli: Did anyone get that information from that seminar?
Mancino: Yeah, I've got it. In fact 1 had some questions.
Farmakes: Oh there were staff, city staff members at that seminar.
Olsen: Yes. And then we also.
Farmakes: I think Sharmin was at the seminar.
Olsen: Yes, and we've had the DNR Forester go through the list that we've
got to say what's good and what's not as boulevard versus interior. So
yeah, we have that now and I'll cross check that with what's here.
' Mark Jeffries: It's still my understanding that there's a bike path
between here.
Olsen: Yeah. I don't know that they salt those but.
Mark Jeffries: ...mentioned that could be a problem.
Mancino: Well I do have a question about the sugar maples on the
interior. The landscaping. They are very close to the roadway and 1
think that when you plow that private street in the interior of the
development, there may be. Do you see between I think 10 and 11?
Mark Jeffries: Here?
Mancino: Yes. There's a sugar maple and across the street from that
there are two. And I see those land areas as being the places where snow
will be plowed to and if that snow has salt in it, it will destroy the
sugar maples because the sugar maples are very sensitive to salt in the
soils.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
April 7, 1993 - Page 8
Mark Jeffries: Yeah. Those are all concerns I guess. You know, when yo
do a design you have to come up with all this criteria and maintenance is
one of those things but as we looked at it, we felt there was adequate
room for piling snow in other areas and in those areas to prevent that.
Mancino: But there's still going to be snow there and there's still goinJ
to be salt in the snow and eventually, if you do that year after year, the
salt will build up into the soil so that it will kill the tree because a
sugar maple is listed as being very sensitive to salt in the soil. There
are other trees like a black locust or a burr oak that will withstand the
salt in the soil. So that's a recommendation and you can work with Jo Ann
on that ,
Mark Jeffries: Right. Yeah. I think although city streets get quite a
bit of salt and sand.
Olsen: I don't know if private drives do.
Mark Jeffries: ...for a private street. Usually contractors that use '
salt sand, just use enough salt to keep the sand from freezing. They
don't use salt on their roads like the State or the City might to melt ice
off the roads so it's probably not nearly the problem that it would be foil
instance out on Powers Boulevard or somewhere else.
Mancino: I agree. I'm just concerned of the build -up and you don't want"
to plant this lovely tree and then have it die in 5 years.
Mark Jeffries: I agree, absolutely.
Batzli: Jo Ann, do we normally include a condition regarding a homeowner
association type thing in a development like this?
Olsen: You mean as far as maintaining the private drive? '
Batzli: Yeah.
Olsen: Probably. Well yeah, because we're tying it with the outlot. So
yeah, we probably should. Even just add it to number 1. Add that this be
a homeowners association to maintain Outlot A. Outlot A will essentially"
be the private drive and all the landscaping within the open spaces.
Yeah, that should have been added. I'm sorry.
Batzli: Okay. r
Harberts: Mr. Chair, I just have a comment on landscaping. A comment to II staff. Do with it what you want. With maple trees, again in the front,
I've seen them run into problems with the utilities that service the
individual units. Within 5 years the trees have to be removed because
their roots are interferring with the utilities, water, sewer, whatever. II
I'll just throw that out. You might want to look at that.
Olsen: You're talking about in front of the units?
Harberts: Yeah, I'm talking front of units.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
April 7, 1993 - Page 9
Batzli: Okay. Larry, is the applicant finished?
' Larry Harris: We are clearly here to respond to any questions the
Commission may have but...anything more in the way of a formal
' presentation.
Batzli: Okay, thank you. This is a public hearing. If there's anyone
' that would like to address the Commission, you may do so at this time.
Please come up to the microphone and give us your name and address. Is
there anyone that would like to address the Commission?
' Tom VanAsh: My name is Tom VanAsh. I live at 8320 West Lake Court. I am
one of the homeowners with the property just adjacent to the proposed
development. I guess when we moved to Chanhassen 3 years ago we knew that
' there was going to be proposed townhomes developed and our concerns really
were of the idea in our mind that we would have exactly what it appears
this Commission is more in favor of and that is of the 35% or 31%
impervious coverage. And I guess my thought on that is that's exactly
what I do not want here and that really concerns me because what we're
seeing I think from this developer is a very valid concern for the
homeowners in this area. Our concerns were expressed at the last
' commission meeting and I think he did address those concerns that we had
to a point that I guess I'm surprised. I would ask that this Commission
do approve this developer for what he is proposing and I guess for right
' now that's all I have to say.
Batzli: Okay, thank you. Just to respond to that a little bit. I don't
know that the Commission favors a 3 story development over this or not.
' Something we try to do in Chanhassen is to get a mix of housing for
different types of incomes and different types of densities and different
styles of housing. And when this PUD was originally passed, it didn't
' envision that type of a unit and what they're proposing is changing it,
and that's why I think we're moving so cautiously. I don't think it's
because we favor that but by looking at what's been done in the past, it
' appears that that's what was envisioned as a part of this larger
development. And so I appreciate where you're coming from. That this
looks better perhaps and may be favored by a lot of the people surrounding
it, and that's one of the things obviously that's sitting here in the back
of our minds as well. But we're kind of wrestling with some other things
on it's changes to an agreement and we're trying to come up with rationale
and whether it makes sense. But I appreciate your comment. Would anyone
else like to address the Commission?
Andrew Olson: My name is Andrew Olson. I'm at 8290 West Lake Court. My
' concern would be on their north end, on their park view and the
landscaping they've made their improvements with the trees and stuff but
there's still a big space they have left in there and that's a space, from
my house I look down in that area. And when I went over and looked at the
ones in Waconia, I took the pictures, the Polaroid pictures that you
looked at last time, and I was concerned about the blandness. And the
shutters and the window treatments they've done have improved that but it
wouldn't hurt to add two more trees in that space in there just to break
up the view for me and that would give those lots additional landscaping
for themselves, or spread something out.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
April 7, 1993 - Page 10
Batzli: Would you point on this map to where you're referring to? Are
you referring to units, the back of units 5 and 6? '
Andrew Olson: This one. I'm up over here. I'look down right in here.
Batzli: Jo Ann, is the reason that we didn't put any, is that where. '
Andrew Olson: ...parking on here?
Olsen: No, actually it's my understanding that the views and your views
were still covered.
Mark Jeffries: Jo Ann, that's the old plan. 1
Olsen: Right, I know...They've added. This is the new one. The colored
map...
Mark Jeffries: Maybe we've got a little disagreement as far as what the
sight lines are here. Our intent was to screen those. '
Olsen: Screen all the sight lines.
Mark Jeffries: I thought that was done with this. And the way we had, well
actually stood out on the property and tried to determine that and to the
best that we could determine, those were the sight lines. I thought the
sight lines were coming off this direction and we didn't want to
completely close that area off. We wanted it to be open the sight lines
up for the people who live here out towards Powers Boulevard. Or out
towards that parkland that's out there. So from my point of view, I would,
not be opposed to tweaking some of these to do that if they're not drawn
exactly in the right spot.
Batzli: Jo Ann, let me ask you something. I know that we were talking II
about having kind of a temporary pond in that area on the city property.
By moving those trees, is that moving it within an area that's going to
stay pretty soggy?
Olsen: We don't have the detailed plans on the design of that pond so I
can't answer that. But I don't believe it's going to be...yeah but as fart
where the soil will be saturated and the depth, I don't have those.
Batzli: I'm just thinking white pine might be the exact kind of tree you '
want there.
Mark Jeffries: Well those are all you know, concerns when you get to the
installation, there's also...design and quite likely, when the site is
graded, you will make some adjustments with maybe species and where an
island may sit or whatever...That's very true.
Batzli: Okay, thank you. Did you have anything else sir? ,
Andrew Olson: No, that's it.
Batzli: Does anyone else? Okay.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
1 April 7, 1993 - Page 11
Gary Kassen: My name is Gary Kassen and I live at 8270 West Lake Court
and I'd like to start off by complimenting the builder on how well he
responded to our concerns at the last meeting. I'm really pleased to see
the changes that he's made and I think they're very nice townhomes. If
1 we're going to put townhomes in there, I think they're nice townhomes.
The concern that I had was, or maybe it's a question, is the type of trees
that you're going to have along Powers Boulevard and the plan that I
picked up from Jo Ann last week listed, correct me if I'm wrong, Black
1 Hills spruce, Austrian pine, white oak and sugar maple. Is that correct?
Mark Jeffries: That's correct.
1 Gary Kassen: Okay. I contacted the Forestry Department at the University
of Minnesota and 3 of those 4 are very tolerant to salt. The sugar maple,
' like was mentioned earlier, is not very tolerant. And they recommend
within 60 feet of a highway that you do not use sugar maple. So I would
assume that would be within 60 feet.
' Olsen: We now know that too and we will be working with that. Adjusting
that.
' Gary Kassen: As a possible alternative you may want to consider a Norway
maple. They look about the same and they're very tolerant to salt.
That's all I have.
Batzli: Okay, thank you. Anyone else like to address the Commission?
Thank you very much sir for your comments. I was feeling sorry for the
landscape designer here. We're all trying to redo his design. Would
1 anyone else like to address the Commission? Is there a motion to close
the public hearing?
' Conrad moved, Mancino seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Batzli: Jeff, do you want to start?
' Farmakes: Why not. I'll be over with first then. I too feel that the
developer has responded well to all the points that we talked about last
meeting. I'm not as concerned with the 5 %. Looking at that as a problem.
But I am concerned about it as a precedent. And I'm not, I have to admit
I do not understand the legality commitment that the city made in '87 as
well as I should. I read the history and so on but it didn't leave me
with a good confidence level that I understand the philosophical
commitment that the city made. I understand the practical commitment and
so on. I am a little nervous though about how long term the city commits.
How long do we commit when we change these ordinances over years? Where
we start to become more practical to solve the problem. The problem of
developing a large expanse of land and that takes a certain amount of time
' to develop hundreds of homes upon. Where we leave with the old ordinances
and where we begin with the new. And what our attitude is towards that
once it's expired. Do we pick and choose or, that leaves me a little
uncomfortable. I would prefer that when that type of event happens, that
' there's a better sequence of what we go to, maybe we should be looking at
that farther down the line here. But getting back to this project,
1
II
Planning Commission Meeting
April 7, 1993 - Page 12
II
obviously up in the corner there against the single family zone, the
developer has responded well to those concerns. I'm not going to get into,
picking and choosing trees. I think that the staff can work that out
between the Arboretum and the stuff that was brought back and so on. II Obviously in the long run it would save us a lot of time if we would
develop a list of trees that are in restrictive areas. Restrictions in
weather and salt and leave that up, like we did with the primary list and
let them choose from that. And I'm glad that the homeowners are pleased"
with this. We sort of had a series I think of a couple of developments
here in a row where the builder has worked to his neighbors concerns and
it seems to have worked out well. And it gives me hope and optimism so II
that's the end of my comments.
Batzli: Thank you. Nancy.
Mancino: I just have a couple of questions and a few concerns and I also'
would like to branch off a little bit about the...of this proposal because
I think that there are some good strengths in it. The questions I have.
Jo Ann, I'm concerned about the limited number of visitor parking spaces. i
I mean if I lived here and I'm going to have people over for, my husband's
family over for Christmas, one day occasionally, and the family reunion, 11 where do people park? I mean I can see the 4 spaces and I see the 2 in
front of our garage. And let's say I have 10 cars and Lake Susan Hills
Drive is now going to be restricted parking. So do people end up going to
the West Lake Court and parking their cars?
II
Olsen: Well it's wherever they can park. I mean a lot of the private
drive itself in here is going to be signed no parking also and, I mean I
that's always a concern. Actually we don't have anything that requires
even the 4 visitor parking. That's something that we just kind of threw
in. They're meeting all the parking requirements just with their garage.
Harberts: It's called public bus. I
Olsen: So it's a good concern. I don't know, it was an issue where we
decided yes we do need some visitor parking but we don't have any equation'
that. says how much per unit. Yes, there's going to be always times when
there's not going to be parking that's acommodated. Also, just the fact II that the impervious coverage was already so tight, we didnt' want to add
10. It's just we wanted the more green space there so, you know what
we've done to address that is to mark the places where we don't want
people to park. I think we realize that there are going to be cases wherll
there will be parking along the streets and so we're being proactive and
saying okay, if that happens, this is where we absolutely don't want it.
We don't want parking, on street parking. And that's as far as we've II gone.
Mancino: Is this a reason to amend the R -8 and some of the multi density
to that standard for visitor parking? '
Olsen: Yes.
Mancino: Because you know I can see at Christmastime, you have your whol
family and have a family reunion over, and they're trapsing from West Lake
II
1
Planning Commission Meeting
April 7, 1993 -- Page 13
Court to your particular unit here.
' Olsen: Especially when it's a private drive. Yeah, and they're narrow.
Yes. But again, you have to understand that that's going to demand more
for you to amend the impervious coverage possibly. I don't know.
Underground parking lots.
' Mancino: Thank you. My other issue is, I'm still having a hard time
moving from 35 to 40 impervious coverage. I like open space. There are
only 3 reasons to me to justify to move and I'm still not sold and one of
those is the low density of the, I had thought it was 5.2 units per acre.
Is that still?
Olsen: Well now it's, I don't have my calculator but now it's 24 units.
Mancino: And that's the gross density?
Olsen: Yes. We do gross density here because it's all, you really can't
take out the, otherwise you just have the townhome units itself. It's not
like they have a lot and a public street to take out and wetlands. So it
was gross acreage. So it'd be 24 units divided by the gross acreage. So
' I did not recalculate that for the 24 units so I'm sure it's less than 5,
if it was 5 with the.
Mancino: Well no. According to the last staff report, which is from the
17th, you had calculated it.
Olsen: 5.9. Oh okay. So 5.2 is the new one.
' Mancino: Now when the original agreement was written in '87 and it had
9.33, was that also gross density? So are these comparable?
Olsen: Yeah, that was gross density. And what that was doing is that
they had mentioned, during the concept plan review was say like Outlot C
'
was going to have 42 units and Outlot D was going to have you know 56
units so what we did was go back and 4.5 acres with the 46 units and
that's where we came up with the densities for each one. Again I'm not
sure where the 31 %, 29% impervious coverage came from.
' Mancino: But for the going to 40% we get the lower density. We're also
getting one level units and you know the other thing about this Outlot C
is that it does abut Lake Susan Park so that there is open space abutting
it. There is a parklike space. So you know, that's still an issue for me
and I haven't really decided. But I do know that if we change this
particular outlot to 40 %, I don't agree with the recommendation to change
the others. I think that each outlot developer should come before us and
give a direction.
' Olsen: And prove his case, yeah.
Mancino: Some of the strengths that I think this development brings to us
is that it's targeting a very important housing market and housing
alternative, and that is the need for empty nester housing. And I did see
that in the comprehensive plan that it is one of the segments that the
1
Planning Commission Meeting
April 7, 1993 - Page 14
comprehensive plan said that we have a current need for. And that is thall
55 to 64 year old empty nesters and I think it does a good job of
targeting them. I think the architectural design is of high quality. I
think with the changes that were made. I think the landscaping is II excellent. Very good. A few changes but I like the landscaping. And I
also think that it's compatible with adjacent single family home
neighborhoods. I think that the owner /occupied townhomes are of high
quality design which fits with the single family homes in the area. And 41
think it will be creating a good mix of homeowners as far as there's goindl
to be families. There's going to be singles. There's going to be
couples. It's just a nice mix. And the...is another strength is just till
densities. The low density of 5.2 acres. 5o that would be a good reason
for the development. And that's all.
Batzli: You initially said you weren't sold on the 40% but you've got a II.
lot of strengths here that made it sound like you're leaning a different
way. Are you not sold enough on the 40% that you would vote against the
project the way it currently stands? Do the strengths not outweigh the II
40% for you?
Mancino: I would like to hear some other viewpoints. At this point the
outweigh.
Batzli: Okay. Fair enough. Joe.
Scott: Without repeating anybody. I'm kind of coming at this looking at"
how this particular development would fit into the housing continuum that
I see in Chanhassen and we do a really good job of getting poeple into
town who can afford $130,000.00 and up and that doesn't leave a lot of
room for new residents. And where I live, right across the street there
are twin homes and judging by how long they're on the market when they
sell, there seems to be a pretty strong demand for, and I think these are'
probably under $100,000.00. So I guess where I'm coming at this is
something that, this is a piece of property that could be utilized for a
more affordable housing and I'm kind of, I think Ladd and I may be hung Al
on the same thing. When we take a look at the impervious surface number
and then say well, for those of us who are concerned with that, looking
for compelling reasons to move off of that very easy to understand issue
and have the development proceed as proposed. So I still haven't, in my
mind I still haven't seen what are we getting that's unique. What's
interesting. How does this enhance what I call the housing continuum. So
I mean that's what's getting in my way. So I would say based upon what I
I've heard right now, I still see the 35% is the stumbling block.
Ledvina: Generally I would, I also feel that the other outlots, Outlot A '
and D...I don't think they should be included with this at this time.
This is a difficult issue to wrestle with in terms of affordable housing
and all that. I think we have other opportunities in this area with
Outlot A being designated as even a higher density with R -12 so, and I
look at the overall development so far and I think this arrangement with
Outlot C is going to blend in very nice. And I do think the developer has
added value to this plan beyond what would normally be expected so I'm
going to support it as it's proposed and as staff has recommended.
1
' Planning Commission Meeting
April 7, 1993 - Page 15
Batzli: Thank you. Ladd.
Conrad: I think the developer's done a good job of responding to some of
the neighbors comments and it's good to see the neighborhood supporting. I
think I would too if I had an option of 8 units or 9 units per acre versus
what is being proposed. I think I'd be lobbying for what the developer is
' asking for. I'm struggling, there are a lot of pros and cons. There are
more pros than cons in this one. I think the units are nice. Obviously
when you increase the price by $40,000.00 or $30,000.00 over what it might
have been, you're going to get better units. I think the landscaping is
' good. The city may make some money on the taxes. I think the support is
good. The housing type is maybe new for Chanhassen. Negatives is the
impervious surface and the setbacks and what we may call affordable
' housing. You set out a zone or a district and you kind of say hey
neighbors, so when people move in you understand there may be some higher
density there and that's what we try to do in some areas. So people can
' plan on higher density. And then when the market's not there you sort of
wonder well, if the market's not there for the higher density, should we
let it go. I guess I don't have a problem letting the higher density go.
Sooner or later we'll have that problem. Sooner or later we're going to
have to find a place because the market's going to be there and then we're
going to surprise a lot of people by changing the zoning. They'll be real
irritated because they bought it before we changed the zoning. Here's a
' case where we kind of said hey, it might be higher density. The
developers saying market's not there. As I look at this, it does meet a
need for empty nesters. I can't allow it to set a precedent unless staff
' comes back and tells me that 35% impervious surface is wrong. They're
telling me that it's wrong right now.
Olsen: For this site plan. For this style of homes.
Conrad: You know philosophically, I guess the bottom line is I need staff
to, I need you and Paul, Jo Ann to come back in and tell me why we like
' 35 %. Why 40 isn't right. The logic is, I thought, to have some space for
people to be outside their home. No matter how high we stack them or
whatever, you can go outside and there's a place for you to sit down, have
a lawnchair and a picnic table. That's why Chanhassen sticks pretty much
to the 15,000 square foot lot sizes. We don't particularly don't try to
go under that, even in the development in the PUD. We really have a tough
time going under 15. We're trying to create open spaces where nobody is
and people can enjoy it in common and we're also trying to create space
for residents. Residential use in your own yard. I look at this and I
say, well when people go outside their house, and this is what I'm
' struggling with. When people go outside their house, where do they go?
Maybe they don't care. But with roads and the footprints of the housing,
there's not a lot of space to be in. And that's really what bothers, but
then I'll play the flip side. Will the other 5% really make a difference?
' 10,000 feet.
Batzli: Divide that by 24 units.
t Conrad: It wouldn't. If it was in one spot...
Planning Commission Meeting
April 7, 1993 - Page 16
Batzli: But you know where they're going to be. They're going to be in I
their backyard if they've got a deck. They're not going to be in the
frontyard where all the driveways and stuff is and is there enough room in
the backyard to put a picnic table?
Conrad: That's the issue in my mind. What do we think?
Batzli: There's as much room in their backyard as there is in mine, and II
I live in a PUD.
Conrad: And what do you think about your backyard? ,
Batzli: That's where we spend all our time. I don't know. If you wanted
a bigger backyard, you'd live somewhere else, and I had that option.
Olsen: And there's no children here either. Not that that should matter
but.
Conrad: Why do you say that?
Farmakes: Are you putting that in the ordinance?
Mancino: Well there may be. By the time that they, if they added on the
bottom level, 2 more bedrooms and you've got 4 bedrooms.
Olsen: It's my understanding that children won't be in here but.
Conrad: So the recreation space is on the outside of the property toward
the road.
Batzli: They have as much backyard as I do. Except that they're sharing"
it with somebody right next door, to some extent. But that makes it
bigger and smaller I suppose at the same time.
Ledvina: I think the access to the public facilities here is pretty good'
so that counteracts that situation too.
Conrad: To a degree, yeah. And that's a positive.
Farmakes: I also think with this type of design, it's kind of ambiguous
where front and back is.
Batzli: If there are kids, they'll be in the street anyway. They're in
the street in our neighborhood.
Olsen: Or the driveway. They don't like the grass.
Batzli: If you've got to bounce a ball or ride a bike, they're not going
to be in the grass anyway.
Farmakes: But the agreement does allow for a park close -by.
Conrad: So why are we so concerned in Chanhassen about 15,000 square foo
lots?
1
1
I Planning Commission Meeting
April 7, 1993 - Page 17
I Olsen: We just discussed that tonight.
Conrad: What is it that compells us to provide every resident with that
1 kind of space, which Brian I know you're committed to.
Batzli: Yeah.
1 Conrad: And wanting space for people to be and if we're saying with this
one we don't need it.
1 Mancino: Well no, the majority of people may, I mean I wouldn't buy in
here because it doesn't have enough space for me. I'm a gardener. I want
land, more land around me. So I wouldn't buy it but I think that there
1 are some people, and I'm willing to say there are some people that don't
care about that. I don't know what the percentage is.
1 Batzli: I view it as a visual thing. I view it in this case as I'm
getting enough in trade with increased landscaping and berms and sight
lines that I don't need that additional 50 feet per unit or whatever I get
if I demanded that 5 %. I view it as a safety issue. As enough space for
I people and a visual thing and in this case I just, I don't know, it
doesn't bother me. What I would like to do, and I agree with you is,
we've set certain limits somewhat arbitrarily in order to have a limit and
II to give guidance to developers. And if we think 35 is the right number,
we should know why we think it's the right number as opposed to 40. And
it shouldn't change based upon what kind of unit you can build based on 35
I or 40 %.
Conrad: Right. Absolutely.
II Batzli: That's the only thing the troubles me here except that I look at
the other side of the coin and I say, well in this case it doesn't bother
me. They're giving me enough that I can justify it in my own mind and
II I don't think I'm setting a precedent unless they're willing to give me
the exactly same things on another lot where they want 40 %. And they're
going to have to give me a lot of landscaping. They're going to have to
II give me enough sense of openness that you're getting at least as much if
you were buying a single family house in a PUD. Which is what they're
doing here so.
II Conrad: Okay. Why are they giving, how are they giving you enough
openness?
1 Batzli: Well I'm just saying in these backyards it's as much as I have
and I'm saying.
Conrad: All your lot is in the front yard.
II Batzli: Well I know but it's around the street so I don't go there so
maybe that's a problem with this design being along Powers Boulevard. But
I that's why I don't go in the front yard. Because you feel like you're in
a fishbowl.
II
11
Planning Commission Meeting II April 7, 1993 - Page 18
Conrad: The only absolute is in our recommendation, whether it's pro or II
con is that, and I think the Commissioners have said it already in point
number 2 here. I'm not willing to talk about the 40% for the other
outlots. And I guess I thought we asked legal counsel to tell us whether
we set a precedent doing that for the rest, and Jo Ann said we did. Now
don't know if that.
Olsen: Well within this PUD I think you. II
Conrad: No, we can do anything we want within the PUD so 40% here and 31
in another parcel in a PUD should not set a precedent. Should not in my
mind but again I'm not a lawyer.
Olsen: With other R -8 districts, simple R -8 districts, no you're not
II
setting a precedent.
Conrad: Right, right. But I would make that real clear if we did decide
to go along with that. That our intent is not to set a precedent for the '
other outlots. The only other question Jo Ann, on point number 7 under
recommendations. We had storm sewer calculations for a 10 year storm II event. Why is that 10 years? I thought we always used 100 years.
Olsen: It's with a whole new surface water management and I know that we,
at all those meetings that we have, the SWMP meetings, with the new
design, I'm really not the person to be answering this but the 10 year is
now preferred over the 100 year and exactly why I can't.
Batzli: Ladd, that must have been the meeting you and I missed. II
Ledvina: If you sized for the 100 year storm, you'd be making 5 foot
culverts all over the place. And when you're talking about just physical"
structures, even if they wash out once in a hundred years, the cost of
building that additional sizing is just not worth it.
Conrad: That got by us didn't it? II
Batzli: Yeah, I don't remember that.
II
Conrad: Yeah, well it's understandable.
Batzli: We could just build these houses on stilts.
II
Conrad: We've had a couple hundred storms in the last couple years and
that can screw up everything you've done for the previous 9 years or II whatever.
Batzli: Don't know how that got in. II Olsen: The 10 year now is what Bonestroo is recommending.
Batzli: This isn't our Best Practices Handbook kind of stuff now? Okay.'
Olsen: The 10 year, I can't tell you...but they now come up with the
design and 10 year is what they're proposing.
II
1
Planning Commission Meeting
April 7, 1993 - Page 19
' Batzli: Did you want to address this?
Greg Hailing: I could answer that question a little bit because I'm an
' engineer. The 10 year, like he said, is the pipe design. If you look at
100 year storm and design like swales between buildings and that sort of
thing so it can go over the curb, so it will be deeper in the street, that
type of thing, on your big storm. On your ponds normally there's some,
the ponds are sized for 100 year storms but the structures, which is the
pipe leading out is a 10 year. That's what they're referring to.
Batzli: Yeah, and that snakes sense then with this condition because what
it's talking about is the storm sewer. Did you have anything else Ladd?
Conrad: That's all.
Batzli: Okay, Diane.
Harberts: I'm going to be supporting staff's recommendation with the
exception of number 2 as was discussed by the other commissioners. I
guess just a general question is, what is affordable housing? There's
' current legislation right now down at the State Capitol that will
basically penalize cities if they don't have a certain percentage or
whatever of affordable housing. It could also dictate what roads
' will be built and what roads will not be built and 212 is one of those
that may not be built depending on, I guess it's really a question to the
city or whatever in terms of some guidance here. What's affordable
housing?
Conrad: This is not it.
' Harberts: No, this isn't it.
Scott: The Met Council will define that. That's the unfortunate thing.
Farmakes: Maybe we can ask the legislators in St. Paul.
Scott: Well it's already to the House.
Harberts: It's on the Senate floor.
Mancino: Where do we have affordable housing? Medium density.
Olsen: Well we're getting some now with the Oaks. Were you involved with
' that?
Mancino: Is that the one's across the street from Target, up on the hill?
Olsen: Right. And then the apartment units downtown are affordable.
Batzli: But we can't, other than setting aside some zoned areas, what do
we do? Do we have to build it if we don't have enough?
Olsen: Usually you have to subsidize. That's what's happening with those
two cases. It's being subsidized.
11
Planning Commission Meeting 1
April 7, 1993 - Page 20
Farmakes: Does the City though become involved in that? '
Olsen: The City does get involved.
Farmakes: Should we be involved in specifying market prices of homes? I
don't think so. I don't see where we're.
Conrad: We just have to make sure there are some forecasts to new
residents who are moving in so they can understand where we might be
tempted to put it so they can make a calculated because when they build,
that there's a chance that affordable housing might be next to them.
That's our obligation.
Ledvina: Just so the Commission is aware, the Carver County Housing and II.
Redevelopment Authority has contacted our city staff and asked to work
with our HRA in seeking out projects for high density and subsidized. So
there are some joint efforts that are being initiated. 1
Farmakes: I don't think Chanhassen has been anti high density as far as
apartment buildings. We have some large apartment complexes that are
quite old in the community. The question then becomes though, do we buil"
a building and there's no market for it. And it won't be the first time
the government has specified that something be built and there's no one to
fill it up. 1
Conrad: You really want the market demand to be there first. Or at least
I'd like that to be. Yeah, if you took a vote of Chanhassen residents, II
not many people are going to ask for high density.
Scott: No but if you look at the reverse commute issue and you see how II many people are working in that part of town or that kind of housing and
coming here to work. So is there a market? I don't know.
Farmakes: There's also, is there precedent though? We get into, we're II
getting off the issue here but.
Batzli: Diane, did you have anything else?
Harberts: No.
Batzli: I, on a kind of more technical basis here, I would like to see II
our first condition changed to talk about requiring some sort of
homeowners associations in order to take care of the common drive and
outlots to the extent there are any on this property. And condition II number 2, I would like to see Outlots A, B, C and D kind of deleted and
say instead something like, this site cannot exceed 40%. I'd also like to
see a 15th condition which talks about sight lines to the north and to
review the species of trees for salt tolerance, etc but I'm willing to, II
you know I'd like to see their landscape designer work with staff just to
make sure that those issues are covered and not need to get into so much
of a requiring what they do. Our knowledge is that we're at the formativil
stages I think of our knowledge and that's dangerous. I think the
professionals should be looking at that. You've been to one seminar I
mean. ,
1
Planning Commission Meeting
April 7, 1993 - Page 21
' Mancino: I mean I've got my list here. I'm all prepared.
Batzli: Anyway, so we're working on that but I appreciate your patience
with us and we have a concern which should at least, I think that
demonstrates our heart's in the right place anyway. On a more big picture
level, I believe that this doesn't set a precedent. I think there's been
11 kind of a give and take here that at least that would be required in the
other areas, like Outlot D for example where apparently this developer has
an option. That we would have to see something at least as good as this
before we relax it as we did in this case. I think in the PUD we're safe
1 that way and since the PUD doesn't generally apply to an R -8, we're not
setting a precedent outside of the PUD. So I don't see that as a problem.
I think that this development, you know Ladd and I kind of bounced it back
and forth there. What is different about this that makes it okay for me
and I don't know what it is. I can't really put my finger on it other
than I feel that we're getting enough in berming and landscaping and there
' is enough area in the back that for people that want to live in this type
of a unit, I think we're giving them enough space. And only time will
tell. If they sell and they're successful and they're well kept for, we
did a good job you know. This is not an exact science. But I think,
looking at this, that it is, they did a pretty good job on this design and
I think they've met a lot of the neighbors concerns and so I'm going to go
with the staff recommendation to go to 40%, although I would like us to
' take a look at that in a bigger picture. Not just focusing in on the
microcosm of this development and see if 35% is too low and if we're
trying to hold them to too tough of a standard. Or, did we come up with
35% based on the 3 story kind of thing and if we want R -8 and the 3 story
kind of units to both fit into an R -8, what is the right percentage that
we talk about then? So, having said that, is there a motion?
Farmakes: ...why don't you make the motion?
Batzli: I can't make the motion. I would certainly entertain a motion
that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Prairie Creek
Townhomes as shown on revised plans with the conditions 1 thru 14 amended
by number 1 reading, change Lot 25, Block 1 to Outlot A and homeowners
association By -laws shall be submitted to staff for approval and filing
against the subject site. Number 2 would be amended to read, after the
word coverage of this site cannot exceed 40%. And a new condition 15
would read, the applicant shall submit sight line detail for the northern
portion of the development and work with staff to agree on species of
trees along Powers Boulevard and internally to the project. I'd love to
entertain a motion that said something like that.
' Ledvina: So moved.
Farmakes: I'll second it.
' Batzli: It's been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion?
Conrad: Can you do what you just did?
Batzli: I didn't make the motion?
1
Planning Commission Meeting
April 7, 1993 - Page 22
Ledvina: I made the motion.
1
Harberts: Is this normal precedence that the Chair makes the motion, he
can if that's what's usually been followed? 1
Batzli: No, the By -laws say I can't.
Conrad: Sure can't. '
Olsen: But there's no reason they say that. I mean we can change that.
There's no reason. Next meeting we'll change that.
Batzli: Well, did I make the motion Ladd? Do you think I made the
motion? ,
Conrad: Yes.
Batzli: I can't withdraw it because I really didn't make it. ,
Ledvina: Do you want a friendly amendment?
Conrad: No.
Batzli: Is there any other discussion?
Ledvina moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Prairie Creek Townhomes as shown on the revised plans dated
March 25, 1993 with the following conditions:
1. Change Lot 25, Block 1 to Outlot A and Homeowners Association By -laws
shall be submitted to staff for approval and filing against the
subject site.
2. Amend the PUD Contract to state the impervious coverage of this site I
cannot exceed 40 %.
3. The city shall petition Carver County to vacate any unnecessary
right -of -way along Powers Boulevard (CR 17). ,
4. The townhome units shall conform to the design and architecture as
proposed by the applicant in their attached narrative dated March 24,'
1993.
5. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City
and provide a financial security to guarantee installation of the
public improvements and compliance with the conditions of approval.
6. The proposed walkway along Powers Boulevard shall be constructed
within the development in accordance to the City's typical 8 foot
wide bituminous trail standards, unless it is to be relocated within
the County right -of -way by Carver County and City.
7. The applicant shall supply detailed sewer calculations for a 10 year
storm event for the City Engineer to review and approve. The
1
Planning Commission Meeting
April 7, 1993 - Page 23
1 applicant shall construct an interim sedimentation basin at the storm
sewer discharge point (Outlot C). The basin shall be sized based on
contributing area and land use, approximately 0.30 to 0.50 acre /feet
' in size. In addition, the applicant shall pay a cash contribution
into the City's storm water management program in lieu of
constructing a retention pond on site for water quality purposes. The
' City's surface water management consultant, Bonestroo & Associates,
will determine the cash contribution amount.
8. The applicant shall suppy detailed construction plans for sanitary
' sewer, watermain, street access points and storm sewer improvements
for the City to review and approve. All utility improvements shall
be constructed in accordance with the City's 1993 Standard
1 Specifications and Detail Plates.
9. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining and complying with
1 all necessary permits such as MWCC, Health Department, Watershed
District, PCA and Carver County Highway Department.
10. Parking shall be prohibited along Lake Susan Hills Drive adjacent to
this development. the City will proceed in preparing a resolution
restricting parking along Lake Susan Hills Drive.
' 11. The applicant shall incorporate the City's Best Management Practice
Handbook for site restoration and additional erosion control measures
during the construction process.
12. A cross access eaesment should be conveyed to all the lots for use of
the private street.
13. Fire Marshal conditions:
a. The marking of fire lane on private and public property shall
' designated and approved by the Fire Chief [pursuant to
1988 UFC Sec. 10.207(w)]. See site plan submitted by Fire
Marshal for exact location.
' b. "No Parking Fire Lane" signs shall be installed as per indicated
on submitted site plan [pursuant to Chanhassen City Policy
#06 -1991 (copy enclosed)].
1 c. A 10 foot clear space shall be maintained around fire hydrants,
i.e. NSP transformers, telephone, cable boxes, all landscape
trees and shurbs. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance.
d. Submit a Fire Marshal approved "Pre -Fire Plan ", pursuant to
Chanhassen City Policy #07 -1991 (copy enclosed).
1 e. Add and /or relocate fire hydrants as indicated on submitted site,
pursuant to 1988 UFC Division 3.
1 f. Fire apparatus access road shall be designed, built and
maintained before and during construction of the townhouse units.
11
Planning Commission Meeting 1
April 7, 1993 - Page 24
The driving surface must meet Chanhassen Engineering
specifications, pursuant to 1988 UFC 10.207(f).
g. Premise identification Policy #29 -1992 (copy enclosed).
14. Building Official conditions:
a. Indicate lowest floor elevations and garage floor elevations for I
each house pad on the grading plan prior to final plat approval.
b. Submit details on corrected pads including compaction tests,
limits of the pads and elevations of excavations to the
Inspections Division. A general soils report for the developmen
should also be submitted to the Inspections Division. This must
be done prior to issuance of building permits.
c. Adjust property lines, building sizes, wall openings or a II combination of all three to comply with the building code prior
to final plat approval.
d. Provide easements for driveways and private roads to a public wall
prior to final plat approval.
e. Submit proposed street name(s) for review prior to final plat
approval.
15. The applicant shall submit sight line details for the northern
portion of the development and work with staff to agree on species oll
trees along Powers Boulevard and internally to the project.
All voted in favor except Conrad who opposed and the motion carried with II
vote of 6 to 1.
Batzli: Was there any other no votes? Okay. And your reasons Ladd?
Conrad: Really the issue of impervious surface and space. Enough space
in this particular design for people. I'm not convinced as we shrunk our
setbacks, I'm not convinced in this design that we have people space buil�
in.
Batzli: Okay. That's a valid concern. The motion does carry. When doell
this go to City Council?
Olsen: It now goes to the City Council on April 26th. '
Batzli: Okay. Thank you very much for coming in.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Batzli so noted the Minutes of the Planning
Commission meeting dated March 17, 1993 as presented.
OPEN DISCUSSION:
1
Batzli: Jo Ann, did you want to talk to us about this urban wetland
coalition memo at all?
1
Planning Commission Meeting
April 7, 1993 - Page 25
1 Olsen: No. It's pretty self explanatory.
Batzli: Okay. Open discussion. Let me just ask this question Ladd.
1 We're in open discussion. This is our last item and then we can get out
of here. I would be happy from refraining from doing what I just did if
it bothers the Commission. In fact, even if it doesn't bother the
1 Commission. If even one Commissioners is bothered by what, by me stating
the motion and asking if someone would like to make a motion like that, I
would be happy to refrain from doing that.
1 Conrad: I think Brian when it facilitates, when you recognize a confused
Planning Commission and you think you can condense it, I think that's real
valid to do it. On the other hand the negative is, it doesn't make us
1 think about, Planning Commissioners think about making that motion.
Batzli: I would agree.
1 Conrad: And I think that's real important. Your job is not to, it's our
job to make that motion and your's to make sure we can do it somehow.
So I've said both things but I think in some cases, when you have a good
1 grasp of the situation, I think you should be, that's okay with me. But
it's really, the Chairman cannot make a motion and that's in Roberts Rules
or whatever.
1 Harberts: It depends on what the precedence in previous meeting.
1 Olsen: It's in our By -laws.
Batzli: It's in our By-laws and I don't want to amend our By- laws...it's
been the precedence of this group that the Chair does not make the
1 motions. The reason that I did it, and this is not to be condensending or
anything else but the group, to a large extent has not had a lot of
activity in making motions such as this and that's why I did it. I was
1 trying to facilitate. If people don't agree with the motion and want to
change it in any way, they should do that. I'm not trying to ram anything
down anyone's throats other than to kind of go through the motion process
until people feel more comfortable doing it themselves.
1 Scott: Well in my case, I mean I wasn't particularly nuts about the
situation anyway so I wasn't going to be making the motion on it. But
1 you're right, because I'll look at some of these things and I'll go, okay
I'll give it a shot. And you kind of go through it and I know where
you're coming from because then in a lot of instances, even when I'm in
1 favor of a particular item, I find it somewhat awkward to sit down and go,
kind of go through this but I'm always willing to do it because that's,
I think that's causability to go, now what are we really agreeing to here
and I recall one time when I went through that and then you asked a really
' good question about something. And then Ladd, and discussed it a little
bit more and I think after going through that effort, we got to be real
comfortable with what we were actually trying to accomplish. So you
1 know, I personally don't have a problem with if you go and state that.
Batzli: Well I'm going to do it, I'll tell you right now, I'm going to do
it very minimally but I thought I had heard a consensus that we were going
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
April 7, 1993 - Page 26
to go on this and when no one really jumped into the fray, I just kind of I
did it. So I apologize if it offends anyone.
Conrad: I think I should do it Brian. I guess in this case I wish you II
didn't because I was interested in who was going to say what. And I don'
have any, I have no problem sitting here for 5 minutes waiting for
somebody to do it and I really don't and we shouldn't feel that pressure
to do it. I think it's just a good exercise for us to be thinking about
that. And we have no problem if the motion doesn't get a second. I don't
think people shouldn't be afraid...
Scott: Or if you're not really convinced enough that something should
happen to make the motion, because I sure wasn't.
Conrad: See that's what the silence was telling me a little bit but I wall'
interested in who was going to step forward. And it was you.
Batzli: And I wrecked it for you.
1
Conrad: Mr. Large Lot steps forward and makes the motion.
Batzli: You wanted to get out of here early Ladd. 1
Conrad: I've got to go but yeah.
Farmakes: I think as a matter of practicality he just went through, at
the end how he would change the ordinance. It summed up, I thought what
the majority of the opinion was so I didn't see any reason to repeat it. I
Other than a technical, maybe we should make an ordinance about this.
Olsen: There's no reason why you can't amend the By -laws. I checked thall
with Roger and there's no reason why the Chairman.
Batzli: I don't want to amend the By -laws. I don't want to make motions
but I was just trying to facilitate. Do we have a huge meeting for the
next time?
Olsen: No, but you've got Lake Susan Hills 9th.
Scott: That's a huge meeting.
to adjourn the meeting.
Ledvina moved, Farmakes seconded t . All voted in d� g
favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:07 p.m.
Submitted by Paul Krauss
Planning Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
1 PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MEETING
APRIL 15, 1993
1 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Bill Bernh•e Brian Beniek, J � k, Dave Johnson, Don
Chmiel, Dave Dummer, Eldon Berkland, Craig Blechta
1 STAFF PRESENT: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official
Bob Zydowsky, Public Safety Officer
Sgt. Julie Boden, CCSO
Bob Moore, 1st Assistant Chief
Jim Theis, Chanhassen Fire Department
At 6:30 PM, the Building Inspections Division hosted a walk through of the Target
construction site to explain inspection procedures.
Chairman Beniek
opened the meeting at 7:30 PM.
1 Mayor Don Chmiel motioned, Commissioner Blechta seconded, to approve the 3/11/93
minutes as written. All voted in favor and the motion passed.
Lt. Mike Siitari from the Edina Police Department spoke to the Commission on the 800
Mhz system. Lt. Siitari talked about the cost involved, the technology capabilities, and the
advantages and disadvantages of the system. Discussion was had on understanding the need
for such a system, and questions were answered by Lt. Siitari and Jim Theis.
1 CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT
Bob Moore reported to the Commission that the bids for the truck repairs are currently
being accepted.
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
Sgt. Boden reported that juveniles have been arrested in connection with the vandalism of
windows at the old Merlin's Hardware location.
Carver County has had extra patrol in the parking lot of Filly's due to a large number of
juveniles reported to be loitering in the area and rumors of fights. Extra patrol has deterred
anticipated problems.
BUILDING INSPECTIONS
Building Official Steve Kirchman reported to the Commission that building permits are up.
1
1
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MINUTES
April 15, 1993
Page 2 1
PUBLIC SAFETY
Public Safety Officer Bob Zydowsky presented a plaque to Commissioner Bernhjelm on
behalf of the Public Safety Department and Commission for his appointment as Chief of
Police for the Edina Police Department
Officer Zydowsky also reported that the new CSO vehicle is expected to arrive in the first
week of May.
Dave Johnson reported on the status of the Highway 5 Commission.
The Commission chose to meet at the Main Fire Station on Laredo for the May 13, 1993, 1
Commission meeting.
Commissioner BIechta motioned, Commissioner Berkland seconded, to adjourn the meeting
at 8:30 PM.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1