1g. Minutes .1 / •
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 25, 1993
Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. The meeting was opened
with the Pledge to the Flag.
•
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Senn, Councilman Mason and
Councilwoman Dockendorf
COUNCIL. MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Wing
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Todd Gerhardt, Charles Folch,
Todd Hoffman, Paul Krauss; Kate Aanenson, and Sharain Al -Jaff
1
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to
' approve the agenda as presented.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: ACCEPT DONATION FROM THE CHANHASSEN SNOWMOBILE CLUB, MATT
CHRY.
Mayor Chmiei: Is Matt Emry here? Matt's not here. I'd like to thank the
Snowmobile Club for making that donation to the City. The amount is $200.00 and
it's utilizing money that they've had that we have for improvements for city
parks and recreation facilities. On behalf of the City Council, we thank the
Snowmobile Club for providing us with that $200.00. Is there a motion to accept
that?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: So moved.
Councilman Mason; Second.
Mayor Chmiel: Any discussion?
Councilwoman Dockendorf:. I'd just like to add that I'd also like to thank the
Snowmobile Club for taking out the ad in the Villager reminding us all the rules
of snowmobile use in our city.
1 Mayor Chmiei: Yes. 1 was very happy to see that after my phone was ringing.
1 Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to accept the donation
in the amount of *200.00 from the Chanhassen Snowmobile Club. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
1 CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to
approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's
recommendations:
1 a. Approve Amended Development Contract for Bluff Creek Estates First Addition,
Project No. 92 -10.
b. Resolution $92 -03: Approve Designations to the Municipal State Aid System.
t
1
1
II City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993
c. Approve Agreements for Acquisition of Easement Nos. 2 & 15 for the Upper
Bluff Creek Trunk Utilities Project 91 -17.
f. Approval of Accounts. l
g. City Council Minutes dated January 11, 1993
Planning Commission Minutes dated January 6, 1993
Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated December 15, 1992
Public Safety Commission Minutes dated January 14, 1993
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
1 D. SET DATE FOR 1993 TAX INCREMENT BONDS.
1 Councilman Senn: In item (d), there's a number of items as I understand that
we're going to bond on. Several of those items relate to, in effect ratifying
what has already been done. For example, the taking of the Taco Shop, the
' taking of the land for Target, etc. However, two items on here that we're going
to bond on are items relating to the purchase of property which really hasn't
received any real public discussion at this point and that is the bowling alley
and the Bloomberg property which is being proposed to be taken for a combination
1 conference center and community center I believe. I would like to see those
items deleted from the bond sale. I think the sore appropriate time to consider
those would be at such time that there's in fact a decision that there is a
1 project. That that project involves a taking and therefore then proceeding
knowing in effect what that is versus right now really being undefined.
Mayor Chmiel: If I understand it correctly, what you're saying is, he would
1 like that segment of Bloomberg as well as the combination community center/
conference center be removed. Is that what you're indicating?
1 Councilman Senn: I'm trying to find the list in last week's packet which broke
down the dollar amounts.
Don Ashworth: May I?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Maybe Don can explain a portion of it.
1 Councilman Senn: I'm sorry, I found it here. As I understand the breakdown,
$313,000.00 is for the Taco Shop, Si million is for Apple Valley Red -E -Mix,
$490,000.00 is for the James property, $2,736,000.00 is for the Burdick
1 property. In addition to that, $850,000.00 is for the bowling center and $1.2
million is for the Bloomberg property. I met with Mr. Ashworth this week and
basically came to the understanding that those first four items are pretty much,
I mean that money has been spent. It's already been spent out of former bond
ml issues let's call it and now it's time for reimbursement. So there's not really
a whole lot of consideration there. However, the last two items totaling a
little over $2 million are in fact bonding for projects that, at least in my
I opinion, have not either been defined, planned or publically commented on and I
think it's a mistake to go to a sale on them.
Don Ashworth: Staff has absolutely no problem with that. Again, the primary
point is the reimbursement on the acquisition dollars that have been spent. I
1 2
1
City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993 1
might ask the Council to consider in place of the bowling center to add one that
would be referred to as miscellaneous acquisition /improvement projects,
$750,000.00. That relates to three smaller projects that fall under the same
category. At the time we first put out this list with Springsted we didn't have
the final numbers on West 79th Street improvements, the bus turn around, Market
Square storm sewer, and Hanus acquisition but those four are complete. The
total of those is $750,000.00. So we would be deleting bowling center, deleting
Bloomberg and adding micellaneous acquisition for $750,000.00. It would be a
net deletion of $1,300,000.00.
Mayor Chmiel: Right.
Councilman Senn: Don, are those new ones likewise ones that in effect have
already been expended?
Don Ashworth: Right. Completed 79th Street public improvements. We've 1
completed the storm sewer. We've completed the turn around.
Councilman Senn: I wouldn't have a problem with that.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion?
Councilman Mason: I think what Councilman Senn has said makes a lot of sense
and I would certainly go along with that.
Mayor Chmiel: Right, I don't disagree with that either. Would you like to move
that with the addition of that $750,000.00 for the miscellaneous acquisition.
Councilman Senn: I'm not quite sure how to word it but I'll just say I move
approval with deletion of the $850,000.00 for the bowling center and the $1.2
million for Bloomberg's property and the addition of $750,000.00 for the four
projects that Don mentioned. 1
Don Ashworth: Hopefully I can have a friendly amendment in that this was
originally set for February 8th and we tabled it for 2 weeks and so the new date
should be shown as February 22, 1993.
Councilman Senn: Fine.
Councilman Mason: I second it.
Resolution *92 -04: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve
setting the date of February 22, 1993 for the 1993 Tax Increment Bonds deleting
$850,000.00 for the bowling center, deleting $1.2 millino for Bloomberg
properties and adding *750,000.00 for micellaneous acquisition /improvements.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
E. PRELIMINARY PLAT TO REPLAT 2 LOTS INTO 2 LOTS AND 1 OUTLOT. SOUTH OF 11 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD JUST NORTH OF NEZ PERCE DRIVE, VINEW00D ADDITION.
STUART HOARN.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: The reason I asked to discuss this separately is we
were just handed this letter from several neighbors in the Vineland Forest area
3
11 City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993
who have some strong concerns about subdivision of the lot and I would just ask
staff a little clearer explanation of what their concerns may be and if they've
been addressed at the Planning Commission.
II Kate Aanenson: If there's a spokesmen here, maybe it'd be better for them to
speak to it but I can go through the subdivision itself if that's what you'd
like.
II Mayor Chmiel: And in addition to that, if I could, in looking at the two lots
that we're subdividing, we show that it's .86 acres in size and we're going to
divide it into .48 acres and .41 which makes that .89 as opposed to the .86.
I Which is correct?
Kate Aanenson: They probably rounded up. I could double check that. Just to
1 give you some history on this. This lot was split off Edward Vogel's middle of
last year. Since that time a person has picked up this lot, Mr. Hoarn and has
requested that it be split. Both lots are approximately half acre in size. A
little less than a half acre in size. The concern that the staff had
originally, and we still do, is there is some trees in the area. Not all of
them are of high quality. We did request the home placement plan the first time
and we recommended it the second time. The lots do meet the standards. They
II are flag lots. They can meet the standards. One of the concerns is the
driveway. They showed two separate driveways. This outlot here is under the
city's control. We've granted them an easement to go across that. They had
I shown two separate driveways with that. We would recommend one. Whether
there's one home or not, there would still be an access onto that so one of the
issues that the neighbors had concern with was the two, or the traffic onto that
I but we feel like it's really not an issue because whether there's two homes or
one, there will still be one driveway access at that point. The engineering
department has looked at that and felt that that is really not a bad location
sight distance wise. We did want to prohibit, what we felt was the worst -
II condition, going out onto Pleasant View and recommended denial against that.
Again the Planning Commission addressed those same concerns as far as home
placement plans when they come in. We try to site the home on the lot inasmuch
as to minimize tree loss and it's our understanding that the owners have the
same concerns. The value of the lot is in with the trees. Just some background
too. When Vineland Forest was in, I didn't work on that but in speaking to Jo
Ann, we did walk that site with the Forester. There was a substantial amount of
II
trees on that one too and substantial value of trees were lost when that
subdivision went in too. Unfortunately sometimes that happens when the
subdivision goes in. We do recognize that it's a concern.
' Mayor Chmiel: Do you have any idea of the species of those trees that are
there?
II Kate Aanenson: The ones that are there right now? No, I have not identified
those.
I Councilwoman Dockendorf: Would it be appropriate for any neighbors who may be
here this evening to...
II Mayor Chmiel: Yes it would. Is there anyone wishing to discuss this as well?
Please state your name and your address please.
1 4
City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993 1
Dan Rogers: My name is Dan Rogers and I reside at 6500 Nez Perce. One of the
things that you can't see on that overhead is, if you look directly to the right
I/
•
of Lot 2 there, there's a house currently on that lot and I think you can just
make out maybe the outline of that house.
Kate Aanenson: There?
Dan Rogers: Come down. There. Right there. The driveway for that lot will
very closely meet the corner of the driveway for the proposed development. And
I don't live there. The gentleman that lives there couldn't make it tonight but
it seems that that could be kind of a difficult situation where less traffic
would probably be better than more.
Kate Aanenson: Staff is recommending that we go back to the original proposal
for the single lot split and the driveway be located there. There is a utility
box there too so this is not what we're going to recommend. This is what they
had proposed. They go back to a single driveway, centered where we save the
trees and give separation for the other driveway. 1
Dan Rogers: Okay. I'm not sure I understand. What I'm trying to explain is,
no matter what you do for Lot 1 and 2, if there is one driveway or two coming
out onto Pleasant View. Excuse me, Nez Perce. That driveway or driveways will
converge on the existing driveway for the gentleman who lives next door making a
V at the street.
Kate Aanenson: No. No, they won't. 1
Dan Rogers: No?
Kate Aanenson: No. We've looked at that. That won't.
Dan Rogers: Okay. The other concern is that a few of us came to the Planning
meeting a few weeks ago just to hear what Mr. Hoarn had planned and he wasn't
here so we're just interested to hear what he proposes to put on the lots.
We're concerned with property values because we made quite an investment in our
homes and looked at the area and we're just surprised to hear that that lot
would be split into two. That's the basis for our concerns.
Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you. Is there anyone else? Yes sir. Would you 1
please come to the podium. We do record this and we'd like you to get you on TV
too.
Stuart Hoarn: Oh wonderful. I'm Stuart Hoarn and I own the property there.
Actually my mother and I own it. I do apologize for not being present for the
Planning Commission meeting. My grandmother in Tucson chose an inconvenient
moment to die and she sends her apologies too. In any case, I will address the
question about the driveway being too close there. As far as I'm concerned, I
live on a cul -de -sac now and there are four driveways that come into a tight
radius cul -de -sac and we haven't had any great objection to that. I think
there's actually more separation there once that's done between the driveway to
the south and the driveway to these two parcels than would be typical in a
cul -de -sac. As far as property values. We're not planning to set up any group
homes or anything like that, as happened in my neighborhood in Eden Prairie, so
5 1
11
City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993
you all can relax about that. If that's your concern. I'm not sure what the
concern is. Obviously if people are involved in lots that are worth 50 +, maybe
$60,000.00 apiece, we're not going to put hobbles on the lots. I think the
marketplace dictates that. So I guess I don't know if there are any other
questions then that people would have of me about what we plan to do. It seems
like a simple subdivision to me but. It meets all the requirements. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Seeing that the issues have been discussed at the
Planning Commission meeting, I would move that we would approve the preliminary
' plat to replat 2 lots. One lot into 2 lots and 1 outlot south of Pleasant View
Road, just north of Nez Perce Drive, Vinewood Addition.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: Could I just put that friendly amendment making sure as to the
size. Which is proper. Any other discussion?
Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the
Preliminary Plat to replat 2 lots into 2 lots and 1 outlot south of Pleasant
View Road and north of Nez Perce Drive, Vinewood Addition, Stuart Hoarn with
staff clarifying the correct lot sizes. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
Gary Carlson: Good evening Mayor and City Council. My name is Gary Carlson and
I live on Lot 6 of Schmitt's Acre Tracts way up in the northwest boundary of the
city. You gentlemen made the ordinance for non - conforming beachlots. Non-
conforming recreational beachiot ordinance and our original plat allows about,
right now about 40 odd people to, I've got the exact wording on the original
plat here. The property is actually owned by a person that owns that whole
remaining stretch of Lake Minnewashta on the northwest corner. I don't know if
' that's open for development yet but a single gentleman owns that entire area. He
owns our 50 foot lake access and the City keeps sending me registered letters as
if I'm the non - conforming beachiot. Through the years that this original plat
1 has granted the heirs and assigns. So there's heirs of Schmitt that have the
right to ingress and egress the lake over this 50 feet but I don't own the
property. It's owned by the gentleman who owns that whole section on the lake.
And with the City Attorney here, you're sending me letters as if I'm a beachiot,
' which I'm not personally. I don't know the 50 other people. So I don't care if
you say well, you're non - conforming. How are you going to enforce it against
me? 2 or 3 times a year I go over that 50 foot wide strip in and out from the
lake. The City Attorney is here. I don't know if you're going to ask the owner
to come down and request a beachiot or ask me to personally get one or the other
50 people and odd heirs and assigns to get a non - conforming permit. I'd be glad
to apply for a non - conforming permit for myself but then the other 50 people
will say, well why didn't you call me. Well it's not my, I don't know them. I
don't know their addresses. We all just have it. It's dated since 18, I think
the original plat was 18, or I mean 19. I've got it here but it's an old plat.
11 It gives all of the heirs of Schmitt and the assigns the right to ingress and
egress the lake over this 50 foot wide strip. So when I talked to the people at
11 6
1
City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993
I/
the County they said, well you're grandfathered no matter what the City does.
You have the right to go into the lake. Use it the way you've been using it for
1/
the 20 some odd years so I just, that's my question. You have the City Attorney
and the Council's all here. Do you want me to get a recreational beachlot
non - conforming use permit for myself, and how are you going to be enforce it
against me? Is the Sheriff going to be sitting there all summer waiting for me
to come down and go for a swim.
Mayor Chmiel: Paul, do you have any idea or Roger?
Gary Carlson: Alright, well there's lot of the people at the city know how to
get a hold of me and I'll be glad to respond.
Roger Knutson: I guess all we can say is we'll take a look at the situation.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. 1
Roger Knutson: Excuse me, so I can make a note. What is the name of your, does
your beachlot have a name?
Paul Krauss: We've been referring to it as Schmitt's Acres.
Willy Molnau: Your Honor, that seems to be appropriate. I'm Willy Molnau. I
live at 8541 Audubon Road and I came here tonight to report a very, very
dangerous situation. For years we wanted a trail system from McGlynn Bakery
south. Well we got it as far as Heron Drive but there's about a 2 block area
over the bridge. I suggested concrete barriers to protect the walking people.
I'm the guy that put them at jeopardy now because they have to walk in the
middle of the street. The area that is fenced off for walking has got snow this
deep. For about 2 blocks the city plows til the barrier starts and then they
swing into the street and drive the street way over to the south side of the
railroad, then they cut in. They do a perfect job of the stuff they do but I
have pictures here of people that are trying to walk away from the traffic. You
can see by the footprints they sink in about to their knees and I see it every
day. People out in the middle of the street. If a truck would come in that 2
block area, they'd either have to jump in front of another car or jump into the
snowbank. It's impossible to get away from this. I would suggest we remove the
concrete barriers at least for the winter. Then the snowplow can plow it right
up to the bridge siding. I'm sure this looks like about a 5 foot area. I'm
sure even a bobcat. The city has a bobcat with a snowplow. I see them out by,
well in the area they've got a snowplow and they're plowing all over. I don't
see why this couldn't be plowed because it was my fault that these people have
to walk in the street. I suggested these barriers. It's perfect in summertime
but it's no good in winter. I wish the Council would immediately. The semi's
from the south pass my place, they're going downhill. Going to McGlynn's. I
know they're doing 45 and if there's someone on the bridge, he has nowhere to go
but up, and it's impossible. Someone's going to get killed there. I just
wanted to report it.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you. Appreciate that. Is there anyone else?
1
7
II City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993
11 PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6921 YUMA DRIVE, CARVER BEACH:
A. DISCUSS POTENTIAL ACQUISITION OF THIS PROPERTY FOR STORMWATER PURPOSES.
1 B. FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE AND WETLAND SETBACK VARIANCE FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, SHANNON TERRY.
Mayor Chmiel: This is something that was just at the Board of Adjustments and
Appeals. To cover and discuss potential acquisition of this property for
stormwater purposes. The other portion of it is the decision was to grant the
variances on this with the two variances involved. The 10 foot variance, 20
I foot setback and a 16 foot setback from the wetland. Who would like to go
through Paul?
1 Paul Krauss: I'll take it Mr. Mayor. We became involved with this property a
couple years ago when a potential home placement was being proposed and started
to look at acquisition of it at that time. The idea was dropped and was never,
the home was never proceeded with and it was also before we had the surface
II water management planning effort largely completed as it is today. As the Mayor
indicated, there is a variance request that has been approved. Now it could be
appealed to you on the next item but it has been approved to allow a home to be
I placed on this lot and the lot's outlined in the black. On that map. This lot
is severely impacted by wetland. It does have a small area of high ground that
is potentially buildable. The variances that have been approved do allow a home
to be placed on it. What we try to do is go in and try to anticipate. We
talked to a number of you that, to look at the possibility of, is this lot
useful for the city to improve water quality and water protection in that area.
Interestingly enough, we had already gone into some significant planning effort
II in this area because this is one of the projects that we wanted to take care of
this spring. And it is a part of the drainage system from Carver Beach into
Lotus Lake. There is a real scarcity of area to put sedimentation and water
,; qulaity basins in this area. Now the plan that was devised by Bonestroo
Engineering would raise, as I recall, raise the elevation of this wetland. These
two wetlands essentially work together. I don't think they're really that
divided in reality and eventually they drain down into the lake. The idea is to
increase the size of the dike here to back more water up and get more retention
time because that's one of the last remaining possibilities for intercepting
water before it dumps into Lotus Lake and carrying a lot nutrients and sediment
II with it. Now that was on the program for this year. Potential acquisition of
this property would facilitate, would give us a few more alternatives. There is
a fairly significant amount of storm water that does come across this property
I and a lot more could. If we look ahead to one day needing to rebuild some of
the streets in Carver Beach, which obviously don't meet anywhere near current
standards, and incorporate some drainage provisions. Some curbing and storm
sewer, we could force a lot more of the water into a potential basin that could
II be built there. So it does have some short term benefit. It could have more
long term benefit to maintain and protect the quality of Lotus Lake. Now while
we think it's a useful thing to consider acquisition of this, I honestly don't
II know where the funds would come from. We do have the surface water utility fund
out there. For those of you who were in the budget sessions last fall, may
recall that I indicated we had 3 projects on tap for this year and part of it
was to fund the potential hiring of a filling of an engineering position to work
this program. In part work this program. That basically flat lined our funding
for 1993. The program under the current funding level, with the funding level
8
1
City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993 1
that was set 3 years ago when we started out does not provide us sufficient
latitude to going out and acquiring properties unless we do it at the expense of
not doing projects that we had slated for this year. So while I would encourage
you to think about acquisition, I'd also encourage you to look for other sources
of funding because it really is not available in the SWMP fund. At least not
without making some concessions elsewhere. I guess that does it for me. I can
explain in more detail I think, I can try to explain how this might work if we
do get ahold of it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you.
Councilman Senn: A coule real quick questions now. Is that, where does the 1
storm sewer empty into the lake?
Paul Krauss: Actually it's an overland flow. Charles, you might want to help
me on this but what happens is, you've got a line coming from here. It comes in
here and then out, there's a double line and out in the dike there...
Councilman Senn: That's not where that culvert is? 1
Paul Krauss: Yeah.
Councilman Senn: It is where the culvert is? Okay. Second question. If we
were to acquire the parcel that's there, can what you're suggesting be done
anyway? Or is this plan predicated upon the acquisition of that parcel? 1
Paul Krauss: No. We had assumed not. We had gone ahead and designed the
program to get the improvement without the use of this parcel. And what that
meant is some compromises to this wetland. Essentially what we're doing is
we're raising the elevation of this dike and backing up more water in here.
You're basically sacrificing this wetland for the lake. Now, that may be a
reasonable thing to do. Acquisition of this property gives us a few more
options. We can actually pre -treat the water before it gets into the wetland
and achieve what we'd like to while minimizing damage to the wetland, and
probably don't have to build as big a dike while we're doing it. Those kinds of
details need to be worked out but Bonestroo has that in their model and we can
juggle that around.
Councilman Senn: Okay, but one is not predicated on the other then? Okay. 1
Those are the only questions I had for now.
Mayor Chmiel: Michael, do you have any questions? 1
Councilman Mason: First comment, being a Carver Beach resident. And just when
is the City planning on putting curb and sewer into Carver Beach? I can hear
that phone ringing now.
Paul Krauss: I was about to suggest that but.
Councilman Senn: Everybody call Dike Mason.
Councilman Mason: Is that in the hopper?
9 . 1
1
City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993
Paul Krauss: No.
Councilman Mason: You know, as many of you know, I live on the top of that hill
' and my concern about a home being there, and I know this has some implications
as to whether it's a buildable lot or not. I've been down there in a rain storm
and I know how much water. All of Carver Beach goes through there. I don't
know how close the perspective buyer wants to live next to water. I think
that's an issue but then we have it platted as a buildable lot so this is, I see
this as a can't win situation for everybody. So I think we need to hammer it
out. If the funds are available, I would certainly like to look into acquiring
it just because, well for two reasons. I think being a member of the SWMP
committee, I see some benefits there. I'm also concerned about what's going to
happen to a home and a perspective homeowner that builds on that lot.
1 Mayor Chmiel: Yeah that, if I could just touch on that. As you sitting in on
the conversation, that's why I wanted to make sure that the City does not have a
problem or will have a problem at a later time by putting in that hold harmless
1 clause. And you're probably right. There is a good flow that goes down there
without any question. But on the other hand, if it can be a buildable lot yet
and they don't have those concerns, I guess I'm still open. Colleen?
1 Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I have a more basic question. How much money are
we talking about?
Paul Krauss: We honestly don't know.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Not even ballpark?
1 Mayor Chmiel: I can see the price going up.
1 Paul Krauss: I can't verify it but Sharmin is telling me that the purchase
agreement was something on the order of $20,000.00. Now there are two parties
involved here now. There is the underlying owner and the people that wanted to
build the home, which adds some light of complexity to it.
1 Councilwoman Dockendorf: And in your opinion, is this necessary or it's just
kind of convenient given all the circumstances?
Paul Krauss: There is definitely a potential benefit to be gained by having it.
Our flexibility does improve. We can work this project probably a little
better. Do more things. Accomplish a better level of protection for the lake.
II
We have a method of getting it done without it that's probably a little more
costly. Well, in terms of construction dollars. Not acquisition dollars. And
will result in some more damage to that. Basically it's a balancing situation
' where you sacrifice the quality of that wetland for the lake. Now that's often
a reasonable compromise to make but what we're doing is dumping a lot more water
into that area. Also in the future, there is a lot of water that comes down the
' street from Carver Beach and behind the homes and between homes, it's just all
over the place. It's just not directed very well. At some point in the future,
there's going to be a need to direct that somewhere.
1 Councilwoman Dockendorf: Particularly with curb and gutter.
1 10
1
City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993 1
Paul Krauss: Yeah. Well, curb and gutter's probably the way to go. There's
just too much water flowing around too many homes for it to work forever. And
at that point we may need to acquire easements across this property or parts of
this property to get the water to where it needs to be. There's always that
possibility. 1
•
Councilman Mason: You're saying that if we move to acquire that, that wetland
will be damaged more? Is that what I'm hearing? 1
Paul Krauss: No. No. If it's acquired, we have the potential of damaging the
big wetland less. Lowering the impact. Basically you can construct a pre-
treatment basin on the area of what is sort of high ground on this lot outside
the wetland.
Mayor Chmiel: Actually you're saying there would be more retention time there
before it eventually goes into the lake.
Councilman Mason: Before it goes into the wetland and then into the lake. 1
Paul Krauss: Right.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? ,
Councilman Senn: I guess two more quick questions. The property is zoned
residential? 1
Paul Krauss: Yes.
Councilman Senn: And the person has been paying residential property taxes?
11
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Councilman Senn: For quite a number of years I'm assuming?
Paul Krauss: Yes. And it also does have assessments against it. 1
Councilman Senn: And they've been paying those assessments too?
Paul Krauss: To the best of my knowledge. Do we know if the assessments are 1
current?
Sharmin Al -Jaff: I don't know. ,
Paul Krauss: We're assuming that they are.
Councilman Senn: So if we look at acquiring, you not only look at, in effect '
acquiring the property rights of two different parties at this point but you're
also probably looking at issues like that too. 11 Paul Krauss: Well the City would basically, yeah. Eat the hook up charges that
would have gone against it.
Councilman Senn: It sounds like this gets real expensive real quick. ,
11 1
S
II City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993
J Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Yes. Please just state your name and your address please.
Margaret Rossing: I am Margaret Rossing. I own this piece of property. I live
II in Long Lake now. You have questions regarding the assessments and those kinds
of things. That property has not been assessed per se. What I was told way
back when. I thought I had done my background work. I came into the city. I
said, will I be able to get a, if I find a buyer for this property, will they be
1 able to get a permit to build on it. They said because it was split way back in
1984 to give another man part of it, and I was left with the rest and because
I'd been taxed on it as a residential lot, that it would be indeed a buildable
I site. Well, so as far as the assessments are concerned, they have not been
paid. The only thing I think that has been paid was a road fee type thing. We
were assessed a small amount in the beginning for that. I have not paid the
taxes because they are astronomical, so I have back taxes on it. This puts me
I
in a real bind because I've got all these bills coming at me and I have no way
of paying for it. I can't sell it. I can't do anything. I feel like I'm
between a rock and a hard place and I would really like to get some input from
II somebody as to what I can do about this. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you.
II Shannon Terry: My name is Shannon Terry. I'm the perspective buyer of this
property. I currently reside in Hopkins. I do have one question concerning the
issues of the drainage for those two wetland areas there. Do we have any idea
I what water level's we're speaking of. Is it going to encroach? Is the wetland
going to move farther out if that's done in the future as far as redirecting the
water flow through the wetland or is that elevation going to stay at that level
I that it is right now? Any idea on that? My concern basically is putting a home
there. Is it going to encroach on that in the future and get water backing up
closer to the home or is it going to be okay the way it is?
I Paul Krauss: We asked our consultant that question and informed us that the
high water elevation would not be any greater than the wetland edge is today.
Now that's one of the balancing acts here is that we can't really do everything
I that we'd like to do in that water basin because you start flooding out homes.
So that's one of the limitations you have to factor in. To the best of my
knowledge this would be about the lowest home in there. It's the lowest home
I that sets the elevation.
Councilman Mason: Well I'd love for the City to buy it but where are we going
I to find the money?
Mayor Chmiel: Therein lies the big question is the dollars and as Paul has
eluded, the fund that I thought we could probably get something from is
I depleted. There's nothing in the fund this year period. Unless our wizard of
dollars knows areas that there might be a couple of dollars around to acquiesce.
I Councilman Senn: Don, can we undo what we budgeted the money for and redirect
it?
Councilman Mason: I was just going to ask as a member of the SWMP committee, if
II this is an issue. When are we meeting? The 17th of February? 1
I
II 12
II
City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993 1
Paul Krauss: February.
Councilman Mason: If this would be an issue that would be worth discussing at
that point.
Paul Krauss: We can certainly put it on the agenda. Again, what it would mean
is, I mean we've been, I don't want to say pushed but we've been asked to get
projects done showing suc(ess for the program and that's been kind of a primary
goal since the program was set up. We now have three projects on tap to do and
between the funding commitments for that and part of that salaried position, not
the full position, we've wiped out the fund for 1993. So if you do that, you
can do it but you're going to sacrifice those other items.
Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes Don. 1
Don Ashworth: If I could respond to both your question as well as Councilman
Senn's. I don't think it's an issue of whether or not we can undo the budget
that has been established. I think it's more so the question of whether certain
funds that we may have done better in than we originally though that we might
have. That is a possibility. The environmental protection fund, I am fairly
well sure it will show a much higher balance than had originally been
anticipated for the end of 1992. One of my problems there is that goods or
services that may have been received or provided in the end of December, we may
not yet have been billed for and if that bill comes in in February, it will
reduce that account as of the end of the year. So we're still looking and
monitoring what our cash balances were in comparison to what we anticipated we 11 would be at the end of the year. At the end of 1992. If the Council would like
to pursue this, I would suggest approaching it from two fronts. One in which
myself be directed to determine what type of balances we might have and whether
or not those might approach the dollars needed for this type of an acquisition.
Secondarily, that the Attorney's office was planning to meet with the owners and
see what type of dollars we're talking about and potentially come back. I think
we're all sitting with too many if's.
Mayor Chmiel: Too many if's is right.
Councilman Mason: I agree. 1
Councilman Senn: Yeah, I agree wholeheartedly. One of the things I would like
looked at though is, you know I think this is a little bit of a situation where
you're caught between the rock and the hard place whether you like it or not but
at the same time I think we need to look at the overall issue of solving the
ultimate problem. You know we've got 6 of the, what is it 6 of these culverts
or storm sewers dumping into Lotus Lake now. I think our priority is getting
those out. If 2 or 3 of those can be alleviated or treated with the same funds
that it would take to acquire this one parcel, I think that's definitely
something that we should consider in relationship to the exercise here. Because
what I'm hearing is, while it would be nice, it's not essential and that's what
I mean. Being caught between a rock and a hard place. And ultimately I think
that's our goal that we should be working for so I think that's really the light
we should put it in in relationship to the cost issue.
13 1
1
City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993
Mayor Chmiel: True. I don't disagree with that at all. Plus the fact that, we
11 on the Board of Adjustments and Appeals had approved the variances for this as i
mentioned before and we can either sit back and table this discussion until Don
has indicated what balances we have on hand. As well as determining what the
11 costs are going to be for this property. And so we're right at that one point.
Even though there's been action by the Board of Adjustments, we still could
table this to find out and determine where we're coming from with this.
' Councilman Mason: If we do move to table, I think we have to act as quickly as
we can because I think we both the owner and the seller, I think all of us feel
like we're caught on this and I share both their concerns. My personal feeling
is, and I'm sure Mr. Terry would not be too pleased with this but I think if we
can buy it, I think we need to at least take a real hard look at it. But I
think in deference to the seller, we need to give out some information pretty
quickly. But I'd also just like to comment, I like the idea of seeing it, not
saying we will buy it but seeing if there are any funds and then making a
decision based on that. I mean if the money's not there well.
' Councilman Senn: Given the option by the board of building adjustments, is
there a timeframe that now that's been passed onto the Council, that the Council
must act on it?
Roger Knutson: On the acquisition.
Councilman Senn: No, not in relation to the acquisition. I'm talking in
11 relationship to the variances.
Roger Knutson: Well the Board of Adjustment and Appeals has granted. Their
decision is final unless someone appeals that decision here. So unless someone
appeals that decision to you, that variance has been granted. No further action
is necessary.
' Councilman Mason: Can we get the information by the next Council meeting?
Don Ashworth: I know that the financial information can be obtained within 30
' days. Within 14 is pushing. As far as potential purchases. Purchase price, I
don't know. Assuming we can meet with the owners but whether or not we can
obtain any numbers or not, I'm not real sure.
' Roger Knutson: I think we can learn what the purchase agreement says but as far
as giving our own appraisal or judging what we think it's worth, we couldn't do
' that in 2 weeks. We could try. We could do our best but 30 days is probably
more realistic.
Councilman Senn: I don't think we're talking about getting into full appraisals
and all that sort of thing.
Mayor Chmiel: No, yeah. And I don't think the potential buyer of that property
' is in any position to start construction now.
Roger Knutson: I can do this much. We certainly can come back in 2 weeks from
what I would have to do, is meeting with the landowner and saying, let's see
' your purchase agreement and then I can draft one that's agreeable to them.
1 14
1
City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993 1
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And how long would it take for the city to work up
some numbers for where we could get the money from?
Don Ashworth: I think I could have a pretty fair estimate within 2 weeks. You
know again, there may be some bills out there that I'm not aware of at this
point in time. That's my biggest problem.
Councilman Senn: Again, I'd also like to see that Paul, plugged back into the
plan for those dumps into the lake and the cost that you've estimated in
relationship to alleviating or treating those dumps into the lake because again,
to me that's the key issue. What's the comparison. 1
Councilman Mason: The SWMP committee will be meeting on the 17th of February so
maybe that could be put on the agenda at least for discussion in lieu of what
Councilman Senn has said and this could be tabled until the 22nd of February.
Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to make that into a motion?
Councilman Mason: I would make a motion to table the potential acquisition of ,
said property until, tabled until the 22nd of February and hopefully by that
time the SWMP committee will have met and been able to discuss it and Mr.
Ashworth and Mr. Knutson can see what they can find out.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilwoman Oockendorf: Second.
( Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to table potential
acquisition of property located at 6921 Yuma Drive until February 22, 1993. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
Paul Krauss: I just wanted you all to be aware, and I think you are, that '
should we get a request for a building permit from them, between now and then,
we would have to honor that because it's, a variance has been approved. Now
I don't know what the reality is of building on soils like that in the winter. ,
If that's a possibility but that is a possibility.
Don Ashworth: My question back to Roger was, any party can make that appeal.
In my own mind, which then once it is appealed it comes back to the City Council
and I know in previous years there has been at issue was if a Council member was
able to make that appeal. In this case I would look at it, if the Council as a
whole is asking to look at it, the Council as a whole is in fact appealing that
decision.
Roger Knutson: Maybe the simple way is to ask the applicant if he'll agree not
to pull a building permit until you look at this in 2 weeks. February 22nd,
excuse me. Otherwise you'll have a foundation in the ground when we start
acquiring your property.
Shannon Terry: I don't know. As our situation is right now, our house is sold.
We're living in temporary limbo hoping to find a lot to build on almost
immediately. That's our present situation. This whole process started back in
October, we pretty much started looking at the lot. It's been going on this
15 1
1
City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993
far. We were hoping that this meeting we'd find out if it's a go or not. As
far as I was told from our builder, we can start building anytime in the winter
with on effect on it at all. Once you get down below the frost line, it's fresh
soil again. Again, I'm not answering you. I really don't know what the status
' is...verify with the builder.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I share your frustration. I know we've had, when we
built in Chanhassen we had of yards of engineered fill put in to build
1 a foundation for our house and it's a headache. You're asking for a big
heahache that's all I can tell you. Really.
1 Mayor Chmiel: I think with the decision we've come up with, for tabling, I
think we can be comfortable with that at this particular time. The concerns of
the issuance of a building permit, granted it can be done but I think it would
behoove the owner, potential owner of that property to just wait and see what
shakes out. I think that additional month is not going to hurt one way or the
other, at least in my own opinion. So with that I'd like to move onto item
number 3. Thank you.
REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE EXTENSION FOR JAMES JESSUP, 9247 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD:
1 Public Present:
Name Address
James Jessup 7021 Galpin Boulevard
Don Sitter 9249 Lake Riley Boulevard
Leslie Tidstrom 340 Deerfoot Trail
Willard Johnson Board of Adjustments and Appeals
Sharmin Ai -Jaff: On March 13th of 1989 the Board of Adjustments and Appeals
approved a variance request for a front, rear, both side yards setbacks for the
construction of a single family residence. As construction began it was
discovered that the parcel was contaminated. The City Building Inspector and
Fire Marshal issued a stop work order on October 13, 1989. The contamination
' was from gasoline storage tank used for seaplanes operated from the lake. The
tank was removed at the MPCA's direction. The applicant has been unable to
build his home until the parcel has been given a clean bill of health by the
MPCA. Four variance extensions were granted by the City Council for the
construction of the new single family residence. On July 8th of 1989, staff
received a letter from the MPCA stating that the investigation and clean -up
' performed on the subject had addressed the petroleum contamination. It also
stated that the applicant could begin construction at this time. Based upon the
foregoing, staff sent a letter to Mr. Jessup informing him that he should apply
for a building permit and start construction prior to February 10, 1993. The
applicant is requesting a fifth extension. Staff is recommending that the
extension request be denied. We believe that the applicant had reasonable time
to reapply for a building permit and begin construction. He could have
' prevented the variance application from expiring by starting construction 7
months ago and allowing the variance to expire is a self created hardship. We
are recommending denial of this extension. Should the City Council decide to
approve this application, the original conditions of the variance approval
should be adopted. Staff would like to point out that today at approximately
1 16
1
City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993
4 o'clock we received a phone call from Fred and Judy Potthoff residing at 9231 1
Lake Riley Boulevard. They stated that they are in favor of extension of this
application. They wanted to be on record. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is Mr. Jessup here?
James Jessup: Yes. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to come forward and please state your name and
your address and give us some good reasons as to why we should grant an
extension.
James Jessup: Okay. I'm James Jessup currently residing at 7021 Galpin
Boulevard. I appreciate your time and your interest to look at this matter 1
again and assist my family in helping us to make our permanent residence at this
address. I'm requesting an extension of the variance due to the fact that it's
taken time to revise building plans to meet the additional requirements created
by this contaminated soil. I've outlined there some of the issues I've had to
deal with. It's been a rather expensive situation to deal with myself
personally in hiring consultants to do some work. A substantial amount of
money. The soils report that was done that you've got a copy of, it shows that
all the soil was put in that site is going to have to be removed and compacted
again. The estimate for that work alone is for $30,000.00. As Colleen
mentioned earlier about engineered fill, that's what we're looking at on this
site again. And so it takes time to do the investigation to figure out what
needs to be done. What the footing design's going to be. How we're going to
have to change the heating plans for the home. What vapor barriers are going to
have to be designed. It just takes time to get through those issues. The other
side of the coin is that financing for this property has been severely
complicated. Lenders, once a property's been contaminated, it's very difficult
to find financing for them. And so you know, I've got nothing to gain by
delaying it. I lose use of the property. I continue to pay the property taxes.
I lose the use of it. The expense of the renting to continue on. And so I'm
moving as quickly as I can as witnessed by the fact that I've had the ,
engineering report done. And so I guess it appears to me as though I've done
everything I can do but there are limitations both financially and timewise in
terms of how long I've had a chance to act. And so I'm also willing to commit
that I won't be back here in front of you next year. Which has got to be good
news. So thank you for your time. I can answer questions.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to address this? 1
Don Sitter: Hi. My name is Don Sitter. I live at 9249 Lake Riley Boulevard
which is adjacent to the property in question here and thank you for allowing me
time to voice my concerns. We've been frustrated at how long this situation has
been in question and we would like it resolved. Last year at this time I came
before the Board of Adjustments and Appeals and suggested that his extension be
limited to 6 months. You chose to approve a full year extension with a 6 month
review. At the 6 month mark I came into the City and found 3 letters of
interest, which I think are all in your packet. The June 11th one is from the
MPCA to various people, City and Mr. Jessup included, stating contamination
levels are below the concern and the clean -up has addressed the contamination
issue. On July 6th we got one from the PCA to the City clarifying their
17
City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993
position and specifically stating that the property is ready. Construction can
begin. On July 9th the City sent a letter to Mr. Jessup mentioning the above
MPCA letter and establishing a schedule. One year extension. Stating, "it is
unlikely that further extensions will be granted" and stating the consequences, 1
' that if you fail to do so, your variance will expire. I believe that the City
and we, the neighbors have been more than patient and this has been going on for
4 years. The longer it goes on the more tensions in the neighborhood rise and
the more frustrating it geks. Granted there have been extenuating circumstances
1 on this property but Mr. Jessup has had more than enough time to resolve his
issues. He could have actually started when he received the letter from the
MPCA, which was in June. That's nearly 8 months. As the staff reports,
' allowing the variance to expire is a self created hardship. If you remember,
Mr. Jessup did not allow anyone on his property to do any testing for something
around 2 years. When that permission was finally granted, the above report was
shown that there's no clean -up further and necessary. There's nothing that's
been done to this property since the spring of '90 when this massive clean -up
took place so it's really almost 3 years that we've been waiting for something
to get going here. I'm really not sure that he's serious about building on this
' property and we don't believe one more extension will guarantee the beginning of
construction. We'd like to get this issue to move. I'm asking you to please
follow your staff's recommendation and deny his fifth extension request. Thank
you for your time.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you.
Willard Johnson: Willard Johnson, Board of Adjustment and Appeals. I was
involved with this at the start. I questioned the gas tanks at the time the
Council granted the variance. I believed that we were going to have problems.
I'm not sticking up for Mr. Jessup but I just feel he should be entitled to
another 6 months, provided he starts in 6 months. I realize he's maybe dragged
his feet or something. I'm not sticking up for him one way or the other but I
1 did question those tanks at the time. I was assured by certain city staff, none
of them present here but the ones that are involved with gasoline. We have no
problems. They meet State codes. Then of course he ran into problems and
that's where it ends now and I'd just, I feel that he should have an extension.
Not more than 6 months but provided he starts in 6 months. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you.
1 Leslie Tidstrom: I'm Leslie Tidstrom. I live at 340 Deerfoot Trail. It's two
side streets up from this Lake Riley Boulevard. I'm friends of Jessup's. I've
' known them the whole time since they have already been off that property. I've
seen them struggle with the complications. The disruption of their home and
their 3 children. I'm excited for them. I hope that they can join the
neighborhood. Put up a home. I know it's going to be a little difficult lot to
build on but I think we've seen the city work through the other neighbors and
allowing them variances and try to put up garages and make a little bit more of
the homes. The cabins that have turned into full year homes. And I would hope
' that you would grant Mr. Jessup the same priviledge to get those variances and
put up an adequate home on this site and I hope that he can become a part of our
neighborhood soon. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else? You're lucky Mark.
1 18
1
City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993 1
Councilman Senn: That's why you sit on the end right.
Councilman Mason: That's why I moved down here.
Councilman Senn: Well, I guess I've got one question and then comments, but I
assume the contamination on the site, Mr. Jessup was not the responsible party?
Sharmin Al -Jaff: Correct.
Councilman Senn: Okay. I guess the way I look at this is, really the ultimate
goal here is to get the site built and get something on it. I guess I can say
I've personally experienced the same thing Mr. Jessup has because I've had to
deal with contaminated sites and it's no fun. I know in many people which it
has bankrupt or set back financially for years, even though there's a state fund
to plug into, it takes a couple years to plug into it and then you still pay 10%
of some of the bill, which is not a small chunk of change when you talk about
cleaning up contaminated parcels. So in that sense I really sympathize with Mr.
Jessup, especially since he's not the responsible party. Again, going back to
the goal, I think that the issue here is really to go ahead and get something
going on the property and understanding, at least myself personally, the
financial strain that that has placed the Jessup's in over this period of time.
I'll even go one step further and I guess make it short and move that we provide
a 6 month and final extension to Mr. Jessup.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Michael. 1
Councilman Mason: I'm curious what guarantees we have that things will, two
things come to mind on this. Why. Staff, maybe you can tell me. It appears as 11 though the letters that were sent to Mr. Jessup, there was no response back from
Mr. Jessup about it's okay to build now. Let's get started. That kind of
thing.
Sharmin Al -Jaff: No. We never heard from him until the variance was about to
expire and that's when he contacted us to request an extension.
Councilman Mason: I'm curious to know why that happened that way. But I'm not,
boy I guess this is rock and a hard place night tonight. Because I hear what
Mr. Sitter is saying but I'm not quite sure how the City or the neighborhood
would be served by denying it at this point. But then, what's to say he can't
keep coming back year after year asking for an extension. I mean what's going
on with that property? And I guess I'll ask Mr. Jessup this, and maybe if I
shouldn't be asking don't answer but, are you planning on starting building
fairly soon?
James Jessup: When I get everything ready, yes. The answer is yes. There are,
between the soil report and work that has to be done, there's a lot of issues.
Councilman Mason: How close do you see you coming in being able to start
construction?
James Jessup: In '93. I mean I've come before you and said that I would not be
here next year. It may take 7 months. It may take 5 months. I may take 8
months. I don't know exactly. I mean 2 years ago I thought I was here for the
19 1
City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993
last time. So but I'm willing to commit to, now that the MPCA...that's one of
the issues that I didn't have any control over. ..now the ball is in my court
so I'm willing to act on a timely basis...
Councilman Mason: You're saying, in your opinion the ball is in your court now
and you're ready to move? •
James Jessup: I'm moving...but not ready to apply...
Councilman Senn: There's a real basic issue I think that Mr. Jessup is eluding
to but not saying very directly. Just because the MPCA gives you a letter
saying that the contamination has been reduced to sufficient level to begin
construction does not mean that it's been taken to a level that a lender is
willing to put money into the property. It's a real complicated issue. That is
a real complicated issue, and again if ultimately it's to build, then I think
you've got to work with who you're working with and get it there as quick as you
can. It's very complex.
Mayor Chmiel: Normally I'm well aware of this because of my past duties as well
and to get a lender to provide dollars. Since a problem doesn't mean that once
the MPCA says this is done and they've checked it and it's fine, potentially you
could have some of those spills continuing through. What would have to be done
is you'd have to put up vapor barriers to eliminate that. As I told Mr. Jessup,
if you were to go through the process of putting in 2 foot of clay within that
' site, putting a poly liner, you may get somebody to do it but at that cost, he
couldn't even afford to do that. So it's really a hard position to really look
at when it comes to getting dollars from a lender. Not only for the lot but for
the structure that's going to go on it. If there continues additional seepage,
then there is an existing problem that will continue and the only way you can
get rid of those soils is to take them out and thinly spread them to allow all -
' those vapors are completely gone. Any other comments?
Councilman Mason: No.
Mayor Chmiel: Colleen?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I think all parties involved want to see this
resolved tonight and I guess what I'm seeing is, that we're trying to not
intentionally but unintentionally punish Mr. Jessup for not moving quicker. We
have to consider the hardships that financing has caused and in one essence this
really isn't a self created hardship. A hardship created by the situation and
circumstance. So I guess I'm willing to second Mark's suggestion that we extend
this. Because I think if we deny it, we're just going to be looking at it
again. Either way we go I think we're going to be looking at it again. If we
deny it, then we're going to get a new application for a variance.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah I would even go as far as going along with that condition
' because I have written down 6 months as well. But in the event that nothing is
transpired in that 6 months and Mr. Jessup comes back again for an additional
variance, the fees be waived on that additional variance as well. Because a lot
of this really is not his choosing or happening when he acquired that.
' 20
City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993 1
Councilman Mason: I basically agree with what the 3 of you are saying. I'm
concerned about the fact that, I get the, what I'm feeling is that Mr. Jessup
isn't letting anyone know what's going on and it's hard to tell whether feet
have been dragged or not. It sounds like they haven't been but I can certainly
see how the rest of the community there thinks it has been because they haven't
heard anything. I mean they're getting this information that on July 9th
MPCA says you can build. Well now I'm hearing it's just because they get that
letter doesn't mean it's that easy. Well, I think it's important then for
Mr. Jessup as hopefully being a good neighbor in that area, to let those,
certainly not to spill any beans but to let people know what's going on so
hopefully some of these feelings in the neighborhood can be resolved. I guess I
think that's a pretty important part of this deal. So I would hope that if this
extension does get granted, and it certainly sounds like it will be, that some
attempt is made to move as quickly as possible and let people know what's going
on. '
Councilman Senn: In light of Mike's comments, I guess what I'd like to do is
change my motion not only to approve the extension for 6 months but ask that
Mr. Jessup, on a monthly basis, furnish a report to the city staff and the
neighborhood as to the progress he's making, and I don't think that's
unreasonable. Just telling people how you're moving along. Because then we
won't end up back in this argument in 6 months. Okay, because I'd hate to put II
us back in a position where we're just going to say 6 months and be right back
here arguing it again.
Mayor Chmiel: Maybe rather than going back to the neighborhood. If he would
provide the updating to the city and then the neighbors who have concern can
call and do that. '
Councilman Senn: That's fine.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Can I have a motion then? 1
Councilman Senn: So moved. Or do you want me to repeat it?
Mayor Chmiel: I think you've stated it and it's probably contained within the
Minutes and I need a second.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'll second it. '
Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve a 6 month and
final extension to a variance request for 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard, subject to
the plan dated March 6, 1989 and the following conditions:
1. Drainage be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of
a building permit.
2. The deck on the rear of the house is to remain a deck and no porch or any
enclosed structure is allowed in the 75 foot setback from Lake Riley.
(Note: The building plot plan will need to show the actual ordinary high
water mark for Lake Riley to determine actual setback. This will need to
be identified on the property survey by a reigstered surveyor.) The area
under the deck may be improved as a patio with no enclosures.
21 1
II City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993
3. Plans are to be reviewed by Planning Staff prior to issuance of building
permit to assure compliance with intent of and plans presented with
variance. 1
4. The attached plan is noted as the official plan for determining compliance.
5. The front setback may be no less than 16 feet from the property line.
6. The rear setback may be no less than 68 feet from the deck.
1 7. The west setback may be no less than 5.5 feet for any portion of the
structure.
8. The east setback may be no less than 10 feet for any portion of the
structure.
9. Mr. Jessup will provide monthly progress reports to the City for review by
' any interested neighbors.
10. If a new variance request is required, that the fees be waived.
II All voted in favor and the motion carried.
LAKEVIEW HILLS NON - CONFORMING USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT LOCATED ON
1 THE NORTH SIDE OF LAKE RILEY.
Public Present:
Name Address l
J
Craig Mertz Suite 1100, 120 So 6th St, Mpls
II Don Sitter 9249 Lake Riley Boulevard
Kate Aanenson: This beachlot went before the Planning Commission a couple of
' times and there's concerns from the neighbors about this beachlot. It's a
little bit different than some of the other beachlots we've been reviewing. A
survey wasn't done on this beachlot in 1981 so we had to rely on the information
that they could provide. The main concern from the neighbors was the fact that
II
this has a boat launch and it's unsecured. There is an access to the lake on
the Eden Prairie side with limited parking and what seems to happen is that,
when that gets filled up people go over and use the association or the boat
1 launch access over at the Lakeview Hills Apartments. So concern from the
neighbors was access and the fact that it was unsecured and the apartment
building are across the street that there is partying at night. They provided
' and the Planning Commission and the staff felt comfortable with the information
of the request that they're proposing and that is that they are going to install
a maintenance gate. Security that would be limited to the residents of the
association. That would help with the security issue and this apartment complex
II has been in the city for a number of years, largely pre- dating the 1981
ordinance. So we feel that the dock, having a dock is consistent with the
ordinance. They also are recommending that all the boats be pulled away from
the dock and be secured back up by the apartment building so there will be no
overnight mooring of boats. But they do want to have continued use of a canoe
1 22
1
City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993
rack which we feel is consistent based on information that they've given the
staff and the Planning Commission that there probably has been boats stored on
the property. But at this point they're willing to just say with the canoe rack
and have up to 10 boats stored at the canoe rack which we feel, and the
Planning Commission felt was consistent with that. They do want to maintain ,
continued use of the boat launch. There was some concerns about maintenance of
the boat launch itself and I have contacted the DNR and do have standards on
that and will be providing those to the Association to make sure that they're
consistent with the DNR regulations. In addition, because this has a boat
launch, we were concerned about milfoil and this beachlot does have a sign down
there posting milfoil sign. So the Planning Commission did recommend. We put a
chart in there what you need to look at. They do have off street parking, so
when they pull the boats down, they can store the trailers on site while they're
using them. So what they are asking for at this point is the 1 canoe rack with
up to 8 boats. One dock 50 feet in length. The swimming and the other issues,
picnic tables are all met by the ordinance. You can have those separate without
a permit so what we're really looking at is continued use of the boat launch and
the dock with the canoe rack.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you Kate. Counselor, would you like to approach
Council?
Craig Mertz: I'm Craig Mertz. I'm here representing the owners of the Lakeview 1
Hills complex and we handed out a letter written earlier today indicating that
for our cwn business purposes we will promelgate rules that cover the 5 points
that the Planning Commission covered at it's last meeting and we'll commit to do
those things but we're doing them for our own business purposes and we don't
waive our claim that we have the Constitutional right to continue the use of the
beachlot. I'll answer any questions. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to address this at this
time? Yes sir.
Don Sitter: I just need to clarify one thing. We talked to the parties after
the Planning Commission meeting a couple weeks ago and my understanding was that
they wanted 10 boats stored, not on the beach property but in the parking lot of
the apartment building. Is that correct? Because I thought I heard you say
Kate that they wanted 10 boats.
Kate Aanenson: No. They'll have a canoe rack there that allows up to 10 boats.
Sailboats, canoes, that sort of thing.
Don Sitter: Okay, but the powerboats would be up on the tar up above? '
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
Don Sitter: Okay, thanks.
Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else? Hearing none, Colleen. '
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Doesn't look like much to discuss here. All parties
seem happy. ,
23 '
City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993
Councilman Mason: let's do it.
II Councilman Senn: I'll move approval if nobody else will.
1 Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'll second it.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the Lakeview
Hills Apartments Non - Conforming Use Permit for a Recreational Beachlot with the
II following conditions:
1. Installation and maintenance of a gate which would be locked day and night
' (but the residents of the complex would have lake access by keys furnished
by the management);
I 2. Prohibit overnight boat dockage, prohibit overnight mooring, and prohibit
overnight storage of boats on the beach itself, except for storage of canoe
racks (application requests one canoe rack with 8 to 10 boats stored);
I 3. All other overnight storage would be limited to designated portions of the
existing parking lots (north of Lake Riley Blvd) and other designated
portions of the property lying north of the apartment buildings;
II 4. The dock length would be limited to 50 feet;
I 5. Continued use of the boat launch;
6. Planning Commission has not ruled pro or con as to the number 11 on the
application itself but all other historic information has been agreed to.
II All voted in favor and the motion carried. J
I SIGN VARIANCE REQUEST TO LOCATE A MONUMENT SIGN WITHIN THE REQUIRED SETBACK
LOCATED AT 600 WEST 79TH STREET, AMERICANA COMMUNITY BANK.
Sharmin Al -Jaff: On March 9, 1992 the City Council reviewed the site plan for
I Americana Community Bank site. The plans showed one monument identification
sign proposed at the westerly edge of the site with an area of 70 square feet
with no base and a pitched element to it. The plans also reflected the sign
II location at 2 feet from the westerly property line. It was an oversight by
staff not to notice that fact. However, one of the conditions of approval of
the site plan stated that the applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to
erecting any signage on site. On November 18, 1992 staff was conducting an
inspection prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the bank. At
that time we noted that there was a sign base built close to the property line.
We also noted that the plans reflected a 2 foot setback. However, a sign permit
I hac not been issued approving the location. Staff informed the applicant that
the location of the sign does not conform with the sign ordinance and that the
ordinance requires a 10 foot setback from the property line. The applicant
I elected to apply for a sign variance. For the City Council to approve the
variance, we must prove that the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause
undue hardship. There were a number of factors that contributed to this
hardship. The oversight by staff to notice the sign shown at a setback of 2
feet from the property line was one factor. However, a condition of approval of
1 24
1
City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993 1
the site plan noted that the applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to
erecting any signage on the site. Second factor was that the applicant revise
the monument sign plans prior to consulting with staff. The original plans did
not show a base. Had the applicant applied for the sign permit prior to
construction of the base, staff would have pointed out the setback of 10 feet
and that the design must be consistent with what was originally approved by the
Planning Commission and pity Council reflecting the pitched elements. Approval
of this application will! create a precedent in the district. We are
recommending denial of this application. Should the City Council decide to
approve this variance, we recommend that you adopt the conditions outlined in
the report. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Just a quick question that I have. On construction
of that facility, was the foundation already put in for the sign in the proposed
location that they're looking at now? 1
Sharmin Al -Jaff: Yes it was.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Would the applicant care to say anything at this '
particular time?
Kim Jacobsen: I think we would. I'm Kim Jacobsen with KRJ Associates
representing the Americana Bank. The background I think is that we have been
here before a year ago and did get the site plan approved. We at that time had
no reason to assume that we, I guess had any reason for a variance. Everything
went through staff. We looked at it. We came from a different location that
was in a PUD. Signage laws as shown by Market Boulevard where the signage is
less than 2 feet from the sidewalk is different in a PUD. An oversight by staff
and by us included. We got it approved through City Council at the location
that it's at. We felt during construction and we put it on our drawing showing
a concrete base made out of the same block that the building was because we felt
that the sign at that time would tie itself to the building better and all
through construction we built the base course in the standard of construction
when concrete was done, the base was built. It was at the point of final
inspection that we found out the base was in the wrong location. In the middle
of it we looked at the sign and thought about the scale. The sign that we had
proposed that Sharmin had shown you is about 9 feet in height. So we looked at
it and said that possibly we might want to cut that down a little bit. The
easiest way to scale it down was to take the roof off. We've got a colored
drawing that does represent the sign that is proposed. We think it's a nice
design. We went through design development with it. What you're seeing in the
first presentation was a concept. We knew that we wanted a sign. We didn't
know what it should look like. We were dealing with a building. Before we came
to the City Council meeting, within one week before we added Phase 2 onto the
project. The HRA decided that it would be mandatory to add this in. The City
agreed and through the City Council, HRA, everyone else, we doubled the size of
the building. We came with a concept. We thought we developed the concept and
we hope you're happy with what we came back with.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else? Seeing none I'll, I did ask a
question of our Attorney. If we had given approval previously with the PUD.
The location as to where it is, the proposal is at. ,
25 1
1
II City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993
I Roger Knutson: Mayor, if I could just clarify something. You made an
assumption that it was a PUD. According to your planning staff it is not a PUD.
It's still in BH, Highway Business District, not PUD.
II Mayor Chmiel: Okay, then as it reads, okay. Alright.
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, some of the confusion with that may be that it was
1 originally, this building was originally in Market Square which was a PUD.
Mayor Chmiel: That's where it comes from then. Okay, that was my mistake with
that. Because if it was, then I think it would have been a useless point even
II discussing it further. Okay, very good.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well, there were mistakes made on both sides and I
1 guess that's not my main concern about who was, where it went wrong. What I'm
more interested in is what the sign will look like and will it tie in. I'd like
to start off by saying, that they did a nice job on the building. I think it
looks nice in our community. I'd like to follow up by saying, I don't like that
sign. I really don't. The fact of the matter is that the builder started the
base without a permit, which is a self imposed hardship. It is too close to the
drainage and utility easements. Coupled with the fact that I think it's too big
II and it doesn't fit in with what I think would look nicer there. I really like
the original design better and location for where it should be. That's about
all I have to say on the issue.
1 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I was just looking at the dimensions of that. It appears
to be...to the outer portion, 15'6" to the inner portion with a 22 inch width.
1 Councilwoman Dockendorf: That's huge.
Councilman Mason: That's a big sign.
II Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Michael.
II Councilman Mason: People have built decks and then come before us for a permit
and understandably we've been very upset by that. And while as I certainly
don't deny that it was an oversight by staff, the ordinance says a 10 foot
II setback from the property line and they're not 10 feet back from that. That
does set a precedent for that whole area and I don't like it. My inclination
right now with what Colleen has said and with my feelings on it, I at this point
would deny the variance. That's my feeling.
1 Mayor Chmiel: Mark.
Councilman Senn: I'll just ditto what Michael said. How's that?
Councilman Mason: You are sick tonight.
II Mayor Chmiel: He's not feeling well. Thank you Mark... Going back to the
construction of that bank. I think we as a Council sort of, at least 2 of us
here, sort of pushed them into developing the additional space and proceeding
1 more so than what they had anticipated immediately at that particular time. In
order to provide the occupants of that building with a sign that is something
26
1
City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993
that is needed, I'm not sure what the variances is what we have to go by. But
all and all I think we did sort of urge the bank to proceed with the complete
construction rather than just partial, which they did do. And this would
accommodate the use of those tenants that were going in. I look at one side,
how many total tenants will be in that building? 1
Randy Schultz: Don, I anticipate it will be anywhere between 6 and 7 besides
the bank.
Mayor Chmiel: 6 or 7. Okay. As the space shows on the proposal, there shows 6
slots for whoever's going to be there and I notice that we have a noteable here
on that marquee by the name of Miles Lord who is looking to put his office
there. Good for Miles and welcome to the city. Even though you live here, it's
nice that you're going to put your office here. But I guess I do have some
concerns with the appearance of that marquee, as I call it. I looked at one of
the ones that staff had come up with, with a little bit of a roof line portion
on that sign to soften it. Get away from the squareness and blend into your
building a little bit more. I don't know if you've seen that but this is just a
little sketch that they had done.
Sharmin Al -Jaff: That was prepared by the applicant.
Mayor Chmiel: Oh was it? Okay.
Paul Krauss: With the original site plan. 1
Mayor Chmiel: I still like that concept of it. I know that when everything was
accepted and done as a group by staff, and I'm not sure exactly what our
responsibilities basically are because of that. But I do have a little bit of
concern of this being located in and adjacent to our pipes contained within the
ground there. In the event that there is a problem, even though we're covering
it with a condition, it would have tendencies to still have a problem by
destroying or damaging that particular sign. It is a little bit close, no
question. On one hand we welcome them into the community, and of course we do
have variances but variances can be granted for basic needs and we have to be
really careful of that. I appreciate the bank in making every effort to work
along with what you've done to insure that successful project as you have.
Would you like to say something?
Randy Schultz: Could I make a comment?
Mayor Chmiel: Please, come forward. 1
Randy Schultz: Thank you Don. Members of the City Council. My name is Randy
Schultz. I'm President of the bank. I haven't had a chance to meet some of you
so. Let me assure from the beginning that we've tried to construct a building
here that we thought the community would be proud of and for those of the people
who were aware of this project from the beginning, we did very much listen to
the concerns of the Planning Commission in the very beginning and changed our 1
building to a design that I think everybody likes and feels is a building that
they're proud to see in a main entrance into Chanhassen. I don't have a problem
in looking at some kind of a pitched roof. We thought that by taking off the
roof the sign would be shorter and smaller and would not be as large for people
27 1
1
II City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993
to think. I guess where I'm coming from on the size of the sign as we see it
now and where it's location is, as Don indicated, we were going to come in with
a smaller building to begin with and the City encouraged us to go with a larger
I building. Build the phase 2. They indicated to us that they felt that it would
look better on that corner and that we would find the tenants to occupy the
space. And both of those comments were right. I think it does look much
better. The size of the building on that space as it is and we are seeing some
I real good interest as far as tenants. I have to tell you though, every tenant
we talk to says where's my signage. That's the number one concern. Where's my
signage. Are people going to be able to see it from Highway 5 and are they
going to be able to see it from Market Boulevard? If you see where the sign is
located on our site, it's uniquely situated such that people from Highway 5 are
going to be able to see it. Its a two sided sign. People coming down Market
Boulevard can see it. About the only other way I see to do that and accomplish
1
both those things is to put two signs, one on each side of the building and make
them parallel with the building. We had no idea that we were in violation of
any variance. I was totally surprised when Kim came to me towards the end of
II the building and said, we've got a problem. We're too close to the property
line. I don't think we pose a hazard though and I don't think any of you who
have been on that corner would believe that we're blocking any view of any
I traffic or obstructing anything. If there's any concern that there's going to
be some damage as a result of some future easements, we'll certainly as a bank
say any damage that might result is our cost. We feel it's important for that
sign to be where it is. We think it's going to be a very nice sign. We'll make
' some design changes as far as the roof line, if that's what the Council wants.
It's going to be very hard for us to change that sign and still give our tenants
the kind of signage they'd like to see to locate in the space. I wish you would
11 consider that and consider circumstances and please consider our request. Thank
you.
Mayor Chmiel: Let me just throw something out. In looking at the other
I buildings within our downtown and having the names all over as we do have
presently, this monument sign appeals to me just a little bit more, from an
aesthetic standpoint. But it does, and there is a need to show who are in a
II particular building. Whether that be on the inside of the building or if you
have them on the outside of the building. Or as you have a monument sign. I
would prefer seeing it on a monument sign. Where yet I'm not sure. But only
because of the aesthetics of the building in itself. I think it would look not
too good if we were to have signs all over that building. And so with that I'd
just like to throw it back. You wanted to say something.
II Councilman Senn: Well I don't know, maybe I'm Johnny come lately on this issue
but one of the things that really concerns me about what I do see in downtown
Chanhassen is exactly what you're raising. I know of, I guess I'm going to say
I this. I know of no other place where multi tenant office buildings have outside
tenant identification for every tenant in the building and to me that's setting
quite a precedent in terms of the amount of signage that you're going to allow
in town. You know if the next building that comes in is 2 times this size,
what's the size of that sign going to be to show every tenant in the building on
the sign. And I'm really concerned about the appropriateness of that. Normally
multi tenant office buildings you have inside identification as to where the
tenants are. Beyond that you have building identification and you tell people,
hey. I'm located in the Americana Bank Building in Chanhassen. And when you
' 28
1
City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993 t
get to the lobby you've got signage to take you where you need to go. So I
don't share the concern of, or the need I should say for that kind of signage
outside to the highway and everywhere else.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Mike, you wanted to say something.
Councilman Mason: Yeah, I share Councilman Senn's concern about that also. I
don't want anyone to get the impression that I'm anti Americana Rank. We did
ask you to do some things and it looks really nice. Don't get me wrong. I go
back to 2 feet out of the ordinance and I appreciate the fact that no one may
have known that. This happens in a home and we've told them, well. You've got
to cut it back 2 feet. I see here that the signs, the attorney's signs or
whatever, are going to be 12 inches high. I question a car from Highway 5 going
50 to 60 mph could see those anyway. I certainly, it's an issue on the rural
streets or the streets in Chan but I don't know if I could see 12 inches. A 12
inch sign going down Highway 5.
Mayor Chmiel: With those eyes I'm sure you could. 1
Councilman Mason: Well that's true. I do have pretty good eye sight but yeah,
boy. I come back to, I share Councilman Senn's concern about the amount of
outside signage and this is not, ever since I've been on Council, I've been
opposed to people asking for variances after things have been done intentionally
or otherwise, and I guess at this point I'm going to stand by that until I hear
something else.
Mayor Chmiel: Anything more Colleen?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Just to reiterate that my former position stands. 1
That you built a beautiful building and I think a sign of this size just
detracts from it.
Councilman Mason: Could we get some discussion about signage inside as opposed
to the outside of buildings?
Mayor Chmiel: I'd like Paul probably just to touch on that. I think they have
a certain amount of signage that they can have outside, and I'd like you also to
touch on that part too.
Paul Krauss: Well, this has been an ongoing issue. It started with the Medical
Arts Building, which is probably the one you're referring to...the provision of
a sign for each and every tenant in there. The Planning Commission felt fairly
strongly that identification was important. I remember Brad Johnson at the time
came up with a definition for the building. That it wasn't really an office
building. It was a retail office building. I'm not sure what that means but it
kind of set the precedent. I'm not sure that there's any policy that's really
firmed that up. That issue up besides that discussion. when the Planning
Commission, well let me back up again too. Theoretically, and I haven't
measured the ordinance against this. I mean we approved this as a site plan
package and it had a sign with it and that sign happened to have two tenant
spaces. Theoretically they probably could get more signage under the current
sign ordinance but this was the sign package that was approved with this site
plan and there was HRA assistance here and I mean, it's not a PUD but we sort of
29 1
1
11 City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993
handled the sign as a separate issue and as a part of the site plan approval. I
think that some of these issues may be clarified as to whether or not tenants
should get signage. Individual tenants in office buildings should be signage.
With the new sign ordinance that's been drafted up and is on the verge of being
brought in to the Planning Commission that actually considered. There was a
task force working with Kate Aanenson on it for part of last year who have done
' - a lot of work in that regard. The Planning Commission discussed the same issues
at length and I think they came up with a proposal that sort of split the
difference. Relative to the setback from the street. Yes, it does set a
precedent and possibly a disturbing one. It doesn't appear to effect the
utility lines at all. I mean it does encroach, especially if there's a hold
harmless type of agreement but the utility lines are not in the immediate
vicinity of the signs so there's no danger of it pushing down a water line or
' something else. What they had recommended was that the number of tenant spaces
be allowed as had been requested but that the sign revert to it's original
design configuration which would I suppose entail knocking off anything above
the concrete, flat concrete in the ground and then building the same sign on it
As to whether or not this provides visibility from Highway 5. If the tendency
is you're going to see something this big from 500 feet away, that's out of the
question. We have absolutely no desire to make this thing or any other sign in
downtown Chanhassen visible from Highway 5. That's not the purpose of signage
on our main streets. But that was the Planning Commission recommendation. As I
say, it sort of split the difference and as staff we were not totally
uncomfortable with their determination on that.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Any other discussion?
Councilman Mason: Well we could sit on this one all night long. So the
Planning Commission recommends that City Council approves the sign location
variance requiring that the pitched element would remain incorporated in the
' design. Now if that's done, but it can't go over 9 feet right?
Sharmin Al -Jaff: 8 feet.
Councilman Mason: 8 feet?
Mayor Chmiel: 8, yeah.
' Councilman Mason: So that in essence will end up making this somewhat smaller
right?
Paul Krauss: The way I would interpret that, and Sharmin you were at the
meeting too so correct me if I'm wrong, but you don't just take that sign and
add a roof to it. It's that you go back to this sign and within that sign
panel, if they wish to split that up for multiple tenants, that would be their
perogative.
Councilman Mason: If we deny the variance, what happens?
Mayor Chmiel: They wouldn't get their sign and they'd have to relocate it or
put it in another location.
1 30
City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993 1
Paul Krauss: Well yeah. They basically have that sign and they'd have to tear 1
up the concrete that's there and put in a new base for it.
Councilman Senn: To put in that sign?
Paul Krauss: Right. •
Sharmin Al -Jaff: You still haven't approved their sign permit. t
Paul Krauss: But we would for this one because that's consistent with the site
plan. '
Councilman Mason: Well, I don't know. I guess and I certainly take what Mr.
Schultz said, is that they had no idea that they had overshot the variance
there. Knowing that each variance is one at a time and yes it sets a precedence
but it doesn't mean we have to agree to any other variance. I guess I'll move
off of this one and I'm willing to move approval of the Planning Commission 11 recommendation, which then grants the variance for 2 feet but brings it back to
Plan #1, the smaller sign with the pitched roof, which does seem to me to be
somewhat of a compromise.
Mayor Chmiel: I think it is too. I will second that.
Councilman Senn: I don't have a problem with that but I guess I'd just like to
reiterate a strong comment that the bank consider extending the fine job they
have done with the building and look possibly not to try dealing with that for a
multitude of tenants. Rather some building identification.
Councilman Mason: I guess I'd be really interested to see what the new sign
ordinance ends up with on inside and outside signage. That's fine.
Councilman Senn: Very much so.
Councilman Mason: Well I made my motion.
Councilman Mason moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to approve Sign Variance 192 -11
with the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall enter into an encroachment agreement with the city
agreeing that the city will not be held liable for any damages done to the
sign while performing maintenance within the utility and drainage easement.
2. The applicant utilize the sign design approved on March 9, 1992 with the
site plan approval.
3. The number of tenants permitted to utilize the sign panel is not regulated
by the City. ,
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
II
31 1
11
II City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993
II FINAL PLAT APPROVAL AND PUD AMENDMENT FOR A CHURCH, LOCATED SOUTH OF THE
CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE, ST. PAUL, AND PACIFIC RAILROAD AND EAST OF AUDUBON ROAD,
CHANHASSEN BUSINESS CENTER, RYAN CONSTRUCTION.
II Public Present:
Name Address
II John & Eileen Hiltner 3272 Lakeshore Circle, Chanhassen
Randall & Joan Johnson 8580 Magnolia Trail #109, Eden Prairie
Gary J. Harju 5985 Mill Street, Excelsior
1 Carol & Amy Curle 110912 Von Hertzen, Chaska
Richard & Effie Taylor 7365 Howard Lane, Eden Prairie
Marty & Shirley Andreasen 19330 Vine Ridge Road, Shorewood .
1 Scott & Jule Eggers
Stephen Kern 5701 Bluebird Lane, Minnetonka
6540 Devonshire Drive, Chanhassen
Dick & Cynthia Walker 425 Chan View, Chanhassen
1 William & Marilyn Stewart 17005 Honeysuckle Lane, Eden Prairie
Mark Berger 15200 18th Avenue No.
John & Judy McDaniel 6502 Grand View Drive, Eden Prairie
John Dietrich RLK Associates, 922 Mainstreet, Hopkins
1 Willy Molnau 8541 Audubon Road, Chanhassen
David Stockdale 7210 Gaipin Blvd, Chanhassen
II Kate Aanenson: Ryan Construction is seeking final approval for their plat.
This plat, just to bring you back up to date was approved, preliminary approval
almost a year ago. At that time it had 12 lots and 2 outlots. When we put
together the PUD we approved it with a mix of 20% office, 25? industrial and 55%
1 warehouse and have a total of about 700,000 square feet of building mass.
Since that time they are looking at selling off one of the lots for a Jehovah
Witness Church. Since we put this together as a PUD, we limited the uses to
1 office, industrial and warehouse so what they're requesting tonight is to amend
the PUD to allow for a Jehovah Witness. And then secondly what they're looking
for is final plat approval and for the PUD approval. So first, let me address
1 the PUD amendment. This lot up in here, Lot 1 is where they're looking at
locating the church. As you recall, this lot was the only lot that had access
onto Audubon. For clarification this is on the west side of Audubon, just so
everybody knows where we are. This lot was the only lot that had direct access
II on Audubon. What they're proposing now, I'll show the original a little bit
larger scale. Here's the original proposal...lot and then Lot 2 and 3,
approximately respectively 3.3 acres and Lot 3, 4 acres. What they're
1 recommending then is reducing the size of Lot 1 and increasing the size of Lot 2
and 3. If I can address the two concerns that staff had. They really fall into
two issues. One, amending the PUD to allow for this type of use. And secondly,
1 how it effects the modification of the subdivision. First the use itself.
Obviously this is an industrial park and it's the City's, I think first desire
to see that industrial uses be located in here. Although this is not unusual to
see a church in an industrial park, where we have it with a Lutheran Church
1 located on Lake Drive. Staff could support a church at this location by the
fact, as I mentioned previously, that it is the only lot that has access onto
Audubon Road so it's kind of separated itself from the rest of the industrial
1 park. The rest of the industrial park would have access via Lake Drive. A
little bit different orientation with that use. In addition it may provide a
1
II 32
1
City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993 1
better buffer use and also the fact that it's a lower profile building. It kind
of reduces the massing and may be blending more than the office use that they
were looking at there as far as height and scale. The other concern that we had
is that when we put together this PUD we had specific, we call those specific
issues as far as signage, building materials. I did pass out, there's some
pictures up there you may want to look at but we did relay to the Jehovah
Witness that if they were looking at this, that they would have to conform to
the standards that we laid out in the PUD, and it's our understanding that they
can meet all those standards as far as the design itself. Then the second issue
to talk about would be the subdivision modification itself. As I mentioned
previously, the lots would be reconfigured as far as the size. The one concern
that we did have was the access of this driveway point. Mr. Stockdale, who's
here tonight, owns the property across the street and it's our understanding
that he may be looking at platting his property. I guess our concern there is
that we would like to see a T intersection and maybe some modification if he
does go forward here shortly with a subdivision on that property. That we do
try to tie those driveways in. In addition, they have proposed a separate
access on Lot 3 onto Audubon, and staff and the engineering department would
recommend that access be gained from Lot 3 off of Lake Drive and not onto
Audubon. With that I'd just like to talk about the final plat again. Again,
this one will be modified to show the smaller lot. At this time the only lot
that they'll be finaling would be this lot here for the Jehovah Witness and
the Weather Station lot which is the larger lot over here. The rest of them
will be all platted in outlots. There will be three separate motions that are
required. One would be the PUD amendment. Secondly, the final plat amendment
with those conditions. If I could just have you, on the final plat there was a
concern from the applicant about condition number 13, which is on page 6. They
had concerns about the assessments on the outlots and we have spoken to them
about that and stated that the assessment should be appealed at the time of the
hearing. The assessment hearings. And the third motion that you'll be looking
at tonight would be approval of the preliminary and final development plan for
the PUD and those spell out, as I mentioned earlier also, the building material
and design. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the amendment for
the PUD allowing for the church to go in there and again what we recommended is
that the church be located only on Lot 1 and no other lots be allowed in, church
lots be allowed in that development. And they also recommended approval of the
final plat and the PUD.
Mayor Chmiel: A couple questions that I have. If we allow one church in, how ,
can we not allow any others?
Kate Aanenson: We're not stating which church. We're just saying one. In the
PUD we're allowing, we spell out what uses we want to go in there. Just like we
said, with a mix of office, industrial and warehouse. We call out what mix we
want in those too. ,
Mayor Chmiel: And that end lot on Audubon would be facing towards the
residential?
Kate Aanenson: Correct. That's why we felt it was.
Paul Krauss: Actually it would face to another industrial site across the i
street.
33 1
1
11 City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, that's where the Weather Bureau's looking to go.
II Paul Krauss: Directly due east across Audubon from the church site is another
industrial site. Residential starts further south.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. But, okay. Alright. I'm just looking at that north arrow.
The north side of that. To the south you're saying it's going to be there.
II Kate Aanenson: That's Mr. S property.
Paul Krauss: Well no. Where this street comes in is the dividing line. It's
II industrial here and residential there.
Councilman Mason: Okay, well then this map that we have here is inaccurate
' then?
Kate Aanenson: The plat map?
II Councilman Senn: It has it reversed. It has Chanhassen Lakes Business Park
there and Susan Hilis is up there.
II Councilman Mason: Just the opposite Paul.
Mayor Chmiel: That's what I'm.
II Councilman Senn: That's Lake Susan Hills and Chanhassen Lakes Business Park.
Councilman Mason: But you know that's right though. The Business Park is on
II the other side.
Paul Krauss: But see, Mr. Stockdale's property is an exception of what was
I platted in the Lake Susan Hilis plat but that's the property that's owned by
Redmond. It's the industrial portion of what was the original Lake Susan Hills.
I Councilman Mason: Okay. Alright.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is the applicant here wishing to address Council at this
time? Are you in agreement with what staff had said. Would you please come
II forward to the microphone please and state your name and your address please?
Dick Taylor: I'm Dick Taylor, 7365 Howard Lane, Eden Prairie. Just to be very,
very brief. This congregation was formed a year ago last September. We've
looked at over 30 pieces of property. This one here, since we've been formed
we've been meeting in Minnetonka, which is out of our territory. This piece of
property happens to be right in the middle of our territory so it's a good blend
for us. Just to tell you that our meetings, if we had a Kingdom Hall there, our
main three meetings would be Tuesday night and Thursday night at 7:30 and Sunday
morning at 9:30. So we would not be there during heavy traffic areas which
II would lend for this piece of property, from what I understand. We're just
willing to cooperate in any way with whatever the City Council wants and
cooperate with the neighbors. We're a quiet group and I think it would lend
itself to the property.
34
City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993 1
Mayor Chmiel: How many members in the congregation? 1
Dick Taylor: Well, there's about 105. We have about 140 that associate there.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions? Thank you. Willy, would you like to come
up?
Willy Molnau: I'm Willy Molnau, 8541 Audubon Road. I guess I am what you call, ,
you put the horse in front of the cart instead of the back. I should have came
to a meeting a year ago. Is that map upside down?
Kate Aanenson: No. '
Willy Molnau: Which way is north on there? ,
Kate Aanenson: Here.
Willy Molnau: Well every announcement I ever saw, it says located south of '
Chicago, Milaukee railroad and east of Audubon Road. The sun comes up in the
east at my house and everything you're talking about is on the west side of
Audubon. So how can you plan a project when you're in the wrong ballpark? Oh
really. That's no laughing matter. It says right on here, east of Audubon.
This man here's business is east of Audubon. How come nobody ever straighten
this out? '
Mayor Chmiel: I'm glad that you caught it.
Willy Molnau: I mean Chanhassen is either upside down or you can't even plan
something because you guys don't know what you're talking about. You're on the
wrong side of the road.
Councilman Senn: I'm glad you finally straighten me out. I've been asking Mike '
here for 10 minutes where this is and I've been trying to figure it out.
Councilman Mason: Well you know some people say the sun never sets on 1
Chanhassen so maybe that's what's going on here.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Good point. Thank you. ,
Willy Molnau: I'm just trying to help out.
Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else wishing to address this? Okay. Mike, you've got 1
everything pulled out there.
Councilman Mason: I do. I'm basically okay with everything that's going on 1
here. I'm curious to know the loss of taxes. I mean that to me, I mean it will
be something but I don't, I'm curious. How much will we be losing because of
that? 1
Mayor Chmiel: Don, do you have any idea?
Don Ashworth: As a church it does not pay taxes so the only response would be
if you would ask us to calculate what a similar sized facility would be paying
35
1
1
11 City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993
in taxes. I haven't made that calculation but how many square feet are we
talking about? 4,000 square feet.
Councilman Senn: How many square feet of land. How many square feet of land I 1
think is more the issue.
Don Ashworth: The building's 4,000 square feet.
II Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, 4,000 square feet for the building in itself. The property
would be in addition to that. So you have to figure both.
Don Ashworth: Approximately $10,000.00 would be the tax on, if you put in a
4,000 square foot industrial building there, taxes would be approximately
$10,000.00.
11 Councilman Senn: Including the land?
' Don Ashworth: No.
Councilman Senn: That's what I wanted to clarify.
' Don Ashworth: I'm using $50.00 a square foot. I don't know if I'm high or low.
-
I don't know if land would add that much to it. ..so the $10,000.00 is
probably high.
II Mayor Chmiel: Okay, I think that maybe addresses some of your concerns?
Councilman Mason: Yes. Really my only concern.
Mayor Chmiel: Mark.
' Councilman Senn: To me I guess the only issue is the location of this type of
use in a commercial /industrial area and we've got such a short supply of
commercial /industrial land. My problem I think is really taking it off the tax
rolls. Especially in our higher tax areas that we need badly. And I don't
really think that's an appropriate use for an industrial park. I know we have
the one but I think that was there a long time ago before a lot of our current
codes and ordinances were put in place to prevent that type of thing from
II happening again and stuff so I would just have a hard time going along with
allowing it to happen again.
II Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I guess I'm on the opposite side of the fence from
' you Mark in terms of, I like it. I think it's, as the staff report says, it's a
nice buffer between the industrial park and the residential area. And seeing
that, I've driven it and seen where it will be and I guess I didn't make that
connection from the west side. That shows a little bit of my sense of
I direction. It will probably be the first thing that you see as you drive south
and I think that's nice. Given what the other structures in the metropolitan
area have been as far as nice brick buildings, I think it will be pleasant to
look at when you come in from that road and I think churches and other, churches
' 36
City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993 1,
are an important part of a community and I don't have a problem foregoing the
taxes in order to allow diverse congregations into our community.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. One of the, the only concern that I've had with this is
putting it within the industrial park. As he was mentioning that that would
have Tuesdays, Thursdays and Sunday would not provide any or would not cause any
problems as far as traffic flow or congestion or some real concerns. Taxes is
one of the ones that of course I'm concerned with because that's what we live
off of within our city. Not that we are in any position of saying, one way or
the other, regarding the site. There are other locations within the city that a
church could still be located without any real given problems and we welcome all
churches within the community as we have over the years. This is going to
require a 4/5 majority vote this evening. And in the event that we choose not
to proceed with this project, I would suggest that we also have some Findings of
Fact for the denial. I don't want to put us in a very precarious position
regarding this. And then again too, that lot, Block 1 and Lot 1 as it's
indicated, if we were to have someone come in to the community that wanted to
build a commercial or industrial building, that can always be extended and given
a little more area as well. So we're not just definitely tied down to just
what's there now. I'm assuming, or presuming that there's enough space for
total parking contained within the site. What's the footprint of the proposed
building that would be coming.
Kate Aanenson: Are you talking about the acreage?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. And if you're looking at roughly anywhere from 100 and some
to 140 as a total number.
Kate Aanenson: 2 acres. It was reduced down to 2 acres from 6.
Councilman Mason: Lot 1 was right? 1
Kate Aanenson: Right.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess I'm just sort of thinking out loud here. 1
Councilman Senn: Well I think from that standpoint, I guess it would be right
now, at least at this point my intention to vote no, so I don't know how the
rest of you feel. But if the rest of you feel that you like it, then maybe the
applicant should withdraw and bring it back in when Councilman Wing's here and
has a chance of getting 4/5 and by then I may change my mind but right now I'm
not so inclined.
Mayor Chmiel: I appreciate the openness on that. Making the church aware.
Yes, would you like to come forward and please state your name and your address '
as well please.
Stephen Kern: My name is Stephen Kern. I live at 6540 Devonshire Drive in
Chanhassen. Mr. Mayor and Council members. Just a couple of points as far as
discussing so far. Our meetings are Tuesday night and Thursday night and a big
concern was, because that one lot had to have a driveway coming onto Audubon,
that we were solving a major problem that staff had that of having an office in
thatlot, having daytime traffic because you have a little bit of a rise over the
37 1
II City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993
bridge and that extra traffic in and out of Lot 1 during the day would be much
11 more of a hazard than our situation, evenings and weekends. The requirements
for parking with the building that's been presented, which I have some sheets
here that are the actual elevation drawings on three views. If you'd like to
I see them, I could share them with you now. And also we have presented to staff
complete site plan and within the site plan it already configures to all the
zoning requirements, parking requirements. It's a building that would have 208
II seats and there's requirement for 3 parking spaces for each every 3 seats. So
there's a requirement of 68 parking spaces and this has 72 plus handicap
parking. We worked very close with Ryan Construction and RLK Engineering to
make sure that those things were addressed. The point that was brought up about
I being able to locate somewhere else. We've been working with approaching Jo Ann
and Kate for the last 18 months. Since we first came to town we immediately
pursued land, and we have discussed specific conversations with Jo Ann and
II others, 7 or 8 residential sites that looked good but we were constantly shut
down. There were problems with not being on a collector street. Or some
residential areas have strict covenants and so you cannot put any kind of a
building other than a very expensive home in that neighborhood. There was one
I spot on Lake Lucy Road and Powers Boulevard, the southwest corner, which is a
little piece of Kerber land left yet. It's 3 proposed lots or so but then as
that was looked at, there's some large trees right where we'd want the parking
II lot and they wouldn't want those nice trees taken down. And we came down to the
process of elimination that there is nothing else at this time available to us
in the city other than this lot. And that's why Bob Morehouse and the Audubon
I 92 Partnership thought it was a great idea. From the standpoint of addressing
our needs in a city that has had a great many restrictions, and we received
copies of all the ordinances that would be applying to a church and there are
very many. Very strict and at the same time we looked at everything that would
II be required to fit in with this situation here in the Chanhassen Business
Center. It was just interesting too in the staff report, the original staff
report on page 6. It was lending itself to a great variety of uses which is why
I here you have a weather station coming in. And it talks about research centers,
servicing light distribution purposes, auxilliary services type buildings. So
the original presentation was an industrial park that in a sense would be very
I versatile to a lot of uses. And then since our buildings are designed to look
much like a dentist office or any other office, we feel it would be an excellent
place and if we do end up somewhere else, that would also take a few tax dollars
off the rolls but we have a majority of our congregation lives in Chanhassen.
I Paying taxes. Nice homes and we'd very much appreciate being able to be here in
this industrial park. Thank you.
I Mayor Chmiel: I guess one of the points that I'd like to just reiterate is, one
of the Council has indicated that he would vote no at this particular time. And
having one council member absent, it would just automatically deny that. The
suggestion was that you withdraw this at this time and have it put on the next
II Council agenda when we have our other councilman here. Unfortunately he would
have been here this evening but he is a piloting a Northwest Airline plane,
which his schedule got a little fouled up. He normally is always here but
II because of that I think it would behoove your congregation to consider
withdrawing at this time and asking that this be put on the next Council
meeting. Because if we go to a vote, it would probably wind up 3 to 1 or 2 to
II 2.
I 38
II
City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993 1
Stephen Kern: Okay. I was trying to persuade the individual council member. 1
Councilman Senn: I'm not sure I'm the only one but.
Stephen Kern: And if that'd be the case, then we would go along with that II
recommendation.
Councilman Senn: Mayor, I guess one thing I'd like to see happen too that may 1
go a long way towards satisfying my concerns is I guess I'd like to see more
history on this. I'd like to see what other sites were considered and I'd like
to see the reasons why those sites were determined to be inappropriate.
II
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Can you make sure Kate?
Councilman Senn: I heard some there that sound better to me than this but II
that's just on the surface so I guess I'd like to get some more specifics on
that.
Mayor Chmiel: Why don't you furnish it to the entirety of the Council so we can II
see those.
Paul Krauss: We'll need to get a lot of that information from them because I II
think we're only aware of 2 or 3 of them.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, I haven't worked with them as much as he led so I think we
II
need to get some clarification on that.
I Councilman Senn: I guess I'd like to see that.
II
Councilman Mason: Could I just quick comment?
Mayor Chmiel: Sure. II
Councilman Mason: I want to thank Councilwoman Dockendorf for her comments. I II thought they were very well put about diversity and if this in fact is the only
viable alternative for them, the point raised about traffic on Audubon Road is a
very good one and I think that the church certainly would help that issue out
with Tuesday evenings, Thursday evenings, and Sunday mornings. And yeah, as it 11 stands right now I would support it but I also think it might behoove to have it
pulled from this one and voted on in 2 weeks.
Mayor Chmiel: Very good. We will so do that with the applicant's request. We II
can put it on next Council meeting, yes. And that will be February the 8th.
Okay.
Councilman Mason: Now, do we then vote on everything else here? II
Mayor Chmiel: No. If it's being withdrawn.
II
Councilman Mason: Well, just that one portion of it.
Kate Aanenson: The rest of the plat. You may want to ask the applicant who's
II
here on that if they would like to proceed without because they're trying to
39 II
II
II City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993
II final out the church as one of the lots. If the church doesn't go forward, they
may not want to final plat. So there is someone here from RLK representing Ryan
Construction.
I Mayor Chmiel: Alright, why don't we have that addressed.
John Dietrich: Councilmembers, Mayor. If the plat for the Chanhassen Business
II Center, it does not go through tonight, I would also say we would like to come
back to the next Council meeting and do everything at one time and try to
resolve any final issues that are still outstanding on it.
II Mayor Chmiel: That's still going to require a 4/5 all the way through for
everything.
II Roger Knutson: The platting just requires a simple majority. It's the
amendment to the PUD that requires it.
II Councilman Mason: So with that I'd move to table until the, tabling Chanhassen
Business Center PUD Amendment, Final Plat and PUD approval until the February
Council meeting.
II Mayor Chmiel: Okay, is there a second?
' Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to table Final Plat
Approval and PUD Amendment for the Chanhassen Business Center until the City
' Council meeting February 8, 1993. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR UPPER BLUFF CREEK UTILITIES
1 PHASE II, PROJECT 91 -17B.
Charles Folch: Attached to your staff report you will find two petitions
received from Carlson and O'Shaughnessy properties. At the last Council meeting
you'll recall that representatives from Opus and the Gateway Business
Partnership publically requested that trunk utilities be extended through the,
or to include the Phase II portion of the Upper Bluff Creek improvement project.
I These 3 property owners represent the majority of the land that would be
effected by this project. The project would begin at the Phase I's current
terminous which would be on Galpin Boulevard through the proposed Hans Hagen
' property. It would extend north along Galpin and then west through the
O'Shaughnessy and Gateway Business Park property. An estimate has been received
by Bonestroo to prepare the study at $7,200.00. As consistent with past policy
on these types of projects, we would recommend that the parties petitioning for
I this improvement project be required to provide the monies to secure the cost of
the study. Staff is empathetic to the Council's concerns in relation to the
Trunk Highway 5 corridor situation as expressed at the last meeting and although
' staff does believe that this study could be undertaken over the next few months
and would be prudent to basically wait to proceed any further in ordering the
project until the results of the Highway 5 corridor task force study are known.
With that, it is therefore recommended that the City Council authorize the
II consulting engineering firm of Bonestroo to prepare the feasibility study for
the Phase II of the Upper Bluff Creek Trunk Utility Improvement Project #91 -17B
' 40
City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993 1
conditioned that the City receive a security of $200.00 in the form of a letter
of credit or cash escrow. The appropriate cost splits have been established
based on land area of the three petitioners involved. And they have been
established at the Carlson property $800.00, the O'Shaughnessy property
$2,700.00 and Gateway Business Partnership /Opus $3,700.00.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Any discussion?
Councilman Senn: Just one quick question. How are all these properties zoned
or perceived to be zoned?
Charles Folch: At this point I'd have to refer to Paul. Or Paul's out of the
room. Gateway Business Partnership is currently, I think most of it is zoned ag
right now. And so there'd be some rezoning involved.
Mayor Chmiel: All rezoning. We don't know what.
Councilman Senn: We don't know what really it is? I mean there's no concept
plan or anything in place?
Charles Folch: I think the O'Shaughnessy property though is slated for
residential. As is Carlson.
Don Ashworth: And Opus is business park.
Mayor Chmiel: Can I have a motion?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I have just one quick question of a completely
personal nature. Any plans on bringing it into Timberwood?
Charles Folch: Not associated with this project. Staff would not initiate that
type of move unless a majority of the people within Timberwood would request the
improvements.
Don Ashworth: I don't know if we should leave it as a majority. It's always a
tough issue. I mean if you have 3 failures and you've got 22 good ones, you
know. It's a tough one for Councils to grapple with. Especially if there's not
alternatives. Nothing's being looked at currently. '
Phil Gravel: There is the capability of servicing that area. And that will be
addressed too...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: The oldest home I believe is 5 years old.
Phil Gravel: So we're not overlooking it. '
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: If hearing none, no other discussions, can I have a motion? '
Councilman Senn: I move approval.
Councilman Mason: Second.
41 1
City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993
Resolution #93 -05: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to
authorize the consulting engineering firm of Bonestroo to prepare the
feasibility study for Phase II of the Upper Bluff Creek Trunk Utility
Improvement Project #91 -17B conditioned that the City receive a security of
'
$200.00 in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow. The appropriate cost
splits have been established based on land area of the three petitioners
involved and they have been established at the Carlson property - $800.00, the
O'Shaughnessy property - $2 and Gateway Business Partnership /Opus -
S3,700.00. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 20 -1023, HEIGHT OF FENCES AND
SECTION 20 -1019, LOCATION OF FENCES. FIRST READING.
Councilman Senn: Mayor, before we get into this and...I'm certainly willing to
go with whatever the Council's pleasure is but having just got this and having
about 100 questions and a number of concerns on it, I really would like some
time to maybe visit with staff, which I haven't had the opportunity to do, since
we got the packets and would like to go into some discussion in detail on this.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Rather than, it has to go through two readings on this.
' If you so choose, we could move first reading on it and still have discussions
with concerns related to whatever it might be. I had my little question mark
there too. But I'd like to do some discussions on this.
Councilman Senn: You know if this is a significant issue whether we go with
this or not and as one that's going to.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. 6 1/2 feet to me seems like a stockade.
' �
Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes Don.
Don Ashworth: It doesn't hurt anything? There's no applicant that's lined up.
Paul Krauss: Oh no. No.
Don Ashworth: So if we table it for 2 weeks, 4 weeks, whatever, it's not a
problem.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
' Councilman Senn: I'd like to move that we table it for a few weeks.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to table Zoning Ordinance
' Amendment to Amend Section 20 -1023, Height of Fences, and Section 20 -1019,
Location of Fences, for further review. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
' 42
City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993 1
APPOINTMENT TO THE SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT COMMISSION. 1
Don Ashworth: We needed to appoint two last time and we, I did. Didn't catch
that. We appointed the other. I think they would prefer seeing someone from
the City Council. I also know that Dale Geving has previously served. He's
made an application before you. I think he'd be an excellent candidate. He's
retired and I think his wife would love to see you.
Councilman Senn: On that basis I'll move approval.
Councilman Mason: Yeah, I've spent a little time with Southwest Metro and I
understand that they would like two Council people on it, although I do think
that certainly, while Dale is not a Council member now, he was and I think he
knows the workings of the city and I certainly think he would devote the time
necessary to the job.
Mayor Chmiel: I would agree with your discussion. But there is another
potential of another Council person on Council who could also serve on this and
don't know whether you have the time Mark or not
Councilman Senn: Oh, I thought we were talking about Mike. 1
Mayor Chmiel: We have a tad of a conflict with that because that's HRA night as
well.
Councilman Senn: I think I'm going to have to pass.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. And I know Richard does not have the time either. So with
that I would so move to have Dale Geving sit on the Transit, Southwest Metro
Transit.
Councilman Senn: How about you Colleen? '
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I am.
Mayor Chmiel: She's on.
Councilman Mason: I'll second that motion. 1
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to appoint Dale Geving to the
Southwest Metro Transit Commission. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
Mayor Chmiel: One quick item. I was going to mention something under Council
presentations. I received an invite from the Association of Metropolitan
Municipalities cordially inviting you to a reception for the State Legislators
from the metropolitan area and Metropolitan Council members Wednesday, February
10th. 4:30 to 6:00 p.m. and it's going to be in the Buffington Gilbert Rooms
and Kellian, St. Paul, State Capital. It's right at the St. Anthony /Rice Street
exit. I'm planning on going so if anyone else would be planning on going. I
know Don will be going.
43 1
1
City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993
1
Councilman Senn: When is it again Don? I'm sorry.
Mayor Chmiel: It's going to be February 10th. 4:30 to 6:00 p.m.. Program
starts at 5:30 to 5:45.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Can we get copies of this? 1
Mayor Chmiel: Sure. Yeah, Don will you make copies of this?
Don Ashworth: Okay. I know I marked this in the Administrative Section. It
must not have gotten in this particular packet.
Mayor Chmiel: No. It wasn't in there. That's why I brought it up.
Councilman Senn: I'd like to but I've got a conflict already that night.
Mayor Chmiel: But it's good because the more legislators you know, the better
it is for the city as well. So with that, if there aren't any Administrative
Presentations, I would ask for a move for adjournment.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Senn seconded to adjourn the meeting. All
voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m.
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
1 Prepared by Nann Opheim
1 )
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 J
1 44
1
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
t JANUARY 20, 1993
`. Chairman Batzli called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. -
•
MEMBERS PRESENT: Diane Harberts, Ladd Conrad, -Joe Scott, Brian Batzli,
Jeff Farmakes, Nancy Mancino, and Matt Ledvina
STAFF PRESENT : Kate Aanenson, Planner II
SIC I ARI i .
SU: r V SI e� - 1,1 _! T e V T .! ' o.0 �.
REQUIREMENTS OF CU,..-DE-SAC LENGTHS.
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Batzli
' called the public . hearing to = order .
Ledvina moved, Forsakes seconded to close the public hearing. All voted. in
2 1 favor and `the /notion parried. The public- bearing was doped.
Batzli:. The record should show that there'e no one in the crowd really.
I Normally, for those of you who are new to - ."the Planning Commission, after we
close the public hearing, go around. Bet comments from the individual
commissioners end ;we'.la do " ,that 'in order, normally starting from one side
or the other: 'Tonight i'nn going to start with`Ladd, Just so that .1 don't
have to put anybody on the spot: But don't be 'bashful about asking
questions Or raising issues or asking why were even doing this. So having
said that, Ladd., , Do you have any comments on this?
Conrad: 1 like cul -de -sacs. I like islands in cul -de -sacs. .Cul -de --sacs
can be a real benefit and amenity. I : don't have a . problem with the
ordinance but .I Just want everybody to. think, One thing, did we rob this
1 literally word for word from Minnetonka? Did we add anything other than
600 feet?
Aanenson: Yeah, because they have 500 feet.' 'So yeah
Conrad: Okay, so we said 600 but the rest is their's. It's a real
' technical type of ordinance. It really doesn't talk to you about the
purposes and why we're doing it. It says, here's the technical stuff so I
don't like how it is but I'm not going to: belabor it.. It doesn't say, you
know the big deal about a cul-de-sac is the situation case of emergency.
I . So we haven't changed any specs. In terms of a wider street or whatever.
We're just saying emergency vehicles. There's only 3.2 houses down there so
no big deal. I guess again, we've put the technical things down and I
' think 600 feet is okay. That's going to solve my ideal. I just want
everybody to know that when the wording says center islands within
cul - sacs shall be prohibited, that's basically - what it means. It says
unless, but basically we're, the engineer's going to recommend against them
all the time. Nothing more-
,- Batzli: Would you prefer to see (a) an intent section, and (b), that we
define what sort of center islands would be appropriate?
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 20, 1993 - Page 2
Conrad: Brian, I just don't like the ordinance because of all the
technical stuff. Do I want that? Do I want it to have an intent?
Cul -de -sac intent? We haven't given any, you know if we're going to have,
unless a design is approved by the City Engineer, it basically takes us
' out. You know point(number 3, we are not part of the decision making
process. You should know that based on the... It's not allowed. The City
Engineer could allow it. If we think it's a valid use, and there are
problems with center islands. You've got maintenance problems and you've
got snow plowing problems and there's no doubt. They just happen, when
they're done right and somebody maintains them, they're really pretty and
they really make that cul -de -sac in that neighborhood a real nice area. So
it's a compromise between making it a nice little community, a nice little
area street versus allowing for emergency vehicles to go all the way
through. I'm not going to make an issue. No, I don't like what I see
here. I'm not making an issue out of it.
Batzli: Well see, we scheduled the discussion, just a little bit of
history. I think you probably, the new people got a flavor of why we're
' looking at this but with a recent proposal of the Lundgren development over
at TH 5 and TH 41. The Planning Commission reversed itself at the last
minute by putting through what had been two cul -de -sacs and requesting that
' it be changed into a thru street. Based on that, I requested that staff
bring it up as an item for discussion as to whether or not we like
cul -de -sacs and to look at it from a planning perspective as opposed to a
safety perspective because I thought we weren't getting the complete
picture of what and why we were recommending for or against these
cul -de -sacs. We've heard and the staff report makes it very clear that a
litany is becoming somewhat repetitious. Well that's putting it nicely.
We've heard repeatedly that these are safety concerns, safety issues for
fire trucks going down cul-de-sacs. Turning onto a wrong one. Not being
able to turn around. If for example the entrance gets flooded, which is
what happened down in Fox Hollow several years ago when we had the 13 inch
rain, can you get out a separate way. We've heard the safety concerns and
what I wanted to hear last time was, that's fine but from a, not from a
safety standard but from a neighborhood development, sense of community,
11 those types of issues, what are we doing by constructing a lot of
cul -de -sacs. And we addressed that a little bit last time. I was kind of
disappointed. I think we ended up talking about it late at night so those
concerns were sort of glossed over. But what I'm hearing tonight from Ladd
at least initially is that he likes them. He thinks they're valuable in
certain aspects. A feeling of security. Crime. Those kinds of issues
that weren't really, I don't think fully flushed out the first time, the
last time that we talked about it. And if other commissioners have those
concerns, I don't want to blindly adopt the ordinance if we're not really
sure why we're doing it or maybe we should adopt it from the standpoint of
safety and then re- evaluate it if it is a concern that there's going to be
a lot of development coming in and we want to limit it. We would rather
limit it and then go back and look at it as opposed to not having any
limitations on it, or very few limitations on it, while we're studying it.
' I mean we can look at it one of two ways but, said that. Matt, do you have
comments?
' Ledvina: Just a couple of things again that, the topic of discussion that
was batted around last time was the length and we talked about 500 feet and
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 20, 1993 - Page 3
750 feet and the 600 foot distance is fine. I guess I would, I think thall
some of the things that you said Brian could be flushed out in an intent
statement, which could be you know a header to this thing and discussing
some of the safety concerns in the community, etc. I think we could chan
item 3 to read, taking into consideration what Ladd said. Center islands
with cul -de -sac bubbles shall be allowed subject to design approval by th
City Engineer, Fire Department, etc, etc. I think that accomplishes the
same thing and it's not a negative thing. It's a more positive thing. As
it's just saying we want to make sure they're done right. I guess I thin
we can cover that by just changing that to the positive. But other than
that, it would be good for the developer to have some guidance on this
thing and we kicked it around and I kind of felt sorry for Lundgren, the
way they had to work through this thing. If they would have had this
ordinance, I think it would have been a little smoother process for them.
So I'm in favor of the ordinance I guess, and I don't know if we can justll
direct staff to include an intent statement and then send it off, you kno
with this other change, or if we need to see it again. I don't know about
that. 1
Aanenson: I think we're clear as to what you're looking for. The
community issues. Crime.
Ledvina: I think the verbage that would go in there is all contained i'n
Paul's report here. It would just have to be distilled and just hit the
right spots I think and I think it's ready to go. 1
Batzli: So you would propose that we just proceed by giving it to staff to
draft an intent section?
Ledvina: I think that would be appropriate. I'm comfortable with that.
think they understand what the issues are and if they review the Minutes
and include some of your discussion, I think as it relates to the
cul-de-sac as part of the community and how it effects the community. I
think developers will get the idea that they'll touch on it. They'll think
about it, maybe if they hadn't before and as they see necessary, they'll
incorporate that criteria into their decision on whether they will develoll
with them or not.
Batzli: I guess I'm not sure what my goals are in putting in cul -de -sacs
or not putting them in. So I don't know that I'm comfortable letting sta
do that. I'm not sure what my goals are yet. For example, it's a dumb
example but my particular development, Fox Hollow, could be considered a IL
huge cul -de -sac if you chopped off the emergency exit which is now becomi
a regular thoroughfare through North Lotus Park. Huge cul -de -sac with many
different little cul -de -sacs in the interior. However it has a main loop
And in the summer it's quite an extraordinary event that everyone in the
neighborhood walks around the block with their little kids, and it's fun
and it brings you closer to everyone in your neighborhood. And the issue
in my mind is, if you have a cul -de -sac, that's a long cul -de -sac, you
probably, you may get some movement up and down that but it's kind of a
phenomenon in some of these newer developments that you see people walking
around. Now if you promote something like we did in the Lundgren
development where you have cul -de -sacs and there is no promenade, are you ll
eliminating this sense of small little communities within a bigger
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 20, 1993 - Page 4
community? And I don't know that staff has answers to that and I don't
know whether we want to encourage that or not, but it seems to me that kind
of discussion, you know should we be promoting these or shouldn't we be, I
think maybe we want to think about it. But I don't know if we should or
not. I don't know.
Conrad: There's not a real clear answer. We're weighing safety versus
' some neighborhood thing. Continuity so it's, I think the 600 foot is
reasonable. What we want to do is give a developer the opportunity to use
their land and not abuse the land and cul -de -sacs many times can do that. I
' really didn't like changing the Lundgren thing. I wasn't here for that
decision. But I didn't like that. I thought the cul -de -sacs.
Batzli: I was the only one that voted against it by the way.
' Conrad: My congratulations Brian.
' Ledvina: It's not like we trashed all the cul -de -sacs. We just...that one
street. There was 4 other cul -de -sacs I believe so they had both things in
that development.
' Conrad: Well they really give the developer some opportunities to do
different things that are just not a grid street system and they can
incorporate the lay of the land a little bit. I'm not uncomfortable with
what the wording of our point number 4. And we don't want to encourage
long cul -de -sacs. There's just no point. I think some of them have been
huge, and I don't think we need that. So again my comment is, I like them
but we don't need excessive cul -de -sacs. I think some of it's just the
mechanics of how we want to express ourselves in an ordinance.
Ledvina: Well I live on a 900 foot cul -de -sac and I've never seen a police
car in my cul -de -sac so that concerns me.
Batzli: Well I don't know, I grew up in Tonka Bay where it seems every
11 road is a cul -de -sac. Long cul -de -sac going out on little isthmus or
penninsulas or what have you and there was never any problem so I don't
understand.
Ledvina: Not that that is a problem but you know, in 5 years you'd like to
see one police car.
' Batzli: When they deliver your packet.
Mancino: I have a question. Matthew, you said that you lived on a 900
foot cul -de -sac?
Ledvina: Right.
1 Mancino: Did it help give you a sense of intimacy, neighborhood?
Ledvina: Well, I like it alot. We see our neighbors a lot and I don't
know, there's just a, it's true. I don't interact with the neighbors
behind me because they never come around so I think it does tend to isolate
people into smaller groups.
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 20, 1993 - Page 5 1
Farmakes: So if the road was connected 9 houses down, do you feel that yit
would be any less intimate with your neighbors next door?
Ledvina: Yeah I would. Actually I'm right at the end of the cul -de -sac 1r
they would connect that around but those other people that live in back o
me would most likely use my street more. I don't know. They wouldn't
necessarily have a reason to but they might walk around the block a little
more. I don't know. 1
Conrad: The people who live in cul -de -sacs love them. Everybody in this
Council chamber...they love cul -de -sacs. 1
Batzli: I bought my house because I thought I was on a cul -de -sac.
Farmakes: You thought you were? ,
Batzli: Well yeah, they put it through with the park but I bought it
because I thought I was on a cul -de -sac. 1
Mancino: I have another question. I don't live on a cul -de -sac but I live
at the end of a private road and I like it for the safety purposes. The
other thing is, if you also like it because of the privacy it gives you,
you feel that it gives you more privacy than you normally would get with a
thru street?
Conrad: People who live on them like that aspect, yeah.
Mancino: Okay. So we have privacy and we have security, safe. 1
Batzli: I think they like it if they have children as well because they
feel it gets much less traffic. So their kids can play in the road and ,
they don't have to be worried that they're going to have cars zipping
through the neighborhood using it as a thoroughfare.
Scott: But unless a developer has a long recentangular property, they're
probably not going to have one cul -de -sac with stuff on the side. I mean"
they tend to have, at least in our neighborhood, we have the promenade
situation with cul -de -sacs off the outside and then kind of a, not a commit
area but where all the lots come together and I think the intent is just
minimize the length of the cul -de -sac and•what ultimately determines how
somebody determines how something develops is the shape of the land. I
mean they're going to try to maximize the number of lots that they can gel
on the property and depending on the topography and the shape of the
property, is probably the major determining factor.
Batzli: Matt, did you have anything else?
Ledvina: No.
Batzli: Okay. Joe, why don't you go ahead and complete your comment
there.
Scott: My soliloquy. My personal opinion is, I tend to agree with, I meli
you talked about safety and so forth but the sense of one of my priorities
11
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 20, 1993 - Page 6
A
is the sense of community and having the ability for people in a particular
neighborhood, not only to interact with themselves but other neighbors but
then also with adjacent neighborhoods. And obviously because of the
climate we have here, that that's going to happen more often at certain
times of the year. But from reading through this and talking to neighbors
and people on cul -de -sacs and not on cul -de -sacs, and in talking to a
couple of developers, this is really not onerous. I don't think it really
11 compromises a developer's ability to get their job done to make the kind of
return they need. But the thing I keep coming back to is the safety issue.
The time you need an emergency vehicle and they can't get down there,
that's part of it too. But I'm primarily concerned about the community
aspect of it and I think it's a Lundgren development where there's, I
believe it's a connection between Timberwood and the Lundgren development.
11 You know what I'm talking about. I think that sort of thing should be
encouraged because when you think about the traffic. I mean it's one thing
when you talk about Frontier Trail connecting through Novak -Fleck and
coming back in that way. That's a thoroughfare situation but I think
because of the railroad tracks and because of the way those two adjacent
developments were set up, I don't really see that being a thoroughfare
because I think both, going through Timberwood, if you're coming off Galpin
and you would go through Timberwood south and then you'd come back out on
Galpin again. So in that particular situation, I don't think you'd have a
thoroughfare there. That would just be something that would be utilized by
the residents. But I'm also familiar with, Brian with your area where
that's a neat way to get from CR 17 to TH 101 is to go Pleasant View and go
right through your neighborhood. So I think it's important to determine,
is it going to become a thoroughfare or is it just something that's going
to be utilized by the residents.
Batzli: Well staff assured us when they connected the road that it would
never be used as a thoroughfare. Not this particular staff.
Scott: Alright, I have no more comment on that.
11 Batzli: Okay, Jeff.
Farmakes: I have no problems against cul -de -sacs. I think our discussion
may be discussing the merits of cul -de -sacs. I think what we're discussing
here is a reasonable solution to a conflict, different conflicts of
interest. We have one that's profit motivated. We have one where it's
consumer driven and we have others such as Fed Ex or Hanus Bus Company or
police, a whole slew of issues that service a community that are hampered
by not having a connection from neighborhood to neighborhood. What this is
asking for and suggesting to a developer, as far as I can see, is a
reasonable amount of length going to a cul -de -sac. We don't have a long
cul -de -sac and I would like to see an intent statement where, or reason for
this because it seems like in the past we did have this ordinance and it
sort of got fuzzy. And some of that was our interpretation and also I
think some of these larger developments that meander over large, difficult
type topography, seem to lend themselves to these 18 houses down on a
private road turning into a cul -de -sac and coming back. I'm not sure about
4. When your comments on 4 Ladd, did you. You know on 4. Did you feel
that that was necessary or omit it?
11
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 20, 1993 - Page 7
1
Conrad: No. I think it make sense so you can have a cul -de -sac. You
can't go longer than 600 feet but if you have to hear the criteria, I lik
that.
Farmakes: So you like them listed out rather than just ask for a variancl
Conrad: It tells a developer exactly what they can and can't do. Why they
can propose something longer. That's exactly what we want. We didn't doll
that very well in point number 3. It just says it's prohibited period.
And point number 3 is saying, if we like them, and there are real problems
with islands. There really are but.
Ledvina: But the main two issues are safety and maintenance.
Farmakes: It still doesn't stop them from coming forward with PUD and II
asking for a long cul -de -sac correct?
Aanenson: Right, that's correct. And as a staff we may encourage in som
situations that we'd want them longer to save vegetation or.
Farmakes: Okay, so that opening is there. I'm going back to some of the
we're cutting down on some of the discussion on some of these site plan
reviews. This would go a long way in doing that. It gives a reasonable
intent of what the design is. Telling developers, hey if you're going to
design this, design this knowing that we would like a modification of a I
reasonable cul -de -sac arrangement so we don't have these long extensive
private roads. And it seems, not reinventing the wheel but the rest of the
communities around who are older, as far as cosmopolitan age; are followi
a standard anywhere from 500 to 1,000. So it seems like 600 or, 600 is
what it used to be correct?
Ledvina: No, 500. ,
Farmakes: It used to be 500? Okay, so we came up with 600 for whatever
reason. It seems like that would be a reasonable amount of homes 1 guess
to the access road. And I would support that. As to the actual numbers i
that are up on the top there, I'm going to trust our engineer on that and
my comments on the island I still, aesthetically, I have no problems with
islands. As I have no problems with cul -de -sacs. Just again, that they'll
not over used.
Conrad: Right. Right, but you know staff's point and it's real valid, i
maintenance. It's real valid. There's no doubt about that but boy are
they pretty and do they take a circular area that's bigger. You've got
this big circular area that's kind of ugly and you put an island in it, a
of a sudden it's pretty. So it's a real neat amenity if we can justify t
maintenance and stuff. If we can't justify it.
Mancino: I saw one last Sunday night in an Edina...Edina suburb and it wit
an island which I hadn't seen too many of them. I don't think, are there
any in Chanhassen right now?
Scott: Is it Hesse Farms or Hesse Farms? I know the large lot on the
bluff, there's a couple of them up there that look kind of tear dropped
11
11
Planning Commission Meeting
January 20, 1993 - Page 8
11 shape but it's like, they're not standard width streets. I think actually
it's a private road.
Batzli: There's one ion the end of, going into Lotus off of TH 101. The
whatever Estates there. The big huge houses out on the point of Lotus.
There's a tear dropped shape one there. I mean that thing is probably
older than the hills.
Mancino: Well this one was round and there are oaks in the neighborhood
and then they had 2 or 3 oaks and that was about it. I mean it wasn't
' really landscaped. There were 3 just very natural big, huge oak trees that
were in the center island. Visually it was very nice and it broke up again
the pavement that was in the circular area.
Scott: I wonder if that's something, because we're talking about an
exception to cul -de -sac length. Talking about significant vegetation. I
mean perhaps if there is significant vegetation, i.e. mature trees that
could be saved by using a bubble or whatever, an island. Maybe that's one
of the things that if you're talking about Ladd, if you're talking about
adding (a), (b), (c) and (d) to number 3, perhaps some of these may apply.
1 Points for 4 it might apply and 3 as well.
Ledvina: You might even adjust the alignment your street to center those 2
or 3 oaks in that one spot.
Scott: It's certainly not being lost on the commercial side of it. Then
that would be an enhancement to the lots. The value of the lots that would
' be on that particular cul -de -sac as well so I would think the developer
would keep them in...
Farmakes: I'd just sum up my comments in saying that again, I support
limiting this and I would support the 600 square feet. And I'm open to
modifications but I think that the intent that we're talking about here I
think is important.
1 Batzli: Okay. Nancy.
' Mancino: Well, I don't think I have anything new to add to what Jeff just
said. An intent statement I think would be helpful. I am very much pro
cul -de -sacs for the security, the privacy# the environmental rasons that
we've stated. The feeling of intimacy of neighborhoods that one can gain.
And I don't think it necessarily has to detract from a sense of community.
I don't think that your intimacy in your neighborhood takes away from your
feeling of a larger thought of community. In fact I think it can add to
instead of detract. So I don't think it's one thing or another. I think
it's part of the whole sense of community. Having neighborhoods and having
them very intimate and people being close with each other and then bringing
that into a bigger picture. I support the guidelines for developers for
600 feet and would like to see, as Matthew brought up, the center islands
changed to a more positive statement that center islands shall be allowed
subject to the approval of the City Engineer and Fire Department. And
maybe we can add to that also.
Batzli: Okay, is that it? Diane.
1
I/
Planning Commission Meeting
January 20, 1993 - Page 9 1
Harberts: I guess I'm just going to add that I just had difficulty with
cul -de -sacs with regard to the center landscaping because it's purely froil
the cost factor of streets, maintenance, snow removal. So I guess I can
support the ordinance but I have trouble with allowing any type of center
but I guess I appreciate the significant vegetation, trees, etc that woul
be saved as a result of allowing such. From a cost perspective, from
safety, from getting the vehicles in there to do their job, especially from
a safety issue, it's usually very time related. You don't want to be
caught going down the wrong street. That's what it gets down to when it II
comes down to safety. That's all I have to add.
Batzli: Okay. Kate, I've got a couple of questions on the wording. On
paragraph 3 where we talk about center islands shall be prohibited, blah,
blah, blah and privately maintained. I assume we're talking about the
center islands shall be privately maintained.
Aanenson: Correct.
Batzii: I think we need to add the words, and shall be privately
maintained to there. But more troublesome in that sentence is the, we ca
change it but regardless of how we change it, they may be allowed you know
if the design is approved by the City Engineering and Fire Departments.
don't really give them any guidance and I guess this is where the intent
comes in maybe as to why we're trying to allow them, or what types of
designs might be found allowable. I think you're setting yourself up to
arbitrary and capricious and all those other good things by just saying,
might allow it. We might not. If we don't want them, clearly if we're
trying to discourage them, we should clearly leave it prohibited. If we're
trying to get them, maybe we soften it. We're going to allow a couple.
will be interesting to see how they work out. By encouraging them, we ma
get a lot of them and find out that they're a problem. I don't know. I'd
rather almost do a test pilot and discourage them unless we get positive
results. But the other question I had was in 4(a). Where it says the
resulting street grade would be more than 7% or the connecting segment or
substantial grading is required. What does that mean?
Aanenson: What we're trying to say is you may need to go longer in order"
to reduce the severe slope. If you can make it go longer and balance the
grade, maybe that will reduce the slope. So maybe it needs to go to 700 11
feet to make the grade.
Batzli: Oh, is that what that means? Well, connecting segment. I thoug
that meant, if you were going to connect it and that would require
substantial grading.
Aanenson: It should be additional length or something. Maybe that would"
be worded better.
Batzli: But the resulting street grade would be more than 7% of the
connecting segment?
Aanenson: I would say, yeah.
Batzii: Is that what that means?
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 20, 1993 - Page 10
Aanenson: Yeah. The additional segment. The additional length, maybe is
more clear.
Batzli: I understood the substantial grading part but I didn't understand
whether we were talking about additional length, like you just said, or we
are talking about if we connected it somewhere else, that would be severe.
For example, look at up on the Summit. There were some real severe grades
' up there and we ended up putting in an emergency access road but we didn't
put in something else because I think in part because of the severe slope
coming back down that and we didn't want to have people going up and down
that in the winter. So I guess what I would prefer to see on this
particular ordinance is staff to take another whack at it. By putting in
an intent section, maybe clarifying what 4(a) means for us and we should,
if we decide to do something like that, give them some guidance on whether
' we want them to change paragraph 3.
Harberts: I have a question with regard to paragraph 3. It talks about
establishing the chain of title. How is that exactly done? You know I'm
sure it's something within the.
Aanenson: It's recorded with the plat.
Harberts: But what's the mechanism to force them to maintain it? You know
if you have 12 houses and number 9 and 8 does not want to participate, I
mean are they going to be in front of the Council?
Scott: Or does that set up a neighborhood association type situation?
Batzli: You could either make that lot part of another lot I suppose, so
that one person has responsibility, or require that they have a homeowners
association that owns it jointly.
Harberts: Well that's what I'm wondering.
Aanenson: Right. Well I guess that's the intent is that there will be
some, either be assigned to a lot or these total lots abutting that. But
you're right though, there still could be a problem with that.
' Farmakes: Are you saying to reword 3 to the extent that that's achieved or
do you get rid of it and deal with it in the intent statement? I'm not
following you on 3. What you're suggesting for 3 other than the shall be.
Batzli: I wasn't suggesting that we do anything. I would like to leave it
this way until we find out how they work in the Lundgren development. I
would prefer that we prohibit them and if we decide that we like them and
they work out, then we encourage them. Personally.
Harberts: Who's responsible for any liability that occurs?
Mancino: 5o there are going to be some in the Lundgren development?
Batzli: Yeah, they passed didn't they in the Lundgren development?
Aanenson: I believe so.
Planning Commission Meeting
January 20, 1993 - Page 11 1
3
Conrad: I didn't see any. 1
Aanenson: The two that they had them on we connected.
Batzli: Did they get knocked out? ,
Conrad: I thought they got cut but I don't know. Matt was there. I would
swear they were taken out but I don't know. I guess reinforcing what Brill
just said. I think there's some valid issues on both sides of the island
I think they should be not allowed unless they meet certain standards. So
I guess I'm comfortable being negative on this one. Saying they are not
allowed unless they protect trees. Unless there is a clear way for
somebody to maintain them. Unless they meet certain specifications. Maybe
they have to be 20 feet in width or circumferenc or diameter. Maybe they
have to have certain vegetation on them. I don't want a little mound out
there. So again, I'd say don't allow them unless the developer can show
they're really an amenity and then so, if we have the standards, then we
can say yeah, that meets the standards and yeah you can have them. 50 11
that's my.
Ledvina: So take number 3 and flush it out with those...?
Conrad: Right.
Scott: And also, the responsibility for maintenance and liability
insurance would realiy be a standard.
Conrad: Yeah, absolutely. Because we don't want to maintain it. The
point is, if a developer thinks it's an amenity, then he has to figure ou
or she has to figure out how to.
Batzli: Well I would discourage us putting liability insurance in there
only from the standpoint that we have many, many outlots in cities that a
the responsibility of homeowners associations to maintain and we've never
required them to purchase liability insurance for those outlots. 1
Scott: So that could be a precedent.
Batzli: That would be huge. '
Farmakes: But if that's part of the purchase, when you purchase your
property and it's required that you're part of this homeowners associatioll
how does the city deal with that then if they're not taking care of the
lot? Do they, does the City then proceed to maintain the lot? Send the
bill to the homeowners? 1
Aanenson: It's a possibility.
Scott: Kind of like weed ordinance approach. '
Aanenson: The City could pass an ordinance to do that.
Batzli: Okay. Is there any other discussion? Does anyone have a motion"
on this issue?
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 20, 1993 - Page 12
Conrad: I would move that we table this until staff can put an intent
11 statement in and revise points number 3, that based on our comments.
Anything else?
1 Batzli: I'd like 4(a) clarified.
Conrad: And with 4(a) reworded.
1
1 Batzli: Is there a second to the motion?
Ledvina: Second.
Batzli: Is there discussion?
1 Conrad moved, Ledvina seconded that the Planning Commission table the
Subdivision and Planned Unit Development Ordinance Amendment regarding
requirements of cul -de -sac lengths for staff to include an intent
statement, revise number 3 and clarify number 4(a). All voted in favor and
the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR A SALES TRAILER FOR THE OAK PONDS /OAK HILL PROJECT,
LOCATED NORTH OF WEST 78TH STREET BETWEEN KERBER AND POWERS BOULEVARDS,
LOTUS REALTY.
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Batzli
' called the public hearing to order.
Brad Johnson: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. The purpose of
this, as Kate has stated, is that in order to get financing on a multiple
family project today, you have to have significant pre - sales. And this is
about 109 units so we're going to need at least probably somewhere between
8 and 16 pre -sold before the first building can be constructed based upon
' the requirements of the financial institutions. So we really have no
choice in the case of this type of unit but to request the temporary sales
trailer. I think the layout is there. The lighting question, I doubt if
this would be open at night but if it is, I'm sure there'd be lighting so I
think that would be reasonable. It's more of a daytime sort of an
activity. There will be electricity to it and there will be a Satellite.
We don't have that in there but most of these don't have Satellites so we
have an exterior Satellite. And if you remember when Rottlund was building
some units over here, that's kind of what they operated out of for a year
was about, I think it was a sales trailer. It will be skirted. I don't
' know if there's enough time to do any landscaping because we'll hopefully
be out of this by June or July. Although we've asked for a full year, the
hope is that we could start construction and be into the models by mid-
summer so I don't know if the landscaping thing is there. I think on the
' other hand, they want it to look as pleasant as possible on a temporary
basis to attract people to come in and do it. It is, it's not a metal
sided trailer. It's wood sided and we don't have a picture of exactly what
it would look like but you can envision a wood, sort of small mobile home.
Very small. That's about what it is, with a skirt on it. It's temporary.
Probably looks a little better than our construction trailers that you have
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 20, 1993 - Page 13 1
around here. I have some pictures of some but I don't think... As far all
the $1,000.00. I think all of us in the development business, we'd just
soon not have money sitting here at the City if we can use it someplace
else. In addition to that, this is a rented trailer so it costs so much
per month to have it'there so there's sort of an encouragement to get it
out of there if you're not using it. And also, as part of the site permi ,
the grading permit, we were required to put $250.00 sort of as a, to assure
us that we'd return the site to it's previous type. So there's already 11
$250.00 on deposit here in the city for that. There was a $400.00
application fee to just process this and so we's really like to have a
significant reduction on the $1,000.00 or have it just go away. The
ordinance does not require anything like that. As I said, we're already
paying money for the trailer, and that's fine with that. If you've got a
questions, it's something we have to go through in order to accomplish
anything over there. Do you have any questions of me? ,
Ledvina: How are you going to excavate the frozen soils?
Brad Johnson: With a large backhoe. 1
Ledvina: Okay, so you're going to break through the frost?
Brad Johnson: Yes.
Ledvina: And what are you going to be doing with the soils that are take
out of here?
Brad Johnson: I imagine they'll be moved to the side or put'in some II place... The process we're going through this will probably be in place
sometime in March so the weather will be warmer.
Ledvina: I'm sorry. ,
Brad Johnson: We'll be into this in March probably by the time the backhoe
is in place. So there will probably be a couple of weeks where you will II
have some things piled up but we'll take care of it. Again, it's our
intent, the site has to look good or we're not going to attract anybody.
The backhoes can go through just about anything so.
Mancino: What year is the trailer? Is it a new one?
Brad Johnson: It's relatively brand new. It's a trailer and it looks a II
little bit like a house but it's not a true house.
Batzli: We might have some more questions as we go here. Thank you. Th'
is a public hearing. Is there anyone else that would like to address the
Commission? If not, is there a motion to close the public hearing?
Farmakes moved, Mancino seconded to close the public hearing. All voted II
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Batzli: Nancy, we're going to start on your end. 1
Brad Johnson: I might mention also it does have a deck.
11
II
Planning Commission Meeting
9
January 20, 1993 - Page 14
I/
Batzli: With decorative rope around the deck. Go ahead.
t Mancino: Gosh, I don't have too many questions. What are the business
hours that are permitted when you have something like that going on?
Aanenson: As far as a residential zone?
Mancino: Yeah.
II Aanenson: It would fall under the conditional use that's normally
associated with that. I would think in other models. Now if there was
I something in a building itself where it's lit and there's restroom
facilities. Under this circumstance, like Brad mentioned, I don't see
people going there when there's not a lot of facility space past 9:00 at
night but I think that's something if you have concerns about, that you may
I want to attach. The reason why I didn't specifically address it in the
report is that I felt it's topographic and kind of isolated from everything
else in that area. I'm not sure how much of an intrusion it would be but
II if that is a concern.
Mancino: ...concern at all?
II Aanenson: No, they felt it was far enough away. There really isn't
anything else right there. I mean it's mostly commercial that you can see
but if that's something that you're concerned about, you may want to put a
ii
9:00, 10:00.
Batzli: Don't we have limitations in our ordinances as to the amount of
:' light spilling off of a?
Aanenson: Correct. Half a candle at the property line.
II Batzli: Right, and so what would we be limiting?
Aanenson: The hours.
II Batzli: The noise? I mean this thing isn't going to make noise.
I Aanenson: That's why I'm saying. That's why I didn't specifically address
it but if the lighting is a concern.
Batzli: Well they're going to want some security lighting there on all
1 night.
Aanenson: Right.
II Mancino: So there will be some lighting probably attached to the outside
of the trailer?
1 Brad Johnson: Or a pole at the corner...the only neighbor that can see us
is Eckankar across the street...
1 Mancino: Those are the only questions I have.
II
II
Planning Commission Meeting
January 20, 1993 - Page 15 1
s
t
Batzli: Okay, Jeff.
Farmakes: I have a few uestions in regard to staff. Temporary signs wit
q 9 P Y g
a temporary building, how is that effected with the signage permit? Are
talking about signs on the building or would they be off the building?
Aanenson: Well the project itself would be allowed two development signs
identifying the project. Up to 64 square feet. I'm assuming that they'd
put one on Kerber and one on Powers. Then there's distances that they car
be to houses but again, this is such a large area that there's significant
area to work with that. And then a directional sign that would be aliowe11
Farmakes: Brad, do you intend on lighting these signs for night display?
Brad Johnson: Yeah. I don't think that you have...
II
Farmakes: Banners, that sort of thing?
Brad Johnson: This whose project falls under the sign ordinance and I II
think there's just called temporary sign and we follow those regulations...
Farmakes: So that's how you envision it? Okay.
II
Brad Johnson: ...without a permit. Correct?
Aanenson: Correct. II
Batzli: Banners were for temporary.
II
Farmakes: Yeah, but they're a temporary useage. I'm just wondering, that
would not last out the year so.
Brad Johnson: Everything we're doing is temporary. I know banners are II
permitted but I think you have to...
Farmakes: As they stand right now in the ordinance, I think they're II
limited to, as far as days, there's a time.
Aanenson: Right. Ten consecutive days, 3 times a year and I think that'
a little bit different circumstances. There's specific ones for, this is
under residential development and this is different. I think the other's
more geared towards commercial. Grand openings. Those sort of things. I
Farmakes: I want to comment the developer on working with the neighborhood
on this development. It seems to me you really bent over backwards to ma
that work. When you were discussing that with the neighbors, considering
where the ordinance sat and what your property was zoned, I'm really glad
to see that. I thought in some cases they were being, pushing the envelo
and I thought that it was good to see that type of problem worked out
before it got to Council. The other issue that I want to touch on. For
i more than decade I've been driving down CR 17. The deer in our area use
that ravine for .a crossing between Kerber and the wild land, or the wetlall
area on the other side and cutting across CR 17. They constantly come up II
and go across into the Eckankar property from there. When we develop this
II
11
Planning Commission Meeting
I/ January 20, 1993 - Page 16
property, the ridge up there and so on, it will confine them even more into
that crossing area and I'm wondering, has DNR made any comments of our
wildlife? As we develop further and continue to expand, we will confine
more and more the wii transportation corridors into narrower and
' narrower bands. Do we have warning signs at all anticipated for these
types of problems or do you wait until you've hit so many deer?
Aanenson: Frankly I haven't thought about that. That's something we can
look into. What their policy is on that. I can give you a report back.
Farmakes: Because I can tell you from experience that that's where they
' cross. And they go through there every day as a part of their route, or
rounds or whatever they do to make a living.
' Batzii: Having just hit one on Thanksgiving Day I can tell you, you don't
want to do that.
Farmakes: So you had venison.
Batzii: No. It was too late at night. I didn't go back. I let the
' Sheriff pick him up.
Farmakes: That's the extent of my comments.
' Batzii: Okay. Joe.
Scott: Brad, what is that just roughly? What does a trailer go for every
' month? What's the rental.on that trailer every month?
Brad Johnson: About $250.00.
' Scott: $250.00 a month. On the $1,000.00 surety, just my personal,
experience with Brad and some of the projects he's involved with. I think
there's plenty of motivation to have that trailer out of there as soon as
possible and I just don't see that baby sitting around. So my personal
opinion is that that should be significantly reduced or eliminated but you
guys can sanity test it because I'm not an expert on this stuff.
Batzii: Well my initial sentiment is, this is a big project worth a lot of
money. This is $1,000.00 they're going to get back. I don't, I mean that
was my initial reaction. Now Brad made me think about it again but that
was my initial reaction.
Scott: Okay. I don't have any further comments.
' Batzii: Matt.
Ledvina: Just initially had a couple of questions for staff. One of the
things that I cooked back in some of the attachments to this. It says, and
I think this is the grading permit. It relates to the, in the conditions
is the final plat approval for the Oaks shall be granted by the City
Council. When does staff anticipate that final plat approval to be gained?
11
Planning Commission Meeting
January 20, 1993 - Page 17
Aanenson: Well it's our understanding, as soon as he has some pre -sold '
units that he wants to final it out.
Ledvina: I'm sorry. '
Aanenson: That as soon as he gets some pre -sold units, then he will be
finaling out the project. I think that's probably better directed toward"'
Brad but, he only has one year. That's the ordinance. He has one year.
The preliminary plat approval is good for one year. It's our understanding
that he's shooting to do that in June.
Ledvina: So it'd be the end of June. That's when you anticipate that
final plat approval will be received?
Brad Johnson: At the present time, the process of getting plat approval II
hung up in trying to decide whether it should be public road or a private
road...the final plat would be filed... Normally they're filed formally
the time you get your final. You kind of wait until then. Part of the
financing.
Ledvina: Well okay. If that's the case, we've got the cart before the '
horse a little bit here. That doesn't jive with the timing that's
discussed in the grading permit, which is attached here. If you look at
item 12(c), it says no sales trailer shall be placed on the site until II
final plat approval for the Oaks has been granted by the City Council.
Aanenson: Let me give some clarification on that. Because this doesn't II require, the grading permit is not before you tonight and except for the
fact that he needs a trailer. The reason why the trailer, the grading
permit wasn't issued is the staff didn't want to issue the grading permit
until we knew that we at least had preliminary approval by the Council. it
came in on December 2nd, before the date the Council approved it. The
staff wouldn't sign off on it. Engineering was ready to give it to them
but we felt, we didn't want to give him a grading permit. Have him go up
there and disturb the site unless we knew the project was at least a go o�'
a preliminary basis.
Ledvina: Okay, so this grading permit is not valid? '
Aanenson: No it is. But it's got a date'that's significantly ahead of
the, a good month ahead of what he applied for the trailer permit. Again'
because he's just working under one acre, the grading permit's
administratively. He comes in, posts the surety. He signs a letter
agreeing to the conditions that the engineering lays out. But when the '
engineering department reviewed it with myself, I felt uncomfortable
allowing them to grade when we didn't know for sure the project, just the
sensitivity to the neighbors and we didn't want to go in there and have
them disturb the soil and say, you're letting them go ahead and we don't II
even know if this project's been approved. So we asked them to wait unti
we knew the project had been approved. As you recall, we only had one
Planning Commission meeting in December and then to get this into the nexil
docket. So it was more administrative.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 20, 1993 - Page 18
Batzli: Sorry to interrupt. Brad raised a point that he's posting money
under that permit to restore apparently, getting rid of the gravel or
whatever.
Aanenson: Right.
Batzli: Will it really cost $1,000.00 to, if we have money to restore the
site, meaning get rid of the gravel and that kind of crud already under a
different permit, why is it going to cost $1,000.00 to haul the trailer
off? Who's going to collect it?
Aanenson: I'm just trying to, engineering gave me these dollar figures.
Now again, the $250.00 is just for the grading itself, and the grading
includes, as you brought up, how were they going to grade and where is that
' excess soil going to be? That $250.00 includes erosion control measures
and the like, okay. Just the strict grading, okay. Now when he asks for
the trailer permit, that's when he comes and says, okay now I want to put
gravel on there and now I want to put the trailer on there.
Batzli: This doesn't get rid of the gravel?
I Aanenson: We haul the gravel off. Restore the site. Reseed it. Some of
this may, I'm uncomfortable telling you that that's a $1,000.00. If you
want the staff to look at that and then have engineering comment on it, I'm
just going by the figures they gave me. I think I concur with what you're
saying. That $250.00, if he's paying that a month rent, there is some
incentive for him to return the trailer and maybe that's too high but I
think that's something we may want to have engineering comment on.
Scott: ...part of that $1,000.00 is also site restoration?
Aanenson: I think part of it is, yes. Some of it's just, they do overlap
a little bit but I'm not sure what. It may be can be reduced. I think
that's something we can look at.
' Ledvina: And the other thing I wanted to find out this, you indicated that
it's less than 1,000 cubic yards. Has the staff calculated, done the
calculations?
•
Aanenson: Yes. Engineering has.
' Ledvina: Okay. Because I look at this grading plan and first of all, the
grading plan is not complete in terms of the contours on the cut along the
east side. There's another 8 feet of cut that should be shown if you're
' going to maintain that slope that's indicated on that plan. Which shows,
which would result in about an 18 foot cut. And if you have a 30 x 50 foot
area at 18 feet, you have 1,000 yards. 5o I don't know, I'm uncomfortable
with that. Just looking at the grading plan right now and saying that
that's less than 1,000 yards. Will there be a culvert at the driveway for
Powers Blvd. there?
Aanenson: For the storm drain later?
Ledvina: Well for this entrance off of Powers.
•
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 20, 1993 - Page 19
Aanenson: You mean the curb cut? 1
Ledvina: No, a culvert for the ditch there. •
Batzli: A culvert under the temporary gravel road or something.
Aanenson: I'm not sure on that. I don't believe so. Dave didn't put it II in his...application. Oh, it did say that under the Carver County. It
says a culvert is required, 15 inch minimum. That's a requirement of the
County then. Do you want to turn to the last page of the report. Two
conditions by the County. One is a culvert. It's just a catch all that II
says they're required, they're bound by all of our conditions.
Ledvina: And then I guess the silt fence, there's no indication on the m
as a part of this report that there's a silt fence to be placed and where
it's going to be placed and if there's going to be stockpile. Soil
stockpile. I definitely want to see a silt fence around that. I know
these are. ,
Aanenson: There is one on this, they've indicated Type I. We can
certainly have engineering look at it again. I'm just going by Dave's 1
recommendation on this.
Batzli: You mean you didn't double check Dave's calculations? Okay.
Ledvina: There's more cut to the east here than what's indicated and if
that slope is maintained.
Aanenson: Just for clarification. I didn't look at this as far as the II
specific engineering. I relied on our engineering department but I'm
assuming that this is a representation of the final grading and the
trailer, how they're throwing the trailer on there. I'm not sure they're
grading. You know Dave sat down and met with them and reviewed exactly t e
portion so I'm assuming that it's under the 1,000 square feet but I
understand what the concerns are. 1
Ledvina: Okay.
Aanenson: This is a representation of the final grading plan so it's '
larger. But it was helpful to show exactly, shading exactly would have
been a better representation.
Ledvina: Yeah, which area is actually disturbed.
Aanenson: Right, and maybe we should do that when we issue the permit. II
Ledvina: The timing. So they're looking at actually doing this grading in
March, is that correct? '
Brad Johnson: Well the permit will not be granted until...
Aanenson: Well it has to go to Council. The grading for this? '
Ledvina: Yes.
11
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 20, 1993 - Page 20
Brad Johnson: February- March, somewhere in there.
Ledvina: Okay. That's all I have.
Batzli: Thanks. Ladd.
Conrad: I don't have any problems with this. I guess I'd like to see
11 point number 4. If we can change a few words in point number 4, I could
reduce the surety amount. You know if we said the rental trailer will be
skirted, wood sided and well maintained, that would give me the feeling
that it is a rental trailer and there's motivation to get it off site. So
I could reduce the $1,000.00 by whatever staff would recommend. I don't
have any other concerns.
Batzli: Okay, thank you. Diane.
Harberts: I really don't have any additional comments. I guess I
appreciate the last comments added. I guess I would support just a
$1,000.00 surety bond just in the sense of it covers the city in case
something does happen that hasn't been planned for.
Batzli: Okay. I don't have any additional comments. I appreciate Matt's
comments regarding the grading. That your review went above and beyond the
call of duty on that. Seriously. I appreciate that. Does someone have a
motion?
Conrad: Is 1,000 yards a key part of this?
Batzli: It's just going to be handled administratively.
Aanenson: If it's under 1,000 it can be handled administratively...and
' I trust Dave's judgment that it's under 1,000. I think it would have been
helpful, as Matt pointed out, to shade exactly what that area was because
we show... I will certainly, when it goes to Council, we will clarify that
' and shade that area. I think that's helpful.
Conrad: See under the recommendations Kate, we haven't said we recommend
' approval for grading under 1,000 yards. That's not a part of what we're
saying.
Aanenson: What you said is your number 3, it says they're complying with
the city grading permit and we can only administer those if they are under
1,000 square yards. I think that's what we were trying to say.
Conrad: Ah okay.
Batzli: Is there a motion? Would someone like to make a motion that the
Planning Commission recommends approval of Interim Use Permit #93 -1 for a
temporary sales trailer for the Oaks Development with the conditions listed
in the staff report and number 4 modified to read, the rental trailer will
be skirted, wood sided and well maintained. I would welcome such a motion.
Conrad: So moved.
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 20, 1993 - Page 21
Batzli: Is there a second? ,
Farmakes: I'll second it.
Batzli: It's been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? 1
Conrad moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Interim Use Permit *93 -1 for a temporary sales trailer at the
Oaks Development with the following conditions:
1. Any proposed signs will require a separate permit. 1
2. Surety of $1,000.00 for removal of the trailer and restoration of the
site. 1
3. Compliance with the grading permit and Carver County Temporary
Access Permit and the city grading permit.
4. The rental trailer will be skirted, wood sided and well maintained.
5. The sales trailer will be allowed for one year from the date of
issuance or until the first 8 unit townhouse is built, which ever comIL
first.
All voted in favor, except Matt Ledvina who opposed and the motion carrie,
with a vote of 6 to 1.
Batzli: And your reasons?
Ledvina: I'm not comfortable that this represents a detailed enough site
plan for the staff to take it from here. I think there's probably more 1
than 1,000 cubic yards of grading involved and I'd like to see the silt
fence shown around stockpiling and such. I'm sure there's, you know these
things you're going to take care of but just in the future, if it could I
a little more detailed and have a little more review of something like
this. I'd appreciate it.
Batzli: I think with your objections to the motion and those comments, Iit
sure that staff will take a look at that now. Thank you. And this goes
City Council when?
Aanenson: First meeting in February. The 8th. '
Batzli: Okay, thank you for coming in. Old business. Is this another,
this a continued public hearing?
Aanenson: Deleted. It's been deleted for tonight.
Harberts: Did they say why they pulled it? t
Aanenson:, No. Sharmin may know. I'm not aware of it.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 20, 1993 - Page 22
ORGANIZATIONAL ITEMS.
Batzli: In particular the things we need to do are elect a Chair and Vice
II Chair of the Planning Commission. Adopt our By -laws and appoint several
liason members. Normally, for the purpose of voting Chair and Vice Chair,
well we've done it several different ways. We've done it by secret ballot
and by show of hands.
Conrad: Darts was the best time though.
11 Batzli: Unless people are uncomfortable, I would prefer to just do it by
show of hands. Unless someone has an objection to that, so that we can
move along more rapidly.
Conrad: So we should make some motions for nominations.
Batzli: I think we should nominate and then if the person wants to do it,
he or she should appropriately respond. Like no way, or okay I'll think
about it.
Conrad: Brian, I know you've chaired this for a year and you've done a
terrific job. I think you've done, I've seen you grow in this and I'd like
you to consider taking it for another year. With a relatively new
commission and I think we need your leadership and I think you've handled
the public hearings very well and organized things very well. So I would
nominate you for Chairman for one more year.
Farmakes: Second.
Batzli: Well thank you and I will accept your nomination. Kind of
' hesitantly in that I have a 7 week old son but I'd like to try it for one
more year. Is there anyone else who either would like to be nominated or
are there other nominations?
Conrad: I guess it's by decree then.
Batzli: Well, I won't even call for a vote unless we're forced to do so.
Vice Chair. Since we have so many new members, I know it's difficult to
nominate someone so I guess, and I realize that as Ladd kind of nominated
me, if you would like to be Vice Chair. I don't want to have to put
' somebody on the spot. Nominate me. Would someone like to be Vice Chair,
is the issue. I guess if you would let me know, otherwise Ladd has chaired
the Commission in the past. For years and if he would agree to do that, if
someone else does not want to be the Vice Chair, I would nominate Ladd.
' Farmakes: Second.
' Mancino: Third.
Batzli: Is there someone that would like to be Vice Chair? I don't know
if Ladd is sold on wanting to be Vice Chair.
Conrad: Well it's real clear that I don't need to do this stuff anymore
but I will. But normally we like the Vice Chair to move up to Chairman and
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 20, 1993 - Page 23 1
r ,
it's real clear that I don't want to do that. I think it's real, one of
the things that's neat about being on the Planning Commission is that
different people have the opportunity to lead it and you kind of want to
wait until those people have a little bit of experience to do that. So t
only reason I would be Vice Chair is really to substitute. Simply that.
I've run a fair number of meetings so I can do that and I wouldn't mind
doing that. It's okay but just so everybody's clear. The intent is not to
move up. I think there's other people here that will do that. 1
Farmakes: So don't miss any meetings Brian.
Conrad: Please don't miss any. ,
Batzli: Also in the past, if there's no other nominations I guess we'll
elect Ladd as Vice Chair for the upcoming year. Okay. But I would like
express that when Ladd was Chair, it was much more democratic than my
autocratic reign and he encouraged me to chair a meeting. I don't know
that I ever did take up his offer but if there is someone who, after a
certain number of months would like to try it and get a little bit of
experience under their belt and see whether it's something they want to do,
and want to do on a continuing basis, let me know and I'd be more than II happy to let him or her chair a meeting. Preferably, you probably don't
want to take one, your first one with irrate groups in here but from time
to time we get a little bit lighter load and that might be a good one to
f try. Okay, moving right along then. By -laws need to be approved. Is
there a motion? Well, are there any changes and if not, is there a motio
to approve the By -laws?
Mancino: I just had a question when I read them. It's 6(h). The Chaim/II
shall have the responsibility to inform all the parties of their rights of
appeal. What do they do if someone wants to appeal what we are
recommending to the City Council? What's the process?
Batzli: Well I have taken that, and the reason that I always give my
speech up front is to let people know that what we are doing is
recommending and that the City Council makes the final decisions. And so
they need to go to the City Council to make sure that, if we reject it, the
appeal is to the City Council but the City Council's the one making the
final decision. On the other hand, if we table things, I assume that the 11
City Council could suesponte if you will,.determine that they will consider
it. Although I don't know that that's ever been done.
Scott: What is suesponte?
Batzli: On their own volition. They can just do it. So what I have II normally done is, when there are groups in here, tell them, you know be
sure to follow it to the City Council. Another thing that the Chair needs
to do is tell these people when it's going to be on the City Council
agenda, and we do try to do that. That's the rationale that I've read in
that particular clause.
Aanenson: Also sign appeals or variances.come before the Planning
Commission. I think that's the only appeal that you, so you do hear thosell
Variances for signs.
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 20, 1993 - Page 24
Batzli: See I tried to do it in the earth work permit and I think I got
that passed. I think we're the initial body that hears that as well.
11 Mancino: Thank you.
Conrad: That's interesting that Mr. Chairman, under Section 2 -1. We have
a curfew of 11:00. I just want to underscore that. We should underscore
that for staff also.
Scott: The Chairman can waive it though right?
' Batzli: Yeah. I've also requested for the past several years running that
this be reviewed to become gender neutral and I still know that in 2.2
there is an occurrence of the word his. So I would appreciate staff going
' through this and doing that. Okay, is there a motion to approve the
By -laws.
Conrad: So moved.
Mancino: Second.
' Conrad moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission approve their
By -laws for 1993 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
' Batzli: Attendance at City Council meetings. We've tried to do this one
of two ways in the past. We developed a scheduled over the course of the
year where we rotate it so that you in essence attend one out of every 7
City Council meetings, or attempt. And we've tried to do it where someone
has volunteered or the Chair has volunteered to attend as many as possible.
What we've done in the past 2 years, I think Steve when he was Chair 2
years ago, Steve Emmings. One of the former Chairs of the Commission. He
attended just virtually every meeting. City Council meeting. I don't know
that we had a rotation schedule that year. But that can become a large
burden on the chair and although I try to attend the meetings where we have
' a big controversial issue, or other things, I'don't think I'll be able to
make all of them. 5o what I would like to do, and especially with newer
people on the Commission, is get them to attend some Council meetings.
' Although in this case the 3 new people probably have attended more than
their fair share of Council meetings already. But it is interesting to see
how the Council reacts to our suggestions input or how they don't react
to our suggestions and input, and get a flavor for how, what our role is
' and I guess I'd encourage that.
Councilman Wing: Brian, I'd like to give my personal opinion is, when I
' was on Public Safety and we researched and I felt confident...and felt we
had done the best job. Then the Council would get into their 10 minute
spiel and start tearing it to shreds and coming up with all sorts of
diverse directions that we had already put together and come up with a
decisive answer. I attended those meetings and I held my ground and I made
it clear that we had discussed that. I made it clear that that's old
business and I think it's one thing, it's nice to have you show up but when
these issues come up, I'd like that representative to stand up and hold the
Planning Commission's ground because I think you have an impact and I think
it might be very helpful to the Council in making these decisions. So if
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 20, 1993 - Page 25
i
you're in the audience, it's nice to see you but to actually stand up and ll
say, here's where we went and why and this is our opinion. I think you
should represent the Commission...and I would urge you to be vocal.
Batzli: I would agree. '
Councilman Wing: I would really welcome your comments. I think they have
a significant impact in helping us...
Scott: I like the idea of rotating because that gives everybody, I mean we
have two new Council people and I think we all need to, I'd like to see all
schedule where you know far in advance when you're supposed to be there a
then of course you'd want to go to other ones if it's particularly -
controversial. But that's what I'd like to see personally.
Batzii: Okay. Why don't we set up a schedule like that Kate.
Aanenson: Okay. We'll put it in your packet for next time. 1
Batzli: Put it in the packet and then you can take a look at when, and
generally what happens is it's just an additional packet that Public Safe"
or the Sheriff drops off at your door several days before the Council
meeting.
Aanenson: What I would suggest too is we'll just go ahead and put
everybody down and just rotate it around. If you do have a conflict for II
that meeting, if you'd just ask someone to switch with you or work it out.
Batzli: Can you make sure that I get a copy of the agenda and not the
packet on those weeks that I'm not scheduled to go though.
Mancino: I'd also like to add that those of us that are new, may want to
not only go when we're supposed to on the rotating schedule but maybe add
few more into that to get the flavor and to learn as part of the process.
Conrad: Richard, just out of curiousity. The reason a lot of us stopped'
going was because, and this is years back. This is not recent but this is
a while back. We weren't called upon for our input. It was uncomfortablii
So your comments tonight are, whether we're called on or not, if we hear
the drift going the wrong way, and I'm kind of verbalizing this for those,
for all of us I guess. But if we're call on or not, if we see it going a
different direction than what we felt, that we should be aggressive and I
stand up.
Councilman Wing: Oh I think so. Ladd I don't know if it's appropriate 1
call on you or not. I guess if I was the Mayor and Chairman, I would
probably specifically do that because we ask Scott Harr for his input. And
staff. I think if someone from the Commission was there, I would clearly,
recognize them and as a matter of fact, I'll mention that to the Mayor.
think that would be significant.
Conrad: I think when an issue is confusing, and we've gone through it anil
dissected it, and geez you know, we take hours to dissect this stuff.
Sometimes we can actually minimize the amount of time you have to go
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 20, 1993 - Page 26
through the issue again. But that's I think, the Mayor would have to feel
' comfortable calling on somebody. If you're representing the Planning
Commission, say what were your insights and again, the tough part is, we
all have our own opinion. But you've got to represent 7 folks and
' sometimes, typically we've been able to send pretty clear direction here.
We negotiate. It's not 4 to 3 votes. We're trying to get clear direction,
if possible. If not, if it's a split issue, then that's the way it is but
' when it's real clear, then I think City Council knows exactly where we
stand. But sometimes it's not that way so a person standing up can
represent their own opinion but they also have to represent the balance.
1 Aanenson: I think some of that job is the burden of the staff too. We
always try to put a Planning Commission update and try to, if there's
different opinions, try to shake out what those major issues were and I
U think as a staff we always try to represent what the views of the Planning
Commission were too and I think that's some of our job. Make sure those
are carried forward.
' Farmakes: I do think though that we should be aware that we're a part of
the process and not the process. Nobody voted for us. We're appointed.
So when they sit on the Council that's a different realm of accountability
and even though we may all follow through and give our input, we shouldn't
be disappointed sometimes when the Council may decide to go another way.
And we have to realize that. And I think in the past, on other Commissions
' and I don't think this Commission is guilty. I think some people have gone
off sometimes on their own agendas when they have come to a commission or
got onto a commission. They have an agenda that they want to follow and
' they sort of go off ad hoc Council, or try to create that. Where they're
initiating developments on their own. I think we have to be careful of
that.
' Harberts: I'd like to inquire that staff, when you put that schedule
together, if you could contact me when you put that together because I have
conflicts. Other meetings that I'd like to maybe just take a look at the
' schedule and see if I can work out a couple meetings that will work within
my professional schedule.
1 Batzli: Okay. Very good. Liason attendance at Housing and Redevelopment
Authority meetings.
Ledvina: Paul got this one wrong.
' Batzli: Pardon me.
' Ledvina: Paul got this one wrong because I have been going to the HRA
meetings.
' Conrad: We've got a guy.
Batzli: We've got a guy? Do you want to continue going to those meetings?
' Ledvina: Sure. I'm getting a lot out of.it.
Batzli: Okay.
Planning Commission Meeting
January 20, 1993 - Page 27
Conrad: Matt's one of the best ones we've ever had.
Batzli: Well I have an inkled feeling that Joe may also wish to attend
some of those meetings so if you do, obviously the more the merrier from
the Planning Commission there. If you do want to trade off or could do I
something. Feel free.
Scott: Yeah, if you have a conflict or something but yeah. I'd be
moderately interested in that sort of a thing.
Councilman Wing: Can I just interject on that?
Batzli: Sure.
Councilman Wing: If you're going to attend those meetings, could I just II
recommend that you vocalize and be aggressive because if I had my choice
attending HRA meeting or Council meeting that would be scheduled...HRA has
more power than I've got on the City Council. Be more effective there th
any place else. If you've got good ideas and I think you ought to be...
there because they're making major, major decisions. way over my head.
if you want to have impact, be at that meeting and speak up.
Batzli: We've attempted in the past to get a liason to the Park and Rec
Commission. If anyone's interested in that, I think it would be
interesting to at least have someone visit them from time to time. We ma
a lot of decisions that are based on what they're deciding and I think it
would be good from time to time to get a flavor of why they're deciding
things. I know everytime I say this people look at me and say, okay. Fin
Go ahead and do it Brian, so I'll just leave it at that for right now
before I rope myself into going to another meeting. But I think we shoul
consider that because we our zoning and land use issues regarding parks and
open space I think is directly impacted by these decisions they're making
and sometimes we look at what they've decided, we don't need a park here.
We don't want this. We don't want that. And we look at it and we blankly
say, well that's not our problem so we can't consider it. Well, true and'
not true. I've always had a problem with that and I would like to get a
better feel for why they're making some of these decisions.
Aanenson: Can I just add to that Brian. They're also undertaking doing il
comprehensive park plan and I think what you say is really true. We may
want to get someone involved in that process right now because they're
looking at doing that.
1
Scott: I know in the Sunlink proposal, that we're not going to be looking
at, I know there were a number of references to park space and how it
connected up with the trail system and that sort of thing so that was, I
was pleasantly surprised to see that so I can see where you're coming fro
on that.
Batzli: Okay. That takes care of our organizational items. 1
1
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 20, 1993 - Page 28
' APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Batzli: We used to do this real formally, for those of you new to the
Commission, and we somehow or another decided that all we've got to do is
' say something like, does anybody have any changes and that's the end of
that. So does anyone have any changes? I would just like to once again
make of record that Ladd's comment at the parting of Joan and Steve. And I
I quote, "Well, good things to Joan. I think Steve deserves what he gets."
I liked that. I missed that last time actually so thank you.
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE:
Batzli: Do you have an update Kate?
' Aanenson: Sure. I could just go, at the last Planning Commission meeting
where Goodyear was on, we had a very lengthy discussion. And what it
results is the possibility of maybe putting into place a moratorium along
the Highway 5 corridor. So we're in the process, and Council hasn't
decided that's the option but we're going ahead and noticing and looking at
that issue. Again, it came back to do we have the design guidelines in
MI place to guarantee what's going to happen along that corridor. So that
item was tabled for a month and we're working on going ahead and noticing
the moratorium issue. The Gateway concept plan was also up for conceptual
approval before the City Council. It was a lengthy discussion, as it was
' here at the Planning Commission. The moratorium issue came up again on
that and again, because it's a concept. There's so many issues that need
to be resolved from the staff level, that we're kind of tracking along with
the Highway 5 study. What the staff recommended and the Council went along
with, which I think makes a lot of sense, is that we said they cannot come
back for preliminary approval for at least 8 months, which we feel gives us
time to get the Highway 5 corridor study behind us, or at least into the
adoption process and give us some time to resolve some of those other
issues. At that point we feel like they'll have alot more information that
we can do to look at how it should be designed.
Batzli: Speaking of Highway 5 team, people, project. I can't think of the
committee's name.
' Aanenson: Corridor study. Highway 5 corridor study.
Batzli: Okay, but who is the committee that's looking at it?
' Aanenson: Well Nancy is on the committee and Jeff's on that.
' Mancino: I'm also on the subcommittee.
Aanenson: Yeah, and Nancy's on the subcommittee too.
Batzli: How many people is the Planning Commission entitled to have on
that committee? Or don't we know? Did the Mayor appoint them? Does
Council appoint them? Are we still okay, because Steve was on that
committee. Is he still going?
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 20, 1993 - Page 29
Aanenson: No, but then Nancy was appointed as a citizen and now she's on
as Planning Commissioner too so it's kind of two fold. If Steve wants to
still come as a resident, great. We were going to put that on but we felt
we had two. If more of you would like to come, certainly I think that's
another interesting. A lot of work needs to be done on that. Long range
comprehensive planning issues.
Batzli: Okay. Thank you. '
Aanenson: So anyway, those two issues are very timely and you'll be seeing
a lot more on those two issues. We had the amendment on that you
recommended approval on as far as the metes and bounds. Approving those.
Actually Don Ashworth had a lot of concerns about that so we went back an
rethought that. Originally we felt it was a cost kind of issue and the
Council was kind of reiunctant. They felt that maybe some more thought
should go into that. Maybe we should require platting and if we did, may
it could only be 25 words or less. So we're rethinking that and doing some
more research on that issue. That's it. '
DISCUSSION OF SEPTIC ORDINANCE.
Batzli: Do you want to give us a little blurb on what this is about? ,
Aanenson: Sure. If you recall, we amended the ordinance to say, we had
the 2 1/2 acre minimum when we're outside the MUSA and we went ahead and J1
amended that and we kind of bounced around, what should be the minimum.
went with the 15,000 because that's our existing minimum lot size. As long
as you could get the two septic sites on there. At that time we didn't pig
in a collective system and there was some issues. I know Tim had looked It
that. Maybe a collective septic site would work. I know that the nursery,
Halla Nursery is also looking at, they're doing some platting and using a
collective sewage system where you had the 15,000 square foot lots and at
such time that sewer becomes availabe, you could vacate that system and g
ahead and plat the rest of those lots out. We had some concerns about
that. Paul was on one side of this issue and he felt maybe it could work
so we brought in some experts. Namely Roger Machmeier and Jim Anderson s
down with the staff and went through that and they really strongly advised
against doing a collective system. There's just a lot of headaches as fa
as the staff's concerned. Liabilities if the system fails and so I think
we're going to stick with what we originally proposed. Is that the 15,000
square foot lots is the minimum as long as you can provide the two septic '
sites on site, and not go with the collective system.
Batzli: Okay but, help me out here. We're allowing 15,000 square foot
lots then as long as you can provide a well and two septic sites. '
Aanenson: Right.
Batzli: And most of the area of the city is heavy clay so that isn't
possible.
Aanenson: Well no. What we're talking about as far as the, what you'd
need for the collective system is what we're talking about. The poor soi
because you need a longer, linear, as it explains in engineering terms. You
1
II
Planning Commission Meeting
January 20, 1993 - Page 30
need a much longer dispersion and it doesn't work under a collective
II system. I think you're right though. I don't think we will see a lot of
15,000 square foot lots. I think it'd probably be more closer to maybe 20
to 25 to get both those on there. But again, we still have the one unit
l per 10 acre density still falls into place. Okay, you still have to have
that density but what we're saying, if you want to split off and plat the
rest of the outlot, you can chop off a smaller, half acre lot. Again, what
I we're trying to do is provide in such a way that sewer, when that does
become available, we haven't got a large subdivision of 2 or 3 acre lots
that we're trying to now assess for sewer and water.
II Batzli: Let me ask the question again. Maybe I'm really slow on this
issue. Collector systems were discussed because a 15,000 square foot lot
is not large enough to contain a building site, a well and two septic
I sites. Does that mean that the two septic sites are collector systems or
two regular septic sites?
Aanenson: That's not why it was discussed. No, that's not why it was
II discussed. I did the original report. I'm just reading off of Jo Ann's.
That's really not where it came from. It came from trying to be more
efficient in land use. I think there are some situations where the 15,000,
I and Tim had looked at that in looking at some of his property and again,
like I said, Halla Nursery had looked at doing some of that. Just trying
to be more efficient in some of the land use. I think there are some
circumstances where the 15,000 square foot lots will accommodate. Again,
I it'd probably be more like 20. The reason we were looking at it is just to
be more efficient. Maybe it makes sense, maybe every other lot. The two
lots together would use a common lot inbetween. At such time sewer becomes
II available, you vacate the middle lot but again, the mechanics of the
engineering doesn't pan out to make that work. That's what the experts
have toad us so, is that clear?
II Batzli: So for now, what do we need to do with this?
I Aanenson: Nothing. We just wanted to let you know. This really came from
Tim unfortunately. Tim was the one that really wanted us to investigate
this, and unfortunately it got bogged down and so it's really driven
because he had requested staff to investigate the possibility of using
I collector system. Because we never put in the original ordinance when I
wrote it, because my original review and information I got said it doesn't
work and Tim said, can we revisit that issue. So what we did is we hired
I the consultants to revisit it and so they recommended no. It's really not
feasible.
Conrad: But you're still looking at it?
I Aanenson: Well we've adopted the ordinance that says, if you can get down
to 15,000 square feet and put two septic sites and a well, great. If you
I can't, then maybe you need a half acre, maybe you need an acre. Maybe you
still need two but we will allow you to go to our minimum if you can meet
those qualifiers. That ordinance is in place.
II Ledvina: Mr. Chairman, I guess I looked at this specific item and the
whole discussion centers around mound systems. And that is in truth, most
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 20, 1993 - Page 31 1
of the mound systems, or most of the septic systems that are going to be
placed in this area, are going to be mound systems. That might be guessi
to 70 %, but the other 30% are not mound systems and the discussion
that's contained, yot know as the attachment here doesn't really apply.
just for the record, and I don't know.
Aanenson: Are you talking about pumping or something?
Ledvina: Well no. Just the standard type of septic system. Granted the"
are a lot of clay soils in Chanhassen but there are areas where there are
sandy silts and sands, and those areas are maybe, I don't know what the
percentage but I'd be guessing as to maybe 40% or 25 %. So the discussion
is very one sided and I still don't know how this all relates. I would
agree with the points that are made within this staff report regarding
mound systems but again, we don't have the whole story. '
Batzli: Would you like to see staff continue to investigate this?
Ledvina: I don't know. I guess if there was a reason to believe that '
collector systems are a viable alternative for development within our
borders then, you know you've got the situation regarding mound systems
covered but are we saying that standard type collector systems are okay, c�
what are we saying regarding that?
Aanenson: I'm sorry, I didn't follow what you were asking. '
Ledvina: Well, we have the situation regarding mound systems and in the
engineering limitations of those types of things, maintenance, etc but whit
about a standard type of collector system?
Aanenson: Well what we did is we looked at the general, we had the
Building Department and then we looked at what's below the MUSA line in II
those areas that we believe have a possibility of developing and we looke
at the soils and you're right.
Ledvina: So you actually cooked at the soils... '
Aanenson: Of the areas we believe potentially, already. Exactly Halla.
he could go forward with this system, he would be in here probably within
the next few months. So we looked at where those potentials. You're
right. There may be some other ones but we believe that those probably
aren't ready to develop in the immediate future and at such time that we I
may be inside the MUSA anyway. 5o I understand what your viewpoint is.
Batzli: I'm still struggling to know where, if we want to do something
with this. It looks like we spent some money on a consultant.
Aanenson: This was directed because again, Tim Erhart asked the staff to
revisit that issue and make sure that when we adopt the ordinance, we left
collective systems out. He wanted to revisit to see, does it make sense?
Can we do collective systems? We're saying no, we can't. We're going to
leave it the way it is. We're not going to make any modifications to the '
ordinance. Right now we're saying, they have to be on site. You cannot
have a collective system.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 20, 1993 - Page 32
' Batzli: Okay. I guess I would prefer then that the City not spend more
money on a consultant unless the Commission has a burning desire to revisit
this issue for one reason or another.
1 Mancino: I just want to make sure I understand this. You feel that you
have researched the universe of collective systems that would work in this
area?
Aanenson: No. No.
Mancino: But you've given it a pretty good shot?
Aanenson: Yes. And I think the areas we feel that could develop, it's not
going to be economically feasible. The risks as far as if it fails. The
' City's risk. We feel at this time it's not a prudent decision to go
forward with it and we'd recommend that they be on site.
1 Scott: So this basically confirms the way the ordinance is?
Aanenson: Exactly.
Scott: So this is informational and it's not anything we really have to.
Aanenson: Act upon, right. And again, it was driven from Tim and I
1 apologize that Tim didn't have the chance to respond. We'd certainly let
him know.
' Conrad: But staff is still working on the off site collector? The off
site septic site, or are you not?
' Batzli: I think they're done. Kate?
Aanenson: Right.
1 Conrad: You're done.
Batzli: Unless we want them to investigate further.
1 Conrad: Well no, Jo Ann's note says in the last paragraph, staff is now
reviewing the possibility of allowing individual septic sites to be located
on adjacent property of that 15,000 square foot lot is possible.
' Aanenson: They would just go with the bigger lot. I'm sorry, where that
came from because what we said, if it needed to be bigger, then you need to
be bigger.
Batzli: See I would be totally against allowing a 15,000 square foot lot
' and then locating the septic systems off the site. That's totally against
what we were trying to do.
Aanenson: That's exactly right. That was not our intent. We said, if
' you've got sand and it works, great. If not, then maybe you have to be a
half acre, maybe 3/4. Whatever it takes.
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 20, 1993 - Page 33
Batzli: And that's why I thought this sentence from Jo Ann that said, thil
problem is you can't fit all these things on there, my big comment was
going to be, then we raise the size of the lot because then the wool was
pulled over our eyes. The whole process that these things could fit on '
there.
Aanenson: Right. And that was not the way it's read. And I'm sorry, bu
this went through Paul. I didn't have a chance to read it but I did work
on that ordinance and you're right. That's not what the intent was. Tha
was just, we said do we want a minimum. Because remember we talked about,
I think a half acre and we said well, first of all we never had a minimum
if you recall. We never even put a minimum in there. We said if you can
even go smaller and we thought well geez, we don't want them to go smaller
than our minimum lot size. So we said, okay. Let's make it our minimum
lot size but the qualifier is, you had to be able to get those three thin
on there. And that's specifically written that way.
Batzli: Okay. So you're not working on that, good. '
DISCUSSION OF 1993 GOALS.
Batzli: You have in here the Planning Department goals and budget requesil
as always. Do you need to cover that in 30 seconds or?
Aanenson: No, and I also passed out some ongoing issues too. I guess ill
�.. you had any more direction. Paul did want me to mention to you that City
Council will be having a joint staff meeting, Council meeting, and you may
want to attend. '
Batzli: I attended that last year.
Aanenson: Yeah, normally the Chairman may attend that and if you can't
be there, you might want to delegate that somebody else but I believe it'
February 6th and that will be a City Council goal session.
Batzli: February 6th? Saturday, yeah. Normally over at the Fire Statioll
The size of the staff remains the same?
Aanenson: Yep.
•
Batzli: No more people for your department or anything else?
Aanenson: Planning staff, yeah. Just so everybody's clear. I'm not sur
everybody realizes but Jo Ann's here 4 days and I'm here 4 days so that's
how we set it budget wise. ,
Conrad: What do you do the other day?
Aanenson: Actually I do 5 days and 4 days. I rest. '
Scott: I noticed in here that it'd like to be considered that you go fro
4 days to 5 days.
Aanenson: Yeah. I had mentioned that yes.
1
1
11 Planning Commission Meeting
January 20, 1993 - Page 34
' Scott: Okay. So it's nothing that's going to be included in the '93
budget but that's something that would be considered for '94? Is that kind
of what? Okay.
Batzli; Normally what we do at this time of year is look at what we've
done and what we have ongoing to determine whether there's something that
we want to be looking at that we're not. Or that needs to be revisited.
Kate passed out before the meeting ongoing issues and what we've been
trying to do by using this vehicle is to make sure that things eventually
get taken care of or that we recognize that we're not working on something.
Kind of give ourselves a lack of progress report. And the issue, what
we've done in the past and I don't know if it was helpful or not. Maybe
some other commissioners want to comment on it, is to kind of force
everyone to bring to the next meeting, after this organizational one,
things that they would like to see happen in the next year. Kind of a wish
list or how they would rank or prioritize the items on the ongoing issues
sheet that looks like either they're not already taken care of or they're
' languishing. Generally over the past 2 years I think the items have slowly
been getting worked on and they've been taken care of. We haven't added a
whole lot of new stuff to it I don't think.
Aanenson: Except for the Highway 5 which kind of has a lot of sub things
underneath.
Batzli: Yeah. Ladd, do you think it's useful to try and force people to
bring their wish list in and talk about it next time?
Conrad: Probably should. You've got to collect our input. You've got to
collect City Council's input. See what they're thinking.
Batzli: Yeah, because generally I think what Ladd is getting at, if we
choose our wish list and what we've done in the past is talked about it and
come up with the priority of items and then sent it up to City Council so
that we weren't wasting our time. If we've determined that for example the
open space zoning is the most highly sought after thing that we can
possibly think of, and they come back and say, why waste your time. We're
not interested. We don't care. If you pass it, we'll just let it die.
' Then why should we do that? That's why I think it's somewhat important
that we determine some sort of ranking of these things are items that we're
interested in trying to get accomplished in this next year and at feast
send it up to them so they know what we're trying to accomplish.
' Conrad: And it forces them to think a little bit too. Like they're
managing what we do and it's a good exercise. Jeff, are you going to
' propose review of architectural standards?
Farmakes: Be the architectural police of Chanhassen? No.
Conrad: Well it's an interesting. I just wanted to plant that seed. We
talk about it all the time.
Farmakes: That's been incorporated in the Highway 5 study but I think we
have to do an educational thing to define what that is and I think some
people are confusing it with looking at a style of architecture rather than
1
11
Planning Commission Meeting
January 20, 1993 - Page 35
principles of architecture. And that's therein the difference. And that
going to take some education. The staff has a consultant and a planner a
they're working with those issues and we're dealing with that now in the
subcommittee of the Highway 5 corridor that is dealing with standards and
I'm not sure how that will translate into city ordinance in general. Bull
it's a good start.
Conrad: Well I know you care, that's why I bring it up. Yeah I think we l
should. I don't know what the agenda is for next. This is nice.
'Aanenson: You're going to have another Lundgren subdivision on. You're
going to be seeing a lot of subdivisions. The .next every one. Every
meeting now.
Harberts: I'd like to bring up a point of reference too on that. I'm jut.
wondering if there's some type of protocol with regard to one of us that •
may have conflict or potential conflict of interest in projects that come
before the Commission, what the protocol is. Does that include, do we si
through the public hearings? Do we remove ourselves entirely from the
room? What's the protocol?
Batzli: When I've had to remove myself on a conflict of interest, I've II
tried to announce early on in the, not the discussion but around, right
away prior to the public hearing that. I've sat up here and just not
discussed it or voted on the issue. Other people have gotten up and gone
and sat out in the crowd so as to further distance themselves from the
decision making process.
Harberts: Has there been a legal perspective on that from the City? 1
Aanenson: I know the Council they have to declare that they usually do. I
can check on that for you. 1
Harberts: Because there's one pending with that Sunlink property because
I'll be involved on that.
Batzli: I think at a minimum you need to disclose it and not participate
in the discussion or decision. So what I would like everyone to do. ,
Mancino: A real quick question on prioritizing when I look at the issues
and other items and I see the 1995 study area I say, oh. Let's look at
that in 1994. Tell me something a little bit about how long it takes to 1
look at an area and come up with land use, zoning, etc.
Aanenson: This one is tied into the Highway 5 corridor study. This is
also known as the Fleet Farm kind of area. It's the northeast corner of
Highway 5 and 41.
Batzli: We're actually looking at that. 1
Farmakes: That was part of the...to be determined later.
Mancino: But when is later?
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 20, 1993 - Page 36
Farmakes: '95.
Mancino: '95, okay. That's what I wanted to know.
Scott: Then the '95 study area south, is that the elementary school site?
Batzli: That's north of there isn't it? North and west of that.
Harberts: It's just below, isn't it below that Lake Susan? No Timberwood.
Batzli: Yeah, but it was also down south. Do you guys have a copy of your
comprehensive plan? It's designated in there. It's not in there?
' Aanenson: We got the maps a couple weeks ago.
Batzli: Oh, so you don't have a little reproduced map in there?
' Harberts: I thought it was just under Timberwood.
Aanenson: I do not know where the other one is.
' Batzli: Well we should know that. Okay.
Aanenson: I believe that one's not in the MUSA area, is really what I
believe. I think it's south. I don't know. I'll check on that for you.
Farmakes: Well there was an additional study area to the south. Not on TH
5. I believe the school was south, there's so many proposals but I believe
all the school proposals were south of TH 5. The study area, I didn't
think...
Scott: I think this was, the map that originally came along with this
comprehensive plan had a study area south.
' Batzli: Yeah it does but it's south of this proposed school area. The
school is in the MUSA line.
' Mancino: Fleet Farm is right here and the school is right here.
Batzli: But it's all north of TH 5 in that area. There's another one to
' the south where 169 and 212.
Conrad: What's that study area for?
Batzli: Which?
Conrad: The one to the south.
' Batzli: Because we didn't know where the road was going to go exactly. At
the time we passed the comprehensive plan.
Aanenson: And what zoning we wanted around it.
Scott: Is that the proposed TH 101/212 interchange area?
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 20, 1993 - Page 37
Batzli: No. We zoned that land as I recall. 1
Harberts: Industrial.
Batzli: Well it was commercial around the intersection.
Harberts: Yeah, because we're looking to map a park and ride there.
Batzli: So for next meeting, if people can take a look at the ongoing
items. Issues. Come up with a priority and also bring in those things
that you think we should be looking at that we may not be. That would bell
helpful. And does anybody else have any discussion items?
Conrad moved, Ledvina seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in fail
and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
Submitted by Paul Krauss
Planning Director 1
Prepared by Nann Opheim
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1