1k. Minutes II
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
' REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 23, 1992
Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.. The meeting was opened
with the Pledge to the Flag.
' MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Mason, Councilman Workman, and
Councilwoman Dimler. Councilman Wing arrived during Consent Agenda item 1(b)
discussion.
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Todd Gerhardt, Charles Folch, Todd
Hoffman, Scott Harr, Paul Krauss, Jo Ann Olsen, Sharmin Al -Jaff, and Harold
Brose
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Mason seconded to
approve the agenda as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
' PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve
the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's
recommendations:
e. Resolution #92 -38: Approve Contract Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 for TH 5 Turn
Lane Improvements at Lone Cedar Lane, Project No. 90 -9.
f. Approve Underground Service Contract, Lake Ann Park, NSP.
g. Resolution #92 -39: Approval of Year End Closings and Transfers.
' h. Approval of Bills.
i. City Council Minutes dated March 9, 1992
ip.; Commis ion Minutes dated March 4, 1992
Si:lr iy, Cry;; • &lr I Mc: r h 1? 1c;
J. R( . ' 'Ion #92 -40: Approval of Election Judges and Establish Rate of Pay.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
A. PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT APPROVAL TO SUBDIVIDE 9.99 ACRES INTO 1 LOT AND 2
OUTLOTS, LOCATED NORTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF LYMAN BOULEVARD AND GREAT
PLAINS BLVD., EUGENE QUINN/VANDOREN- HAZARD- STALLINGS.
Public Present:
Name Address
Gene & Therese Quinn 532 Lyman Blvd.
Scott Harri Van Doren - Hazard - Stallings
Gary Skalberg 510 Lyman Blvd.
Russ & Orletta Frederick 540 Lyman Blvd.
1 1
1
City Council Meeting - March 23, 1992
Name Address
Bailey & Mary Lou Jensen 500 Lyman Blvd.
Diane Riegert 520 Lyman Blvd.
Leslie O'Halloran 550 Lyman Blvd.
:1
Mayor Chmiel: I'd like to have Mr. Quinn or his representative come forward.
They have a little of concerns for clarification and they'd like to bring those
up at this particular time.
Scott Harri: YoUr Honor, members of the Council. My name is Scott Harri and we
appreciate the opportunity and your indulgence for perhaps getting things a '
little bit out of order here. At the Planning Commission meeting 3 weeks ago it
was the applicant's intention to request a variance on Outlot A and it didn't
get included in the discussion at the time. Outlot A is the southern most piece
of the proposed subdivision of the Quinn property adjoining the proposed Quinn
Road. And through the conversations that the applicant and myself had with
staff in putting together this subdivision that you see before you this evening,
arrived at a number of considerations and one of the things is there's an
existing 50 foot wide driveway easement that is under the proposed 60 foot Quinn
Road right -of -way that is proposed to be platted. Outlot A was configured with
the City's subdivision ordinance in mind as far as a single family lot
arrangement. When we looked at lot arrangement in and around the storm water
pond on this site, it became kind of a restriction as far as the depth of the
lot from what would be a proposed 30 foot setback line. The request that we
would like to make is for a 10 foot variance to the 30 foot setback along Quinn
Road on Outlot A. The impact to the City in this case is that visually the
houses that would be built along Quinn Road would have the same depth or
distance from the edge of the street to the front of the house. There wouldn't
be any lessening of the length of the driveway or the visual distance that the
house would be from the edge of the traveled street and what that will allow
then is for an adequate depth of the backyard for those, if any future housing
units built between the pond and Quinn Road. What we're doing right now and in
fact the variance would not necessarily be shown on the plat. It would run with
the Minutes of your action this evening and at such time that the Quinn's came
in to develop Outlot A, that variance, if it was deemed reasonable and feasible
due to the nature of the housing and other final design criteria on the site
could be afforded to the applicant at that time.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Paul. When you had this before the Commission, as they've
indicated, that wasn't shown as that you have that as an Outlot A. Do you have
any concerns with what Mr. Harri has indicated?
Paul Krauss: Well, we have some problem with the idea of pre - granting variances
without having lots present. It seems to bind the actions of a future Council
which goes against some basic tenants of how we operate. On the other hand,
I understand Gene's concern. They are taking the full hit if you will for that
future road simply because they're the first one in. The driveway's on their
property right now. We're not sure what the houses are going to look like along
that road in the future because we're frankly not sure where the road's going to
go. It's going to have to be rebuilt. There is no road there now. It's a dirt
driveway. We understand the concern. We're not sure excactly how we can deal
2
1
City Council Meeting - March 23, 1992
1
with that. That's true, as Jo Ann points out. A variance is only good for a
year in any case and it's got to be used by that time and there's no way that
this would be used by then. There's no utilities in this area.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I guess that's a good point. Charles, do you have any
concerns with this at all?
Charles Folch: I think the only thing, just to point out and you may be aware
1 of this already is the option of reducing the required right -of -way down to 50
feet. At some point in the future that additional 10 feet would have to be
acquired and if the road was being constructed before the properties to the east
' would be subdividing or they may not even subdivide, it would be up to the City
to acquire the additional 10 feet from the properties on the east and there
would likely be a co-.t associated with that. Just as long as you're aware that
if we grant the 50 foot right -of -way dedication at some point in time we'll
likely pay for the rest.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I see this now as a problem basically with it only being
1 good for one year as a variance. It would not be of any value for you to go
through that process because there's no services available at that site, nor
will be, for some time, and that means sewer and water. And I think too that
1 that probably should be something that would be done at the time we go through
with that platting of that particular Outlot A. At least that's the way I see
it and I'll throw it open to Council as well. Mike.
Councilman Mason: Yeah, with knowing that the variance is only going to last a
year, it would almost be pointless for us to take action on it. I would hate to
have a Council 6 -7 years from now look at something we've done and be bound by
that anyway. Unfortunately this almost seems fruitless just because anything we
do now is going to be somewhat irrelevant by the time you get around to
developing it. Do you understand what's going on here? So I guess I'm not
' quite sure what to do.
Councilman Workman: I concur. I don't know that we'd be doing anybody any good
really anyway other than to pass on our strong concerns about it. Approving a
' variance, do we even have the ability to approve a variance? I don't know that
we even have a solution.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I don't see one right now. I really don't. Okay.
Councilwoman Dimler: I concur. I don't see that it would do anything... Maybe
Roger would have, do you have anything to say?
1 Roger Knutson: Maybe one more complicating factor. Obviously if you were even
to consider it, it would have to go back through public hearing and back through
' the process and then it would be gone in one year.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, it wouldn't make any sense.
Roger Knutson: You'd be doing a lot of work for nothing.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. They would be doing as well. So with that, we can accept
the preliminary plat as you provided us and final plat approval to subdivide
1 3
1
City Council Meeting - March 23., 1992
1
that with what was carried through at the Planning Commission without that 10
foot variance on Outlot A. If you're in agreement with that, I would so move
that we accept item 1(a).
Councilwoman Dimler: Second.
Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilwoman Disler seconded to approve preliminary and
final plat to subdivide 9.99 acres into one lot and two outlots located
northeast of the intersection of Lyman Blvd and Great Plains Blvd. without the
10 foot variance on Outlot A. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
B. FINAL PLAT APPROVAL, WILLOW RIDGE ADDITION (LUNDGREN /ORTENBLAT/ERSBO).
(Councilman Wing arrived to the meeting at this point.)
Mayor Chmiel: Charles, could you give a little clarification this please? 1
Charles Folch: Thank you Mr. Mayor. If you turn to page 14 in your staff
report, I have just two items of clarification with the staff report. On page
14, condition number 10. The first sentence relating to the existing hydrants
being relocated. That first sentence should be eliminated. It was originally
placed as a condition with the thought that the entire plat would be constructed
at one time but with the two phased approach this hydrant won't be needed until
Phase 2.
Mayor Chmiel: I'm glad you brought that up because I didn't have page 14 or 15
in my report.
Charles Folch: Oh. Well maybe I'll just read it off. Basically condition 10
should read, the Fire Department must approve street names and a 10 foot clear
space must be provided around hydrants. Additional hydrants are needed at the
intersection of Lake Lucy Road and the proposed public road. That should be the
remaining condition. ,
Mayor Chmiel: Alright.
Charles Folch: Then on the following page, item 15. Or on page 15, item 20 '
there was a question by the developer related to the need for the 30 x 30
utility easement over the lift station that is being located in that area.
Unfortunately the lift station's going to be about 35 feet deep and if we ever
had to go in and repair or reconstruct that lift station, even with 1:1 side
slopes, you're going to be at least 30 feet out in every direction from that
lift station so staff feels that that condition should remain. Those are the
only two points I had to make on item 1(b).
Mayor Chmiel: Very good. With those two items so noted, any discussion?
Mike Pflaum: My name is Mike Pflaum. I'm with Lundgren Bros. Construction and
I had to wait until Charles make his comments before determining whether or not
I was going to have to comment on something. I would like to comment on the
condition that requires the construction of a small portion of the future street
that would be the eastern portion of the site.
1
4
•
1
City Council Meeting - March 23, 1992
Mayor Chmiel: Is it a specific item on here?
Charles Folch: If that's referred to the street on the Summit Addition?
Mike Pflaum: No. This is the extension of Willow Ridge Drive.
Paul Krauss: It's condition 19.
Mike Pflaum: Essentially my concern is this. I know such things are given
little weight sometimes but this is an extremely expensive project and what we
are being asked to do is to construct some street and over 300 feet of storm
' sewer, four storm sewer structures, to take drainage off of approximately one
half of the roadway ;width of Lake Lucy Drive for a distance of a couple hundred
feet to the north. Until such time as we complete the construction of the
street, our street internally. And my comment was this. We can accomplish I
believe what the city wants to with respect to treating the storm water without
constructing all that much storm sewer or street. We can radius the street. We
can put in the signage that the Planning Department would like to see indicating
' that this is going to be a future street. And we can take drainage overland
into the NURP pond that is to treat the water before it goes into the wetland at
a significant savings. I didn't do, or I didn't have our engineers do a
complete take off but they indicated it's going to cost us at least $20,000.00
' to put in the watermain stub, storm sewer and the other improvements that are
being requested would not accomplish any better what we can do on a temporary
basis as I have described. And with that I'd hope that the City Council would,
' or the engineering department and the planning department and the City Council
would modify the particular condition.
' Mayor Chmiel: Charles.
Charles Folch: I guess before staff could give their blessings on an overland
drainage, temporary drainage type situation as Mike had mentioned, it is quite a
'
distance that the flow would be carried and if indeed it is carried overflow, I
guess I have some concern about erosion and trying to maintain a channel such as
that and what additional potential erosion and sediment problems we might have
' impacting that NURP pond from an overland condition. I would be certainly
willing to sit down and hear what their thoughts and ideas are but I guess I'm
real concerned about approving something like that without taking a closer look
at it.
Mayor Chmiel: I would think that that should probably be between Lundgren and
our staff to come up with a conclusion and reach a solution one way or the other
1 as to what the city deems which would be the best way to go.
Mike Pflaum: That certainly would be acceptable. I'm sure that we could work
something out between us. I do have one other item relating to this. It has,
this may seem absurd to the Council but maybe a little light relief is what you
need.
1 Mayor Chmiel: We need it.
Mike Pflaum: The Fire Marshall has objected to the names of the streets. The
name of the subdivision is Willow Ridge. It's not Ortenblat /Ersbo anymore.
5
r
city coui�c r neerzny = Ilarcn Cs, 177L
It's Willow Ridge and there are two streets within the plat. Willow Ridge Drive 1
and Willow Ridge Court. The Fire Marshall is concerned that Willow Ridge Drive
and Willor Ridge Court sound too much like Willow Cove and Willow Creek. And
we'd like to have Willow Ridge for street names and feel that it would probably
serve beneficial purposes to have the name of the subdivision and the name of
the streets in it be snynomous. People would know where they're going. Both
from a standpoint of homeowners and hopefully realtors but also for public
safety and so forth. With that I'll drop that issue but it is kind of important
to us. I wouldn't be here talking about it if I didn't think that street names
are important.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thank you. In your packet that would be from Mark Littfin
to Jo Ann which is a communication dated March 13th. Scott.
Scott Harr: Scott Harr, the Public Safety Director. We've discussed the issue II
of names. We take street names very seriously. There's a number of street
names that sound alike in town and I could give a number of examples that
serious situations have arisen because of confusion. We're striving to have
names as separate, defineable and different as possible. Certainly be willing
to meet with Mr. Pflaum and review other possibilities but based on the one set
of names proposed, we feel it's important to seek other alternatives. If he'd
like to give Mark a call or myself a call tomorrow, we'll work on that with him.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Maybe that's something there to that you can have
discussion with staff on. How many streets in your development are going to be
there? How many different names of streets?
Mike Pflaum: Just the two. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Just the two. One or the other. All in the same location.
Councilman Workman: Mr. Mayor, this has kind of been an issue for me too.
We've used the word Audubon in a lot of different areas of town. One on the
north end and then the south and that concerned me. I think Lake Lucy Hills has
kind of used that word an awful lot and then Chanhassen Hills Drive North.
Chanhassen Hills Drive North. Yeah, that's there. And South and I live in what
would amount to be a two street neighborhood and I live on the Court and then
there's a Drive. I don't know that I have a real serious problem, or somebody
would have a problem with that. Usually the Court is the circle inside the
loop. But I'm not going to underestimate Mr. Littfin or Mr. Harr's advice. I
do have a question as to why this is called Willow Ridge when it's actually in a
low area. It's not really a ridge. But we do have a problem with fire, safety,
UPS and everybody else in town trying to find roads. Everybody knows where
Flamingo Drive is. But we start getting them to all sound the same.
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I'd add to that. I live on Kiowa Circle and
there's a Kiowa Trail. There's a Kiowa Street. There's a Kiowa Court and quite
frequently, and they're all in different areas of the city and quite frequently
people that look up our address our down in southern Chanhassen on Kiowa Trail
so it does present a problem and I think the safety aspect is much more
important but I mean just for clarity too of where things are in the city. 1
6
1
-1
City Council Meeting - March 23, 1992
II
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Anyone else have any other comments? I'd like you also to
have some additional discussions with staff and to reach some kind of a
' conclusion for that as well and I appreciate your comments this evening. I'd
like to move item 1(b). Is there a second?
Councilman Workman: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded that to have discussions with staff
' in regard to discussions this evening.
Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the final plat for
Willow Ridge Addition as amended on page 14, condition 10 deleting the first
' sentence and directing staff to meet with the applicant in regard to discussions
this evening. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
' C. FINAL PLAT APPROVAL, SUMMIT AT NEAR MOUNTAIN.
Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. Just one quick clarification
on page 12 of your staff report. Condition B as it relates to the construction
of an emergency access. The paragraph should read, it should be changed to
read. Instead of the public, it should be changed to read, a Class V street •
shall be extended from the permanent Phase I construction of Ox Bow Bend to the
emergency access and then it continues on as stated. Basically what's happening
h_'re is, the emergency access from Iroquois to the future Ox Bow Bend will be
paved. The developer has agreed to pave that entrance and the remaining
' portion, which would be about 250 feet between where Phase I of Iroquois ends,
permanent construction to this emergency access, would be constructed with Class
V to our standards. Basically because the utilities improvements will not be
installed at this point in time.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Thank you. With that clarification is there any other
discus I would make that motion for item 1(c).
Councilwoman Dimler: Second.
' Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilwoman Disler seconded to approve the final plat of
Summit at Near Mountain as amended on page 12:
8. A Class V street shall be extended from the permanent Phase I construction
' of Ox Bow Bend to the emergency access. The emergency access shall be
constructed as part of the first phase.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
D. APPROVAL OF 1992/93 LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATIONS.
Councilman Workman: Mr. Mayor, I don't have a problem with approval of the
1592/93 liquor licenses, although it has brought to my attention the last time
we discussed approving a liquor license, the one at 7 and 41, and a comment was
raised by a Councilmember that we have too many liquor stores and I had noted at
the time that well we only have one liquor store in town but when I kind of
assumed that when we say we have too many liquor stores, it means society and
• that was a whole different other argument. But it did raise the question to me
7
City Council Meeting - March 23, 1992
as to what perhaps would be too many or too much liquor stores and in
relationship to that, I guess when we have somebody who is in violation at a
liquor store or serves a minor, we do not have a violation procedure in place.
Although we do have one for our cigarette, people who sell cigarettes, we don't
have one for liquor. I think on that point it would probably be more fair to
the people who do hold liquor license if we did already have a process. If you
recall when the Holiday and the MGM came in and we really didn't have a process.
We sort of slapped their hands and said, don't do it again but we really don't
have a procedure for how to handle it the next time it happens. First offense,
second, third and down the line. After looking into the question of what or how
many liquor stores is too many, I found out that cities do it one or two ways.
One they restrict a liquor store by you can only have one liquor store within II such and such a distance of each other. Like a mile and I understand Burnsville
does it that way. I don't think that would be real fair in Chanhassen because
we're concentrating our business community down here but they do, and I believe
Bloomington does it, most communities do it. They restrict it by population.
As in 1 per 5,000 or 6,000 or 2,000 or whatever. And so I don't mean to hold
this up tonight. It was just something that I thought I'd bring up at this time
that perhaps City Council should be looking at before we experience more retail •
and residential growth. We should maybe we asking ourselves these questions.
W.ith the asterisk attached that I'm not in the habit of liking to restrict
businesses but I think if you look at the 855 or so cities in the State, we've
got to be of a very small minority that does not have some sort of a control at
all. Does that make sense?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. No, and I think we do need to look at that. I think
competition is good. You just can't have one liquor store within a community and
not have a competition. Maybe close or whatever. And we do have this basically
concentrated within the downtown area as what we call downtown Chanhassen. And
even though we do have one out on 41 and 7, but nonetheless I think we have to
be careful on how we restrict it and not having that kind of competition within.
And I think it's good from that standpoint because I've had some things
commended to me already about that issue and saying that maybe I can go
somewhere else and buy it a lot less. So those are the things I think we have
to really look at.
Councilman Workman: I think if we can handle this issue, then we can get to '
those corn, people who sell corn. Because I think that's where a lot of the
alcohol starts. But I bring it up only because it astonishes me that,
particuarly when an on or off sale does serve a minor, we don't really have a
procedure and it's a little late once they do have a violation for us to kind of
create that process. Likewise if, and I'm going to hopefully get some •
commentary from Roger on how other cities are doing it. Maybe I misspoke but
once we have three more applications for liquor licenses, where's our ceiling or
should we not have a ceiling? When 7. and 41 came in and it was a gentleman who
was all prepared to be in business and if we didn't really approve it that night
he was going to maybe have some difficulty starting up his business, I was very
sympathetic to him. The Council said we maybe have too many liquor stores.
That's a philosophical question but I'd just as soon take care of that question
when the heat's off. Not when somebody's coming in to take care of or wants to
do business and then we direct him somewhere else.
. Councilman Wing: I'm glad to hear Tom bring that up. I'm not concerned about '
8 1
City Council Meeting - March 23, 1992
we have too many or too few or where they are. I just have not felt that we
have in ou, own mind determined what we want. Where we want them. If we want
1 them and with some of the ramifications, it's just ironic that I have on the
City Manager's desk a white paper I wrote which defines liquor licenses. State
law. What we have. What we're allowed to do. What our options are. What
other cities are doing. I kind of held it because I didn't know what the right
time was but with your permission Tom or your cooperation I'd just like to
submit that to the next packet just for discussion. Because it is a
' philosophical question and I agree with you Tom. I don't know where we want to
go with it but I'd like to sit here while the heat's off and I'd support your
questions and if it wouldn't be inappropriate, I'd like to present that paper at
the next meeting.
i Councilman Workman: Can I have Roger maybe input on where other cities sit? Do
other cities have, how many liquor licenses does Chanhassen have? Should we
have?
Roger Knutson: I've never done a survey...not aware of anyone having limitation
on the number other than the fact that you have...
Councilman Workman: What the State Statutes are you mean?
R-95:r Knutson: Yeah.
Councilman Wing: State Statutue only regulates taverns. On sale. That's the
only restriction.
Roger Knut Unless you're a city of the first class. Different rules.
Mavor Chmiel: Right. And also they dictate as to the amounts that you can
charge for those licenses as well.
' Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I had, the on sale I don't have a problem with
restricting but the off sale is what I'm questioning whether we should. And
also I do agree that we need to put a procedure into place for violations. That
should have been done.
Councilman Wing: I think it's interesting that we restrict the age for
cigarettes but under State law you can bartend and sell liquor at 18 and that
doesn't conducive with the attitude of this Council in the past. I think that
needs to be looked at and addressed.
' Councilman Workman: Anyway, I'd move approval of the 1992/93 liquor license as
recommended by staff.
Councilwoman Dimler: Second.
' Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve the 1992/93
liquor license renewals contingent upon receipt of all bonds and liquor
1 liability insurance certificates. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
VISITOR PRESENTATION; None.
1
' 9
1
City Council Meeting - March 23, 1992
. 1
EAGLE SCOUT PROJECT, COMPOST DEMONSTRATION SITE, ERIC PODEVELS_
Eric Podevels: I did a quick drawing...of a possible site and possible
dimensions. The site is by the clock and the big pine tree in downtown, right
across from the Chanhassen Dinner Theatre. This was our second priority choice.
The first was somewhere in the Chanhassen Elementary site. First let's just '
talk about you'd have a path from each side of the sidewalk and inside the site
will be two different types of bins. The first bin shows the different steps
and stages in composting and the second one is just a small backyard one that
the public can use and mainly this is to teach the public on how composting is
affected by the environment and how it can save the environment. Mainly just
have gardens around it and a trail to make a good image. Here's an example of
what one looks like. Here's the information stand that tells about composting
and then they have tempered borders that we want to do. And then we have a
woodchip path and then several composting bins here, here and... Really I have
mainly what I need to make this site on this sheet but mainly we have to come up
with the location of the site. First the elementary school site iss considered
because of the location for students to, knowledge of the site there. So they
can observe during their science classes. But the bad part is that there wasn't
an actual spot in the elementary school property that was the right size or in a
proper position that would be any value. So the second idea was by the big pine
tree and clock across from the Dinner Theatre and if that didn't work, the third
site would be somewhere on the City Hall property or somewhere in this area. So
mainly I ju ,,t need to get a final decision on the actual site and then I can
start working on more details...
Mayor Chmiel: Very good Eric. Council? I'll start on this end.
Councilwoman Dimler: Thank you. I think it's a great idea. I think you've
done a terrific job with this. As far as sites go, it sounds to me like the
elementary school site is not going to work. I'm wondering about, has City Hall
property got any ideas where this might go? Jo Ann, do you want to answer that?
Jo Ann Olsen: The area that we were looking at was to the west of the City Hall
building and again you get into some slopes there. And then also we discussed
further behind City Hall, kind of back behind some of the ballfields. But we
didn't know if that was real acceptable for people who were just walking by to
go to it. So we didn't pursue it any further than that.
Councilwoman Dimler: I'm assuming that this is for educational purposes and ,
people are supposed to come and browse around and so I'm thinking by a clock is
probably better than that site by the tree there. I'm wondering how many people
would wa.lk in there and actually go see the site. '
Jo Ann 0]sen: We were also going to make it not just a composting area. But we
also could do some landscaping with the benches and stuff and then also have it
as a nice little area, sitting area in the downtown area, if we do use it at
this site so it would make it aesthetically pleasing and use a lot of
landscaping. So we did consider park areas. Maybe Todd can even get into this
some more but we were worried more about vandalism and the thought that might
not be used as much. And just to find a site in one of the parks, we didn't
really come up with any good ideas. But it was difficult finding a site.
10 II
1
City Council Meeting - March 23, 1992
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, and heavy useage this would not get?
Jo Ann Olsen: In a park?
Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah. Z mean do you anticipate a lot of heavy useage of
' this? It's just a project. The public is going to come and use it?
Jo Ann Olsen: Yeah. It's been, that...has been very successful. There has
been high useage of it. 1 can't tell you how much useage you will get. It
' would get more in the park area versus this location.
Mayor Chmiel: I look at the park area and I think because of the useage that is
there, it might have more exposure in that particular location than it would
down by the clock tower
' Jo Ann Olsen: Which park location are you?
Mayor Chmiel: Just in back of City Hall as you're talking or to the side.
Because of the ballfields that we have and the kids playing ball. I think if
' there could be some kind of an educational portion, at the time maybe one of the
games are done or prior to the games, it might promote more of this within each
of the residential homes as well.
Jo Ann Olsen: We can look at that closer. Don or Todd might have some
questions.
' Councilman Mason: The thing, I mean I know with bringing my daughter up for
t -ball last year, boy there's a lot of traffic up around there. Certainly a lot
more than there are by the pine tree.
' Councilwoman Dimler: No, I'm in favor of the City Hall site if that's feasible.
We can look at something like that.
' Councilman Mason: So what we need to do tonight essentially is, I don't know.
Do we need to pick a site tonight or do we need to give the project go ahead
hci
' Mayor Chmiel: I think he's looking for a project site as well aren't you Eric?
' Eric Podevels: Yes...
Councilwoman Dimler: You've got approval. I think it's a great idea.
' Councilman Mason: Yeah, yeah.
Councilman Workman: Is this intended to be a permanent site?
Eric Podevels: Yes...permanent and after I...
Councilman Workman: Is Jo Ann committed to doing that?
Councilman Mason: I believe Mr. Gerhardt and his flower association probably.
11
City Council Meeting - March 23, 1992
Councilman Workman: I too think it's a good idea and thank you for offering to
do that. My concern is, if this is going to be permanent and it's going to go
on that site, what might we have in several.years and would the Medical Arts
building maybe have a concern or have they been contacted? But other than
that, I'm sure people would driving by there every day are saying what is that
and they might go find out. But that's my only concern about this site. There
is less foot traffic here. A lot of motor vehicles but very few people who
really are, less people than would be up right behind City Hall.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, because that's recreational time and you're not in as much
of a hurry going.to or fro, whatever. And this way, up at the site by City
Hall, I think you'd have a little better exposure. . II
Councilman Mason: And we might have a little more control just in proximity
that way too. In terms of vandalism.
Jo Ann Olsen: And it's still close to the school which was one of the things
that the Recycling Committee was really pushing for.
Councilman Workman: We would probably have to make a firm commitment to move it
when and if the park around the City Hall is expanded.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. That's quite a few years down the road.
Councilman Workman: Invite Eric and his dad back and his grandkids. But no,
that's all I have.
Mayor Chmiel: Richard.
Councilman Wing: I'm not real concerned about the permanence. I think the
project for now is good. I'm interested in the educational and the
informational aspects of it and clearly I think it should be as closely related
to the school as possible, and also to City Hall. Mike brought up the issue of
control, supervision. I think we sort of need it close to Scott Harr. So I
think this is a good project and anything the Eagle Scout, anybody that reaches
the stage of Eagle Scout I support automatically. I don't care what the project
is. And Eric I just want to say that as a 47 year old that has to publicly
speak, I wish I had your poise. That was a very nice presentation. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Very good. I think that this speaks well for your presentation
and we thank you for coming in and can I have a motion to accept Eric's project.
Councilman Workman: So moved. '
Councilman Mason: Second.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the Eagle Scout
Project presented by Eric Podevels for a Compost Demonstration Site. All voted
in favor and the motion carried. ,
Councilman Workman: Mr. Mayor, I might add that.
Councilman Mason: Is this going to be a Boy Scout story? ,
12 '
City Council Meeting - March 23, 1992
II
Councilman Workman: Yes. I might add that I've been beating our Park Director,
Todd to get a botchy ball court built and I think I've found the location and I
think I've found the Troop that will help me with some supervision from them for
me, put this together. I have contacted the City of Roseville who has
constructed some and they're going to send me some plans and specifications and
' it might be another project that we can get together on and then I'll get a
badge too which I never got. I'm going to have to do this on my own with the
Boy Scouts, I can tell so. I'll be in touch with you.
' UPDATE ON SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT, DIANE HARBERTS.
Diane Harberts: I'm just passing out some charts that we'll make reference to.
' I want to first apologize for not being able to attend the meeting last time.
There was a decision made on Friday, the Friday before the Chanhassen City
Council meeting to send a representative out to Washington D.C. to talk about
transit and I was appointed so I appreciate the opportunity to come back
tonight. Basically the purpose tonight is just to give you a brief overview of
the activities of Southwest Metro. Kind of the perspective of where we've been.
Where we're going. Maybe just to give you a little bit of background. In 1982
the legislature through a vision created special legislation that enabled •
suburban communities to manage their own transit system. So the tax dollars
that are generated in the suburban areas will be managed both in funding and in
planning to support their own services. In 1986 Southwest Metro Joint Powers
Agreement between Eden Prairie, Chaska and Chanhassen took on that endeavor. In
December of 1991 with some of the information you've seen through your packets
' through your local newspapers that we celebrated our 5 years of service. I think
just making reference to the chart that we passed out. With Southwest Metro you
can thy., where our ridership has gone. One of my objectives for 1992 isn't
much of putting marketing dollars out there to build awareness but more so
along the lines of creating efficiency. That's one of our overall goals for
1992 is to, we're undertaking a comprehensive transit study. Reviewing our
services during the past 5 years and hopefully formulating long term strategies.
' Where our services. How they should be developed. What the needs are given the
funding level that we have and project to have in the future. I think some of
the major accomplishments that we've seen, especially in 1991 as well as 1992 is
' some changes in policies, in regional policy that have really made the
difference for the future of Southwest Metro. I think with the representation
by Councilwoman Dimler on the local officials committee as well as Councilman
Workman on the Regional Transit Board, and I know with some good words from the
' Mayor and City Manager, Don Ashworth, I think it's those efforts that in a sense
have come to the success of Southwest Metro. I think the chart speaks for
itself in terms of ridership. Some of the other projects that we're undertaking
' for 1992, we're really focusing more on what's going on at home. What we should
be doing at home. Working with, I've been in contact briefly with Ms. Colby,
the Chanhassen Senior Coordinator. Some of the concerns about evening service.
' I can't promise yet but I think there's a good opportunity for some evening
service towards the end of May. In working with community organizations from
the Chaska Community Center, we've had some success based on an idea that City
Manager Ashworth had suggested last summer and with the success we had on that,
on the small test basis, we're going to expand that even more so. I think what
that's going to do is enable more kids this summer to access the service in
going to the swimming pool at the Chaska Community Center. I think on a more
regional basis, we've had some very, very tremendous success in being recognized
' 13
City Council Meeting - March 23, 1992
as a component of transit in the region. I think with, as I mentioned earlier,
with the representation we have from our elected officials, it's really been
significant in the future for Southwest Metro. You're probably aware of some of
the construction projects in the Chanhassen area. We're looking to purchase a
piece of property on the corner of Dell Road and TH 5. Very instrumental in
terms of the efficiency as well as the amount of service that we will be able to
put through Chanhassen as well as for the entire system as well. I guess based
on that, the purpose was just to really give you an overview of the success. I
think success can be measured in different ways. If you're a rider, it
certainly the increase in the availability of service. I think from an elected
official's position, you know success is measured by the ability to serve the
needs of your community and I think Southwest Metro has been able to help you
meet that goal. I'd like to just open it up for comments or questions at this
point.
Mayor Chmiel: Does anyone have any questions? ,
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. Mr. Mayor I just wanted to say that I was part of
the group that hired Diane and we are certainly proud of the job that she has
done and I can assure all Chanhassen residents that they're getting the most
service out of every dollar that we spend on transit. Thank you Diane.
Diane Harberts: Thank you. 1
•
Councilman Mason: I'd just like to make a quick comment as being a new member
of Southwest Metro Transit. I've been nothing but impressed with what I've seen
so far and I hope that our City and Southwest Metro can continue to work
together to make transportation more of an issue at that level.
Councilman Workman: Well I could go on and on and on here like I have with just
about everything else tonight but I wouldn't want to miss the opportunity to say
public].) that Southwest Metro under Diane Harberts and Mayor Roepke and Ursula
and Mike and everybody has done things that I don't think anybody really in the
room really understands. The transit, and I said it before, is a rather mundane
topic. It's rather boring and can be rather tedious but it's highly political,
believe it or not and it can be very, very complex and to have somebody like
Diane who can bring me, a rather new Regional Transit Board member and with my
thick headedness and she can bring me up to such a level of proficiency on
transit, speals very well of her abilities but it's been, there have been what
we wcu]d probably consider major changes in relation. The region in
relationship to how OPT OUT communities operating hundreds of thousands of
dollars of potential dollars coming back to us that should have been there all
along. It's really been an interesting learning process for me and it's
exciting to be a part of some of those changes which, call Diane tomorrow and
ask her what those are but it just shows you that by staying tough and working
hard, which Diane has done to get this accomplished. She truly is a transit
nerd as I have...
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Richard, do you have anything to say?
Councilman Wing: No.
14 '
1
City Council Meeting - March 23, 1992
- Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I'd like to thank you for coming in and updating us. As I
' haAe heard before and I intend to hear for a long time, you're doing a great
job. Continue it and let us provide the transportation needs of our community
and our citizens to a very, what can I say, anything more than what you've done.
' Diane Harberts: Well I think I've got the easy part of it. I can stand up here
and in a sense take all the positive remarks and I certainly appreciate it but I
think a lot of it too, some of the other unsung heros. Working with Todd.
' Working with Paul and Sharmin. It's real easy for me to work with them as
resource and I think it's that partnership between all of the three cities that
has really led to the success so I'd also like to just offer my comments of
appreciation too for the continuing work that I get from all of your staff. And
I know Todd is busily putting together an assessment figure for me. So it is
very exciting to see the changes and I think bottom line here is that our
purpose is to provide that transit service, that access and I know with the
seniors in Chanhassen, they've expressed many remarks and we do have plans and I
do expect to see some of those additional needs met so I appreciate the
opportunity to come before you this evening and I'm off to another meeting.
' Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Keep rolling along.
Councilwoman Dimler: Thank you.
' PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER ALLOCATION OF YEAR XVIII FUNDS FOR THE URBAN HENNEPIN
COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM.
Public Present:
Name Address
' Ben Withhart
Esther Metter Senior Community Services
South Shore Senior Center
M., /or Chmiel: This is a public hearing and I'd like to open the public hearing
at this time. Is there anyone wishing? Paul, why don't you give us a little
brief synopsis? We've gone through this year after year after year and take it
from there.
Paul Krauss: From what we've been hearing, I hope we can continue to do this
year after year. We go through this process every year on an annual basis to
distribute the funds that are allocated to us. This was brought before the
Senior Commission for their recommendation since a lot of what we do is senior
related these days. Basically we're proposing that $4,000.00 be allocated to
South Shore Senior Center. That's funding at about 50% of the level that we had
in the past. Recognizing the fact that hopefully in the next item we'll have a
senior center under construction shortly and that we need to focus some of that
toward home but we didn't want to leave them in the lurch. A lot of our
residents continue to use South Shore. We do use some of those funds for the
Chanhassen Senior Coordinator, Judy Colby who has worked superbly for us. Got
generating a lot of interest. We hired her through Senior Community Services
and Ben Withhart, the Director of Senior Community Services is here today.
Ba.;icell y we get Judy for 12 hours a week. We're proposing to continue that
' 15
City Council Meeting - March 23, 1992
level of funding. Basically it just includes a 4% escalator for inflation. The
H.O.M.E. program is a real exciting program for us. It helps seniors to stay in
their own homes. It's a chore service. It's managed through Senior Community
Services. We've only had this up for 6 to 8 months and to date it really hasn't
been used extensively and basically what we'd like to do is give this a 6 month
trial because we understand spring is the intensive season for this. We haven't
advertised ii as well as we're going to be so I'd like to give it that run and
see how we're doing. If useage doesn't expand what I'd like to do is contract
with them for a 6 month basis. If useage doesn't expand by that time, I'd like
to work with the senior commission to look at possibly reallocating those funds
to another program where they might be used more extensively but we do think
it's worth the try. It's an excellent program. Sojourn Adult Daycare program,
last year we started funding them. It was a real nominal amount. Something
like $3,000.00 to make physical changes to the building that they were in and
help out their program. They asked for a fairly nominal amount, $2,700.00 this
year for some program related activities which seems perfectly fine with us.
The last thing is, well two things. Senior housing feasibility study. This is
something that we put off last year because we took the money and we spent it on
a senior center itself. We really need to have a legitimate document that tells
us exactly, first of all is it feasible. Is there a need for it? If there is,
what should the units rent for? How big should they be? Where should this be
located? What kind of facility? All those kinds of things you need to get a
handle on before you spend money on doing anything. The last thing is...making
facilities at Lake Ann more handicapped accessible. That's a cost that cities
are going to have to take out of our pockets if we don't use block grant because
under the Americans Disability Act, we have to mane all of our facilities
adaptable. We've been doing this over the years and it's really been a good
program for us. We were able to build the totlot at the grade school all
handicapped accessible. Really beautiful facility, in large part with block
grant and some donations that Todd Hoffman was able to secure. So with that
we're recommending that you approve this package of improvements tonight. I
want to throw a note of caution in here. We received some notice
from Hennepin County, or from the Feds via Hennepin County that the Washington
office of HUD wants to bounce Chanhassen out of the entitlement program. The
reason we're able to be in this program is through some real innovative
interpretation of rules that we owe to our City Manager and Larry Blacksted of
Hennepin County. Apparently the federal regulations say specifically that a
community has to have area in the entitlement county, which we do. But from
time to time they also interpret it to mean you have to have bodies in the
County, which we don't because the three houses that were there we tore down.
Well we've gotten notice from the Feds that they want us out of the program this
year and Hennepin County believes that they don't. I mean we're entitled to be
in the program for another 2 years at any rate. We'd like to keep a permanent
foot in the door and we're going to be meeting with Larry Blacksted and his
staff, Don and I next week. I think what's going to have to come out of this is
we're going to have to contact our congressional delegation and the State
Senators and if anybody worked on Jack Kemp's campaign it would be useful
because he's the head of that organization. But we're going to know more about
that next week or two but for the interim we're in the program and these funds
should become available in June and we are recommending that you approve the
program as outlined.
16 '
1
City Council Meeting - March 23, 1992
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone wishing to address this issue at this time? This
' is a public hearing. This is a chance to state your opinion.
Councilman Workman: I move to close the public hearing.
' Councilwoman Dimler: Second.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Disler seconded to close the public
' hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was
closed.
' Mayor Chmiel: Discussion. I'll start on your end Michael.
Councilman Mason: My only concern, and I did read through the Minutes too. The
Senior Commission, is the 50% reduction for South Shore. Now you talked with
them before about it right, so this isn't catching them off guard?
Paul Krauss: No it isn't. In fact BIT) Withhart is here tonight and can touch
on that. We started talking to South Shore about this when doing a senior
center here was a kernel of an idea. And what we've laid on the table all along
is that we will not abandon South Shore. We will do what we can to continue to
' support them but recognizing that our support has to be diminished by some
amount and we worked, I worked with Ron Block, their financial manager. I don't
know his exactly title, 6 to 8 months ago, whenever it was, when he was doing
his budget so we kind of agreed on a figure that was equitable. So yeah.
t Councilman Workman: Very well said by Mr. Mason.
Councilman Wing: I think Paul Krauss did an equally good job. I'm ready to
second whoever wants to make a motion.
Councilwoman Dimler: Well let me just say, I agree with what you proposed here.
I just always get distressed when I see so much going for a housing feasibility
stud/ rather than going to the programs. I understand why we have to do that
but again that is an area of concern to me. And when we were at the ceremonies
' for the opening of Market Square, in the evening I saw that there's already a
senior housing project proposed for the Schlenk site so I was wondering what
feasibility study they used to put it on that site.
Paul Krauss: I think they used a pen.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. So we still need a study is what you're saying?
' Paul Krauss: Yeah, I mean that's a site that sort of fell out that it lends
itself to it but we don't really know if that's the appropriate place. Or if
' it's appropriate to even do the project in the first place.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, thanks.
' Mayor Chmiel: I assume, even with Judy doing her, very ably filling this role
in assisting the seniors, I hope that they still are having their input into
anything that they'd like to do as well and to keep themselves going. Keep
' 17
11
City Council Meeting - March 23, 1992,
1
themselves busy and I'd like to see that continued in that particular fashion as
well.
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, along those lines. We have advertisements out for the
senior center advisory group.. Hopefully we'll get enough names to bring back to
you.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, good. Can I have a motion?
Councilman Workman: So moved.
Councilwoman Dimler: Second.
Resolution 192 -41: Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Disler seconded to
approve the Year XVIII Community Development Block Grant funding as follows:
South Shore Senior Center $ 4,000
Chanhassen Senior Coordinator
thru Senior Community Services $ 8,736
HOME Program thru Senior Community
Services $ 5,830
Sojourn Adult Daycare Program $ 2,700
• Lake Ann Park Facilities $ 8,000
Senior Housing Feasibility Study $114.78
TOTAL $40,744
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilman Mason: Can I just make a comment here? With Councilman Workman and
Councilwoman Dimler soon to be leaving us, I think they need to slow the
seconding pace down a little bit to give Councilman Wing and myself a chance to
get the feel for things. 1
Councilwoman Dimler: We want to get out of here.
AWARD OF BIDS: SENIOR CENTER REMODELING PROJECT.
Public Present:
Name Address
Bert Haglund EOS Architecture
Bernice Billison Chanhassen Senior Commission
Jane Kubitz , Chanhassen Senior Commission
Betty Bragg Chanhassen Senior Commission
Barbara Montgomery Chanhassen Senior Commission
Judy Colby Senior Center Program
Coordinator
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, I know you and Tom heard this spiel last week so.
Mayor Chmiel: I just like seeing all the money we saved Paul. That's great.
18 1
1
city Council Meeting - March 23, 1992
1 Paul Krauss: We promised you we would use a sharp pencil on this one and
hopefully we fulfilled the goal. The original cost estimates for this center,
' when we first had an architect work with us on this, were something on the order
of $175,000.00. When we brought in EOS, who's the second architectural firm to
work on it, they initially estimated about $170,000.00. Now that included some
money set aside for furnishings but a big chunk of that, most of that was
' construction. They estimated that the construction part of it itself was going
to be around $150,000.00 and that's what we came to you with when we went out
for the bid approval. We indicated though that we hoped that the bid climate
' would be a pretty good one and it turned out it was a real good one. We got the
low bidder is a group called United Contracting and we have some information
that Bert Haglund, our architect got from them. They're a new firm but the
princples involved in the firm have a lot of experience and they can obtain
bonding and we feel pretty comfortable with them. Their bid was for $134,000.00
and we were able to knock out one of the alternatives for shelving which
basically lowered it down to $132,200.00 which seemed to be a pretty dandy bid
and we're recommending that you go with that.
Mayor Chmiel: Sounds good to me. I think totally as I looked at that, roughly
' from where we originally started to where we're at right now still getting
everything that we wanted, we're saving roughly about $42,800.00. I love it.
Any other discussion? If not, I'd like a motion.
1 Councilman Mason: So moved.
Councilwoman Dimler: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: So moved that the City Council select United Contracting to
construct the senior center contract amount of $132,200.00.
Resolution #92 -42: Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to
approve United Contracting to construct the Chanhassen Senior Center for a total
contract amount of $132,200.00. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
AWARD OF BIDS: PUBLIC WORKS AND PUBLIC SAFETY EQUIPMENT AND VEHICLES.
' Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. Harold Brose, the Public
Works Shop Foreman has spent a lot of.time and effort putting these bids and
going through the opening process and Harold is here tonight to give you a brief
' synopsis of the bidding results.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. One of the things that I think that we will be going
through is a readvertising on the sweeper?
Charles Folch: That's correct. Yeah, Harold will explain that a little bit.
' Mayor Chmiel: Very good. Harold.
Harold Brose: Okay, as indicated on my report here, everything came in under
budget except the street sweeper. ...call for 2 year warranty. The low bidder,
which did not have it, would take like I was indicating, about $3,500.00 off of
it. The high bid would take up to $7,000.00 off so we really had to throw it
out, rebid it and hopefully come in maybe within $2,000.00 of budget. All this
1
19
•
1
City Council Meeting - March 23, 1992
other equipment is maybe $4,000.00 under so we should be able to get all of it
under budget if I rebid the sweeper.
Mayor Chmiel: Does anyone have any questions? Ursula.
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes, I just want to say I think you did a wonderful job on
the ones that I checked out. They came in really low. But I did have a
question on the two way radios. Is that price installed and include the
antenna? '
Harold Brose: It the antenna but we install them at the shop.
Councilwoman Dimler: You do install them in the shop? That was the only one I
thought might be a little bit high.
Harold Brose: It's like a state bid type price. That's why two Motorola, we
keep the radios the same and they discount like 25% to 30% just automatic on
government bid price.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, they're kind of the state -of -the -art radio system ,
though right?
Harold Brose: Basically right.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions?
Councilman Mason: What's the trade off for knocking off a year on the warranty
there? I mean there's $3,500.00 but are we going to end up regretting that in
the 13th month?
Harold Brose: Okay, like my experience of 18 years of being around, we've never
had anything like that come up. Like a $3,000.00 figure. So it could happen
right. Another thing that they both offered and I'm going to write a new spec,
which I did. They will start the warranty when we deliver. Like say it's July
and then I notify the factory and dealer like October we stop sweeping so then
they'll stop the warranty then. We start say in March -April of 1993. They'll
continue it. We'll get like a season and a half, almost 2 seasons warranty so
that also is going to help.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. '
Councilman Workman: I would move approval.
Councilwoman Dimler: Second.
Resolution #92 -43: Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to
award the bids for the Public Works and Public Safety Equipment and Vehicles as
follows, except for the Street Sweeper which will be re -bid:
LOW BIDDER VEHICLE /EQUIPMENT BID AMOUNT '
Long Lake Ford Tractor, CTI Model 8O, Front End
Inc. Loader Forks $1,590.
20
City Council Meeting - March 23, 1992
II
- . LOW BIDDER VEHICLE /EQUIPMENT BID AMOUNT
II Carlson Tractor and Equip.. Mott Flail Mower $ 2,700. •
II Boyer Ford Trucks 1992 Ford L -8000 cab and chassis $38,300.
(State Bid)
Midland Equipment Co. Custom dump body with Swenson
II URC800 sander $10,467.
Crysteel Truck Equipment Monroe 48PR1115 Snowplow
I Falls TAH -9 Wing $10,585.
Lano Equipment Inc. Felling FT7T Packer Trailer $ 2,495.
1 Motorola C & E Two (2) Motorola Maxtrac
Two Way Radios $ 1,408.
I Grossman Chevrolet Ford Ranger Supercab 4X4 Pickup $13,298.
Cushman Motor Co., Inc. Turf Sprayer $ 4,013.
II MTI Distributing Slit Seeder $ 3,762.
MTI Distributing Lawn Sweeper $ 8,932.
II Victoria Repair & Mfg. Mower Trailer $ 2,200.
II All voted in favor and the motion carried.
I CONSIOER SIZE OF BUILDING, 4141 KINGS ROAD, LOWELL CARLSON.
Jo Ann Olsen: The Council reviewed this in December and tabled action until
they could actually go out to the site to see the existing situation. What's in
II front of the Council is they have to come to an agreement on the size of the
building and outside storage area for Lowell Carlson on his site. This is part
of a settlement agreement between the city and Lowell. Carlson. Lowell has
II submitted a site plan with a 12,000 square foot building which staff had stated
that was in excess of what could be permitted on that site. We recommended
originally a 3,000 square foot building and a 2,000 square foot screened outdoor -
storage area. The settlement agreement states that Lowell has to have
II everything within a building or witfiin a screened storage area. Whatever is not
in those areas has to be removed from the site. I think as you've seen on the
site visit, there's a lot of stuff that could be removed from the site but
II Lowell's concerned that what he does keep on the site, he wants to be able to
contain in a building so the elements, the weather, doesn't continue to ruin his
equipment and allow him to continue to work on his equipment. Staff is still
II recommending that the 12,000 square foot is too large and not be accepted and
that if the Council still consider a 3,000 square foot building and the 2,000
square foot outdoor storage area.
II
21
IF
City Council Meeting - March 23, 1992
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Carlson. Do you have something to say to
us this us this evening? It's nice to see that your arm's out of a sling.
Lowell Carlson: Well, they're talking about a 3 and a 2 and that's 5 and I
don't know what I'm going to do with the rest if that's the case but anyway. I
mean that's kind of small or whatever. I guess everybody's looked at it and we
went through it and we've back here again but I kind of, we kind of get it out
of the way or done or whatever but I don't know. As far as the size and stuff,
well for instance let's say the buildings around that they have built, they're
even just riding a horse inside of it. Nobody really you kow, size didn't make
no difference there. And I don't know. I guess I don't quite understand what
you're really getting at as far as down on size. Some of them buildings are 60
x 100 something you know and you know this is just a riding stable or whatever
or whatever storage now I guess some are. But I guess I kind of want to get it
cleaned up just as bad as you but I'd like to have a big enough building to put
it in and get neighbors or whoever off my back and whatever. I'd kind of like
to go on with my life you know. But I kind of don't want to be in here again
and again and again. I'd like to get it kind of settled maybe just as bad as
you do but I still don't want my stuff all outside and whatever because there's
too much upkeep in the whole thing and too expensive too. All my stuff like
I told you before was part of deisels. I mean the biggest, share of it is
deisels and working outside and that is just a little too tough for us I guess.
But let's see what you come up with or whatever and get out of here or whatever.
Than you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Lowell. Discussion. 1
Councilwoman Dimler. Mr. Mason.
Councilman Mason: I would like to hear what other members of the Council have i
to say.
Mayor Chmiel: Ursula.
Councilwoman Dimler: Can we start in the middle? No, I really struggled with
this. I did go out to the site. I don't want to put anybody out of business or
cause any kind of financial hardship on anyone that's in business. I know how
tough it is. The only thing that I could finally compare it to, being that we
are in an area here that is likely to be developed soon. There will be
neighbors and I think we would be real generous if we allowed it to be as big as
some of the sheds that I see out in the country. In our own case we have one
and I had to use that because I could visualize how big it is. It's 44 x 110
coming out to just under 5,000 square feet. From what I saw on that site, and
I don't know what you want to keep and what you want to, what you aren't going
to be using anymore. I wouldn't favor anything too much larger than that. I
think that would be adequate for what I saw the equipment that would go in
there. And if he wants it inside then I would go along with 5,000 inside if ,
that's what he wants. The other consideration I had was that I remember
speaking to, who was out there Mr. Kirchman? Yeah. He said something about the
building that you want to use is a certain dimension already and that maybe
8,000 would be, without having to cut the steel beams or whatever, that that
would be a reasonable size. But I wouldn't want to go any higher than that and
I'd be willing to go with 5,000.
22 1
City Council Meeting - March 23, 1992
Councilman Workman: What are you saying Ursula? Are you saying 8,000 but
5,000:
1 Councilw:;man Dimler: Well, the lowest 5,000. Highest 8,000. I'm giving you a
parameter. An •;'11 take other comments into consideration.
' Councilman Mason: That's a good way to get things started.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Richard.
Councilman Wing: It's hard to picture these buildings. I'm a customer of Mr.
Carlson's so I'm sensitive to his situation out there and I moved out there
' decades ago like he did and neither one of us ever dreamed that you guys were on -
your way out you know. We sort of figured we were there forever and it was ours
and never going to change but I'm giving up to the fact that there's going to be
' stop signs in front of my house in the next couple years. So I guess I have to
say in, I'd like to be able to protect Mr. Carlson but I really have to say in
defense of the city and Mr. Carlson that it's frankly time to start cleaning up,
sizing down because you're going to have to start sometime. So to approve a
lar building that's going to cost you a lot of money, that's going to butt
head on into the developers coming, I think is just as unfair to you as to cut
the size down and make it difficult today so. What we grant you that's large
'
to.-2.7y is going to penalize you tomorrow even worst so I get tossed inbetween
here. But I think it's time to start removing and sizing down and perhaps the
staff recommendation of 3,000 is a little small for what you need. That's a
total of 5,000 square feet. Now considering what's coming out there, I guess I
i kind of hate to see a work area any larger than that because I think you're
gcir.g to bP• penalized and hurt even harder in the future so I'm comfortable with
the staff recommendation but I'm certainly comfortable with Council's decision
to expand that somehow but I guess the 12,000 I don't hear getting a lot of
support if that's what the need is so. I don't think there's anybody more
empathetic than I am.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you Richard. I guess I have a question before I go
to you Tom. Lowell, how long are you still considering staying in business?
' Lowell Carlson: How long what?
Mayor Chmiel: How long are you considering staying in business? How long do
you want to continue with what you're doing at your location?
Lowell Carlson: As long as I'm able to work...
1 Mayor Chmiel: I mean age wise. I'm looking at retirement myself.
Lowell Carlson: I suppose it will be another 10 -15 years...when you're looking
' at the size of the shop or...on the plan you'll see a workshop space...and
I guess they were talking about a sprinkling system and stuff in there and
that's a cold storage and in the wintertime I don't know what will happen to
those sprinklers unless they antifreeze or whatever...but I just thought I'd
bring that up.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thanks. Tom.
1
23
i
1
City Council Meeting - March 23, 1992
Councilman Workman: I know the day we were out there it was darn cold and it
only heighten my feeling that Mr. Carlson's in a very hard business. I know
he's actually only 32. And Don Ashworth is 18. But I like Ursula's, the method
to her madness there because it's'a compromise. 12,000 seems awfully big.
3,000 seems awfully small. Really not worth his while to do so. And so I
would throw out a number. I don't know if Ursula thought of what other outside
storage would be involved either but I guess I would tend to settle for maximum,
somewhere between 6,500 and 7,000.
Councilwoman Dimler: Could I have just one. I thought Mr. Kirchman said
something about the fact, if he's concerned about a sprinkler system, that
there's a certain size of building if he would stay under, that he wouldn't need II a sprinkler system and did I hear that to be around?
Jo Anr, Olsen: I don't know if it's, I think it's the type of building. The
fact that he has an office in here also kicks into the fact. I can't answer 1
that for sure. Maybe Scott knows but.
Mayor Chmiel: How many people are contained within the facility.
Jo Ann Olsen: There's other factors.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, so if he didn't have an office but it was merely
storage. Then a certain size of building, I thought he said it was under 8,000,
that it wouldn't need sprinkler system but I'm wondering if we can.
Jo Ann Olsen: There's a building code that he takes that. I don't know what it
is.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. But he does want to have an office in it. You want
to have an office there? People will be in there?
Lowell Carlson: Thought about it and whenever, yeah...
Councilman Mason: How about 5 and 2?
Manor Chmiel: Well, yeah. I looked at the same thing and I was thinking that
its a 12,000 square foot and I was thinking half of that which would be 6.
What I have dowr, here. I thought about potentially what about two 6,000 square
foot. He's got 6 acres there but then I thought well that's not going to be too
good so I just took out one of them. The other reason why I asked the question
is how long is he considering staying in business. I thought if it were a
period of 5 years or 8 years, he is in there now on a non - conforming use and we
could keep it as that. Once those years are done and a certain time would have
to be established, we would then automatically then, he would be closed down
when he retired. And that was the reason why I asked that particular question.
Councilman Workman: Knowing that when we were out there we met his son and he's
1
1. .1 I. r 1 m' f- know.
Dimler: Non - conforming use goes with the property doesn't it?
Mayor Chmiel: No, I don't believe it does. Roger? 1
24 '
•
City Council Meeting - March 23, 1992
II
it? Councilwoman Dimler: Doesn't it? . It does doesn't it. Yeah.
' Mayor Chmiel: Non - conforming use goes with the property?
Roger Knutson: Yes.
' Mayor Chmiel: It does, okay.
Councilwoman Dimler: So even if someone bought it they could.
Mayor Chmiel: Right.
' Councilman Wing: Don, my concern remains the same and this is in protection of
Lowell. Development pressures are going to run him out of business.
' Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, his land is going to be valuable enough to.
Councilman Wing: Extremely and it's such a choice piece of land and surrounded
' by such choice land, again Lowell I want to emphasize my concern that to allow
you to put up an expensive large building and then bump head on into development
it jt.:i seems to be a really difficult situation for you in the future. And
thin you'd really lose your shirt. I mean you just get done with this project
' and ther these developers come in and everybody's screaming and yelling about
Lowell's business right in the middle of their backyard and it's inevitable. I
mean you know, I'd like to stop it but I can't and you can't so you might as
11 well face reality here and recognize that progress is going to push you out the
door. At least force you to relocate or size down and clean up. I think we've
Find of talked about it in the past that when do you start the process.
Lowell Carlson: Well does Chanhassen has a cheap piece of property that I can
build that building on?
' Councilman Wing: Of course not. I know it. I know what you're saying.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess I understand what you're saying. Let me ask another
' question. According to some of the Judge's requirements here to remove some
t.eh cles off the site and have you done that to date yet?
LC�..rll Carlson: Well not to the day you've been there.
Mayor Chmiel: No.
' Lowell Carlson: ...I've got all the equipment... When the building's up,
yes...I just kind of what to make sure that I...
Mayor Chmiel: I think we're probably at the moment of decision and I've heard
several different numbers proposed. Anywhere from 6,500 to 7,000. If that
building basically is 12,000 square feet, half of that could be put up and I'm
not sure what those beam portions were. I'm thinking that if they are in those
intervals, 6,000 would probably be fairly close to it and could utilize some of
that existing building that's there.
1
25
II
City Council Meeting - March 23, 1992
Councilman Wing: In lieu of cutting the building down, would we be interested
expanding the fenced outside storage area a little bit to accommodate? 1
Mayor Chmiel: We're talking 2,000 square feet on that.
Councilman Wing: I can't relate to that size. 1
Councilwoman Dimler: Could I just make a comment? One of the concerns that I
have is that we're looking at drainage into Lake St. Joe here aren't we and the
bigger the building and the more impervious surface we have, the less problems
we'll have with water quality. Correct?
Jo Ann Olsen: When he submitted his site plan we did require a drainage plan 1
and that showed it being collected.
Councilwoman Dimler: So•you have a location for the building regardless of what 1
type?
Mayor Chmiel: No he'd have to have a collection point as well for any drainage
that would come from that particular building. It probably has to be a hard
surface.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, so that's taken care of. 1
Councilman Workman: Mr. Mayor, I'd make a motion to approve for Mr. Carlson a
6,000 square foot building with 2,000 square foot outdoor storage, screened. 1
Councilwoman Dimler That sounds good.
Councilman Mason: I'll second that. 1
Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Discussion. We're looking at a
6,000 square foot building. That would be acceptable to the City and meet all
necessary codes with a 2,000 square foot total storage area. Outside storage
area. That will give you approximately the 8,000 square feet and you're still
going to be a little short but. 1
Lowell Carlson: And that's with the shop in that 2,000?
Mayor Chmiel: That would probably be with the shop inside that 6,000 from what
I'm hearing here.
Councilman Workman: Is 8,000 total square feet enough to store everything he 1
has out there? Is 8,000 square feet enough for him to store everything out
there?
Jo Ann Olsen: Everything he's got? Probably not but you know it's our 1
contention that some of that stuff could be removed.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, there's several things that he's planning on removing. I 1
think if you check that list that has storage plumbing like in the step van,
and I don't know if that's still a workable vehicle or not. Then all those
vehicles that are on site are required to have licenses from my understanding. 1
26 1
1
City Council Meeting - March 23, 1992
Lowell Carlson:
Inside?
' Mayor Chmiel: Pardon me?
Lowell Carlson: The ones inside would have to be too?
' Roger Knutson: If you keep them inside they don't have to be licensed.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. If they're within the building, they don't have to be
licensed. Those on the outside have to.
Lowell Carlson: ...12,000 and so now we're talking about 8,000...
' Mayor Chmiel Right. Yeah and that's one of the things that we're looking. at
and we reap <:e that it's cutting you a little bit short. But maybe with some of
the existing vehicles that you have there or some of the things that you are no
longer going to be using, you'll eventually be disposing of I would assume.
Lowell Carlson: On that list Don...
Mayor Chmiel: There's also the other items that are to be removed from the
site. Now is that one blue and white van, shingles, large rusty gas barrel
' container, fiberglass bathtub units, batteries, materials to assemble building
to be used when the building goes up and of course that's portions of that.
Plug- cab with a semi trailer with GW117. Small yellow garage. Green building
' full of plumbing supplies be removed when the new storage building is built and
the supplies of course going to be moved from there. And the fishing houses and
the garbage pile.
Lowell Carlson: Okay, but fish houses aren't allowed to be stored on private
property...
Mayor Chmiel: Who can answer that better? Fish houses allowable on site?
Roger Knutson: The Judge's order, they have to go.
' Mayor Chmiel: Those are the items that I was just reading. But I remember when
I, I dc.n't have it anymore but I did have a fish house on the side of my garage.
I did eventually put it inside when I took the boat out but.
Roger Knutson: There are fish houses and there are fish houses...and that's the
Court Order. •
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Well that's the Judge's order. We haven't got anything to
do on that. Okay. Any other discussion?
Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to allow Mr. Lowell Carlson
a 6,000 square foot building and 2,000 square feet of outside screened storage
for a total of 8,000 square feet of storage area. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
Mayor Chmiel: We don't like it any more than you do.
27
City Council Meeting - March 23, 1992
Lowell Carlson: I don't know where we're going...
Mayer Chmiel: Hopefully we're giving you a little bit more. Thank you. ,
DISCUSSION OF WATER SURFACE USEAGE ORDINANCE.
Councilman Wing: I said that I would represent the Lotus Lake Homeowners
Association this evening and Susan Conrad.
Jo Ann Olsen: She was going to come back at 10:00.
Councilman Wing: Yeah, I thought this was going to be later. It's irrelevant.
I sort of sided with you and the decision you made I was comfortable with that
and frankly if it stayed. Steve Emmings said he wish he would have caught that
because he doesn't like that option be given to his neighbors and I was one of
them. Lotus Lake felt that we had cut back on the number of boats and were
concerned about the number of boats and then we gave homeowners an option of
perhaps adding a boat a little more easily than we could have in the past. The
problem is there's never been a problem. Probably never will be a problem. As
I've gone around Minnewashta, everybody has one boat. Consistently'down the
line. And I had a friend's boat there last year. Nobody knew it. Nobody said
anything. They certainly will this net year. Because of the difficulty of
taking something away in the future, they would like us to go back to the old
definition of owner, family member specific.
Mayor Chhhiel: That was really my intent at the time. '
Councilman Wing: Right, in which case_ then I would I think reconsideration
would be ideal to do that. To leave as is, I can live with it but I think we're
encouraging an increase of boats and then there would not be, as long as the
homeowners came in and tried to get the recreational beachlots to hold the line,
I certainly think they should do equally. Back in 1982 the homeowners did cut
back from 5 to 3 boats in good faith to try and encourage that and I think we
should hold the line on that in this case so. I guess I'm very comfortable with
going to the old definition of owner, family members specific and Don I don't
know what the protocols are here. It's in your ballpark now. I only brought it
up for that reason.
Mayor Chmiel: This is fine and I think what we should probably do is to have
Roger redraft that and come back to Council with the concerns that have been so
indicated this evening. And I think my intent was at that time that we did
that, that that be a blood relative to be able to use it. In this particular
instance, this individual didn't even have a boat at his dock, even though he
had a dock. But at the same token, he couldn't allow his kids to utilize that
who live right next door but are not directly on the lake. And so consequently
my concern was that that individual should be allowed to have a blood relative
utilize that dockage. So if you can draft something to come back to us with,
with some of the things that Dick has indicated in here and Dick and I have had
discussions, I'd appreciate that.
Councilman Wing: Roger, the only thing we changed on that - ordinance was just
must be moored in front of the home. And so I guess the only suggestion here is
28 '
City Council Meeting - March 23, 1992
strictly to go back to the original first sentence. The owner, does that meet
the needs that you felt is happening?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah I think owner or family member.
Cou::ilman Wing: And it doesn't go back to Planning Commission, it just comes
ctraight to us for a public hearing?
Jo Ann Olsen: Public hearing, yeah.
~~ Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. It would have to come back to us for a public hearing. Or
should that go through Planning?
Roger Knutson: Jo Ann's indicating not.
Jo Ann Olsen: Well it's not a planning, it's not a zoning. It's under water
surface useage.
Mayor Chmiel: You're right it is, so it should come back through Council.
Right. Oka/. Very good. Item number 10'
DISCUSSION ON WHETHER THE COMPOST SITE IN BANOIMERE PARK SHOULD BE REOPENED IN
SPRING.
Mayor Chmiel' I guess Jo Ann and I have had discussions on this and I guess
I've becn under the concern because of all the brush that we have had basically
and leaves in the spring and fall and sometimes inbetween when we've had storms,
-- all this brush has been sitting out on the front curbs waiting to be picked up.
No way of disposing it. And consequently I think that we should have a location
at least within the community for our citizens to get rid of their given
~~
problems. So with that I'll give it back to you.
Jo Ann Olsen: Okay. This has been discussed pretty extensively by the
Recycling Committee and they have recommended to the Council that the site be
re-opened. On page 2 of the staff report they go through the conditions that
they' felt should be applied to the re-opening of the compost site and that is
that it should only be open in the spring and the fall. Not through the oummer.
'
ThEl it only be open on Saturdays from 9:00 to 4:00 and we would only have 1
employee instead of the 2 that we had. We found that we did not need 2
emplo And that we also, they recommended that the fees be increased to 50
cents per bag for grass clippings and a $1'60 for a bundle of brush. And that
the site would be open to all people, not just limited to Chanhassen residents.
Mayor Chmiel: I have a quick question on that bundle of brush. What does a
bundle of brush, the size of it?
Jo Ann Olsen: What we had decided was 4 inch, I think it was like a 4 inch. We
h&c' it described. It's got to be tied and it can't be more than, I can't
remember what the dimensions were.
Mayor Chmiel: A nice bundle size.
Jo Ann Olsen: It's a nice bundle size.
29
City Council Meeting - March 23, 1992
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. The other thing I think we discussed too, or was in here
that we should open it to other people within Carver County and I really
question that. I think that's our responsibility and we have to pay for those
costs of whatever it's going to go out should hopefully pay for itself. But I'm
not so sure that that's really our responsibility to go outside of our realms of
the city to help everybody else within Carver County. I guess I sort of lean
that we should be the responsible person.
Councilman Mason: I think I might have missed what you said at the beginning.
If Carver County is kicking some money into this too.
Mayor Chmiel: They gave us $5,000.00 last year for it, right. But I don't
think we should be in a position to accept things from outside of the corporate
limits. Even though they provided that, the County made that contribution to us
without this going full scale wise as far as the County is concerned. And I
think it was just that dedication, dollar dedication if I'm not mistaken is the ,
way it came across. But I think that having that site available and if we plan
on using it, it is strictly city people should have that option. Tom.
Councilman Workman: I thought of that too and now I'm a part of a regional '
board so I have this regional flavor about me but I wondered about that. Who
would drive from, I don't know how far really with a bag of, pardon me?
Mayor Chmiel: New Germany.
Councilman Workman: From New Germany or Young America with a bag of clippings
you know. Those people out there, they'd lose that bag off the tailgate of
their car before they'd, I think I just pigeonholed a whole bunch of communities
here. But you know I don't know that that, do we really have that big of a
problem?
Jo Ann Olsen: Well the only city that would be of concern would is Victoria.
Almost all the other cities in Carver County, to my understanding, have their
own compost site.
Councilman Workman: And Chaska, don't they have a big one by Jonathan there?
And if I were living in Victoria, that's where I'd go.
Councilman Mason: And that's what came up at the last solid waste advisory
meeting. That every city, and a number of townships, do have their own
composting facility. Correct me if I'm wrong Jo Ann but I think one of the
reasons, another reason we came up with this is for one person to be monitoring,
I mean with all the different addresses. I mean some of us live in Excelsior
that are Chan residents or this that and the other thing and that can end up
being a fairly cumbersome process. We just kind of felt let's just open it up.
Councilman Wing: This is too far away for me, to drive. '
Councilman Workman: Where do you go with your goose droppings?
Councilman Wing: Shorewood. What happened to the good old days? No, no, no.
Councilman Mason: The good old days don't get any better, they just get older.. ,
30
1
City Council Meeting - March 23, 1992
Councilman Wing: It seems, I wish the County was able to hang onto this and
it's unfortunate. Or the Arboretum. What an ideal situation. They have
enormous composting area that has machinery and was handled by the County or the
Arboretum. What a luxury that was and now we're facing reality and it really is
a difficult situation. But I have to rely on staff's position Don. Let's say
' tr have a problem from the outside and I think if that problem exists and it
becomes, it manifests itself, then I would say we'd cut it back. I'm not sure
there's a problem right now. A friend of mine called from Minnetonka and wanted
to dump a truckload and when he found out it was down there, he went to an
alternate source or had someone pick it up because he thought he could just
drive out to the Regional Park and dump them. The question I had is what about
my pick -up or trailer where I just put all my leaves in, put a tarp on. How are
' you charging me to come in with a pick -up truck load or a trailer?
Jo Ann Olsen: We had that last year. I believe it was like $2.00. We had a
base fee for truck loads.
Mayor Chmiel: Most of them leave it uncovered and drive very fast.
Comicilman Workman: Doesn't Chaska accept large limbs and things?
Jo Ann Olsen: They've been having nothing but problems with that site and
thsy`re following what we're doing now.
Councilman Workman: Oh, they don't accept the large limbs anymore? I mean that
'
will pile up fast. I guess I would move re- opening of the compost site as
recommended by staff unless the Mayor feels stronger about it.
'
Mayor Chmiel: No. I'm just stating my opinion.
Councilman Wing: I'll second that and then we'll go to discussion.
' Ms :or Chmiel: Any other discussion?
Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the reopening of
' the compost site at Bandimere Park with the following conditions:
1. T;r site will be reopened only for the spring and fall of 1992, and any
future openings of the site shall be reviewed after these two time periods.
' The site will be opened this spring in mid -April through the first of June
(April 13 thru June 6).
' 2. The site will only be open on Saturdays from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m..
3. One employee will be hired to attend the site.
4. There will be a fee of 50 cents per bag for grass clippings and leaves and
$1.50 per bundle of brush.
' 5. The site would be open to all and not just limited to Chanhassen residents.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
31
II
City Council Meeting - March 23, 1992
RECEIVE FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR COUNTY ROAD 17 IMPROVEMENT (FROM TH 5 TO 400 FEET
SOUTH OF LAKE DRIVE); CALL FOR PUBLIC HEARING, PROJECT 90 -4.
Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. As I have described in my
staff report, this project was previously authorized by Council back in July of
1990 and at that time plans and specifications were authorized for preparation.
Since that time there's been a number of factors that have affected the time
schedule of this project. One particular being the interfacing with the
improvements of TH 5 at CR 17 and the desire to only have one road closure at
that location. And since this project has not initiated construction within one
year of it's ordering, we're required by State Statute to rehold the public
hearing on the project. So basically I've asked our project consultant engineer II to prepare an update to that feasibility study which is included in the packet.
We are asking that you accept the update this evening and call for a public
hearing on April 13th.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Charles, I look at that total amount of dollars.
What total distance is that from TH 5 all the way 400 feet beyond Lake Drive?
I couldn't find it in here.
Charles Folch: I may have that.
Mayor Chmiel: The reason I'm asking that question is that it appears to me that
$1,380,790.00 seems rather exorbitant.
Councilman Mason: It does seems like a lot for not a very long stretch of road.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah.
Charles Folch: Probably estimate that it's a little bit better than half a mile '
stretch of roadway.
Mayor Chmiel: Is that an overlay that we plan on doing?
Charles Folch: No, that's a total reconstruction.
Mayor Chmiel: All new? ,
Charles Folch: All new.
Mayor Chmiel: How long has that existing road been in?
Charles Folch: I don't have that information off the top of my head but it is
an existing rural section there and so it is proposed to be totally
reconstructed to 4 lanes with turn lanes and curb and gutter.
Mayor Chmiel: Presently it runs 4 lanes up to. '
Charles Folch: Just south of Lake Drive, that's correct.
Don Ashworth: Between 1977 and 1978 is when that was built.
32 '
r
11 City Council Meeting - March 23, 1992
Mayor Chmiel: That long ago? It doesn't seem like that long. Okay. But yet
I as I look at that, the condition of that road is really not that bad. What is
existing now with the 4 lanes that go under the viaduct. Or under the underpass
of the railroad. Could that not have an overlay? It seems like the road itself
I has ctood up quite well. There's not been any real potholes on that at this
tim•?. Or does the configuration of the road, is it going to be different than
what it is presently?
II Charles Folch: The base alignment will follow the same alignment that's
currently there now. With the addition of, you're going to have the addition of
the turn lanes. You're going to have some extension of the road base section
II itself.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there some way that we can check that out just to make sure? I
I know I've looked at the figures that you've got in here, or some of them. And
this sort of makes me sit back and just ask those specific questions as I have.
Ever on the adminstrative costs. 30', of that for $318,000.00.
II Charles Folch: Yeah, that 30% is a typical.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, and I understand that. And that went up from the 244 to
II the 310 because of the additional cost. Just because the increment cost changes
that have taken place in the past year. Could you take a look at that and get
back to me on that?
II Charles Folch: Sure.
Councilman Mason: I thought Mr. Horn was going to be here tonight. Do you know
II what happened with him Charles?
Charles Folch: Actually, since this ended up towards the end of the meeting and
I not knowing how late it would go, I basically gave him the night off until the
public hearings.
II Councilman Mason: Okay, and maybe you can answer this. Do you know why this
increase? •
Charles Folch: Yeah, it was adjusted from two factors. One being the increase
I ir, cot from about a year, year and a half. Actually 2 construction years
difference from 1990 to 1992. But also as we went into the design phase last
year, soil borings were taken out there and a soil exploration was conducted
I which that information that was generated was not available at the time the
original feasibility was done. We found that there's some very, very poor soils
out there. In fact because of the poor soils, the project is going to have to
II be constructed in two stages where the northern half basically from Lake Drive
to TH 5 will be constructed as permanent this year and the southern portion
would go under a surcharge for 9 to 12 months and that be constructed until next
year. So that has added a substantial amount of that increase to the project.
II Councilman Workman: Quickly, I remember when we went over this the first time
and we got a prominent business person in the community was rather nervous about
all this and so was his attorney and everything else. Has there been further
II discussions with those people? And I recall some of the discussions being, we
II 33
II
City Council Meeting - March 23, 1992
already paid or they thought they paid for a 4 lane highway. Now we're doing it
Y 9 Y P 9 1
again and now we have poor soils and now I mean. I tended to kind of empathize
with them at that point. I still am and I haven't been kind of, I still haven't
been sold over that those businesses and those parcels maybe aren't being
treated unfairly. Does that make sense?
Charles Folch: Yeah. I can't speak for what was said before but being that '
that is a county road, I'm assuming the first time it was constructed was under
county contract and if that's the case, I wouldn't have assumed that any
portions of those road improvements would have been assessed back to the
abutting property owners. Typically county road improvements aren't. But as
Todd and I have. discussed today, we had planned on getting together with these
adjacent property owners between now and the public hearing, at least informing II
them of the new cost and what's involved and such before the hearing.
Councilman Workman: Whether they're assessed or not, to know that there's a 4
lane highway out there now and then to come back and redo it and get assessed
for it now, they're probably figuring it does them just fine and they might have
an argument. But I'd be interested in knowing what they say about that or where
they're at because. '
Todd Gerhardt: A lot of people still qualify for special assessment reduction
programs. Some of them only took advantage of a year and a half or two years so
they still have about, I'm going to say about another year's worth of, in the 3
year program.
Councilman Workman: Meaning what? Meaning HRA would. '
Todd Gerhardt: Assistance, yes.
Don Ashworth: I'm not sure the owners you're referring to but it was actually
Jerry Carlson and Frank Beddor who were the early ones in actually stimulating
this project and yes, I did meet with Jerry. He can see a real benefit in being
able to, with an urban section, they would literally be recapturing a portion of
that property in the storm sewer and lighting, etc.. And Todd is correct.
Tho 3 businesses that really did not use dollars that were kind of
available to them. It's kind of ironic, in fact I was just mentioning to the
attorney because one of the things that Jerry said was, well then if this goes
through 1 could truly be treated as the rest of the businesses. And I said, yes
and hc was happy at that point. The only one who I think might be hurt by the
project or could make the kind of comments you're referring to is.
Councilman Workman: Don Patton.
Don Ashworth: Well I don't know. Do we go down and touch Patton's property?
Mayor Chmiel: I don't think so. '
Don Ashworth: I don't think so. I was thinking of Bongard and the Empak
property. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, he would be.
1
34
City Council Meeting - March 23, 1992
Todd Gerhardt: ...check his numbers but I think...dollars available with some
of the increases we've seen this year. I don't know if we're going to be able
to pick all of it up but a pretty good chuck of it.
Mayor Chmiel: Because of all the work that we did on TH 5, that's the reason
' we're retaining ERW for this, is that correct?
Charles Folch: Excuse me?
Mayor Chmiel: Because of all the work that they have done previously on this is
the reason why we retained BRW?
I Charles Folch: That's correct. They had prepared the original feasibility
stud/ and plans and specs for the project and are familiar with the history.
' Todd Gerhardt: This project was submitted about 2 years ago.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I remember that. About a year. No, I thought it was, well
C' yc4.rc ago and it was brought in last year I thought.
Charles Folch: Yeah, the date that we have for authorizing preparation of plans
and secs was July of 1990.
Councilman Wing: Charles, how are these properties going to benefit from this
improvement? They've already got, as was mentioned, they've already got this
large road. For this amount of money, how are they going to benefit? What are
WE going to do for them that justifies?
Che-les Folch: As it relates to the roadway itself, with the introduction of
channe1ization turn lanes. It makes access in and out of their properties more
amenable. As Don had mentioned, instead of having ditches running alongside
thsi_r properties, there will be storm sewer installed and with the urban section
no, the have more basically land on the property for landscaping and such.
Tod;i Gerhardt: I think people that have buildings out there will probably
' berfit from it but the people that will contend that they won't benefit will be
the Paul's who own that large tract of land on the south side of the
railroad tracks that haven't developed yet and are holding the land you know for
fut, developments. I'm sure that a representative of their's will be in at
the public hearing contesting it. But there's just nothing I can do until they
build something out there.
Councilman Wing: Just one more question. As it ties into TH 5 and you
mentioned earlier about the rise of the road, how this has to be done is this
percipitating. Is this independent from that or does it tie into that?
CoT ; that?
Charles Folch: I'm sorry, I didn't follow that.
Councilman Wing: TH 5 is coming in at a higher level.
Charley. Folch: That does have a minor impact on CR 17. In fact the touch down
pc.ir.t for the TH 5 project is about halfway between TH 5 and Park Road.
' 35
City Council Meeting - March 23, 1992
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion? If not, I'd like to get some of
that clarification back on it. But do we have a motion to call for a public
hearing, Project 90 -4?
Councilman Wing: So moved.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilman Mason: Second. '
Resolution #92 -44: Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to accept
the feasibility study update for County Road 17 Upgrade south of Trunk Highway 5 II
with clarifications by staff; and to call for the public hearing for Monday,
April 13, 1992. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: '
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Chmiel' 'r'es.
Councilman fling: This is my weakest point. Council Presentations.
Mayor Chmiel: You didn't put it on the agenda.
Councilman Winc And we had a rather serious house fire on Saturday and the
fire department was reviewing that and I was hard pressed to walk out. But I
did have an item I wanted to just hit on briefly. Very briefly. Would the
Mayor allow me just one quick Council presentation? II
Mayor Chmiel: Sure. Go ahead.
Councilman Wing: The water quality task force has been very effective and it's '
a seasoned group that has gotten together and kept this thing on line and
directed. I believe that we could emulate that group very effectively with a
similar tasE force on this TH 5 project, which I think is probably even more
costly. It needs even more direction and I think we've talked about task force
but I would like to request Council's permission to instruct staff or however I
should say this, ask the Mayor to instruct Council, if so desired, to advertise
for interested parties to formally establish a TH 5 corridor study task force so
that we can meet on a regular basis and get this directed and keep tabs on
what's going on. I certainly an interested in serving on it and I know there's
a lot of other community citizens. '
Councilman Workman: ...we've done that thought?
Councilman Wing: No, that was only to look•into the possibility of a
feasibility study. 5o I would like to ask Council to formally establish a TH 5
corridor study task force.
Ma ✓or Chmiel: I think that's a good idea but I'd like to see incorporated into
that SOME of the business people in and adjacent to TH 5.
36
1
City Council Meeting - March 23, 1992
11
Councilman Wing: Absolutely.
Mayor Chmiel: As well. I'd like to see some of those business people
incorporated in there.
' Councilman Wing: The, oh it's only 9:30. You know when you put all the pieces
together to combine the make - up of the group, certainly has to have land owners.
Certainly hae to have planners. Certainly has to have business people involved
and I don't know how you want to establish that.
Ma or Chmiel: Well I think we can take a look at that when we get the people in
' to, those wanting to serve on that particular.
Councilman Wing: Right. I think it ne•.s to be formally advertised and that
would be my request this evening, if Cc - _il chooses to form that task force.
Councilwoman Dimler: We can't act on that today.
Mayor Chmiel: No, we can't act on it today but we can have this go on at the
n,EYt meting and have it go through.
Councilman Mason: Do we need to say anything about this?
•
Mayor Chmiel: No, I don't think so. That's just an administrative presentation
indic.a.ting as to some of the things that they're proposing to do. Even though
9 p.m..
Cr,;:LiJman Workman: That's an ordinance though isn't it?
' r C,eiel• We can't act on it this evening either only because it's not b - e - en
it agenda. But if we would like, we should bring it up at our next
mePting as part of it. They're requesting to extend the hours to 9:00 p.m..
Charlee Folc,: I think they were hoping for some sort of action tonight.
They're currently in the process of doing their soil correction work at this
' point. I think 2 weeks, within 2 weeks they'll probably have most of their soil
correction work completed.
II Ma r' Chmiel: Well I don't really find that as a problem because there aren't
any residential homes in and adjacent to it.
Cn :incilnan Workman: I agree.
' Mayor Chmiel: It's all within the downtown area and it shouldn't really disturb
anybody within that particular location. The only thing we might get is on a
very Etill night and making sure that they are done off at 9 :00 because I hate
getting calls at 10:00 and 11 :00 and 12 :00 and I have to go talk to the people.
I guess I don't see, this isn't really affected us by any ordinance is it?
1 Councilman Mason: Noise ordinance.
Chmiel " :00?
1
37
1
City Council Meeting - March 23, 1992
Charles Folch: The primary reason it's being brought before you is this is a
change and one of the stipulations of the development contract which basically
limits them to a 6 :00 p.m..
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. That is contained in the contract?
Councilwoman Dimler: Plus it was consistent with our noise ordinance.
Charles Folch: The only property owner, I mean there is potential for problems
I would see maybe with the Country Suites Hotel. '
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. I was thinking residential.
Councilwoman Dimler: I'd hate to be a guest there. II
Mayor Chmiel: How does this jeopardize the project from going from 7:00 a.m. to
6 :00 p.m. and extending it the additional 3 hours?
Charles Folch: Well, all I can go on is basically the information you have on
the copy of this letter is that it impacts their proposed time schedule in doing
their soil correction. I think they initially got a little bit later start in
doing their grading work than they had planned and thus they're a little bit
behind schedule.
Don Ashworth: The suggestion that is, staff will basically not enforce that
section basically allowing them to go until 9 :00. That would allow us a
timeframs in here to monitor it to see if it is a problem. If it is a problem,
well in either case we'll put it onto your next agenda but at least by that
point in time we will know if there's a problem. If a problem does occur, then
we will shut them down and not allow them.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I would like us to contact Country Suites and make them
aware of that fact as well. As to what we are going to do then.
Councilman Mason: Does this fly in front of the noise ordinance though? I mean
if it does, aren't we kind of saying well because it's a city project it's okay?
Don Ashworth: I believe we did this for Rosemount when they were looking at
building that facility. We also did it for McGlynn.
Councilman Mason: I mean I personally I understand the point. '
Mayor Chmiel: Well it isn't really a city project per se. It's a developer's
project.
Councilman Mason: Well, would we allow any developer to go until 9 :00? I mean
if it wasn't Market Square? I'm just throwing that out I guess. '
Todd Gerhardt: ...get a complaint, wham they're out of there.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, they're back to the normal time.
38
City Council Meeting - March 23, 1992
11
Councilman Mason: Well that's true but that's kind of putting the cart before
' th= horse. I mean we have an ordinance that says you can't do it and so now
we're saying well, go ahead. If nobody calls, what the heck.
Councilman Wing: The ordinance was kind of intended to go towards residential
and not commercial.
Councilman Mason: No, I understand that but I mean I kind of wonder if we're.
Councilwoman Oimler: I agree with you Mike.
Councilman Mason: In the same ballpark here.
' Councilman Workman: If I can interject. !
Councilwoman Rimier: We can't do it tonight anyway unless we have a 4/5 vote to
reconsider our rules.
C incilman Workman: I don't mind standing on principle if it were going to harm
something. I don't think this is going to harm anything. I think the biggest
danger might be somebody leaving Filly's and having too many and maybe getting
struck by a large vehicle. But I don't think this is going to, I think it will
' comr and go and nobody will know.
Mayor Chmiel: All they're doing yeah, basically is just moving some of those
' coif off there. And whether they're going to be hauling all of that, directly
or indirectly, that's another question. That may be done the next morning too.
' Councilman Workman: I'm encoraged that they want to keep a schedule.
Dct Ailtworth: And again, you did do this for McGlynn. For Rosemount where we
allowed longer hours. Ln fact McGlynn went way into the evening is my
recollection. They moved that whole.
Councilman Mason: What year was that? I believe that was last year.
' Councilman Workman: No it wasn't...
1 Councilman MErc•n: Mr. public Safety.
Scott Harr: You have a section in the noise ordinance which provides for a
permit to be pulled for certain noise producing activities and although I don't
have that in front of me, I think this might be an appropriate use of that to
allow us to work with them directly and advise them that if we get too many
complaints, we have to deal with that. If they wanted to work with Todd or
' Charles, I think that would be an appropriate...does not violate the noise
ordinance and yet they go out...
Councilman Mason: I'd be a lot happier with that.
Mayor Chmiel: Well maybe we should refine the ordinance.
Councilwoman Dimler: No, I don't think so.
1 39
•
City Council Meeting - March 23, 1992
Councilman Mason: Not tonight.
r
Councilwoman Dimler: We really worked hard on that one. I don't think so. 1
Councilman Workman: Move to adjourn.
Mayor Chmiel: We can't take any action on this anyway other than the discussion 1
we've had and to work with that accordingly.
Councilwoman Dimler: I second the adjournment motion. 1
Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to adjourn the greeting.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:45
p.m..
Submitted by Don Ashworth 1
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
40
•
1
1
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
il REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 1, 1992
Chairman Batzli called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m..
II MEMBERS PRESENT: Matt Ledvina, Steve Emmings, Brian Batzli, Jeff Farmakes
and Joan Ahrens
- 1 MEMBERS ABSENT: Ladd Conrad and Tim Erhart
I STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Jo Ann Olsen, Senior
Planner; Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner 1; Kate Aanenson, Planner II; and Dave•.
Hempel, Senior Engineering Technician
I PUBLIC HEARING REZONING REQUEST FROM A2 TO RSF AND PRELIMINARY PLAT
REQUEST FOR 141 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND 8.2 ACRES OF PARK AREA LOCATED NORTH
OF LYMAN AND EAST OF GALPIN BOULEVARD, JUST SOUTH OF TIMBERWOOD ESTATES,
STONE CREEK, HANS HAGEN HOMES.
Public Present:
II Name Address
Mark Foster 8020 Acorn Lane
•
II - Patrick Mingen 8221 Galpin Blvd.
Bruce Senske 19057 Lotus View Drive, Eden Prairie
Jim & Colleen Dockendorf 2061 Oakwood Ridge
1 Tahir Khan 2040 Renaissance Court
Jerry & Bonnie Markowski 2051 Renaissance Court.
Bob & Nancy Krocak 2051 Timberwood Drive
Dave Maenke 2041 Timberwood Drive
II Jim Andrew: 131 Fox Hollow Drive
Dave Kou,s�:y 1311 Lake Susan Hills Drive
Stan Rud 2030 Renaissance Court
II Bob Lawson
Al Klingelhutz 2041 Renaissance court
8600 Great Plains Blvd.
Earl Holasek 8610 Galpin Blvd.
I Jeff G. Heinz
Dennis: Rollins 2071 Timberwood Drive
2081 Timberwood Drive
Brian Klingelhutz 2031 Tirnberwood Drive
Mike Meyer 3474 Lake Shore Drive, Chaska
II Roger Schmidt 8301 Galpin Blvd.
Mary Harrington Timberwood
II Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item.
Batzli: I'd like to ask you one question before I ask the applicant if
they'd like to speak and that is, stated in your report that the Planning
I Commission may want to consider continuing this item. In your opinion,
what would be the benefit of continuing it?
II Aanenson: Only if you wanted to consider the PUD option.
Krauss: Also, when we wrote the report and got it to the applicant we were
II not certain how they would receive the changes that were being requested.
The redesigned to move the park is a fairly significant one. We've since
II
Planning Commission Meeting
April 1, 1992 - Page 2
heard from the applicant's engineer who's here tonight that they believe
that that can be accommodated apparently. If they're comfortable with
those changes and if you're comfortable with the recommendations, we have II
given you the conditions that are required to carry it forward.
Batzli: Okay. Would the applicant, I assume the applicant's here
somewhere. Would he like to make a presentation at this time?
Ernie Rud: ...owner's not in town tonight. My name is Ernie Rud. We're
the surveyors and the designers of this plat and with me I have Chuck Plowe '
who's the consulting engineer. I'd like to take a moment to pass out
booklets and I've got to apologize for not getting them in your packets but
we just got them back from the printers at 3:00 this afternoon. It's some
of the house plans we're planning on building in there. We have read the
staff's report. I guess when we first looked at this piece of land, we had
some of the same concerns that the staff has got. May I use your overhead •
there please?
Aanenson: Yes.
Ernie Rud: As staff has pointed out, this whole easterly side here is all II
mature woodland including the part that...to Bluff Creek. We were very
sensitive to this easterly area and planned our...grading on the westerly
side which is all agricultural at this time. We do agree with the staff's
recommendation that serious consideration be given to the Park Commission's
recommendation. We looked at that northerly part as a passive park. The
part that we have designed to be a park and that's kind of unique. I mean II
there isn't too many places you can walk along a brook like that and have
those mature trees. I was just in there this afternoon and that kind of a
park is something you can't build with bulldozers. I mean you could put a II
ballfield out in the open there and stuff but to have amenities like that
that can be enjoyed by the whole neighborhood I think is something that you
don't come by too often. And therefore we do not want to change our park
dedication. We want to leave it where it's at. I don't know what part the
Planning Commission plays in that. If they just forward on the Park
Commission's recommendation or if they make one themselves. As far as that
cul-de-sacing that Stone Creek, I think that can be achieved. I think this'
is something we'd have to work with staff on. We haven't had sufficient
time to respond to it. We've done a couple of sketches on it but have not
had a chance to meet with them and we'd be happy to work with them before II
that Council meeting and try and resolve that issue. The homes that Mr.
Hagen will build in here will probably range from $125,000.00 to, I don't
know. He's built some up to $300,000.00 so I guess I would expect the ,
easterly half to have more expensive houses than the westerly half. The
land just dictates that. In your packet you'll see some of the landscaping
that we've done in the city of Woodbury. That would be very similar to
what we would propose along Galpin Blvd. there. All that landscaping and II
plantings would be done by the developer and be maintained with the
homeowners association so the city wouldn't be obligated to maintain those
islands or the landscaping on that berm. We further cover that with a
landscape easement so the homeowners are aware that all that landscaping on
the outer side of that berm will be done by the association and not by the
homeowners themselves or the City. As far as realigning those ponds and
stuff, we don't have any problem with that. That can be done, taken off
II Planning Commission Meeting
April 1, 1992 - Page 3
II the right -of -way. There's ample storage in both those ponds for the runoff
so we can move those to accommodate a trail should that be needed along 17
I or 18.
Batzli: I'm sorry, I may be jumping ahead of what you were going to say
• here but did you comment on the conservation easements? Were those
1 troublesome at all?
Ernie Rud: No. We might like to get that extended to 100 feet back and
' the reason being that some of our houses are 45 feet deep rather than 40
and should we want to set a house at 25 feet or 30 feet rather than 20,
then we could run into a little trouble with that. So we would like the "
I flexibility of probably having 100 feet of area in there. Not necessarily
to clear but to have the flexibility to put a home in there should we have
to have a deeper house on one of those lots. And we're in complete
agreement with staff. We want to save as many of those trees as we can too
II because, I don't know if you people have walked through that woods but it's
one of the few woods where you don't see a lot of underbrush. I mean the
crowns in the trees are so thick that they just haven't allowed the
I underbrush to grow so it's nice and open and we want to preserve that as
much as staff does. I don't think I have any other comments on the plat.
I would be open to try and answer any questions that the Planning
Commission might have.
II Batzli: I think we will probably direct some questions your way a little
. bit later, unless somebody has a question that they'd like answered right
II now. Thank you. What I'd like to do next is, I know that we have a couple
of people here from the Park and Recreation Commission and I would like to
ask them to come up, if they want to talk to us now before the rest of the
1 people here if you're here for this meeting. So guys if you'd like to.
Jim Andrews: Thank you. I'm Jim Andrews from the Park Commission and we
looked at this proposal on the 24th I believe was the date. We did
I recognize the unique value of the wooded area up on the upper corner. It
has some steep grades wooded area. One of our biggest concerns was that a
development of this size has consistently come back to us looking for
II active play spaces and a good example of that is Pheasant Hills. Pheasant
Hills was a development of approximately 130 houses, if I remember
correctly. They demanded quite strongly a ballfield, a play area, soccer
1 fields and hockey rinks and tennis courts. Our concern was that if this
development were to go in without an active play area, that we would be
faced with an irrate developed neighborhood demanding space that we could
no longer provide them. I was also encouraged to see that the alternate
II plan that Todd drew up for us would accommodate the wetland that's on the
property and some of the forested area so I guess I feel, and I think our
Commission felt that a good compromise was preserve both the forest area
1 and part of the wetland and provide adequate active play spaces.
Dave Koubsky: Chairman, Commissioners. Dave Koubsky, Park and Rec
I Commission. Like Jim had indicated, we had wrestled with this issue of
preservation of a nice wetland or a creek area and a lot of green space
versus a more open area where we could provide more active amenities for
softball, baseball, open field areas. Todd had indicated in his memo, and
II I think he highlighted some good points, that this area is in a park
II
Planning Commission Meeting 1
April 1, 1992 - Page 4
deficient area. It's a development going into the new MUSA area that we
1
don't have a lot of amenities that we're requesting out of this
development. This was a large tract development. Currently there's no
park systems within the radius required to service this neighborhood.
Sunset Ridge would the closest one. They have a proposed hockey rink and
proposed ballfield and some open space. That's on the other side of
Audubon. For people to access that park their kids would have to cross the
streets. There's another development proposed south of this that would be
in the same scenario. They're on the west side of Audubon so to go to a
park that could provide them open space and those types of amenities, they I
would have to cross a road. So we did wrestle with St. We felt that a
flat land, bigger area, something we could provide 140 houses in th> e
additional houses to the south, Timberwood to the north with some sort of I
open space, ballfield place to play. Again we wrestled with this for a
long time. We did reach an unanimous decision to go this route and I guess
we're just here to support our decision.
Batzli: Thanks Dave. This is a public hearing. If anyone would like to
come and voice their concerns, pro or con to this matter. I'd like to
invite you to do so right now. I'd like to ask that you step up to the
podium and give your name and address before you start your remarks though.'
Mary Harrington: My name is Mary Harrington. I live in Timberwood and I'm
pleased that we are getting some residential houses. Not too pleased about
the lot sizes but pleased for some residential houses. My concern would
fall in the line of the preservation of the trees, the wetlands and also I •
was wondering about the intelligence of renaming maybe Timberwood down
there to some other street. Having Timberwood pop out on CR 117 labeled
Timberwood in two places I know can cause nothing but utter confusion to
people. The other thing that I would question is whether Timberwood, in
it's existing state could be left as a cul -de -sac and turn their road into I
a cul-de-sac also dead ending there where they do not join or meet and
leaving, instead of Stonewood cul- de- sacing that, have that be a second
exit for that particular subdivision. Right now Timberwood Drive has a lot"
of occupants on it doing 40 and 45 mph down Timberwood and I could see it
turning into a raceway if it was going through. That would be a concern of
basically my major concern between the wetlands. That that be, the trees I
be kept and somebody addressed the issue of Timberwood as stated, for the
road renaming and also for the raceway that it would start to create. I am
overjoyed to see the houses.
Bonnie Markowski: My name is Bonnie Markowski. Currently I live at 510
Timberland Drive in Burnsville but my husband and I currently own the lot
that's at 2051 Renaissance. It is directly north of the proposed
subdivision. It's within the Timberwood Estates. We're planning to move
there this summer hopefully. I have to agree with Mary Harrington about
all of her points. 1 do not like to see Timberwood Drive go through. I
could see that remain as a cul-de-sac and the opposite end, the Stone Creek'
subdivision also be a cul-de-sac. I'm concerned about the traffic flow as
she is. I'm also concerned about the mature treed area that's on the east
of the development. I think it's a very, I really think we should try to
maintain that a.rea as much as possible and perhaps if possible leave that
as agricultural or perhaps like Timberwood Estates have the lot sizes there
as 2 1/2 acres or greater in order to keep • the trees. I also am concerned 1
•' Planning Commission Meeting
April 1, 1992 -- Page 5
that the wetlands be protected in the area too.
Jeff Heinz: Jeff Heinz. I'm at 2071 Timberwood. I'm on the west side,
one of the houses that borders where the park was planned to be, or just
north of where that was planned to be. I have a couple of problems. One,
that is a beautiful area back in there with the creek running through it
and to get rid of that and not preserve that I think would be a shame.
Secondly is the fact that the road, just like other people have said,
coming through there. These are all large lots. Our lot, our home is on a
hill. There's a significant drop on the hill. Small kids going down that
hill on bikes, I mean right now it's a very low traffic area and the cars
that do come back there, they do not go 30 mph. I mean it's just not an
area where there's a lot of turn offs and not a lot of incentive for people
to drive back there slowly and I have a real problem with that going all
the way through. Thanks.
Colleen Dockendorf: Colleen Dockendorf, I live on Oakwood Ridge which is
in Timberwood Estates. I can only reiterate the concerns that my neighbors
have stated. Particularly I guess the one thing I do want to get across is
I moved to Chanhassen, moved to a small town. I didn't want to move to a •
pseudo Eden Prairie and I'm concerned about the density of homes.
Batzli: Anyone else like to speak at this time? Okay.
Jerry Maikowski: Jerry Markowski•. I'm also in Timberwood Estates and I
didn't hear anyone talk about the ability or the impact on the services to
the area like police and fire department and how that would be serviced.
And also if people have talked about the additional students that would be
coming into our school system, whether our school system could handle that
influx of people and would there be any tax increases that would be
necessary to service that area? I didn't hear that being discussed as part
of this hearing and I feel it should be. I also feel it should be taken
into consideration before the rezoning would be made final.
Batzli: Okay, thank you for your comments.
Stan Rud: My name is Stan Rud from 2030 Renaissance Court in Timberwood. I
just have several concerns I'd like the Planning Commission to consider
before they make a decision on this. One of them is that with
approximately 141 new lots down there, that calculates out to be something
over 280 cars or 300 cars and as several other people have mentioned, that
could make a pretty good sized increase in traffic on Timberwood Drive. It
also calculates out to be probably 200 or 300 children in that area. About
over 20 of the lots back up right against the railroad tracks. That's sort
of a dangerous area to have the houses right up against the railroad tracks
in their backyards. I'd propose having one of the roads run more like a
service road right along the railroad tracks and not have the backyards
II backed up against the tracks. It could be potentially dangerous too if
there' any derailments or any cars going off or spills right on the
railroad tracks right on somebody's backyard so it might be good to have a
buffer against the railroad tracks. It might be possible to extend the
service road all the way from CR 18 over to Lyman Blvd.. More like a
service road all along the railroad tracks. Another concern is the impact
of 141 lots in that fairly lowland area there. Fertilizing and draining
111 intn the wetlands and stuff like that and a lot of those lots, if you walk
r
Planning Commission Meeting '
April 1, 1992 - Page 6
around them in the summer after a heavy rain, it's very wet and some of the
puddle up and stuff so I don't know if some of those lots, if they're
buildable or not. You probably have to do something as far as the drainage'
goes. Also by looking at that drawing that Kate put up, the one that
shows where the tries are cut around all the roads. It looks to me like
that's about a 200 foot wide swath, maybe 1,600 feet long for each road and'
that calculates out to be something in the neighborhood or 15 or 20 acres
of cutting down trees so•that's a significant impact. The roads and the
front yards and all those houses in the woodland. It's not just a minor
thing. It's probably cutting down 50% of all trees in that area. On
another related, totally unrelated thing. In Timberwood we have a lot of .
covenants that were put in place and I don't know what's expected in this
new development as far as storing boats in front yards and putting up sheds
and TV antennaes on the roof and stuff like that. I just want to make sure
we don't change the whole character of the neighborhood if *we don't
consider those things too. Thank you.
Dave Maenke: My name is Dave Maenke and I live at 2041 Timberwood Drive.
• First of all I'd like to say that I'm real pleased to see that this is
residential as opposed to all of the industrial or commercial that was on II
the comprehensive plan. I do like the alternate park site as opposed to
the park site up along the wetlands. One thing I would like to suggest is
the Forest Road and Forest Trail and what is now drawn on this map anyway II
as Timberwood Drive. I wonder if that couldn't be drawn as kind of a loop
and not connected to Timberwood Drive...everybody else has made as far as
amount of traffic and the confusion on Galpin having two Timberwood Drives.
That might be one solution. I know you need to get access...
(There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.)
Tahir Kahn: I'm also a homeowner on Timberwood. The house under
construction. I want to point out that the amount of trees in that whole
area are a great asset to everyone and the possibility of a compromise the
northeast portion of this development should be kept at a larger lot size
with minimal removal of trees. I also favor what other people have said is
the option of not allowing Timberwood to go straight on through but to make
both the south and the north end of the area be a cul-de-sac so that it can
be passable for the using of park areas but not passable by car traffic.
I'm glad that the development is homes rather than commercial so but I am
concerned about lot size and the density. The way this was drawn up,
there's an awful lot of homes with only 2 entrances, the road entrances
into the area. It would seem to me to make more sense to not make the
Stone Creek a cul-de-sac but let it go all the way through the highway.
Thanks.
Batzli: Could we have your name for the record sir?
Tahir Kahn: Tahir Kahn and I have a house under construction on 2040
Timberwood.
Batzli: Thank you. '
Brian Klingelhutz: Hi. I'm Brian Klingelhutz and I live on 2031
Timberwood. I feel for all the neighbors here. That they all have
1
11 Planning Commission Meeting
April 1, 1992 --- Page 7
concerns about what's going to happen next door but I sell real estate as a
living and I've been in all of Hans Hagen developments and as a developer
' we couldn't ask for a guy that I've seen do a better job with all of his
developments and how they turn out so I'm just real happy that its Hans
Hagen that's trying to develop this piece of property. Thanks.
' Farmakes: Excuse me. Where did you say you lived?
Brian Klingelhutz: 2031. Right along...
' Dennis Rollins: My name is Dennis Rollins and I live at 2081 Timberwood
Drive. My concern is the same as a lot of other people. The traffic on
Timberwood. The residents of Timberwood, that is our neighborhood street.
If our kids want to ride bikes or go for a walk, that's their only choice
and I think we would like the Council to consider alternatives or certainly
' look at a number of options before making a decision regarding the new
development. Take into account the residents in Timberwood Estates and do
whatever is possible to minimize the effects on the traffic on that street.
Batzli: Thank you.
Jim Dockendorf: I'm Jim Dockendorf. I live at 2061 Oakwood Ridge and I
also share the concerns about the high amount of traffic that would be
generated on Timberwood Drive. Something I guess if the residents of
Timberwood had their way we'd have no development going in all around us
' but realize that the people own land want to make a buck and want to
develop those land sites. I have a suggestion to the developer that might
be a crazy idea but since the lots on the eastern side of Timberwood are
going to be higher buck houses anyway, to have two somewhat separate
' developments similar to the Joe Miller development where you have higher
priced homes on the eastern side. Keep the developments separate. Have
larger lot sizes so you could still have your access from Timberwood Drive
to that part of the development and the other part of the development on
the west side could be accessed from Galpin. So I just think if they put
that development in there, the traffic on Timberwood's going to be
tremendous and I think our home values will suffer quite a bit and I don't
think that's what the people who moved to this part of Chanhassen really
wanted to see when they moved into Timberwood.
' Mark Foster: My name is Mark Foster and I live at 8028 Acorn Lane in
Timberwood. I just have the same concerns that my neighbors have expressed
and that is I don't like to see the connection of Timberwood going through
there. I think the traffic flow would be detrimental to our neighborhood.
Robert Lawson: My name is Robert Lawson. I live at 2041 Renaissance
Court. We are in the, what would be the northeast end of this development.
I guess our primary concern is the saving of wetlands. Some have deemed
them as swamps. We consider them wetlands. We find that they are very
important for any biodiversity in the area. We have a large number of
woodpeckers, owls, deer, fox, pheasant, all in that area that thrive in
that woods. The lot sizes, I think the density is way too great for this
area. I know that I'll be looking out my back window at approximately 4
' 1/2 or 5 houses directly adjoining to our lot. I would like to see larger
lot sizes or some sort of buffer between Timberwood and the Stone Creek
1
Planning Commission Meeting II
April 1, 1992 -- Page 8
II
Addition. Also one thing that I have noticed on Katie's diagram of the
wetlands. If you could put those up again. To the east of that large
wetland that she has pictured where that proposed park is, there is also a II
much larger wetland that that same creek runs through. I do not believe
that those lots are probably buildable.
Aanenson: ...marginal lots in the report. II
Batzli: Can you point to which ones
you're talking about Kate? Okay.
II Robert Lawson: There is a larger wetland to the east of that on the other
side of Timberwood. .
Aanenson: We walked the site. It's not a wetland on the, Fish and II
Wildlife or the inventory that we used. We walked the site. Based on the
topography, it's holding water at certain times of the year but it's not a '
wetland.
Robert Lawson: I would invite you to come out there now and take another
walk.
II
Aanenson: I've walked it twice within the last 2 weeks.
Robert Lawson: Now that a lot of the snow is gone and you can actually see II
where the water is in that area where the creek does run through there.
The creek does run approximately 45 feet into the development area. It is
buffered by the trees that they have saved right now. I worry a little bit,
about the setbacks from the road and how far and how close into that treed
area and into that creek area it goes. Also we are very concerned about
the traffic that will be coming down Timberwood. It's a very large I
development with a lot. of homes with a lot of cars. That will be a lot of
trips. I think you all know about the problems with the intersection of
TH 5 and CR 117. We have had school bus accidents up in that intersection.'
Last fall there was a woman killed up on TH 5 and CR 117. This just is not
designed for the amount of traffic that this road will be carrying out of
this area.
Batzli: Thank you for your comments. Paul or, what is the plans for TH 5 II
at CR 117? Can you refresh our memories there?
Krauss: Right now the current improvement plans for TH 5 end at the west II
side of downtown Chanhassen. We've been working with MnDot for many years
to get the rest of it, the rest of it being out to TH 41 scheduled and
built. A lot of progress has been made with that. It's now in the MnDot 5
year plan. In fact we have held regular meetings over the last 2 months
with MnDot's engineer on designing that segment of road. It's scheduled
now for construction in 1996. From time to time as well before then we've II
asked that safety improvements be made. In fact at the present time, this
summer they're making safety improvements out at TH 41. At Audubon we're
looking to put in a temporary signal to service the development that's II occurring there. If the same kind of need develops on Galpin, we would
respond in the same way.
Batzli: Thank you. Anyone else like to address the Commission at this
II
II
II - Planning Commission Meeting
April 1, 1992 -- Page 9
II time?
Bruce Senske: My name is Bruce Senske. I'm an Eden Prairie resident. I'm
I presently negotiating on purchasing a lot at Timberwood Estates and the
density factor of the new development proposed has an effect on my
decision. The fact that Timberwood Drive would go through into that
I heavily density area would also affect my decision. That's all I have to
say.
Roger Schmidt: Roger Schmidt, 8301 Galpin Blvd.. Somebody, probably the
II
first one from outside of Timberwood Estates. I guess many of their
concerns are some of mine too. I've lived in that area for many years and
walked those woods many times back there and I guess I'm a little bit
I concerned about what it might do to the wildlife. I think too that the lot
sizes are a little bit too small for you know it's too much of a
development for that area and I also think that the concern about the
I traffic problems on CR 117 so I would like to, I didn't get here early
enough for the first part of the presentation so I don't know everything
about it but just the lot size and the traffic and the wetland area is what
I'm concerned about. Thank you.
II Resident: Just one more question. What is the future for Galpin Road?
The way I see it, these many homes, even if Timberwood goes through, so
I many horn=s have got to require a lot better roadway into this. What is the
future for CR 117?
I Aanenson: It's supposed to be 100 foot right -of --way. He'll be required to
dedicate additional 17 feet along his segment of that street and improve
it.
I Krauss: If I could add to that. This was looked at with the Eastern
Carver County Transportation Study done a few years ago which anticipated
what the flow of traffic...development of not only Chanhassen but also
I Chaska, Waconia, Victoria and all...Carver County. Galpin is supposed to
remain a 2 lane road. Undoubtedly at some point in the future it's going
to have to be improved. Some of the sight distances aren't very good. The
I curves aren't great and the intersection of TH 5 is certainly nothing to
write home about. But it's anticipated that it will remain a 2 lane
facility.
I Resident: What is the nearest experience the City of Chanhassen has with a
development this size in a neighboring area? Is there an example that you
can give?
Aanenson: Lake Susan Hills.
Resident: Okay, about the same number of homes?
II Aanensori: Probably more.
I Krauss: Lundgren's is I think 300 homes up in the northeast corner of the
city. Pheasant Hills is approximately 140. The same.
I Batzli: Anyone else like to address the commission? Can I have a motion
to close the public hearing?
II
Planning Commission Meeting II
April 1, 1992 - Page 10
II
Emmings moved, Ahrens seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
1
Batzli: Joan, we're going to start at your end.
Ahrens: The density...by a lot of people that the wetlands are not being I
protected properly. Do you want to speak to that?
Aanenson: Yeah. There's a couple of issues I'd like to speak on. What we '
have done is we've gone kind of beyond what we normally do with the
wetlands. Normally what we've just said is the 75 foot setback and we've
allowed people in the past to go up and mow right up to the edge. What
II
we're doing under this is they already fall into a conservation easement
that we've established so now we've given a buffer protection to try to
reduce the amount of sediment or fertilizer, whatever that would go into
it. We also have the setback in addition so we feel like we've gone beyond"
what we normally do in protecting those wetlands. And even the one, the
small one on Lot 5 in that Block 5 is very, very marginal. I mean it's II 2,000 square feet. We're still, because it's a forested wetland, are
preserving it with a buffer strip.
Ahrens: With the buffer behind that Lot 5, is that a buildable lot?
II
Aanenson: No. We raised that as an issue. It may not be buildable. Yep.
Ahrens: In seems in going through your staff report that there were a lot II
of unbuildable lots...
Aanenson: Well we figured that they just need to be redrawn. There's
1
enough the lots are oversized enough that it's just a matter of sitting
down and carefully redrawing a few of those. What they were is on the
inside curve you have to have a 90 foot frontage when you're on the inside
of the curve and some of those didn't meet it. There's only one that was
undersized as far as 15,000.
Ahrens: Those lots in Block 5, those are all buildable...?
II
Aanenson: Yes. They've got what we've shown is 90 foot. As I explained
before, it'd be a 20 foot setback. A 40 foot home depth and 30 foot behind"
that so if someone wanted to put a patio or a deck or a swingset, whatever
and then the rest of it we want to preserve that so they couldn't use that
area.
1
Ahrens: How do you monitor that?
Aanenson: Well what we're going to do is require home placement plans and ,
put in the chain of title, a legal description describing exactly what to
draw and each lot would have a legal description saying this would be the
conservation easement so when someone came in with a home placement plan,
we would check those and see to make sure that there's no homes. What
we're hoping too when they come in with the home placement plan, that some
of the trees, even though we haven't shown them, some of the trees along I side, depending on how they dig out the foundation can be preserved.
II
Planning Commission Meeting
April 1, 1992 - Page 11
But at a minimum we want all the trees in the rear to be preserved.
Batzli: Who does the easement run in favor of?
Aanenson: You mean the homeowner or the City?
' Batzli: The City?
Aanenson: Oh yeah. I misunderstood the question.
Batzli: So it's up to the city to enforce it?
Aanenson: Correct. It would be on, recorded so when you buy the property
' you realize that you couldn't put a swimming pool back there or that sort
of thing.
Ahrens: Mow many people...backyards?
1 Aanenson: What we did with the Lundgren subdivision, we talked about
putting in the pins. Maybe you need something visible like that so people
realize that's the area that you can't go beyond or something like that.
Krauss: Are you asking is there a penalty if you?
1 Ahrens: I'm not asking about a penalty. It's just that it happens over
and over again...do that kind of thing. I mean they have wetlands in their
back/ards and they pull up the vegetation because they're not satisfied
1 with the size of the backyard.
Krauss: Well in a number of those instances they've been made to
' re- establish the wetlands at some cost.
Ahrens: Some of them have.
Krauss: Yeah. And some of the problems that we've had are traced more to
lack of understanding and knowledge and hopefully over the years we've
learned and gotten a little better at putting people on notice and better
defining what those areas are.
Ahrens: I guess my point is people buy houses even with an easement, they
' don't understand what an easement is. And unless you're going to have...
where people are told in...and of course that would only deal with the
first time home buyers and then there would be... It's a real tough issue
and I don't know how to monitor that.
Aanenson: Well we're hoping too that the developer will market those as
forest and wooded lots, premiere lots and that's what you're kind of buying
into that amenity.
Ahrens: Well...the park issue. It sounds to me like a lot of people are
presenting this as an either or situation. Either you have the ultimate
park site and if you have the ultimate park site and give up the wooded
stream area where that's going to be built upon. ...why can't the city
build a little walkway through that by the creek and then maintain that as
1 a little park area plus have the ultimate concept?
1
Planning Commission Meeting 1
April 1, 1992 - Page 12
1
Aanenson: As far as dedication we would require from him based on the
number of lots, it'd be like 5., I can't remember the exact number. It was
like 5.6 acres is what he would be required to dedicate in land so anything'
beyond that I guess the City would have to purchase which I guess would be
an option. -
Ahrens: That's not buildable anyway right?
Aanenson: Well it could be. We've platted it out how we've got a
cul -de -sac going up in that area. It will be tough but we've shown how it
could be lotted out so yeah it could be.
Ahrens: But my impression... '
Aanenson: It would be but it could be.
Hempel: It would take some site preparation. They would not be
encroaching the stream bed. That would still be preserved and I would
envision that we'd also have a conservation easement along the entire
stream bed through there. In fact it's similar to what we did down in
Shadowmere.
Ahrens: So this area would be platted as part of the lots that end in a '
cul -de -sac or would it be an•outlot?
Aanenson: No, it would be lotted and sold off individual lots, yeah. We
didn't show the lots going all the way to the stream bed you know. I mean
technically they go all the way to the edge of the property but you
couldn't build. Whoever owns those lots would have to maintain the setback'
from the stream bed but yes, it could become private property.
Hempel: I was just going to point out, the buildable area is up on top
next to the cul-de-sac. It drops off down to a ravine. Heavily wooded and
then the ravine goes back up the other side. But they couldn't put a
driveway across the stream bed and so forth.
Ahrens: Is this part of Bluff Creek?
Hempel: It's a tributary of the Bluff Creek.
Ahrens: The City isn't...?
Krauss: No. Well yes we are. What you're referring to Commissioner
Ahrens is the Bluff Creek corridor itself that's designated on the land usell
plan as a recreational corridor where we're going to use dedication of
purchase to require. This is not the main channel of Bluff Creek. That's II
down the hill in the valley.
Ahrens: We've not interested in protecting tributaries?
Krauss: We don't have the ability to. I mean State law allows you to take
a dedication of a certain amount of land. It's a question of where are you
going to take it? Beyond that you can acquire it but you're going to have 1
11 Planning Commission Meeting
April 1, 1992 -- Page 13
to buy it. Now were not saying the creek's going to disappear. Those
trees in the creek will all vanish but a significant portion of that area
will be occupied by homes and all the rest of it's going to be their
backyard.
Ahrens: But the City could preserve...
Krauss: You could preserve it. You couldn't get access to it, yes. You
can preserve a portion of it.
Ahrens: Is there anyway to make that, the ultimate park plan smaller and
still maintain a park there and that area? The creek area?
Krauss: I honestly don't know the answer to that. I think, and maybe the
Park board members here tonight can explore that a little bit but there's a
minimum size to accommodate the kinds of facilities that are being desired.
' The ballfield, tennis court, hard surface area and I'm not sure how small
are area you can fit all that into.
Ahrens: It just seems to me that if you're trying to balance two balls in
the air here and maybe the Park Commission can give up the tennis court and
make it a smaller park and still maintain the creek area as a park... I
mean you're interested in preserving...provide enough space for a ball
' park. I don't think all communities need tennis courts. We don't have
any...where I live. It may be possible to have both is my guess.
Krauss: If I could also editorialize this just a little bit. We don't
normally raise issues or take exception to Park Board recommendations.
Typically we do everything within our power to bring them to be. This one
' we honestly had a difference of opinion and we wanted to air it a little
bit and discuss it. Kate and I were walking this site Monday I think, and
we found that there, while it all looks wooded on the aerial photograph, a
lot of the trees in the southern bluff area are actually pretty poor
quality and you can actually probably.fit in a significant number of
facilities in that area, keeping the creek and the rest of the bluff area
public. We'll do as much as State law allows us to do and then we'll do
some more until the developer cries foul but there are limits to how much
we can take.
' Ahrens: I could tell that by reading...that you didn't like this
development as a straight subdivision. You wanted it as a PUD.
Aanenson: We tried.
Ahrens Would lot size and number of lots, would number of lots be
affected by doing this as a PUD?
' Krauss: Well, the developer originally brought in a concept, and I think
I showed that to you at a meeting a month or two ago. Two concepts. One
was a PUD that had 20,000 square foot plus lots in the trees with 10,000
square foot ltnts out in the cornfield. The other was a straight plat. It
was a wash basically in the number of lots that you were going to get out
of it. It was just a matter of where you were going to put them. That
seemed to offer some advantages.
1
Planning Commission Meeting !'
April 1, 1992 - Page 14
Batzli: In what way? Trees? II
Krauss: You were able to do much less grading. The streets were further
apart in the treed area. I've never been a particularly strong proponent
of buffering less densely developed residential areas but it did offer the
potential of kind of a staging effect and density from Timberwood. Existing
Timberwood on down. Plus it just seemed to make a whole lot of sense also '
from the developer's standpoint in the ability to offer two distinct values
of lots with the more attractive homesites which market a bigger
figure up in the trees. II
Ahrens: But that's going to be accomplished anyway. 1 mean .it's going to
be more...
1
Krauss: No doubt. I still feel that had we had the flexibility of the
PUD, we could do a better job than we can do under these circumstances.
II
Batzli: It seems to be without a complete ordinance on the book you have a
lot of flexibility with the PUD.
II Krause:: That's true but 1 couldn't in good conscience ask a developer to
spend a good bit of money preparing plans under the expectation that a PUD
could go through given our recent discussions.
I
Ahrens: I don't have any more comments.
Batzli: Thank you Joan. Jeff.
1
Farmakes: I'd like to start out by asking a question of the developer, or
the representative of the developer. Did you do a market study in regards
to this issue on the park?
Ernie Rud: The issue of the park?
II
Farmakes: Yes. Do you feel a passive park experience is just as sellable
to your clients as a recreation type park?
Ernie Rud: The one that we're proposing? II
Farmakes: Yes.
II
Ernie Rud: Yes. We didn't do a market study as far as the park itself
goes.
II
Farmakes: Does your experience lead you to believe that?
Ernie Rud: Yes. In most cases when we have an amenity like that, people
pay premium dollars to hack their lot up to it. To answer Joan's question
here. I did take some pictures of park today and as you can see...staff's
report is that there are some small open areas there. I'd.like to expand
on that park thing a little bit if 1 could.
Batzli: Sure.
II
II Planning Commission Meeting
April 1, 1992 - Page 15
il Ernie Rud: These people in Timberwood are concerned about the traffic
issue on Timberwood Drive and I guess if I lived there I would be too. The
I thing is if we put a park in here that's got a ball diamond and other high
level activities in, it's going to do nothing but drag traffic in there I
think and compound that problem. The other thing is that alternate park
I site the/ showed there constitutes 7 acres. We were required to give 5.6
and anybody knows that a ball diamond takes roughly 3 acres to build so
that leaves you 2 1/2 acres left. Maybe this fits into the woods, maybe it
doesn't. But the park we are proposing to give is 8 acres and that's, what
I 30% more than we're required to give but we would do that. And I just feel
so strong about that park area along the creek there that I just think it's
such a nice passive park for that area. I think if you're going to be
I looking for ballfields, they should be put in a complex. Maybe where the
school site is up on TH 5 and CR 117. People take kids to ball diamonds.
You know they're different ages and there's going to be more than one age
bracket playing at that time. Maybe a small little sand lot or something
'
but you don't want to put a high level activity park there.
Farmakes: My question was really, when you're selling to a customer, is it
I an amenity of a recreational lot versus a passive lot where you walk
through the trees, you go for a walk along the creek?
I Ernie. Rud: That depends on buyers. If you've got 2 teenage kids, you'd
like to have a ball diamond within a few blocks of you. If you have
smaller kids or if you're an empty nester, you want a more passive park. I
think looking at the trend, people are more into walking, jogging and
I things like that.
Farmakes: Who do you feel you're target customer is here for this
I develoment? What's the age group?
Ernie Rud: I can't fairly answer that question. Hans Hagen will have to
I answer that. I'm not into the marketing end of it.
Farmakes: Thank you.
Batzli: I lost my place where I wrote down- your name. Your name was?
Ernie Rud: Ernie Rud.
1 Batzli: Thank you.
Farmakes: I have another question I'd like to address in general for the
I residents of Timberwood. I'm looking at the road here and we're looking at
the connection from Timberwood. You're talking about the traffic that it
generates. People are going 45 mph. I'm looking at a schematic of the
I road here. It would seem to me any of that traffic's coming out of your
development.
I Aanenson: Jeff, can I make a clarification on that? I scaled that off and
I meant to give you this information but coming out to go north as you
mentioned, it's about 3/4 of a mile. It's significantly shorter just to go
back out through this subdivision. Like a third of a mile. Just the
I longest stretch which would be this. The same in here. It's like a third
1
Planning Commission Meeting
April 1, 1992 - Page 16
of a mile. To go all the way back up here is 3/4 of a mile so it's
significantly shorter to go back out onto Galpin as opposed to cut through.
That isn't that people aren't going to do it but. '
Farmakes: That was the point I was going to make. Just from a...traffic.
Sometimes they think of it in generic terms. There's going to be more
people out here, therefore we're going to get more traffic. That isn't
always how traffic flows.
Aanenson: Can I add to that too Jeff. We do have a stub street. '
Farmakes: There are several business parks to the south. If you've ever
driven to any of them, they get quite busy. ,
Resident: ...where 212's coming in, will that be south of that?
Farmakes: That will be significantly south of that, yeah. '
Resident: And when is that scheduled to go through?' ...yeah, I realize
that. The only logical place, is my point, is they're going to go north toll
TM 5.
Farmakes: I don't see where they would be incurring a lot greater distance
to drive through your area to get out.
Resident: ...going north though. If you're going, yeah it's shorter from
the...Timberwood Drive. From there we're going south, left out to Galpin
is shorter than going the other way. If I'm going north, I have to back
track to get up to Galpin.
Farmakes: I'll go onto the next one. I feel that there's some valid
arguments against what you're saying.
Resident: ...we're saying is nobody needs to go north... '
Farmakes: The point I'm trying to make here is that there are some valid
arguments against what you're saying based on this plan. You could have a
point but I don't think it's a very strong point. I don't think there's
any statistical evidence that shows someone would do that.
Batzli: Jeff, I'd like to let Paul address this question.
Krauss: There's a couple things. I've been doing this for 15 years and
it's become kind of a litany for me. I know you've heard it a bunch of
times but if we become a community of cul -de -sacs, which I think is the
preference for a lot of people and I acknowledge that they're attractive
places to live. There's no question. You have a lot of things that
result. I heard people tonight question the impact of development on
taxes. Well, there's ample evidence that says if you have 3/4 mile dead
end streets in both directions you're running snowplows up and back.
Garbage trucks run up and back which is a private expense. School buses
can't go through. It adds to their time and expence in servicing areas.
Possibly more importantly is from an emergency access standpoint. We
always site what happens if a tornado, watermain breaks. You all have
r
Planning Commission Meeting
April 1, 1992 - Page 17
watermains in the area. I know you don't now. Comes and severs your only
access. It happens. It happens all the time. Then the next item that's
' on tonight we have a letter from the Fire Marshall indicating a similar
concern with a situation in another part of the community where they had a
fire call and were on one side of the dead end street. Found the fire was
on the other side and they couldn't get there. It turned out to be a false
alarm but they got very frustrated by the fact'that they would have had to
driven out and around a distance of a mile or mile and a half to get to the
fire. So there's a large number of reasons for making reasonable
' connections where you're not going to run inordinate amounts of traffic
through. And were very sensitive to that. On top of that is the fact
that there is a potential, and were designing this project for this for "a
' road connection to run out to the northeast. I don't know if you recall,
we don't have an area map here but there is an area guided for residential
use that's between Timberwood and Bluff Creek. We're looking at an east/
west collector street north of Timberwood. We've got some sketches that
show the connection leaving from there, spreading up to serve those homes
that might be east of Timberwood and connecting with that collector. If
anything's going to be absorbing a lot of traffic. for the predominant trip
' into town, which is to the northeast, that's going to be it. There's
really going to be little or no reason to turn around and go backwards and
a longer way out to north through Timberwood.
Batzli= Thank you. Jeff.
Farmakes: He stole everything I was going to say now.
' Krauss: Sorry.
' Farmakes: Let's see. The next issue I wanted to address here, getting
back to the PUD that we had talked about. Was there any calculation of the
difference in tree loss? I'm just curious because that was an additional
' thing that we had discussed earlier in regards to the positive issues of
the PUD and I was wondering in this area, since it is heavily forested, or
at least a portion of it is, did you do any calculation of the benefit?
' Krauss: No, Commissioner Farmakes we didn't because we would have to have
a very well defined alternative plan to do it. I might add too that was
also one of our concerns relative to the park. We fully expect the
' developer to get his due. I mean they're going to get the number of lots
that they can get out of this thing consistent with our ordinance and
that's what you would expect a business person to do. If we're taking 5
' acres of the prime flat ground, which right now have a lot of lots on them,
the developer is going to shift things around to get those lots elsewhere
which means again we're squeezing those trees. I can't give you specific
numbers in either scenario but it seems to be very, very likely that that's
going to occur.
Farmakes: The next question 1 had in regards to some comments made about
the residential development along the railroad tracks. Would you respond
to that at all?
Aanenson: There is a conservation easement abutting that. We showed all
those homes along the track would have at least 100 foot conservation...
Planning Commission Meeting II
April 1, 1992 -- Page 18
II
along the rear of those lots so the homes would be, 1 think the average
depth of those was almost 200 feet.
Farmakes: Is there any statistical evidence for the safety commission or II
anything that shows that that is a, I know it's not a heavily used rail
run. Well, there aren't 4 or 5 trains going through a day I don't believe "
Residents: Yes...and they're going 60 mph.
Krauss: That's the one that comes right through downtown. II
Farmakes: Yes 1 know but that rail line I was told, at least since I've
lived here is not, there's a significant amount of traffic going by on a II daily basis.
Resident: Every night it wakes you up.
II
Krauss: The ownership of the thing has changed more than a number of
times. I think now it's owned by one of the short line companies that's
come along, ...along that track there's also a height differential. It's II
very difficult, in fact it's almost impossible to walk up to the tracks
along most of those rear lot lines because of the grade change. We've
walked it several times and when you get up towards Lyman and Galpin, it's II
more at grade and that's easier. But I don't know how to answer that
except for the fact that it's not owned by the railroad. It's legitimately
platted and got extensive trees between the homes and the railroad.
II
Farmakes: Getting back to the issue of useage. I used to work on the
railroad and a heavily used rail line, this is not it. If it wakes you up
in the middle of the night, it's heavily used I guess but I don't think
II
it's classified as a heavily used rail line. The last comment I want to
make in regards to the park. I dealt with this before and I would be
relunctant to disagree with the Park Commission but in this case 1 went to
the property and I looked at it and there are very few areas like that that II
make for a passive park experience. That are situated I think with that
potential in Chanhassen. I know that if I was in that development 1 would II
prefer that even though I have kids. 1 would prefer that to a ballfield
because there are other places that have ballfields. There are other
areas, property that are probably more useable as a ballfield. I don't
disagree with what you're saying. I just am not sure that given the choice"
between one or the other, that perhaps another development in that area
would be better used with an open area and an area without forest used as a
ballfield. I would support staff in their recommendation.
II
Batzli: Thanks Jeff. Steve.
Emmings: If there's no potential for sewer being out there before fall, II and if this builder wants to get going and put up houses for the Parade of
Homes, it sounds like there's going to be houses built before there's sewer
out there or not?
II
Aanenson: I'll let Dave comment on that.
1
II
Planning Commission Meeting
April 1, 1992 - Page 19
Hempel: It's going to be, depending on what the Council's decision is o
P g g 5 Pen g n on
' the 13th, it could be built in conjunction with this project. In fact the
developer, as a part of this would actually be building a portion or a
phase of the trunk utilities.
Emmings: I guess my only question is this. Are we going to let someone
start building houses out there before there's actually sewer there?
Hempel: He actually would not be able to build a house until the utilities
have been tested and accepted by the City.
Emmings= Okay. That's what.
' Hempel: Except for, let me clarify. Except for maybe a model home on the
corner of Galpin Blvd. but there would be no utility hook-up of cour. e.
Batzli: Would they have sanitary sewer? A holding tank? What then?
Hempel: Well it would just be a model home. It would not be occupied.
II Similar to what Joe Miller has done or Lundgren's has done in the past.
Just so we have the capability of getting a fire truck to it if there is a
fire emergency. A worker fell off the roof or something like that. The
II lot was abutting a hard surface drive, we would allow a permit for a house
prior to the utilities being accepted. However, we would not allow the
house to be occupied or hooked up to those utilities until they were
' accepted.
Emmings= Okay. As far as the, I think traffic is a real serious concern
but I would hook Timberwood together. We've been doing that, it's been our
I
policy. I think it's a good policy to hook these new neighborhoods
together as they corne in wherever we're able. I remember that we tried to
make provisions to hook some of the cul-de-sacs that go to the east of
' Timberwood. Tried to make provisions to be able to hook Timberwood to the
land to the east at the time that we were looking at Timberwood. In fact
some of us had thought we had done that and it turned out we didn't. But
' it certainly was our intention to do it. I think we actually screwed up
but I think it should definitely be hooked up to the south. And that's
doesn't mean the traffic isn't a problem. I think it's a big problem. We
had the same problem in fact on other areas in other parts of the city. On
1 Frontier Trail I think haven't we? Or some of the other streets that go
through where you wind up with a lot of people going fast but I think it's
a real legitimate concern but I don't think that would stop them from
I supporting the staff's position that it should be hooked up. As far as the
park is concerned. I'm always uncomfortable commenting on the work of
another commission just because they look at it in more detail than we do
I and they consider different factors than we do. It seems to me that the
desire to have a passive park and a desire to have an active park really
are two different things. One is You're trying to preserve something
that's very, very nice. But it also seems to me that when you pack in this
' many folks on a piece of ground like this, it's real important to have an
active play area. My only concern with the alternative park site is that
it's not really suitable to get enough activity on it. I don't know what
I it looks like but I hope they're able to get enough things so they can
really be used by the people who are living in this area. It sounds, I
Planning Commission Meeting II
April 1, 1992 - Page 20
II
think I support the Park Commission on this because it sounds like the
stream is going to be preserved anyway. I think we're going to wind up II getting both. The trouble will be access to it and I just don't know what
to do about that so I support the alternative park thing. I agree with the
comments that there are too many small lots in here but they all meet our
ordinance and when someone comes in with a plan that meets our ordinance,
we really don't have any choice. Our subdivision ordinance says you can't
have lots smaller than 15,000 and except for one lot they don't. But it
really comes out along the border with the Lawson property. Mr Lawson I
spoke here. Where he's now backed up to 5 lots. He'll have 5 houses
behind him and we've talked about this issue a number of times. About
having what we've been calling a blending ordinance where when a new
I
division comes in next to an old one, they can't put so many lots up
against a larger lot. This again points out the need for that. We've
tried to put one together a number of times and we failed every time. It's
just hard to come up with a general scheme to deal with that problem. But II
I think Mr. Lawson's got a legitimate complaint here. I'm comfortable with
the level of protection for the wetlands. I think that's really a good,
they've really done a good job with that here. On the compliance chart, I I
wonder what are you suggesting we do with the lots that don't comply?
Krauss: They're going to redraw the plat to make them comply.
Emmings: Yeah. I don't think there should be, because they're putting in I
as many lots as they are, I wouldn't give them an inch I guess.
Krauss: No, there was no question of giving them variances. That was not I
recommended.
Emmings: On page 3 of the report it talked about some questionable lots. I
In Block 4 it was Lot 8. In Block 1, Lots 12 and 13. On Block 3, Lot 8.
What will happen on those? What are you recommending?
Aanenson: They have to be redrawn to.
Emmings: Oh okay, those too.
I
Aanenson: That's up in this area up in here.
Emmings: Well, they're all over.
1
Aanenson: Yeah that one is in Block 4, yeah. That's a big significant
grade change. That might be a real wet loss.
1
Emmings: Okay, so is there a condition that deals with those lots?
Aanenson: Yeah, he has to replat them and make...
1
Emmings: Alright. And then on page 19. Condition number 5.
Aanenson. That needs to be changed to 92 -1 and 92 -2. I
Emmings: Yeah. Somebody got carried away with the numbers. And then the
next line under the rezoning. In the opening part it says the Planning
il Planning Commission Meeting
April 1, 1992 - Page 21
Commission recommends approval of Rezoning, that should be 92-2. And then
there should be a condition under the Subdivision, a condition 27 I suppose
I that the conditions of the Rezoning 92 -2 and Wetland Alteration Permit 92-3
is another condition in compliance with all of the conditions. And I guess
my feeling is that there's no reason to look at this again. I think we
ought to just move it along to the City Council.
I Batzli: Okay, thanks Steve. Matt?
I Ledvina: You talked about the accesses to CR 19, two accesses and the
concern is with the traffic. Is it possible to make Timberwood Drive a
cul -de -sac on it's west end there and have Stone Creek Road actually be the
I outlet there? You'd still have the capability for access out to 19. I
don't know if that would mess up the traffic flow within the subdivision
too much.
I Krauss: Just to make it a little more round around?
Ledvina: Right. To make it, to slow down the traffic essentially.
I Krauss: Well, I think theoretically it is. The concern is the spacing
more than anything else but there are other ways to make it somewhat round
I about in terms of how you design intersections and where you put stop signs
internally. For example we haven't decided this but it's quite possible
that if you change the orientation here, and brought that in as a T and put
a stop sign and make it a 3 way stop, that would also discourage people
I from going up that way. And if we have that option to go out to the east,
it would kind of induce people to want to keep traveling that way.
I Ledvina: Okay. So those controls are available at a later date then?
Krauss: Well we could do that, that particular change we could
incorporate. No? I think we have an engineering concern.
II Hempel: Yes. placement of stop signs are not for patrolling speed. They
are for thru movement of traffic to avoid accidents and so forth. We do
1 have specific warrants we do follow for placement of stop signs. Just
looking at that particular intersection, I would find it hard to say it
would meet warrants. Maybe further down in the subdivision where Stone
' Creek intersects Timberwood may be more of an appropriate area where you
have a larger number of vehicles traveling but that's something that we'd
have to prepare an engineering study on to determine where the stop signs
would be appropriate.
I Batzli: You're not a big proponent of speed bumps then either I'll bet
you?
1 Hempel: Snowplow drivers don't like them. They can't see them.
I Batzli: Okay. Steve, you wanted to?
Emmings: Yeah, I've got a proposal to make. Why couldn't we have the
alternate park site for active park area and then, let's see. I wonder if
1 it shows up on that. There's a little narrow marsh area that goes down
II
Planning Commission Meeting 1
April 1, 1992 - Page 22
here. I take it that's basically...? II
Aanenson: Right and...
I
Emmings: Okay. Why couldn't there be a little skinny access like that say
between Lots 11 and 12 and would just be a foot path that would take people'
back to this area. Go ahead and develop it like this but let people have
access to the stream bed area and still have a nice big active park? It
seems to me that would satisfy both sides of this argument anyway.
Krauss: If the developer, out of the goodness of his heart is willing td_ I
do that, that's great. Otherwise we'd be inviting people to trespass on
private property.
I
Emmings: What would it take to get just a little skinny you know, a 6 or
10 foot wide trail?
I
Krauss- Steve, I think the bigger issue is who's land are they walking
around on when they get back there. And if we do invite the public back
there, do we put trails back there and if so, who maintains it?
1
Emmings: Well let's ask the developer to do it.
Krauss: I don't want to beat a dead horse but again under a PUD we'd have 1
a l.it i-le bit more flexibility.
Emmings: Yeah. We can't do a PUD because it's clear that the City Council'
wouldn't accept 10,000 square foot lots so you know, talk about beating a
dead horse. That's a waste of time.
Ahrens. Why can't we require it? I
Krauss. You can only mandate what the State Enabling legislation allows II you to.
Emmings: Yeah. It's a taking.
Ahrens: Oh. II
Batzli: Maybe he'll do it out of the goodness of his heart.
I
Emmings: Maybe he hasn't been heard. Let's find out.
Krauss: Well you never know.
I
Dave Koubsky= Our intention isn't to keep you here all night but part of
Todd's recommendation to in his letter to Kate was, the Commission hasn't I
had an opportunity as a commission to review the alternate park site. I
think I need to make that clear. We had made our recommendations based on
the proposed park site and we decided that we would prefer an active park 1
versus a passive park in part because of the number of kids which is
pointed out from a gentleman of Timberwood. 141 lots. Possibly 2 '30 kids.
You have a development to th= , ; ; ' , w}i_her 80 1,1 , ? il : t
many 400 or 500 kids. We feel a nice, open field is a safer place to
Planning Commission Meeting
April 1, 1992 -- Page 23
pacify play versus a passive area that's away from traffic. There might be
littering. There might be public safety issues. We prefer something open.
' Something big that's safe and can handle a. lot of kids. Now we haven't
reviewed this proposed area. .Jim and I have had the opportunity to look at
this because we were asked to come and present our views. I just wanted to
bring that to your attention that we haven't approved this. I'm not saying
we wouldn't approve it but we've made recommendations to staff to allow us
to look at it before your decision goes to the City Council. Thank you.
Batzli: We really didn't address one concern that Mr. Rud brought up and
that was, he asked something about setback from the conservation easement_
as I recall. Is that?
' Aanenson: He wanted an additional 10 foot. What we're looking at is 90.
As I said before, it will be a 20 foot front yard. Then we gave a 40 foot
' home depth and then a 30 foot rear yard which would accommodate a deck or a
patio. So what he wanted to do is add an additional 10 foot so have 100
foot. Our total would be 90. He was saying 100. He wanted maybe a 50
foot home and deck.
-1 Batzli: So that would take 10 feet further back into the trees?
' Aanenson: Right.
Batzli: Okay. How comfortable do we feel with the 20 foot setback in the
front? Do we like that? Is that enough?
Krauss: We proposed it.
' Aanenson: Yeah. I feel good about it. I think the intent is to save as
much of the trees as possible. If we go with the 30 foot and then a 40
foot depth and you still need to give some people some rear yard to put a
' swingset in and a patio. I think by pushing it forward, we're trying to
preserve those trees.
Krauss: Apart from the visual effect of tree lined streets in front yards
' and manicured lawns. Front yards are pretty commonly accepted to be wasted
space. If you're going to recreate, bar- be- -que, whatever, let the kids
play, you're going to do it in the rear. If something's got to give
' instead of trees, that seems to be the best place to do it. Also it's
internal. It's really only going to look that way inside this project.
' Batzli: Kate, on condition 5 which I assume is handling this matter. On
page 20. We say that they have a 20 foot front yard variance. I assume
that means you have a 10 foot variance to a 20 foot setback.
1 Aanenson: Correct.
Batzli: WhoeVer makes the motion may want to clarify that.
' Aanenson: Okay. Let me just clarify that a little bit further. fIn the
compliance we went through and those lots that we designated would fall
into this, we specifically identified. In addition there were some that
had just a small border of trees so we kind of tapered that down so it
•
Planning Commission Meeting
April 1, 1992 - Page 24
1
would give, basically that would be along Block 5 with the forested. This
area here as it tapers down. What we did is we went to 20 -25 -30 so it just '
kind of made a nice, and we put that in the compliance table so when they
would come in and we did the plot plan check on those lots, we would follow
the compliance table.
Batzli: If I understood what you just said, there's a blending of that in I
those lots?
Aanenson: Right. , 1
Batzli: So that condition 5 isn't entirely accurate?
Aanenson: We may want to reference that back to the compliance table.
You're correct. That probably would make more sense.
Batzli: Okay. Which lots are the ones that are blended there?
Aanenson: On Lot 5 and then there may be some on, I'd have to look back to
the compliance table, on Block 1 up here. It varies a little bit.
Batzli So Lot 20, Block 5. Okay. As far as connecting the street goes,
I understand the resident's concern. I live in a neighborhood where I
thought I was moving onto a cul -de -sac and it turned out to be a thru
street. The amazing thing is, I was converted when we had our 13 inch rain
and the front entrance to our development was flooded and nobody could get
in or out. So I do understand the need to connect these things through. I'
unfortunately kind of learned it the hard way. My car wouldn't go through
the flooded entrance to the development so I think it has been intended
that we connect that up and I think as a Planning Commission, our policy
has been to do that. I think we need to do it for our consistency and
public safety sake but I understand your concerns. It does, I think
promote some people to go a little bit faster on the roads and I encourage I
you to take your concerns to the City Council. But I think we as a
Commission at least right now are leaning towards recommending to the
Council that it be connected. I also would have liked to have seen a I
little bit of blending. Maybe some larger lots in the northeast corner of
the development. As Steve pointed out, they do meet our ordinance and it's
difficult to tell them that they have to put in larger lots. Especially
when they're treed like that. I was hoping that they might do that on
their own. I agree it seems very confusing to me. At least one resident
noted that Timberwood Drive coming out twice on CR 19 /117 /Galpin may be a '
little confusing. Is there a thought process as to why it can't be called,
well what might be called Forest Trail, although that name will be changed,'
and having it stop when it intersects Forest Trail back up in the northeast
corner?
Hempel: We have similar street configurations with Lake Susan Hills Drive
off of Powers Blvd.. In situations like that, we can put an address range
on the street sign or Timberwood Drive South or Timberwood Drive North and
kind ccr give an indication. It is a confusing situation. It could be
resolved also by reconfiguring one of the intersections, as Paul mentioned
and possibly just changing the name.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 1, 1992 -- Page 25
Batzli: I guess I think we should look into that. I agree that it's
confusing. Just for my dumb question of the night. Is this road, is the
official name actually County Road number 19 and not 117?
Aanensonr That's actually Lyman as it comes off.
Batzli: Yeah, okay.
Aanenson. I think that's how it, it kind of takes that funny intersection
' right there. Originally they had an access on it to that street but
meeting with the County we eliminated that.
(There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.)
Batzli: Wetlands I think, that's nice. I would, as far as the park goes.
I think it's a shame if we can't somehow save the passive park. I would
really like to do that. I like Steve's idea. The developer hasn't come
charging forward and said we'll do it. I was kind of hoping for that but
of course that hasn't happened. But I guess I would like staff at least
' to, since that area back up in there isn't going to be buildable anyway,
and if we basically end up, there's going to be some additional lots up
there if they build out the alternative way. I'd like us to at least
explore that with the developer and talk about it. I do like the open
space with the ballfields and things. I live next to a park. I think it's
a nice amenity and I think they're right.. There's a lot of kids in this
area. I don't know if the school's going to go in there north of
Timberwood or not. I don't know if we can count on that so I would like to
sec a neighborhood park somewhere in this area as well. But it sounds like
this needs to go back to the Park and Rec Commission after what we talked
' about here tonight? Are they going to have a meeting between now and the
City Council if we approve this?
' Dave Koubsky: That was Todd's recommendation...
Krauss: Todd told me this evening that he was looking at the possibility
of a special Park Board meeting sometime.
Batzli: One other question. Two other questions. As far as erosion
control and things like that. I didn't see that we had a lot of or any
erosion control kind of condition thing here, do we? I mean do we normally
put something in there?
Hempel: The developer I believe has supplied some erosion control and I
feel the areas we have looked at and we'll recommend additional where
appropriate.
1 Batzli: Is that normally done at the grading permit process kind of
thing?
Hempel: It's normally done with the preliminary plat and also finalization
of the actual construction plans. We'll get detailed construction plans on
where everyt ping's going.
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting II
April 1, 1992 _ Page 26 `'
II
Batzli: Okay, so you feel comfortable at that time you can put in the
Y� Y Y P
necessary controls and enforce them?
Hempel: That's correct.
Batzli: And Kate, on condition 25. There's a word drainage after the I
period there at the end of a sentence. 22. Is there supposed to be
something else there or is that just, can we cross that word off?
Aanenson: Cross it off. 1
Batzli: Okay. And Dave, if I could have you give me the 10 second
synopsis of what's going to happen at this upcoming Council meeting with
the improvement?
Hempel: Okay. Council, at the last Council meeting tabled for further
I
discussion and review of the propose , r rr ek trunk sewer and
water facilities out to this area. Some of the concerns was the assessable
area being included and the scope of the work for the project. Bringing it
back on the 13th to continue the public hearing I believe and hopefully
make a decision with this project. This project again is very contingent
and relies on extension of the trunk sewer and water improvements to make
. it happen. We envision it with the anticipated development out here along
with other parcels that expressed a desire to develop. We see it being
approved on the 13th.
Batzli: As part of that approval at the City Council, are any of the 1
residents or other people out there going to be affected by the
improvements as far as assessments and things like that? I
Hempel: Not the Timberwood Estates neighborhood. That's been exempt or
omitted from the MUSA area. The remaining parcels, I do have a map showing
the assessable area that we propose to assess with these improvements. If
you like, I can put it on the overhead.
Batzli: Well at least one gentleman had a concern that somehow this
development was going to increase taxes or impact fire, police, things like
that. Why don't you throw that up just for a second. Where are we? Okay,
I see the railroad track I think.
Aanenson:' This is Timberwood... • II
Hempel: That's the old street layout.
Aanenson: This is when he originally came in with that PUD.
II Krauss: The areas that were exempted from potential assessments have that
diagonal slash across it. It includes Timberwood and it includes some of
the lots west of Timberwood along Calpin. It includes Sunridge Court and
if you, that goes back to discussions we had with the adoption of the
II
Comprehensive Plan.
Batzli: Okay. I guess the, in kind of addressing the gentleman's concern,"
we've had a running debate as to whether residential single family is an
1
II - Planning Commission Meeting
April 1, 1992 -- Page 27
il impact on the City or not. As far as tax wise. And I don't know that
we've had two different answers. One that says yes and one that says not
I really and so I don't know that we can give you an answer other than to say
we have looked at it and we have different conclusions. We don't think
that it would have a large negative impact.
1 Krauss: This has been a long debate in many communities. It's clear that
commercial /industrial development or multi- family housing which is
commercial, non-homestead, pays a huge amount of taxes in Minnesota. Far
I in excess of what it takes to afford the services. The question was
typically do single family homes Carr, their own weight? You know I always
beg to issue, if you don't build single family homes, where are you going
I to live anyway but there's been. evidence on both sides of the issue. Now
Plymouth last year had a very interesting scenario. They had 3 or 4 major
developments pending. I think it was about 1,100 acres of development.
And their City Council was going through a little bit of difficult time but
I going through some changeovers but there was a big package of potential
assessments projects coming down and there was a general concern amongst
residents outside these areas that they not be burdened with the cost. And
I what they did is they hired one of the big 10 accounting firms. I forget
which one, to do an analysis of it and they developed an 80 page report
that was really kind of interesting. I heard it presented in a couple of
I seminars. It basically concluded that if you build homes in excess of
$100,000.00, there's no doubt about it. You're over the hill. It's a
positive cashflow. I've never seen it done as conclusively as that was.
I Batzli: That's all the comments I had. Unless the Commission has other
comments, I'd entertain a motion.
I Emmings: With regard to the Wetland Alteration Permit, I'd move that the
Planning Commission recommend approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #92-3
with the conditions contained in the staff report with the modifications in
number 5 to get the numbers right.
I Batzli: Can I have a second?
II Farmakes: Second.
Batzli: Any discussion? I'd like to discuss by calling on the gentleman
1 with his hand up here. Do you have a concern about this particular motion?
Earl Holasek: I'm Earl Holasek. I've got the piece right across, right in
the southwest corner there. I'm right across from the development and I
I would like, to know where all the storm sewer's going to go? Am I going to
be taking all of that water from all this blacktop and 141 roofs and
garages and driveways? Am I going to be taking on all that water?
1 Batzli: The report does address that and I'll let our City Engineer
address your concern. This doesn't really have to do with the wetland
II alteration permit but we'll address it now.
Hempel: Part of the City ordinance for development, the developer's
responsible for ponding on site the storm water and releasing it at the
II pre - developed runoff rate. So the water that he is, the excess water that
II
Planning Commission Meeting II
April 1, 1992 - Page 28
will be produced with the impervious surface and rooftops out there will bell
stored on site and released at the pre- developed runoff rate. So in a
sense you will not be flooded out downstream. 1
Earl Holasek: You do have a creek going right on through that now.
Hempel: That's correct.
111
Earl Holasek: Why can't some of that be funneled into that?
Hempel: Ultimately it will be channelized to that area from the smaller_ I
pond. There will be two different drainageways. One following the pond
along CR 18 and discharges into the existing ditch on the east side of 18. I
The other portion, or the easterly portion of the development will drain
easterly towards Bluff Creek. That's where we're hoping to develop a, redo
a ponding area for the other areas as they also develop. Have one larger
pond instead of 10 small ones.
Earl Holasek: Some of these rains you get 4, 5, 6 inches and when you do
them on that blacktop and all them roofs, that's lots and lots water.
1
Hempel: We take into consideration for a 100 year flood which is a 6 inch
storm in a 24 hour duration.
I
Batzli: I would encourage you, if you have a specific concern, to meet
with our City Engineering group. I
Earl Holasek: I want to meet the next time, in fact Al Klingelhutz asked
last time, to meet with the engineers the next time they meet about this
water and sewer. I plan to stay there and I don't care for water and sewer
on my place.
Batzli: I think it would be best if you addressed your specific concerns '
with the city staff after this meeting or set up a meeting with them. It
sounds like you have specific concerns.
Earl Holasek: It was in the Minutes of the last meeting.
1
Batzli: The Planning Commission?
Krauss: If I could. Mr. Holasek and Mr. Al Klingelhutz testified at the II
last City Council meeting on the assessment project of Bluff Creek. Mr.
Holasek's property is in the assessment area as it's currently drawn. The
Council I believe, asked the City Engineer to meet with Mr. Holasek and
several other parties before it gets back to the City Council which is in 2
weeks?
Aanenson: The 13th. II
Krauss: So yes. If Charles hasn't called, we can make sure that he does. II
Earl Holasek: Well let me know for sure.
Batzli: Okay thank you. Is there any other discussion? 1
II
' Planning Commission Meeting
April 1, 19)92 - Page 29
Emmings moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the Wetland Alteration Permit #92 -3 with the following
' conditions:
1. All wetland areas will be protected during construction by Type 111
erosion control. The erosion control shall be maintained in good
condition until the disturbed areas are stabilized.
2. The proposed wetland setbacks and buffer strip shown in the compliance
' table for each lot will be recorded as part of the Development
Contract. The buffer strip may not be less than 10 feet wide. The _
buffer strip will be preserved by an easement.
3. Alteration to the wetlands must occur when it results in the least
impact to the wetland and not during breeding season.
' 4. The applicant shall receive permits from the DNR and Corps of
Engineers.
5. The applicant shall meet all conditions of the Subdivision #92 -1 and
Rezoning #92 -2.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Batzli: Can 1 have another motion for the rezoning.
' Ahrens: 1 move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Rezoning
#92 -2 for property A-2 to RSF.
' Farmakes: I ' l l second.
Batzli: Any discussion?
' Ahrens moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Rezoning #92 -2 property A -2 to RSF with the following
conditions:
1. The applicant shall enter into a Development Contract containing all of
the conditions of approval for this project and shall submit all
required financial guarantees. The Development Contract shall be
recorded against the property.
2. Compliance with setback standards established in the Compliance Table.
3. The applicant shall meet all conditions of Subdivision #92 -1 and
Wetland Alteration Permit #92 -3.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Batzli: Last, is there a motion on the preliminary plat?
Emmings: I'll move the Planning Commission recommend approval of
Subdivision #92 -1 as shown on the plans dated March 2, 1992 with the
conditions that are contained in the staff report with condition number 5
Planning Commission Meeting 1
April 1, 1992 - Page 30
altered to read that variances shall be granted as necessary to all homes
that fall into the tree conservation area. In no event shall the front
yard setback be less than 20 feet. Adding a condition 27 that makes the
approval conditioned upon compliance with all conditions of the Rezoning
#92 -2 and Wetland Alteration Permit #92.3.
Ahrens: Second. '
Batzli: Any discussion? I guess I would like to just make it clear. Go
on the record that I would like staff to discuss some element of a passive
park between now and the City Council meeting. Is there any other
discussion?
Emmings moved, Ahrens seconded that the Planning Commission recommend 1
approval of Subdivision #92 -1 as shown on the plans dated March 2, 1992 and
subject to the following conditions:
1. A tree conservation and wetland buffer easement shall be placed on the
plat. All building sites in the tree conservation or wetland buffer
shall be shown on the building permit. ,
2. The development shall follow the standards in Subdivision Regulations
18-61 regarding Landscaping and Tree Preservation.
3. The name "Forest° shall not be used for any of the streets.
4. Parkland shall be dedicated, 5.62 acres of property, as recommended by I
the Park Commission.
5. Variances shall be granted as necessary to all homes that fall into the
tree conservation area. In no event shall the front yard setback be
less than 20 feet.
6. The applicant shall convey to the City a temporary street easement for
the temporary cul-de-sac at the end of Forest Road. In addition, a
sign shall be installed on the barricades stating that the street
(Forest_. Road) will be extended in the future. '
7. The final plat shall be amended to include the revised street alignment
of Stone Creek by eliminating access onto Galpin Boulevard and provide
a cul-de-sac with an interconnecting street between Stone Creek and
Timberwood Drive,
8. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be conveyed with
the final plat over all utilities located outside of the public
right -of -ways, along with standard easements over each lot. Timberwood
Drive shall be constructed 36 feet wide gutter to gutter. 1
9. The applicant shall receive and comply with all pertinent agency
permits, i.e. Watershed Districts, Health Department, MPCA.
10. Storm sewer calculations for a 10 year storm event along with pond
storage calculations for storage of a 100 year storm event, 24 hour
II Planning Commission Meeting
April 1, 1992 - Page 31
I intensity, should be submitted to the City Engineer for review and
approval.
1 11. A deceleration and acceleration lane on northbound County Road 19 shall
be provided along with a bypass turn lane on southbound County Road 19
I to improve turning movements into the development.
12. Watermain pipe sizing shall be increased to 8 inches in diameter on
Forest Road and that part of Timberwood Drive lying north of Forest
1 Trail.
13. The storm sewer inlets and outlets should be located at opposite ends
I of the ponds to promote water quality. The emergency overflow between
Lots 13 and 14, Block 6 out to Forest Drive. A permit from the
railroad (Twin City Western) will be required for any grading or
I construction activity within the railroad right -of -way.
14. Eliminate the ditch section and relocate or reduce the pond size
adjacent to Galpin Boulevard so it is completely outside of the future
1 right --of -way and roadway improvements along County Roads 18 and 19.
15. Fire hydrants shall be spaced approximately 300 feet apart throughout
II the subdivision in accordance with the Fire Marshal's recommendations.
16. The proposed earth berms along County Road 19 shall be reduced or
relocated easterly to provide adequate room for future trail
1
considerations.
17. All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored
I with seed and disc- mulched or wood-fiber blanket within two weeks of
site grading or before November 14, 1992 except in areas where
utilities and streets will be constructed yet that year. All areas
I disturbed with a slope of 3:1 or greater must be restored with sod or
wood- - fiber blanket.
18. The developer shall provide adequate access easements for maintenance
1 purposes to the proposed retention ponds.
19. The developer shall construct the utility and street improvements in
I accordance with the 1992 edition of the City's standard specifications
and detail plates and shall prepare final plans and specifications and
submit for City approval.
II 20. The developer shall acquire the required utility construction permits
from the PCA and Minnesota Department of Health and street access
permits from Carver County Public Works.
1 21. The final plat should be contingent upon the City authorizing a public
improvement project for extension of trunk sanitary sewer and water
11 facilities to the site.
22. As a condition of final plat approval, the applicant shall enter into a
11 development contract and provide the financial security to guarantee
1
Planning Commission Meeting '
April 1, 1992 - Page 32
construction of the improvements and payment of any pending
assessments.
23. The applicant shall be given credit for any trunk utility improvement II
they may install as a part of their overall site improvements. The
credit will be applied towards the Upper Bluff Creek sanitary sewer and
watermain trunk improvements. The credit amount will be determined as 1
the difference between a standard lateral pipe size (8 -inch diameter)
and the proposed trunk improvements which are 12 inches in diameter.
24. The applicant /builder shall provide at the time of building permit '
application a tree removal and grading permit for all wooded lots,
specifically Lots 1 through 15, Block 3, Lots 1 through 8, Block 4, 11 Lots 1 through 20, Block 5, and Lots 1 through 12 and 15 through 24,
Block 6.
25. The applicant shall explore the possibility of conveying backyard 1
drainage from Block 5 into the development storm sewer system.
26. The outlot along County Road 19, Galpin Blvd. needs to be replatted
with another lot.
27. Compliance with all conditions of the Rezoning #92 -2 and Wetland
Alteration Permit #92 -3.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Batzli: When will this go in front of the City Council?
Aanenson: April 27th.
Batzli: April 27th. Thank you all for coming in once again. I encourage
you to follow the issue up to the City Council.
Al Klingelhutz: I heard some discussion on Highway 212. The Federal
Government has allotted $8.7 million towards that construction. The bids
are supposed to be let up to Lyman Blvd., that's the last phase of the
first 4 phases of construction in 1995. I heard somebody say it will be 20
years before it comes in and I've been on the committee now for about 38
years. I think it's finally going to happen. The State has in their 5 I
year capital improvement program has got the money to complete Highway 212
up to Lyman Blvd.. Coming from Eden Prairie to Lyman Blvd. so I heard some
discussion that possibly some of that traffic could go to the south and
have a freeway to go into the city. It probably will generate more traffic"
going to Lyman Blvd. and down onto 212.
Batzli: Thanks Al. I'd like to take about a 3 minute recess here.
11
II Planning Commission Meeting
April 1, 1992 - Page 33
II
PUBLIC HEARING PRELIMINARY PLAT REQUEST FOR 17 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 9
ACRES AND A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR ALTERATION, RELOCATION AND
II MITIGATION OF A CLASS B WETLAND ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED AT THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF LILAC LANE AND TETON LANE, ITHILIEN
ADDITION, HILLOWAY CORPORATION.
I Public Present:
I Name Address
Dav Peters 6421 Bretton Way
F. & F. Natoli 6251 Teton Lane
I Joey Johnson 1275 Lilac Lane
Jan Wing 1321 Ashton Court
Jon Guy 6341 Teton Lane
' Mike Horn 6330 Teton Lane
Eric & Jane Danser 21640 Lilac Lane, Shorewood
John Breckheimer 21710 Lilac Lane, Shorewood
Glenn Geissinger 6140 Mill Street, Shorewood
' Richard Bloom 14600 Woodruff Road, Wayzata, MN 55391
Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Batzli
II called the public hearing to order.
Richard Bloom: Good evening Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning
Commission. My name is Richard Bloom. I'm an independent planning
consultant. Have been really since 1983. 1976 to 1983 I was the Director
of Planning for the city of Minnetonka so I obviously have some planning
background and some sensitivity to some of the issues that are before us
I this evening. The developer of the property is Hilloway Corporation. Mr.
Fenning is here in the audience. Mr. Fenning has developed numerous
subdivisions primarily in the city of Minnetonka. More recent projects, he
I did a project in the city of Medina last year and that's where, if you've
heard of the Street of Dreams, that was in the...Farm, a project that Mr.
Fenning did in Medina last year. He's also done the Shadowmere Subdivision
in your community on Lotus Lake. My previous experience with your
II
community was back actually in the early 80's. I worked on the Fox Chase
Subdivision, also on Lotus Lake. Maybe if I could just kind of review some
of the things that we've done to kind of bring this before you this
I evening. We held a neighborhood meeting Thursday night of last week.
Invited all of the folks that were on that mailing list. I think we had
approximately 15 to 20 residents there from the area that were there that
I evening. Frankly I thought that all things considered the neighborhood
meeting went fairly well. We spent a lot of time talking about Teton Lane.
The barricade. Whether the barricade should be there or not be there. We
talked quite a bit about the upcoming feasibility study that...is
II preparing. Obviously what the ramifications may or may not be to the
residents on that. Obviously they have some concern there as well. I just
might add parenthetically what we tried to do on all our developments. We
II tried to design our subdivision to really minimize the area impacts to the
neighl,)Y '; i - o 1_11;. .3 i , ;i 'x t. ant i>osi ble ", 1 1 i 11J .3l onu those lines, I
did receive a specific request from Mr. Natoli, across the street from us.
He lives right down in this area here. Mr. Natoli is planning to plant a
number of pine trees right along Teton Lane here and is concern he
II
Planning Commission Meeting
April 1, 1992 - Page 34
1
expressed to me, which I also conveyed to Mr. Engelhardt was that if the
roadway's widened or improved, he would like to see it done in a manner
that would not disturb those trees and quite frankly we would entirely
concur with him. In talking to Mr. Engelhardt about that incidentally, I
think that the additional right -of -way that was granted off this property,
the additional road widening, should be able to occur hopefully entirely on1
the west side. The existing pavement looks like it's only a foot or two
off the east side of the right -of -way so the road widening as I would see
it would predominantly have to be done on the west side. So hopefully that'll
issue could be resolved. We've also very carefully gone over your staff
report. I might add it's a very thorough report. There's 18 stipulations
placed on the approval. All those are acceptable to us. I guess there's
one comment I would make specifically about stipulation number 8 which
reads that final plat approval shall not be granted until the findings of
the feasibility update...for Teton Lane are known. A public hearing is
held and improvement projects...including removal of the barricade.
Frankly we're anxious to get started on the project as quickly as possible.
We would intend to file our final plat as early as practical. We support
the feasibility study update. We were the ones that put up the money
basically that Todd, a cash deposit that your staff required in order to
get that study updated and said we were very willing to cooperate with you
in that regard. We're doing everything we can. We feel a little bit
though we're kind of caught between an issue here that really didn't affect"
us. I mean the issue was really kind of there before we came along. We're
doing what we can to assist in the resolution of the problem but ultimately
I'm sure as you're well aware, it's going to take a political decision on
the part of the City Council. And in effect what was being told to us and
we really can't do our final plat until you guys, or the political process
winds it's way through and there's an action taker. So I guess I would
express that as a concern that we do have. Obviously we're willing to
cooperate and work...to resolve this matter. I assume there will be some
additional neighborhood meetings held specifically with the engineers II relative to those improvements hopefully in the near future and we'll
certainly do what we can to assist in that process. With that I thank you
and I'll answer any questions that you may have.
Batzli: How do you pronounce the name of the development? 1
Richard Bloom: Oh, Ithilien.
Emmings: Tell us about the name. That's what I was wondering about too.
Where does the name come from?
Richard Bloom: Well actually if you're familiar with the Lord of the
Rings, that is...character in the Lord of the Rings. All of Mr. Fenning's
subdivisions, Shadowmere, Loft Lorien, Ithigard, all of those names came
from the Lord of the Rings. He uses that for a name, for a subdivision
name.
Emmings: Alright. 1
Batzli: Alright. I think that we will probably have questions as they
arise and until that time thank you very much. Paul, before I ask for
public comments, what is the rationale on number 8? Condition number 8.
1
II Planning Commission Meeting
April 1, 1992 - Page 35
I Waiting for that. Is it a question of we don't want the development to go
in until were sure the roads are adequate and everything's designed?
II Krauss: Well fundamentally, yes. For example the Hans Hagen plat, we
would not allow that plat to be filed until the project is ordered in and
II we had some certainty that we weren't going to be creating lots with no
means of serving them. Most of that, this condition addresses that. Now
arguably we go a little bit further than that here dealing with the
barricade which isn't specifically an issue that the developer has any
I
control over. But we are looking to have the improvements ordered in in
whatever way, shape or form the Council so wishes concurrently with this
plat..
II Batzli: This is a normal condition isn't it? Or is it a timing issue
developer? I mean he can't get, like for example, if he could file the
II final plat or the final plat be granted approval before the development...
(Theme was a tape change at this point in the discussion.)
Batzli: I'm going to ask the developer or the representative. The question
I was asked and I was kind of hoping Steve would ask this. I thought he was
going to, on the value of the homes. Proposed value of the homes that are
going in. Can you respond to that?
II Richard Bloom: Yeah, we discussed that at the neighborhood meeting and I'm
sorry I failed to mention that earlier. We would expect in the range of
probably $140,000.00 to $200,000.00. Fairly comparable with the newer
II homes that were built in the Curry Farms subdivision. Also the question on
covenants. That also came up in the neighborhood meeting as well. Our
intention is to take a look at the Curry Farms covenants that they have and
II we haven't looked at them yet so I can't say we'll do exactly what those
are without seeing them but our intent is to take a look at those. If
those appear reasonable, we'll probably do basically the same thing.
II Batzli: As far as you mentioned the development of the road would occur
mostly to the west. Have you talked about that with our staff or is that
just kind of your feeling that it could be done that way?
II Richard Bloom: Well that was through my discussions with Mr. Engelhardt's
staff over there. Basically the existing pavement is there. The
I right -of -way, you've only got about a foot of right -of -way between the east
edge of the existing pavement and the right-of-way.
Batzli: So the trees aren't in the right -of -way at all?
I Richard Bloom: Right. They're on Mr. Natoli's property so all the
roadway, plus the earlier action you took back in 1990 was that corner
II parcel was to bite off, you took 17 feet along there so there's probably
actually, probably well in excess of 20 feet of available right -of -way west
of the existing pavement where that widening's going to occur. I suggested
I that to the engineers and they seemed to think that widening would occur on
the west side.
•
Planning Commission Meeting
April 1, 1992 - Page 36
Batzli: Thank you. Jeff?
Farmakes: I have a couple of questions, and I'll start off I guess with
the barricade since that seems to be popular. I'm not .sure whether or not
this was thrown in along with this as an issue. Having read some of I did I
not get a chance to read all of the previous City Council meetings in 1990
but I read some of it. It seems to me that the barrier issue is a separate
issue and it seems punitive to the developer to throw this in with that
based on the amount of homes that are going in there. If there is a
problem, I'm not sure whether that's a critical mass that's going to tip-it
either way. I agree with staff and I think that if we just dealt with this
again when we were talking about Timberwood. This is an age old problem I
that comes along with cul -de -sacs and people wanting to have, be the only
ones driving to their house and the only ones leaving. That just isn't
safe. There are cases where people are going to need, at the very least a
break awa/ barrier that they're going to be able to access in cases of
emergency. We live in one of the most active weather pattern areas in the
world. A tornado around Chanhassen is not an uncommon site. There are
people who have to access for emergency vehicles. There are police'
vehicles. You don't always know what's going to happen and you can't build
or empty out or take away a barrier while your house is burning down.
There are a lot of unexpected things that happen and the city tries to
provide services to everyone that are reasonable. And one of the reasonable
things to ask is that you have a multiple access to an area of high
concentrated homes. It may be that it adds to your traffic level but you
have to ask yourself if the common good does not supersede that and that's
what the city's making that argument. It's not a stupid argument and it's
not one that's based on other occurrences. There are existing statistical
eveidence and I would hope that you can look at that unemotionally. I
realize when there's traffic in front of your house and you're being
irritated by it, or there's somebody gunning their engine, that you think
about that. And not for me. I don't want it. I don't care, I'll take my '
chances and we've had people come in here and say that. I don't know
whether that's the prudent thing to do for the city. That they should take
that attitude. I think a lot of that has to do with how many homes you're
talking about on a cul -de -sac. But I'm rambling on here. I'll get back toll
this development. I think it should be a separate issue. I think the
development should be looked on the basis of what it is. That development.
And I think things reasonable to me, actually 3/4 of an acre is quite a
large lot size comparatively. It's not for your property but where it's
zoned you're simply not, the economics are simply not going to get a 2 acre
lot. It's not out there. And particular for this price of a house.
There's imply not a market for it. And I'm struck I guess by the comment II
previously, the meeting that took place back 2 years ago. The person who's
selling this property now claimed that he would not be developing his
property. And we also see that here by people who are coming in who are
complaining about these types of developments. I wish that we were talking,
about a buffer type situation. If we could come up with something like
that, it would help these types of situations because they happen over and
over and over again. Unfortunately, one person's castle is not always the
same. Your vision of a utopia out in the suburbs is not necessarily shared
by your neighbor. I hope we have some common sense to this whole thing.
That's my comments. ,
r
Planning Commission Meeting
April 1, 1992 - Page 37
Batzli: Joan.
Ahrens: Well first of all I...Street of Dreams...straight forward. I
don't have any questions. I understand the neighbors' concerns. They
don't want more people. They don't want development but we can't prevent
' somebody from selling their land to a developer. If they have land, they
can subdivide it...We have no say in that.
' Resident: He didn't sell the land...
Ahrens: At any rate. The barrier issue strikes me so odd anyway that you
would have two improved roads that the city maintains with a barrier across
' them so people can't drive. The concept of that is very odd to me. That
the City would even engage in that kind of isolation... I read through the
notes in the City Council meeting and to tell you the truth, I still don't
' understand the reasoning behind that decision. The cul-de-sac that ends up
with Curry Farms at the top of that hill...end of a cul- de-- sac....goes on
and on and on and ends up, I don't know...To me it just makes sense that
the barrier should be removed...Teton Lane.
Batzli. But do you agree with Steve's position that we should just
eliminate it from the conditions or would you like to see it remain in the
' conditions?
Ahrens: I think it's...that we put it in as a condition of this
' development.
Batzli: But philosophically you'd like to see it removed?
' Ahrens: Absolutely. I think it should be removed. I don't think that's
going to bring anymore traffic into Curry Farms. Certainly the people in
this Ithilien development, they're not going to drive through Curry Farms
' to get to CR 17... It's too long a route to take. Actually the benefits
to the Curry Farms residents will be able to get to CR 17 faster.
Mrs. Natoli: That's the idea. That's why. You made the statement exactly
why we wanted it 3 years ago.
Ahrens: Well at any rate, that's my opinion.
Mr. Natoli: That was supposed to be a break away put in there but they
didn't come along with a break away. They put those big pillars in. Now
I maintain there still should be break away for more than one reason.
We've had a number of small tornadoes go through that area and if a big one
went through there once, you'd need ambulances and fire engines and
everything else corning from both sides. So break aways would be the clear
thing because then your fire trucks and your ambulances can go through it.
I don't want to, I'd hate to see anybody get hampered where they can't get
an ambulance or fire truck in. But that fell through. I don't know what
happened.
Batzli: Thank you.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 1, 1992 - Page 38
1
Ahrens: Well I just don't think the developer should have to get involved
in this.
II
Batzli: Is that it? Okay. I guess Joan kind of covered it as did Jeff
and there's a lot of concern and rightly so as the development moves into
an established neighborhood with different sized lots. In this instance
1
the development meets our standards so that we can't stop them. We can
make them conform to our ordinances, which they're doing and in a market
capitalist society, unfortunately they took advantage of the sale to the I
bank or however they got the property and we don't get involved with that
so I mean it is too bad for the neighborhood. If they would have had you -
know an inkling and would have been able to purchase it and had the money '
to do so and to maintain it, that would have been very nice. But
unfortunately the City isn't involved in that part of the process so. We
are at least trying to make them conform to our ordinance and make it a
safe development for the residents surrounding. Paul, several of these II lots are listed at exactly 15,000 square feet. Is there some sort of
opinion by the Planning Department that these things actually measure up
correctly?
II
Krauss: We took the information that was provided by the surveyor who
prepared this said it was accurate. We asked for clarification of that II - with signed documentation under the final plat.
Ahrens: ...plus or minus.
Krauss: Yeah. They've got to make sure they're all plus. I
Batzli: Okay. For the purposes of Lots 12, 13, 15, 16, 17. When we're
calculating lots as far as the minimum lot size, refresh my memory. Are we
taking out those areas that are wetland? Are we using a gross or net or
are those people given credit for the 39,000 square feet?
Krauss: Under current ordinances we do not subtract wetland areas. This II
is what we've talked about on several occasions that we may want to look at
an ordinance change that does that.
II
Emmings: For density calculations we do.
Krauss: For density, yes. Right.
II
Batzli: But not for minimum lot?
II Krauss: No. But what we have done here and what we've done in the recent
years is we've made sure that they lay out as buildable lots and I think in
the packet you'll see that there is a fair amount of information provided. II
There's in fact a detail of one of the lots that we interpretted the
setbacks and there's information provided on how those lots around the
wetland work. II Batzli: And what was the net density of this development? It was well
within our allowed density as I recall.
II
1
' Planning Commission Meeting
April 1, 1992 -- Page 39
Krauss: Yeah. It was the net is 2.7 units an acre and g ross is 1.9. The
Comp Plan allows anything less than 4. We seem to average about 2 in
single family neighborhoods.
Batzli: I would like to as a general rule of thumb I would say that the
' barricade shouldn't be in there. However, there's a lot of history with
the barricade and it was a political decision and the neighbors fought long
and hard and they got that and 1 don't know whether the City Council wants
' to relook at that but I don't want to relook at it unless the City Council
tells me to relook at it. From a policy standpoint of the Planning
Commission, I would say it shouldn't be in there but they've already made -
that decision. So I would like to remove that from the conditions and if
' the Council wants to revisit it, they may. I don't think it's up to this
developer though. So I'm on record anyway. I'd like to see the trees
saved and the only thing that we haven't talked about I guess is the
' drainage. That didn't seem to be a concern except for one resident so I
guess I would encourage that resident to talk off line with our people if
that is a large concern. And I'm sorry sir, did you have a?
' Resident: Yes, I have a quick...related question. On that wetland, is the
city responsible for maintenance of that or is that the... Just to make
sure that it's upgraded and kept...
' Hempel: That will be maintained by the city and there will be a drainage
easement over it. I should point out, the city as far as mowing these
' areas, obviously it's a wetland. We're not going to be mowing it and so
forth. By maintenance we mean by cleaning out sediment that accumulates at
these storm sewer inlets and so forth.
' Resident: How about...?
Hempel: I'll defer that one to Planning I guess. We typically have not
' done that to any of our wetlands yet.
Krauss: Just because he punted doesn't mean we have the answer. Frankly,
' I mean we have had these problems crop up. There are city weed inspector,
if I can punt again is, yes. We do have a city weed inspector. He was
nominally, no, it was the City Manager but he passed it down to the Public
Safety Director. He is the officially designated, I mean by State law,
' he's the weed inspector. And purple loosestrife is one of those noxious
weeds that he's responsible for and I know they do, they had operated in
some wetlands in conjunction with the DNR but I don't know how extensive
' that program is. We can ask him.
Farmakes: We did it at Lake Lucy. The DNR provides you with equipment.
' You walk through your wetlands and for each individual plant, if you want
to spend a great Saturday sometime in the middle of July, I would highly
recommend it,
Batzli: I thought they were supposed to pull it.
Farmakes: They give you Rodeo and you spray it.
Ahrens: You can't pull it out.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 1, 1992 - Page 40
Farmakes: But it's just a maintenance type thing. Apparently this plant
lays down it's seed supply that will last 10,000 years from now so it's
pretty much cosmetic.
Batzli: Okay. That's all the comments I had. If someone would like to
make a motion.
Ahrens: I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of
Preliminary Plat #92 -4 as shown on the plans dated March 14, 1992 and...
Emmings: The date on the plans is March 16th. I think.
Batzli: Yes.
Ahrens March 16, 1992 and Wetland Alteration Permit #92 -2 as shown on the
plans submitted by Barr Engineering dated, is it March 9, 1992, subject to II
the following conditions. As the Commission stated, condition number 8
shall remove the words, including the removal of the barricade.
Emmings: I'll second that motion. ,
Batzli: Paul, are we covered, or Dave. Whoever can answer this question.
As far as where the road is located to save the trees. Is that something?
Emmings: Are the trees threatened?
Krauss: I don't think they will be. I mean we have not seen the final
construction proposal. There could theoretically be something we're not
sure of but there doesn't seem to be any obvious reason why we can't save
those.
Batzli: Okay.
Emmings: Are we discussing?
.3 g
Batzli We're discussing. ,
Emmings As far as the discussion goes, I want to be on record also, if it
isn't already clear that I would be for removing the barricade and
connecting those roads up. For all of the same reasons that we just did it
on the last one. And Jeff went through the litany.
Ahrens: One quick question. Condition number...more outlots? ,
Krauss: Well theoretically though those lots could access Lilac. They
have a. double frontage situation so we just wanted to make sure we're clear
and that would not occur.
Batzli: Is there any more discussion? '
Ahrens moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Preliminary Plat #92 -4 as shown on the plans dated March 16,
1992 and Wetland Alteration Permit #92 -2 as shown on the plans submitted by
Barr Engineering dated March 9, 1992, subject to the following conditions:
Planning Commission Meeting
April 1, 1992 - Page 41
1. The following easements shall be added to the plat:
.l P
' a. A 20 foot drainage and utility easement along the common lot line
of Lots 2 and 3.
1 b. A 20 foot drainage and utility easement along the common lot line
of Lots 14 and 15.
' c. A 20 foot drainage and utility easement along the common lot line
of Lots 15 and 16 to provide vehicle access to manhole.
d. A drainage easement along the rear lot line of Lot 14.
11 e. A 20 foot utility easement along the rear lot lines of Lots 14
through 17 and the side lot line of Lot 13 for sanitary sewer.
f. A drainage eaeement for the wetland pond for the boundary at the
1004' contour.
' g. A conservation easement for the wetland over the 1001' contour.
h. The existing drainage easement over the wetland must be vacated.
2. A 12 inch RCP storm sewer with a 4 inch orifice plate shall be
constructed as the outlet structure for the wetland pond. The wetland
' pond bottom shall be lined with clay and top dressed with 4 to 6 inches
of topsoil.
3. Storm drainage contributing area map, storm sewer pipe calculations and
an erosion control plan shall be submitted with the final plat. Slopes
shall not exceed 3 :1.
4. The internal watermain system shall be installed within the proposed
new street right -of -way and shall be looped to Lilac Lane or to Ashton
Court.
' 5. An additional sanitary sewer manhole shall be located along the common
lot line of Lots 15 and 16 and vehicle access shall be provided from
the new street along the common property line of Lots 15 and 16.
6. A 60 foot wide street right -of -way shall be provided for the new street
proposed within the subdivision. 17 feet of right -of -way shall be
granted along the east plat line to provide a 50 foot wide road
right--of -way for Teton Lane as consistent with right -of -way dedications
along Teton Lane north and south of this area.
I 7. Lots 1 through 5 shall take driveway access from the proposed new
street.
8. Final plat approval shall not be granted until the findings of the
feasibility study update for improvements to Teton Lane are known, a
public hearing is held and the improvement project is formally ordered.
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
April 1, 1992 - Page 42
9. The developer shall enter into a development control with the City and
provide the necessary securities associated with the development. '
10. The preliminary plat should be adjusted to provide the required 90 foot
frontage at the 30 foot setback for Lots 4 and 6, Block 1. Lot 10 be
adjusted to provide a more suitable building pad area. 1
11. The applicant shall receive all required permits.
12. Park and trail fees shall be paid in lieu of land dedication. , 1
13. The applicant shall retain a qualified soils engineer to evaluate the
sub -- surface soil conditions on the proposed subdivision and recommend '
corrections at proposed house pads, if necessary.
14. The location of the proposed house pads, the type of dwelling and the II
lowest floor and garage floor elevations should be indicated on the
grading plan. Dwelling type designations should be:
R Rambler
TU Tuck Under
WO Walk out
SE Split Entry ,
SEWO Split Entry Walk out
15. The wetland alteration shall be completed exactly as proposed in the
Barr Engineering memo dated March 9, 1992, including the two pond
s/s ern, interspersed with open water and submergent plant species, and
landscaping of a mixture of emergent plant species and wetland shurbs.
16. Disposal of dredged material is prohibited within the wetland area.
17. The applicant shall notify staff within 48 hours prior to commencing
the alteration to the wetland and shall again notify staff within 48
hours after completion of the wetland alteration for staff review and
approval.
18. The letter of credit, as part of the development contract, shall
include financial sureties to guarantee proper, mitigation of the
wetland, including landscaping and as -built plans.
1
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Batzli: Paul, when will this go in front of the City Council? 1
Krauss: 27th of April. The feasibility study though, like on the other
one, the feasibility study is going on the 13th.
Hempel: 1 believe it's on the 13th, yes.
Batzli: Okay thank you.
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
April 1, 1982 - Page 43
1
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING
MINIMUM LOT SIZE IN THE RURAL SERVICE AREA.
Batzli: Seeing as how our resident minimum lot size expert in the rural
district is not here tonight, would we like to carry this over?
' Krauss: Okay.
' Aanenson: Yeah, that's fine. We'll just leave it in the packet. I know
Tim did have some concerns. He tried to get a copy of it before he went
out of town.
Batzli: I guess, I mean Tim is the one that I think is the largest
proponent of this and seeing as how the meeting is running late, I would
prefer to defer this. Do we need a motion to do that? To table it?
i ,
Ahrens moved, Farmakes seconded to table the Comprehensive Plan Amendment
and Zoning Ordinance Amendment regarding minimum lot size in the rural
service area until the next Planning Commission meeting. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
NEW BUSINESS.
Batzli: Under new business, apparently the item was postponed. That was
OUT spa center out at the Assumption Seminary. Is that due to problems or
is that just a full meeting this time?
Krauss: No. They had some conflicts in their schedule and asked to be
bumped one meeting.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Batzli noted the Minutes of the Planning
Commission. dated March 4, 1992 as presented,
1 CITY COUNCIL UPDATE=
Krauss: Well, I don't know that, I.mean everything was done pretty much
' the way you wanted to do it. There was one item that you expressed some
interest in concerning the water surface useage ordinance. I know
Commissioner Emmings commented on that. It had to do with a change the
Council made at the last minute relative to boat ownership. The Council,
' the old ordinance restricted boat dockage on the lake tb the owner of the
lot and immediate family. They basically eliminated that restriction so
that anybody could use it with the owner's permission. The ordinance was
' published that way. It's recorded that way and then there was some
reconsideration of that thinking that that opened the door too far to allow
people to rent out space and I believe that they are looking to shut that
' door back down again and a change is going to come back to the City
Council. It's not in the zoning ordinance. It's in the watercraft, boats
and moorage. Whatever we have that section entitled. So the public
hearing and ordinance change will be at the City Council. Highway, ,
corridor study. There's things moving with that now. Now did you all get
the copy of the newsletter from Bill Morrish's staff? That big book?
Planning Commission Meeting
April 1, 1992 - Page 44
Ahrens: Yeah.
Ledvina: I did not. 1
Batzli: I don't know if I did.
Krauss: We just ordered 500 more.
Ledvina: Should it have been mailed to my house?
Krauss: We mailed it out when we cancelled the last meeting. We sent it-
out with that. We'll get you one. We've been working to try and bring
this thing around. Firm it up. Had a series of meetings with MnDot and
some of them have been good. Some of them have been bureaucratic. Bill
Crawford, significantly Bill Crawford is the number two guy at MnDot, told
Don that he was real excited about this innovative approach to the project
and as far as he was concerned, the State's already approved TH 5 so why
don't we just go do it. Well, then we talked to the functionaries in MnDot
and they kept on going well, the design book says you do it this way and we '
only pay for culverts and on and on and on. So we're trying to work that
out. We still think that there's a lot of hope here that we can work
something out with MnDot. We're also trying to keep on track with doing
the rest of the work. That we basically have a concept but the concept hall
no...and it's never been made public. And Friday in fact I'm meeting with
Barry Warner from Barton--Aschman who's done the urban design improvements
on the current stretch of TH 5 and another party from Camerous which is a
planning firm that is doing urban design work in Minneapolis -St Paul, Sioux
City and a few other places, to kind of put together a proposal that I
hopefully can bring back to the Council, hopefully get them to act on it soli
we can get to work on this pretty quickly. So we are moving forward.
Ledvina: What is the level of development pressure that the City is
experiencing within the corridor? I mean are people really clamping down
on you saying we need to know and we want to do this?
Kraus' Yeah. We've had a series of meetings with Opus Corporation on the
190 acres out at TH 5 and TH 41. They want to get through their planning
process this summer. Ryan Development already submitted a plan in the area
in front of Timberwood. I mean if you think you saw Timberwood tonight,
you're really going to...
Ledvina: Are things happening that we don't want them to happen?
Krauss: No, not yet but there's always a potential for that. The
Timberwood, the area north of Timberwood is being hung up by a number of
factors and I think we were very fortunate the way we worded the
Comprehensive Plan in that area. Basically it's either residential or you
give us a very high end office development and a school site and we work it
out. Well, the school site's still up in the air. We've had a series of II meetings with the school. Their initial reaction, and I showed you this
stuff a'couple of months ago, was that the site wasn't big enough and they
have a huge amount of recreational facilities. I mean like 6 ballfields, 4
football fields, 8 tennis courts, big parking lot. Well yeah, you could
basically hold the Olympic Festivals here when you're done. But they're
II Planning Commission Meeting
April 1, 1992 _. Page 45
il still trying to iron out their needs and they're supposed to make a report
to the School Board and this is the committee that Don Ashworth and I sit
I on. They're supposed to make a report to the School Board end of April,
early May. So that's moving along as well. Until all of these things are
clarified, we keep putting off Ryan's development. In fact Kate and I and
I Todd Gerhardt had lunch today with Kent Carlson who you saw for Ryan and
they keep asking us when are we going to be allowed to do something and we
keep moving it down the pipe. So yeah, the long answer to your question is
yes. There's a lot of interest and things are really starting to happen.
I Farrnakes : Did you receive any comments from Opus at all in regards to the
plan itself or any of these larger developers?
II Krauss: Opus, don't get me wrong, Opus is a good developer but there's a
give and take when we have these early meetings. Kind of fun actually.
I Opus' initial position, which Kate and 1 were cracking up about was the
collector, southern collector road which we have going through there.
Normally you hear of things like the Timberwood folks saying I don't want
any outside traffic coming through my residential, pristine neighborhood.
I Opus was saying the same thing. We don't want your non-industrial_ traffic
coming through our neighborhood so, we build very exclusive industrial
parks and we want all the roads to dead end.
1 Emmings: Even with the connections of the Arboretum and everything?
1 Aanenson: Yeah, very exclusive.
Emmings: Unbelieveable.
I Krauss: So we've got a ways to go with them but the fortunate thing with
Opus too is they're at the end of the sewer line and I think we've got a
nice long time to work things out with them.
I Ahrens: At the end of the sewer line.
Krauss: The end of the sewer line. We're likely to get it to.
II Ahrens: 2 years?
I Krauss: Well we're not sure. Probably 2 at least. We're likely to get
the sewer up to Hans Hagen's property this fall but then it's got to go
past Timberwood, up Galpin and hook a left and go across are 84 acre site
I and then get to the Opus site.
Batzli: Can't they pet.ition•to join Chaska?
I Krauss: They could if Chaska had an ounce of capacity but they don't. You
know they can't be annexed to Chaska. The reason we lost that site a
number of years ago is that there was no clear presumption that we would be
1 able to service that Volk property at any reasonable t i nit �Jc' Met r
t , 1 ~
r. j r 3
3 i 1 ' i. 1 = „
1 ,Emmings: Does that stop them from?
1
46
Planning Commission Meeting II
April 1, 1992 -- Page 46
II
Batzli: Does that say you'll get served in time?
Krauss: It stops them. I think it gives a very good case not to have
I
anything annexed to another community. Now we have talked to Chaska for
several years about where it's reasonable to do it. Maybe we should join
our water system so we don't have to build water towers. Maybe we should
serve each other's sewer where it makes sense to do it. Chaska right now
has severe limitations on the sewer plan and it's because Metro Waste
Control Commission believed the Metro Council's population projection. So
they theoretically had a 10 year plant expansion that's lasted a year and a
half.
Batzli: They're not going to, they don't have a problem... 1
(There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.)
Ledvina: ...The reason I asked about the development was, I'm just 1
wondering there was...wondering of the appropriateness of a moratorium on
development within that corridor. Something similar t.o...we're doing a
corridor study. . .
1
Krauss: Well the Council did look at a moratorium... I think it was
October /November and decided for a number of reasons that they were
uncomfortable with it. At the same time there was a court ruling that was
handed down in Woodbury where they used a moratorium on construction...do
it for 6 months I think it was and... I was in Minnetonka when that was
done and the 6 months turned out to be 18 or 24 months. They got away with
it but in Woodbury they didn't and they got sued... Now I hope to bring
something to you for discussion at the next meeting. The next meeting we
don't have the volume of new development. We should have the seminary but
I took a crack at drafting up an overlay district for the corridor which
gets our foot in the door hopefully. Then when we have a formal corridor
study, NO just adopt it by reference. Kate's taking a look at it and
giving me some feedback. I've had several discussions with Roger Knutson.
He initially told me I couldn't get away with it and now he's come around
to saying maybe you can. I need to work out some details.
II
Ledvina: I heard the situation in Woodbury was like...when you have a
corridor study that you're conducting...
Krauss: I've always been led to believe you do and there are often case 1
law that evolve from communities that screw up. I don't think that that's
necessarily representative of what you can and can't do but the Council did
talk about it and was not very favorable.
Ledvina: Maybe with this...corridor study they'd be more comfortable. I 1
don't know. I think that if we don't want to keep saying no to the
developers just on an individual basis. We want to be able to let them
know what our game plan is...
Farmakes: From a practical standpoint though for a developer...amount of 1
property, you're going to want to know...
1
•
1
8
1 Planning Commission Meeting
April 1, 1992 -- Page 47
Aanenson: That's exactly it. Right now there's too many unknowns as far
as where those frontage roads are going to go. What the width of TH 5...
If those come in we're just going to recommend question marks.
Farmakes: You're talking 6 months here. I would think a good developer
' would sit back and wait... I don't know...
(The quality of the tape during this discussion was very poor and wasn't
1 picking up voices clearly.)
Farmakes: First of all I can't take credit for this. I'll give credit -
where credit's due. But it is extremely pertinent to some of the stuff
1 that we're talking about. PUD. The issue on the corridor. Even some of
the issues that we're arguing about here and this is counter to a lot of
stuff that we're doing. Or have done let me say. The level of criticism
' on anything but basically since the war has been over World War II, and
where development has gone both commercial and for the city, this addresses
a lot of that and I don't know that it's the Bible but it certainly brings
up some interesting arguments for those who like to talk about that kind of
stuff. So I suggest you read it if you can.
Batzli: Paul, I know this was inadvertent but could you, well I did not
read it yet so I'm going to read it. Can we put in a new number 16 for
other items for looking or coming back and telling us what is involved in
looking at lot sizes in Chanhassen? I went backwards because other people
jumped down to open discussion.
Krauss: So in the context of increasing lot size?
' Batzli: You were going to come back and tell us what would be involved in
re-evaluating it. Not doing a study on it. Just telling us what would be
involved. Minimum lot size in the subdivision ordinance. Something that
' you and Ladd said you would die before you did it. We have no
administrative approvals I'll assume. Open discussion we've already done.
Ahrens moved, Emmings seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor
and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned.
Submitted by Paul Krauss
Planning Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
1
1
1
1
1