The URL can be used to link to this page

1l. Minutes II CHANHASSEN BOARD OF EQUALIZATION ANDI REVIEW SPECIAL MEETING ,'I ,MAY 11., 1992 MayorChmiel called'the meeting to order at 7:05•p.m.. ' MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Mason, and Councilman Workman MEMBERS ABSENT: CouncilmantWing .and''Councilwoman Dimler. STAFF PRESENT: Don,Ashworth, City Manager; and:Todd Gerhardt,. Asst. City Manager :COUNTY ASSESSORS PRESENT:: 0r1in Schafer, Steve Just and 'Ann Wyse 11 APPROVAL'OF MINUTES: Councilman Workman moved, .Councilman Mason seconded to. approve the of the Board of Equalization and'Review meetind,dated April 20,. 1992 as ,presented.. All voted in favor and the motion .carried. CONTINUATION-OF THE BOARD OF 'EQUALIZATION•AND REVIEW. 1, `Mayor •Chmiel : 'Don, ,do you have anything? Don.As'hworth.:. The Council maymant to discuss how you'd like to handle these•. We have put out the one packet basically showing•the listing that has been 11 agreed' to between the Assessor and the owners. I think in.'previous years you've • typically had one motion. on that and then you cap either handle those that have ! asked for additional consideration individually or come to some form.of 1 consensus as you walk through themiand then do one•mass motion. You've done it both, •ways and I think both .ways have been successful. Orlin,. did, you have anything addition to add? Orlin Schafer: Just that the Council is aware that the sheet that says'property owners coming to agreement with the County Assessor. Some.o.f them actually said I yes, I agree with that number. Some did not but, none of them voiced. an opinion that they were totally unhappy with it or that they wouldn't accept that. Those that did voice that ended up on this blue sheet and thisiwas.prepared'iby your staff Don and there are some additions and we—noted those. I don't know if 11 anyone has picked .up on. them•. Mayor Chmiel: No, I don't believe some of them have. Item number 50 should be put on-the blue sheet, Helen Hartmann. ' r. i n f 0 1 Scha er: And number 3 also. Mayor Chmiel: Larry J. Anderson. - Orlin.Schafer: And Item number 140. Item number 36 which is on the blue sheet 11 could in essence be put on thecpink sheet because he'has.stated that that's an acceptable number. 11 1 It Board of Review Meeting - May 11, 1992 Mayor Chmiel: Before I even open this up, is there anyone that would like to address this at this time? I see you sitting here. Andrew Olson: ...if mine was lowered or not. II Mayor Chmiel: Okay, and what was your name? Andrew Olson: Andrew Olson. Don Ashworth: $137,100.00? Mayor Chmiel: That was the agreed to value from what you had previously. Steve Just: It was $144,800.00 and we're proposing to lower it down $7,700.00... Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Todd Gerhardt: So you're in agreement with $137,100.00? Andrew Olson: Right. II Don Ashworth: You wanted to verify yours? Mrs. Schmieg: Yes. Don Ashworth: And your name was? II Mrs. Schmieg: Schmieg. Mayor Chmiel: Donald? II Mrs. Schmieg: Right. II Mayor Chmiel: That was at $10,000.00. I don't know what it was previously. I can look it up here but maybe you can find it quicker than I can. You're in agreement with that also? Okay. Is there anyone else? Okay. I would like to just probably keep this open for a while because some people may not show until II 7:30 and if we don't have people here by 7:30, then we'll move on. Councilman Workman: I'd like to propose a 3% across the board reduction. II Councilman Mason: I'll double that. Councilman Workman: Is this being recorded? II Mayor Chmiel: Yes it is. Orlin Schafer: I do have a question for Don I guess it would be. Is your staff want to send out the letters of notification or do you want us to do it on your stationary or what? II Don Ashworth: Really it doesn't matter. 2 1 Board of Review Meeting - May 11, 1992 Orlin Schafer: I was thinking we've got the addresses and everything in the computer. Do you also? 1 Don Ashworth: I don't think so. Orlin Schafer: Okay, we can do it. 1 Don Ashworth: I think it would be better if you did it. Steve Just: It would give us an opportunity to double check. 1 Orlin Schafer: We've got everything just as it is in that lower of the sheet and that's the taxpayer and whatever so that's how it would be addressed. Todd Gerhardt: Do you want to leave with letterhead tonight? Orlin Schafer: Yeah, because we'd like to get started on it and send them out. We're doing it for every other jurisdiction in the County so that's why we set it up in this procedure. 1 Councilman Mason: Are we going to make a motion to approve these others or are we going to wait a while? Mayor Chmiel: Well, let's just hold off because I don't want to make that motion until we have someone to come in. Councilman Mason: I meant the pink sheet. Mayor Chmiel: Even those. Some of these, as he said, were talked to and discussed but no real form of opinion was given... Councilman Mason: Good enough. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, maybe if you can just go through some of these as to each one of these that we have here with the assessor's value. Considered value. What it was before and we've got right in the back here as well so that's not too difficult to do. Don Burchet. Steve Just: I put him on the list...wasn't able to make contact. I left a tag on the door and... Mayor Chmiel: The market value was $84,700. What was the previous? Steve Just: ...I think it was previously assessed at mid 60's. Something like that. Mayor Chmiel: Now he was reassessed again? 1 Steve Just: No. The value for 1992 stayed the same as 1991. He was looking at the tax statement. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any discussion on this one? Tom? Michael? Councilman Workman: No. 1 3 1 1 II Board of Review Meeting - May 11, 1992 Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Let's take Dingel, James & Janet. $113,100. is the I I estimated value. What was their contention? That it should be what? Orlin Schafer: Actually we intended to leave that one the same after we 1 analyzed the numbers. It was purchased in '85 at $109,000. and it currently is at $113,100. so there's a time lapse... Mayor Chmiel: Any discussion? 1 Councilman Mason: I'm not sure this even pertains to this but overall Orlin, can you just comment a little bit. How does the, if all the other hoses are 1 valued at x number of dollars. If the inside of a home in the same neighborhood is really trashed, how does that affect that appraisal? Generally. I'm not talking about this specifically. II Orlin Schafer: If we are capable of getting inside that home and have knowledge of that, we'd depreciate that home on an individual basis, yes. II Ann Wyse: This home, we did get inside this home. I didn't but another appraiser did and he said it was in good condition. 1 Orlin Schafer: Actually what the calculations indicated, it could have a little more value than it has. But the situation being that it is, we'll leave it at that value. II Councilman Workman: What can be made from the fact that these people are not here? :1 Orlin Schafer: They're well aware that they can appeal to the County level. Councilman Workman: And that's what they're maybe going to choose to do? II Orlin Schafer: Every one of these people have knowledge of that and we discussed it. I did with some and the rest of my staff did with the others. I Councilman Workman: So they're not looking for relief from us. They're waiting for the County? 1 Steve Just: I think we indicated that we'd bring it to your attention and if you thought differently or...we are looking at in our numbers, that a change would be made at that time. If not,...County Board. II Orlin Schafer: And they're relying on the data they gave to sow your opinion. I mean this is what they're doing. And if it doesn't, they'll proceed. That's basically what I felt with every person that I talked to on the issue. Those 1 that were on the pink sheet had, in a sense they have an acceptable demeaner about them. They're saying well, okay. I guess that isn't so bad when you explain it like that. Well that kind of a comment tends you to believe that the 1 value's acceptable and sometimes I just ask that. Do you feel that's a reasonable value? Yeah, I guess it is. I mean we've researched the whole thing and we gave them the numbers we came up with. 1 1 ° 1 Board of Review Meeting - May 11, 1992 II Mayor Chmiel: Just let me ask one question Orlin. Coming up with the estimated market value comparables in the neighborhoods where some homes are exchanged and sold. Some additional improvements put into those homes. And as much as sometimes S30000.00 or $40,000.00. When that takes place and the expansion is done to that house with those improvements, the existing homes in those neighborhoods who are on either side or within that block, how does this basically affect those other homes? Orlin Schafer: It wouldn't affect those homes say for that currently assessment 1 but if the overall, if this happened to the overall neighborhood over a period of years, then it would begin to reflect that as sales take place to indicate that the sizes and so forth, quality is changing. Values are increasing. Then it catches them but generally we look at a building permit for instance for a three season porch. And we look at that. How it applies to that individual house. Not the neighborhood. So the bad part of that is, that one house is being addressed for an addition but it does not necessarily mean his value is changing because of that addition. It will probably increase somewhat but maybe there's something else that deteriorated to offset that increase in value so we're looking at not only the addition but the whole of the parcel. Now in some theory that's wrong. You're only supposed to apply the value to the addition. Well, cost does not equal value. You can stick $50,000.00 into something that really is only adding $15,000.00 to the sale...we are cognizant of that and that's why we take that approach. That we're looking at, after we check the addition, we're looking at the property as a whole. And we value that parcel. Not the neighbors. That parcel as a whole. Now if it happens that there's 4 or 5 on a street, then maybe the whole street will get it because in essence they are increasing the value of their neighbors by improving their own property. Not much. You know the impact is different but still the potential's there. Mayor Chmiel: I guess the thing that kind of keeps coming back to me is that some of the people are saying that prices for their estimated market values they had is not basically what they can probably sell those for and I look at this. ' Orlin Schafer: We run the risk of that •happening if we don't address the property as a whole because if we've got a *100,000.00 unit out there and they've put on a $15,000.00 value addition and we would put it on at 15, there's nothing that says they're going to get $115,000.00 for that. We have to in turn look at that as a whole and really they might be getting $105,000.00. So that's why we do it from this approach. II Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. And I guess that's the point that I'm trying to make. There's only so much you can put into a home without getting your value back from it. Orlin Schafer: You're positively right. That's correct. And that's sometimes hard to bring to that homeowner because the dream is that you get back ' everything you put in. Mayor Chmiel: That's right. But it normally doesn't happen. Maybe we can have your name and as we're going along here and check out to see if you agreed with the Assessor. Mark Keller: Sure. My name is Mark Keller. I live at... 1 5 ' II Board of Review Meeting - May 11, 1992 Mayor Chmiel: You're agreed to value would be $113,800.00. II Mark Keller: Yeah, several days after I was here on April 20th I received a call and that would be the judgment... II Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, it will take place once after we get done with this evening... II Councilman Workman: But you're satisfied with that value? Mark Keller: Yes I am. The purchase price of the home was $115,000.00...last 1 meeting was 85% of the market value... Councilman Workman: Isn't it 95? II Mayor Chmeil: Yeah, it's 95. Orlin Schafer: Actually it's 90. 93 something. 93.6 or whatever it was. II Mayor Chmiel: Okay, good. Thank you. Let's go on with our next one. You indicated that Fink was satisfied. Steven Fink, with what that $123,100. right? II Orlin Schafer: Right. Steven had. Ann Wyse: I had talked to him today. I Mayor Chmiel: Alright. The next one is Robert and Debra Finley. Any discussion? III Councilman Mason: Just a quick comment on, she says here. Home is in competition„or they say. Excuse me. Is in competition with brand new housing. How do you people, how does that work with new housing going into an area like that? Orlin Schafer: Okay, depending on the price range she's sitting in, she's the il competition for the new housing because someone can buy into this and do those repairs and come up to her $110,000.00 or whatever much easier perhaps than going into a new $120,000.00 home. So in a way yeah. They are in competition I with new housing but people that are willing to buy the new housing or build the new housing, have looked at listed housing and chosen that their option really is new construction. For the most part they're people from outside the I community. They're not a whole lot of people that come to Chanhassen, the eastern part of Carver County looking for housing. They come out here looking for a lot. Or housing to fit, build to fit them or something like that. They're not coming looking for old housing. It's people within the community II generally that buy used housing. They move up. They step up. That kind of thing. That's what can happen, like in their case, they could possibly list this house, sell it and move into something new on their own. That kind of 1 thing. Councilman Workman: But they bought for $110,000.00. II Mayor Chmiel: Right. 1 II 6 II Board of Review Meeting - May 11, 1992 1/ Orlin Schafer: I think the reasoning behind the value increase is quite apparent. It's sat at that value for a couple of years. And all of a sudden it moved and when it moves that great, it attracts attention. Todd Gerhardt: So to replace this house on that lot you would say it would be above the $110,000.00 with all the same fixtures and everything else? How much more higher do you think? Orlin Schafer: Ann, did you do that one? , Ann Wyse: I got the information on it. We didn't get into this property. Another assessor tried to get in. I don't have the age of the house. Yeah, they bought it in 1986 for $110,000.00. Todd Gerhardt: I think that's what Mike was getting at. Is there a price difference between a house that's 10 or 15 years older than a house that's brand new with the same fixtures, same square footage and everything else? Orlin Schafer: There definitely is. We look at, I mean you build this house as if new Mike and then we depreciate it for those things known to fit to cause loss in value. And that's what we arrive at. Where the same house brand new might be $125,000.00. Depreciation sets in and we're down to $108,000.00. 11 Ann Wyse: Yeah, it's over a 1,300 square foot house. Basement's finished and fireplace. Councilman Mason: I'm trying, as long as it's pretty calm, I'm trying to do some learning as we're going along here. Orlin Schafer: That's fine. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Let's move on to the next one. Donald Goetze. I guess this was valued at $123,100. It seems like you couldn't get back into these people's home. Looks like the value increase is over $1,200.00 increase in taxes. Saying it's about $12,000.00 too high. Ann Wyse: We couldn't contact the owners. They didn't contact us and so we were unable to get inside the property but it is over 1,600 square foot house. It was built in 1955 but it was remodeled in 1980 so it's not, evidentally is not a 1955 house at this point. It's on .83 of an acre wooded site so I feel that it's at a fair level of assessment. $123,100.00. We do have some sales. Not right on, is that on Frontier? Orlin Schafer: Yeah. Ann Wyse: Not right on Frontier but we have some in the Western Hills. Some sales of property that had sold for $130,000.00. Here's one, $138,500.00 and it's a 1,600 square foot rambler. Another one, $132,000. It's a 1,500 square foot rambler. 1 Orlin Schafer: With 600 square feet of basement finished so there's a few things that offset that value but that brings him within a reasonable value in relationship to those. 1 7 11 Board of Review Meeting - May 11, 1992 Mayor Chmiel: Is this, do you know whether or not this particular basement has 11 been finished or through the years with building permits? Orlin Schafer: Well that's what we don't know. We haven't been able to get in. I would suspect some is because it's a split entry. Ann Wyse: We've got 800 square feet listed but it's. Orlin Schafer: That can be considered living area rather than basement finished so we don't know how that split affects this house. That's why we like to get in because sometimes somebody says it's a split entry and you envision something totally different than what it really is. There again we tried to contact him repeatedly. Councilman Mason: I don't think there are very many homes on Frontier that are worth less than $120,000.00. Orlin Schafer: From what we read out of our sales, you're correct. Anything there will bring that. I mean that's what we've been able to show. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. And discussion. Okay, let's move on to Gorrill and 11 Degner. Councilman Workman: Purchase price, it's still less than the purchase price in 1 1990. Councilman Mason: Did he want it higher? Mayor Chmiel: We'd like to appeal our property assessment feeling that the property assessment is 15% higher...found that ours was the highest. Is that pretty consistent with what he's saying as to what those others are? Ann Wyse:- Another appraiser went over the other homes with him and there were differences. There were reasons why his was assessed more. Like he has a ' larger lot and it backs up to a park area. It's half an acre. So it's larger than most of those other parcels he was looking at. There were other differences like he has a walk out basement. Another one didn't. There were differences that were discussed. Orlin Schafer: Repeatedly all those that he was indicating were lower than his, there was something to make it lower in a reasonable mode. Don Ashworth: But they probably weren't much. I mean the other ones they looked at were $100,000. or $105,000. or something like that. 1 Orlin Schafer: Yeah, it's within a couple thousand dollars always and none of them were $15,000.00 spreads. It wasn't that situation at all. Ann Wyse: This subdivision was reviewed by Scott Winter last year. He went door to door and he entered everything in our computer system. So it's pretty equalized as an assessment right now. 1 1 8 1 Board of Review Meeting - May 11, 1992 Orlin Schafer: We did some adjusting on this neighborhood last year too. So this kind of was an attempt to kind of fine tune that neighborhood. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Purhcase price of home, $113,000. and $110,000. Okay. Next one is Hovanec, Jeffrey. Number 56 which is $232,000.00. I see the recommendation on this was to lower that. Reduce $44,000.00 to *222,800. Steve Just: Reasonable sale price. Entering it into the computer and equalizing it with the neighbors. The other two neighbors are at 96% and 97% of their market value also at, one is for $236,000. and the other one is for $244,000. within the last couple years. Like I said, the level of assessment on those are in the mid 90's also. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Square footage is pretty much the same? Steve Just: Actually Mr. Hovanec is a little bit larger than those. Sale 1 prices were similar. Mayor Chmiel: But you're going with that recommendation to reduce that 1 $44,000.00? Steve Just: Yeah. Apparently he talked to one of other appraisers and he had in his mind that his value should be less tha 90% of the sale price or somewhere in there and basically just relied on the computer system. In this case coming up with the 96% level of assessment, he felt that was fair. Don Ashworth: So then why is he still on this list? Mayor Chmiel: He didn't agree with it. 1 Steve Just: He wanted it lower. Mayor Chmiel: He wanted it lower. That's what it said. Any other discussion? Okay, Kubitz, Cecil and Jane. Councilman Mason: We missed 57, Hultner. , Mayor Chmiel: Oh I did. Yeah, Charles Hultner. Steve Just: This is basically the same as the one before. Their level of 1 assessment appears to be reasonable and the owner would like it be lower yet but we included it on the list for discussion. It's a 1,000 square foot, two stories. I'm sure the sale price in 1988 was a fair sale price. You probably don't have the information. He bought it for *123,900. in August of 1988. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, he bought it for *123,900.00? Okay. Kubitz. Cecil and , Jane. Saratoga. Steve Just: Their value was also established in 1991 so they're looking at their tax statement. We discussed the problem they have with water in their basement and basically lowering the entire structure value 10% which amounts to about $9,000.00. They've got a rather large house. 1,368 square foot foundation with kind of a unique 5 level split. And the lowest basement portion 9 1 11 Board of Review Meeting - May 11, 1992 is the one they had the water Y problem which amounts to about 520 square feet of 1,368. Mayor Chmiel: And is that what you took out of that? ' Steve Just: We just lowered the entire structure 10% which basically amounted to $9,000.00. ' Orlin Schafer: But we did that prior to the assessment. I mean in the original assessment. Mayor Chmiel: Right. ' Steve Just: Right, so we're just proposing no change. We really don't know what you would lower it if you were to give further consideration because their water problem, we can see that they do have a sump pump that runs all the time and some problems in that fifth level down there. I looked at some of the other sales in the neighborhood and they range from $102,000. to $106,000. in 1989 ' through 1991. There's 3 of them on Saratoga. They're all smaller than the subject and considering the subject's size and three season porch, it would be reasonable to think that had they not had a water problem, their sale price would be closer to the $109,000. that we originally calculated and then backed ' off of from there. So I think we readjusted it by that unless you think that. Orlin Schafer: I think one other thing that he didn't bring out that perhaps, because he spoke that night I believe. Mayor Chmiel: Yes, I remember. Fires in the chimneys and a bunch of other things. Orlin Schafer: Something that we might consider. The Board might instruct one of the people from the city to look at this and see if in fact somebody did go in there and grade down those diversion swales because they're in other locations too in the community and they're there for a reason usually. It was through the engineering on the city's part asking those people to build that to ' direct that flow of the water. And maybe that's what happened. Maybe they should be reinstalled and that can be done by the property owner. He could do that with $200.00 - $300.00 worth of dirt and get his purchase price back real quickly. Councilman Workman: Maybe instruct staff to look at that or... Mayor Chmiel: I think it would be proper because it's basically sometimes it is and isn't. I've had the same situation in the place of mine where swales were taken out because of construction that was done. And should really have been ' caught by the city or an official going in there. But I'm not sure if that liability comes back to us. Property owner should catch that as well. Something that would have to be done with that swale and it'd be between the two neighbors more so than anybody else. And if that's where the water's really coming from. That's the other thing. Don Ashworth: I live in that neighborhood and Mr. Kubitz has been in before. He will forever believe that the grading out there was not correct but I mean it 10 Board of Review Meeting - May 11, 1992 does meet the specifications. There was over ground drainage that was proposed through that area and I find it difficult to believe that the drainage adjacent to the property is the real problem. There are also a number of springs in that neighborhood and if they're in the unfortunate position of actually over the top of one, I know the neighbor right across the street ended up literally taking out his whole basement floor. I don't know what he finally did with it but it was a real problem. I find it very difficult to believe that any of the 5 story homes in that neighborhood. I mean to the best of ay knowledge, they're all $120,000.- $130,000.- 5140,000. Now some have views over the Western Hills Pond. ' That type of thing and bigger and maybe add more value but at 1100,000.00 for that neighborhood is very difficult for me to believe. Orlin Schafer: I think perhaps it was an ill conceived home for that spot. 1 Well conceived home but an ill chosen spot to build it because that sub - basement really is not the norm. You're getting something well below grade and at that point you'd better have a sump pump. Mayor Chmiel: I fully understand that because I have a neighbor of mine who lives in back of me and of course goes down hill and he was very upset over a number of years because he continually had water in his basement and indicated that my sump pump was the one that was causing all the problems. I don't have a sump pump. So I finally invited him into the house and I said, be my guest. Look completely through. I never had any problems after that. That often times is what happens. Don Ashworth: We can again look at that. Maybe even come up with some 1 suggestions. I know that we did with that other neighbor on how he could get the water out of that lower area without a sump pump. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, any discussion? 1 Councilman Mason: It's nice to have that input Don because it did seem like they were in kind of a tough spot. But that's a point well taken about the price of homes in that neighborhood. But it may be the city could take a look. Mayor Chmiel: ...previous comment, just leave it as is. ' Councilman Workman: You mean me? Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. ' Councilman Workman: What was my previous comment? Mayor Chmiel: To have the city take a look at, staff. Councilman Workman: I mean just the drainage problem. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Being that we know what this is, it's a little different situation. Okay, let's move on to the next one. Miles and Maxine Lord. 1 Steve Just: I talked to Priscilla Lord who...quite a long discussion. Talking about the market values on Christmas Lake. They've got a 2,064 square foot primary residence and a 776 square foot guest house on 100 feet of lakeshore on , 11 ' Board of Review Meeting - May 11, 1992 II Christmas. We don't have a lot of property on Christmas Lake in Carver County but Hennepin County has indicated that the sale ranges that they see is AM II $375,000. to $500,000. What little sales information we do have indicates probably well within reason or low on this particular property. II II Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, the public access is really a deterrent from people buying those properties often times? I know it would be for me. I think it would upset me to be right next door to that. II Don Ashworth: If I may though Mayor. That is a lift station and is chained off. The only ones, I mean it's the city that's going in and out of that. The neighborhood has asked, and this goes back many, many years. Asked for a key so I that they could take and get their boats out and put them in in the spring and take them out in the fall. Mr. Lord has one of those keys and the neighbor right across from him has one of those keys. It is not a public access. It is I a problem for them because we've signed that roadway. I mean at one time we started at Peaceful Lane or whatever it is and we had that whole thing signed and then we went 200 feet south, 200 feet north and finally we went all the way down to Pleasant View with the signs. And to the best of my knowledge, the few II times that we have people who violate that, meaning park somewhere around Pleasant View and go on down, we have the Sheriff's Department go in there and get them out. Mr. Lord has been known over the years to make sure that he takes !11 them out of there himself. He kind of enjoys doing that. But it is not a public access. II Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Per se. Now would you care to finish what you were saying. You had your discussion with Priscilla. Steve Just:" She basically was enlightened to the fact that market values on Christmas were that high and ended the discussion saying that I'd bring it to your attention but that she would look into getting a market analysis or some type of an appraisal so they had a better indication of what the property like ,' that on the - market was going. I really don't see a value to be high in this case. Mayor Chmiel: It'd be higher than what the estimated market value is now? Is I that what you're saying? Steve Just: Yeah. II Councilman Workman: I've lived next to public accesses, although this isn't one. I've been down there. I've been through it. I've been through it on the I lake in the winter. I don't know if the status has changed but it is a real big pain and • it will surely decrease the value. If we're saying it already is decreased somewhat because of that, we can't keep decreasing it every year. But if that isn't already taken in, that is the biggest pain living near a spot II where people want into the lake. Orlin Schafer: That's an extremely expensive area. Bare lots are like I $300,000. or more. So I mean if you're looking at little or no building value, you're still in the neighborhood. II 12 II II Board of Review Meeting - May 11, 1992 1 Steve Just: The only lots that we have was $2,000.00 a front foot which was within the last year. I don't know how many lots are left now. A couple. Three. The last one was purchased for pretty close to $2,000.00 a front foot which is about what you see on the Lake Minnetonka also. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, any other discussion on that? Next one would be Robert C. Scholer. Ann Wyse: I went out to that house. I think he's mainly concerned with the ' property tax level. His house is a 1,500 square foot nice ranch styled house. Has 1,190 square feet of basement finished. I went through the house and verified the measurements of the basement finished and our assessment didn't even include the basement finished at $103,800. I think it's a very reasonable assessment. Low if anything. But he is concerned about the tax. Don Ashworth: Do you know when this one was last valued? When we established , the $90,000.00? Ann Wyse: This area was gone through in 1990 for the 1992 assessments. , Don Ashworth: So you think it was looked at? I would have guessed that this might have gone back to the mid 80's. ' Ann Wyse: Oh before that? Yeah, that would have. Don Ashworth: Last review in, for many of the properties in that area, was in ' the early to mid 80's. Orlin Schafer: And that area is kind of earmarked now for assessments this 1 year. Oh yeah, for 1992. Ann Wyse: He went through in 1990 so. ' Resident: Let me interject a question here. Lowering the value. That will not change, will change the amount paid for 1992? II Orlin Schafer: Will not. Resident: Will not. That's what I was going... ' Mayor Chmiel: Any discussion? Any questions? Okay. Let's move on to Thomas Steward. $,129,000.00. Last year their property taxes tripled. $1,682.00 to $4,676.00. From $104,000.00 to $190,000.00. Increased another $18,000. to $208,000.00. Councilman Workman: It was $104,000.00 last year? ' Steve Just: It was done in 1990 for pay in 1991. Scott reviewed this in 1990 for the 1991 assessment. Pay 1992. I went through Section 2 and looked at the, whatever sales information was available and trying to get all the properties in Section 2 so that nothing had been left the same value as 1991. The only exception is the agricultural classified properties that we're going to be taking a look at this year. Some of them have green acres value so they're 13 i 1 '11 Board of Review Meeting - May 11, 1992 basically getting... It's not really a fair comparison to look at the green acres to compare properties with residential. I'm sure there will be some changes in the agricultural value as well but the green acre value I don't think is low...taxes are based on. Don Ashworth: So that's what she was referring to here? Steve Just: I talked to her for quite a while about it. She was looking at the one that had an awful lot of lakeshore and it's a big house and I'm sure if they were to sell it, it would sell for much more but they're getting green acres deferments on it so that values would be based on a farmland type value rather than a lakeshore. Eventually when they do sell it, they'll have a 3 year payback on taxes. ' Don Ashworth: But when she refers to the $104,800.00, that was a previous value by a previous owner who had it green acred and then she paid $275,000.00. Steve Just: I don't know if she ever was green acres. Orlin Schafer: I don't think it was green acres. I think it was just an old value that hadn't been addressed. 1 Councilman Mason: That's my in -laws old house and that wasn't green acres. It hasn't been green acres for years. Mayor Chmiel: A 1899 farmhouse basically. Councilman Mason: It is 1899. It is not a farmhouse. It is a very nice, large home. Steve Just: 2,000 square feet. Councilman Mason: It's by no means a farmhouse. Councilman Workman: 2,000? Steve Just: Almost. It's 1,900. 11 Councilman Workman: That's not huge though. Gosh, I live in a mansion. Don Ashworth: When you say 2,000, that's just the one floor? Steve Just: Just the foundation. Part of it is two stories so their actual living area would be much greater. Orlin Schafer: Yeah, that's the base footage that we're talking about. If it's two stories, double that. Councilman Mason: There's a master bedroom and two bedrooms upstairs, a huge living room, large family room and three more bedrooms or studies on the main floor. I mean it's 7 acres of very nice land. ' 14 1 Board of Review Meeting - May 11, 1992 Orlin Schafer: I think her thrust on this was that because she spent some time in our office prior to Board and her thrust on this was an equality of the assessment and not her inability to understand perhaps but her choice not to comprehend how green acres plays a part in this whole thing. And so after several hours with the lady, we started reviewing the sales of that property and others and you'll note that in 1990 they bought it for $275,000.00 and we have it on now for $208,000.00 so I mean this is just a feeble attempt to bring it up without shocking somebody into cardiac arrest. Don Ashworth: They should have guessed when they paid $275,000.00 though that their taxes would be high. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, any other discussion? 135. Ben and Pat Swenson. ' Steve Just: I talked to both Mr. and Mrs. Swenson for quite a while on the 11 phone about the value of $137,600. that we have and verified that on the computer as well as the hand calculations that Scott did back in 1990. They were somewhat upset that there was a small shed included on the parcel. We've always measured every building whether it had value or minimal value or whatever just because of matter of property records. I believe Scott had a $100.00 value on something that probably today we would not add any value at all. This wouldn't be worth the argument. That was something I think that irritated them more than anything and I don't know that the total value of $137,600., they never really indicated to me that they didn't think their house would sell for that. He was just concerned about that shed. The other sales in the area that I could find were all $160,000. or above. Those particular properties had more Lakeshore but I would think the difference in lakeshore would also be made up in the difference of the value. Those particular properties are valued much higher than the Swenson's. 1 Mayor Chmiel: What happens if they come back in with the realtor's market analysis and it would be lower than what's shown? Orlin Schafer: At that point I'd ask them to approach the County Board if they get it in prior to June 22nd. Mayor Chmiel: That was the 27th you said Orlin? Orlin Schafer: 22nd. ' Mayor Chmiel: 22nd. Okay. Any other discussion? What would the tax be on this one? $137,600.00? Steve Just: He was actually looking at his tax statement this year. I believe the value was set in 1991 for pay in 1992. I don't know if he made reference to that in his letter. 1 Mayor Chmiel: $3,184.00? Steve Just: Yeah, it's what he's looking at there. ' Don Ashworth: This isn't really a tax meeting. 15 ' 11 II Board of Review Meeting - May 11, 1992 Mayor Chmiel: No, but I was just asking the question. 11 Don Ashworth: Right. But people like Pat and Ben, first of all they did goof up from the standpoint that they didn't see when that value had changed from II literally a year ago so they should have been in a year ago protesting this increase. And yes, with the 32% increase in assessment, you could see 100% or doubling in the tax portion. But the State formulas continue to reduce and assuming that we all watch what the school, county and city levy for this next II year. People like Pat and Ben should see a decrease in their property taxes in 1993. I mean without changing the values. And their biggest problem is lakeshore property. I mean it's a nice home. Well kept but it's not overly II large. What they're really paying for is that lake frontage. Mayor Chmiel: If they come back with a market analysis, that's the place to 1 have it approached with the County Board. Okay. Then we have Helen Hartmann which is number 50. I did meet with this lady and I did drive out to her place and I looked at it as well and there is some problems. I think these people too are sort of on a problem that exists with a few people within our community with - II fixed incomes. Their's is not a fixed income although he has a disability and that's what they live on. Some of those things concern me. Recently we just adopted trying to keep our seniors in their homes. Being self sufficient. And II here again we come up with something that how do we really do this? You can't do it. The legislature can do it. Steve Just: They do a sizeable refund already for the circuit breakers and obviously their taxes will increase quite a bit with the change in value. This will help hopefully quite a bit more than with the circuit breaker relief. That's basically what I tried to explain to her and although I'd like to see I their taxes lower, I couldn't really look at the numbers are differently based on the information I gathered from Lotus Lake. - II Orlin Schafer: Those are the kinds of situations that when it becomes very tough for us to make those decisions of market value. Mayor Chmiel: No, I realize that. II Orlin Schafer: You can empathize with the people that are there but you still have to keep the entire district in mind so. II Mayor Chmiel: This one here I had a little concern with. I really do and I know it's lake property as well. I don't know, did she get a, have someone come II in and review the property? Steve Just: I was there and apparently she had a market analysis from a realtor recently. I talked to the realtor today before I left the office. He didn't 1 have the time or anything to look at the sales on Lotus Lake but did look at some older properties with less, with quite narrow lots. 50 front feet or so. Hartmann's have 45 on the lake. So he basically backed off of the values that II he was saying, 15% to 20%. I don't know the exact figure but he was backing off from his comparables because they were closer to Minnetonka. Or they were on Lake Minnetonka. I don't know if that's reasonable or not but I was looking at II the actual sale prices that had occurred in her neighborhood and on the lake for older one story homes. Everything I collected basically indicated that you II 16 1 Board of Review Meeting - May 11, 1992 could probably get $102,000.00 for the house. I don't know if that's. I've got some examples if you're interested. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I would be. Steve Just: On 6695 Horseshoe Curve, which is just I believe two doors down from them. It was built in 1954. Pretty such the same age as their's. It's 1,020 square foot house. It's actually a story and a quarter. They've got 3 bedrooms and the Hartmann's have 3 bedrooms. One and a half baths. When the house was purchased in 1988, it was in fair condition and they paid, it was August of 1988. They paid $127,000.00 two doors down. Granted it's probably a little bit bigger as far as square footage but talking 3 1/2 years ago at $127,000.00. On Horseshoe Curve, 6640 with no lakeshore, built in 1961, 1,080 square foot one story. Pretty comparable to the Hartmann's who have 1,008 square feet. But this one has no lakeshore sold for $92,000.00 in March of 1990. And Ann was at that house and pretty such verified that it was a pretty basic ramble. It did not have any excessive updating or anything from the date that it was built in 1961. Another one, from there I had to kind of go around the lake and look for anything that looked a little older. Mayor Chmiel: What was the other address on Horseshoe Curve that you said? Steve Just: 6640. No lakeshore. 220 Frontier Court has 50 feet of lakeshore so the size of the lake lot is pretty comparable. This house was 1,248 square feet on slab. Small single car attached garage. Sold for $97,500.00 back in 6 , of 89. The house was in pretty rough shape. We reviewed that a year ago. The notes that I read, the appraiser that was out there indicated that they have paid a little too much at $97,500. but not a whole lot. The structure was pretty minimal in that particular case. And then the last one I found was on Chanhassen Road. 7510. 49 feet of lakeshore which is basically right on TH 101 there. Built in 1963. It's 1,056 square feet. One story. Fair condition. Just sold in April of 1991 for $139,900.00. Like I said, I really couldn't look at the numbers, at least from the computer and the other information I gathered any differently although I empathize with her tax situation. Mayor Chmiel: And they hadn't been re- evaluated for what, 10 years? 1 Steve Just: That's you know one of those situations where the values haven't changed. In fact I think their value had been reduced in the early 80's so it ' probably made it worse than some of them. Mayor Chmiel: The only thing with this one is. ' Steve Just: I addressed the fact that they've got some concrete problems. The retaining walls is kind of a mess down by the lakeshore. I knocked off 5% of the market on the building because it's easier to do a building and it still came in higher than $102,000. on the computer. It came in at $104,000. giving them pretty much the benefit of the doubt on everything I could. Mayor Chmiel: Have we ever been known to freeze any kinds of assessments in situations as such here? 17 1 Board of Review Meeting - May 11, 1992 Don Ashworth: Not per se. I mean I know that the Board has acted on individual 11 parcels. I think maybe from a year ago you were aware of the...property and felt that you suggested a certain value for that property. I don't think you referred to it as freeze but I think you had knowledge as to that home. Barring I some change in State law, making a value simply on the basis that it should be froze at that level would probably end up with the same type of situation as we ran into with an overall reduction of 1%. There's nothing under State law that basically allows you to do that. In fact it says just the opposite. Basically II you can throw out anything that you do. So what you do should be based on your specific knowledge of that property. I think in this particular case, does she not qualify pretty extensively for the tax credit things? II Steve Just: Yeah, she indicated to me that she's been getting back a fair amount. I was helping her talk about the cost of the taxes and she pays out ' about $60.00 a month or something currently. The increase obviously is going to be much higher but assuming that she gets back more from the circuit breaker, hopefully rather than doubling, it will be somewhat Tess. I don't know other than to say what's going to happen next year. You can hypothesis about it a lot I but obviously their taxes will go up quite a bit. I'm just hoping as their tax relief and the circuit breaker will help the in this case. I Don Ashworth: I would like to work with her if I could. I know you've met with her. I had met with an elderly gentleman, it was right before the meeting and he wanted me to check over his circuit breaker forms. I said I just don't have, we're in the middle of this meeting. Can you come back and he did. And his taxes, I think he was into like a $2,500.00 area and the relief there was about II $1,300.00 so it took him back down to about $1,200.00 which was about where he had been over a period of years. He was real happy with that so I don't know - , how her situation is. Mayor Chmiel: Maybe what we could do is have you do that and contact her and discuss that as well and see what you can come up with. Don Ashworth: Until I've really gone through those forms, and that was just the early part of this past week, I really didn't realize the full things that some I of these owners are eligible for. You start getting up into the upper income portion, past $30,000.00 whatever, you start getting some reductions. If you really are on fixed income, you can get a pretty good reduction. II Mayor Chmiel: I guess I look at this and I still come away with mixed emotions on it. Knowing where they're at and with what they have and I was in the house too. It's nothing exceptional by any stretch of the imagination. II Councilman Mason: Perhaps after the coming State election in November, some of our new legislators will be able to pass some sort of legislation about it. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Yes, we've already discussed that. ' Councilman Mason: And that's the frustrating thing about sitting on this Board and I thought your point was very well taken. You can do but you're still obligated to make it fit with everything else around there. ' 18 Board of Review Meeting - May 11, 1992 Steve Just: I've been trying giving the property the benefit of the doubt but I really, in this case ethically couldn't justify what I actually would adjust it if I were to lower it so I thought I'd leave it up to you. Mayor Chmiel: We appreciate it. Steve Just: ...maybe I didn't account for the concrete enough or whatever. Orlin Schafer: The thing, this is not a normal situation. I know where Steve's coming from. We have another jurisdiction where the appraiser that was working with this has had an appeal from a property owner 5 years in a row. And after so many reviews and so much concentration on the things involved with that property, he was no longer objective. And we discussed it long and hard and I said, give me a range between two dollar figures and we'll let the Board pick wherever they want to be between those two numbers because it was really disturbing the appraiser from the perspective of his objectivity and so we just opted to get out of it. That's what the Board did. They calculated out their own way and we accepted whatever they did. And it's an ethical thing with us from our perspective. ' Mayor Chmiel: Trying to be consistent with it as well. Steve Just: Their home along that Lakeshore probably would be the least , valuable because the other one that did sell for $127,000.00 in 1988, they've since then they've improved it quite a bit and I think that property value is at least,$20,000.00 more than the Hartmann's. But I think they are a unique home along that shoreline. Most of the other ones are higher... Mayor Chmiel: Basically a cottage before with nothing and they just added on that small piece to it and that's it. That's what they've got. Steve Just: It's 1,000 square foot walkout ramble. Pretty basic. Mayor Chmiel: Well maybe what we could do with this one is have Don get in contact with Helen and have some discussions as you mentioned for and if you are in agreement with that, we can do that. ' Councilman Workman: Agreed. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, next item is Larry J. Anderson. Number 3. This is where , he was making a comparison. Ann Wyse: I met with Mr. Anderson and went through his property. Talked to him ' for quite a while and I looked at our records on the other, the two houses that he was comparing his house to. The house right next door really is the most comparable because it's on a similar lot. Similar sized wooded lot. 1 • Mayor Chmiel: Which of those 3 lots is the one? Ann Wyse: The one next door is 401 Cimmaron and it's Lot 14. It's assessed at $105,900.00. It's 208 square feet smaller. That's basement and main floor so it would also have less basement finished. It has no 3 season porch which the Anderson property has a very nice 3 season porch. It has 2 baths versus the 3 , 19 , 1 Board of Review Meeting - May 11, 1992 baths that this subject has I felt that lowering the Anderson's property to $112,000.00 was a fair assessment level comparing to these other homes and the other homes in the neighborhood. ' Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Orlin Schafer: I had a chat with Larry on the phone and he acknowledged Ann's review and the fact that the $7,300.00 reduction was proposed but he still felt that there was a larger amount of depreciation should be awarded to his property and the values should be lower than that. That's a fairly sizeable reduction. Councilman Workman: Is it reasonable though in comparison to his neighbors? Orlin Schafer: Yeah it is. We ran those numbers through the system computer and then Ann reviewed it and it is. ' Councilman Workman: So his neighbors are too low? Orlin Schafer: There's that element might be there. Steve Just: The level of assessment is probably the same because he's got the 11 larger house and 3 seasons porch. So overall I think the level of assessment probably is fairly equalized. Hopefully. Mayor Chmiel: How many square feet did you say his home was? Ann Wyse: His house is 1,584 square feet. It's quite large. It's got the basement finished. 800 square feet of basement finished. Fireplace downstairs ' with a family room and a bedroom and a bath down there. Then 3 bedrooms and 2 baths upstairs. When he has replaced the carpet recently. As of January 2nd it was the original carpeting but that's normal depreciation. Mayor Chmiel: I think what was done with the recommendation to reduce it to the $112,000.00, with 1,584 square feet. I guess I don't see any additional reductions. 1 Don Ashworth: May I ask a question? ' Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Don Ashworth: On a 3 season porch like that and I think it goes back to your question or your response about viewing the whole property. I'm guessing that's 10 -15- 20,000 dollars is the price range I generally have seen. But you must then take some percent of that? I mean do you usually put on the full amount? Steve Just: The contribution of a 3 season porch might only be half. They might stick a $10,000.00 porch on. 200 square feet, we add $30.00 a square foot or $25.00 or whatever. Our values are half of what they actually had the building permit or what they actually stuck into it. But generally on a 3 season porch, you're not looking at any more than $20.00 to $30.00 a square foot. 1 1 20 1 Board of Review Meeting - May 11, 1992 I/ Don Ashworth: Then I think you said like Lot 14 was the most comparable with the bathroom or whatever but the primary difference would be this 3 season porch so that's maybe where the half comes in making that $ ?,000.00 more. Steve Just: Along with the size. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. No change in that. Alright. And the last but not the least. Charles Wagner. That we just received something on that. He has his independent appraisal. They're showing that at $98,000.00 as opposed to. 1 Steve Just: $102,400.00. Mayor Chmiel: I haven't even found it yet. You said there was just a j comparable difference between those two and it's pretty close. 98 to 102. As they show it and...has the appraisal as such. Orlin Schafer: Not knowing the comps that he's using in his appraisal, I think we're within shouting distance. You wouldn't have to talk this too loudly to reach it. I guess there's a couple things that bother me just gazing through the comparable sheet on whatever page that's on. Page 3 probably. There's a couple of adjustments that should be addressed and they're not. They would affect the outcome. I don't know how great but for instance a site with a view, he's subtracting from Chaparral Lane $4,000.00 when they're sitting on a quarter of an acre and the subject is sitting on 7/10 of an acre. I mean there's a problem here. And the one on Audubon Road, he's taking off $4,000.00. Now that might be the difference in the quality of the site but on the first one, the size would probably more than make up for the quality. A $4,000.00 item will put us back to $102,000.00. Mayor Chmiel: What was the square footage on this one? 1 Orlin Schafer: 1,340 and the comps are, the first comparable is pretty uniform. 1,344. Bedroom, bathroom relationship is the same. But the last two comps are quite small. Well not quite small but they are smaller. 100 feet or more difference. Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor, I find this quite ironic again. This is not a tax ' meeting but the difference in the value that we're talking about produces a tax difference of less than $50.00. He's had to have spent $100.00 or $200.00 to save $50.00. I don't understand this so. Councilman Workman: Settle the difference at $100,000.00? Mayor Chmiel: Round it with some of the things that Orlin picked out of there. Give some, take some. Sounds good to me. Show it as $100,000.00. Okay. That will be the last one. I need a motion on the first portion of the pink sheet and then the second one. Councilman Workman: I'd like to move approval of everything as we had it except for the last one at $100,000.00. Mayor Chmiel: Well I think if we just kept these two separate. I think if we were to adopt the property owners coming to agreement with the County Assessor , 21 1 II Board of Review Meeting - May 11, 1992 as one motion. 1 Councilman Workman: I so move. I Councilman Mason: Second. Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the following list of property owners coming to agreement with the County Assessor: II Ref. Agreed to No. Name PIN_ Value II 1. Adler, Leonard L. 25- 2300290 $202,400 2. Amick, Robert 25- 0010200 $118,300 II 4. Anderson, Robert & Eliz 25- 2300030 $375,800 5. Baker, Mike 25- 8810600 $ 99,000 6. Bardal, Curtis & Carol 25- 3320200 $229,700 I 7. Benz, Berney 25- 5350070 $ 98,200 8. Bicek, Duane L. 25- 3250050 $108,000 9. 8jorlin, Peter J. 25- 1601170 $ 68,300 il 10. Blom, Steve 25- 3600010 $135,300 11. Borns, Jeff 25- 8400070 $139,500 12. Braden, John R. Jr. 25- 3900020 $ 96,900 13. Brill, Terry 25- 2730320 $125,800 II 14. Brokke Bernice 25- 0500200 $ 45,800 15. Buchanan, Stephen C. 25- 4200400 $162,600 16. Buehring, James 25- 3000200 $172,600 4 18. Callaway, Marilyn 25- 2700010 $192,700 19. Carlson, Gary 25- 7700070 $175,500 20. Chandler, George/ 7_! Carlson,Sharon 25- 8800160 $114,200 21. Carlson, Robert F. 25- 5080130 $128,000 22. Carrica, Joseph & Andrienne 25- 6100010 $192,600 I 23. Casey, Roger 25- 0134600 $111,400 24A Chanhassen Bowl 25- 1950020 $1,350,000 248 Chanhassen Bowl 25- 1950021 $137,600 II 25. Clasen, Herbert F. 25- 0023700 $112,900 26. Coffee, Charles 25- 7610090 $140,000 27. Colvin, Kyle 25- 0252000 $132,900 II 28. Daniel, John T. 25- 7610070 $115,000 29. Deaver, David W. 25- 6170010 $ 25,800 30. DeSantis, Harry 25- 6850010 $ 77,800 I 32. Dorweiler, Albert 25- 0270200 $ 88,800 33. OuChene, James P. & Susan 25- 1620200 $174,600 34. Durr, Ken 25- 0051100 $201,700 II 25- 0050400 $204,300 35. Epping, Joe & Paula 25- 8610030 $157,600 II II 22 II Board of Review Meeting - May 11, 1992 II Ref. Agreed to No. Name PIN Value 1 38. Flaherty, Dennis & Toni 25- 2380070 $356,600 39. Foster, Mark 25- 8520070 $239,200 40. Fuhrmann, Charles 25- 7610060 $128,700 II 41. Fundingsland, Daniel 25- 2000850 $ 88,000 42. Galas, Pam /Roberts, Mike 25- 8210200 $142,400 II 43. Gale, Donald 25- 0133700 $ 98,600 44. Gavert, Richard 25- 0500380 $ 62,300 47. Hagman, Wayne 25- 0122700 $128,900 1 48. Hall, Heffrey & Cynthia 25- 2730850 $110,300 49. Hall, Ken 25- 7900080 $ 92,200 51. Hedtke, Joel 25- 7900380 $ 88,900 II 52. Hendrickson, Jim & Jan 25- 7950070 $205,400 53. Hobbs, Walter B. 25- 2500030 $202,800 54. Horn, Clark & Linda 25- 0123200 $115,000 , 55. Horstman, Robert 25- 0800320 $212,200 58. Jamieson, Thomas & Dorothy 25- 2400040 $201,800 II 59. Jeurissen, Georgia 25- 3650010 $113,200 60. Johnson, Alva 25- 8520140 $236,300 61. Johnson, Dana 25- 0050300 $115,000 II 62. Johnson, Donald M. 25- 1620110 $ 97,500 63. Keller, Mark & Connie 25- 1860040 $113,800 64. Kelly, Thomas F. 25- 4200280 $141,500 II 65. Kottke, Thomas 25- 3900180 $110,400 66. Kraus, Earla 25- 1800370 $102,900 68. Kuder, Martin 25- 6930010 $138,000 25- 6930020 $ 22,000 II 69. Kurvers, Melvin 25- 3920050 $182,900 70. Lang, Kenneth 25- 5150070 $128,500 1 71. Lantto, Todd M. 25- 1620190 $139,000 72. Linder, Wyck & Lorali 25- 3890010 $119,000 25- 3890020 $ 24,500 II 73. Loos, Jane H. 25- 1820340 $ 91,200 75. Luebke, Gerald & Rosemary 25- 0134810 $199,200 76. Maloney, Richard & Diane 25- 3250010 $145,200 1 77. Manteuffel, Betty 25- 7900160 $ 70,400 78. Marsh, Thomas L. 25- 8580130 $236,500 79. McCary, Elwood 25- 2300040 $248,400 80. McHugh, Timothy & Diane 25- 8400040 $168,000 81. McNeill, Shawn & Sandy 25- 7550590 $103,800 82. Melby, John 25- 8400120 $132,600 II 83. Merz, Tom 25- 1400130 $262,000 84. Metro Lakes Mini- Storage 25- 7510010 $1,150,000 85. Meuwissen, Howard 25- 8200210 $101,900 II 86. Midthun, Steven 25- 2700250 $215,000 23 1 11 II Board of Review Meeting - May 11, 1992 Ref. Agreed to II No. Name PIN Value 87. Miller, Christopher 25- 4040130 $166,100 II 88. Mingo, Richard T. 25- 0123000 $100,900 1 89. Natoli, Florence 25- 0021900 $ 85,600 II 90. Newhouse, Toe & Judy 25- 2730590 $112,600 91. Nichols, Wm. & Sheri 25- 2080130 $119,600 92. Nieland, Richard & Marion 25- 0135300 $135,600 93. Niemi, Richard & Jane 25- 3320240 $537,400 II 94. Nord, Bruce A. 25- 6300090 $128,800 95. O'Neill, Diane 25- 6070200 $148,000 I 96. Olson, Andrew K. 25- 4060600 $137,100 97. Peka, Michael 25- 2020450 $ 75,000 98. Peters, John 25- 0500160 $ 6,000 I 99. Peterson, Robert J. 25- 1800050 $101,100 100. Peterson, Robert J. 25- 0240810 $141,900 101. Pfeffer, Herbert J. 25- 5050350 $156,600 II 102. Powers, Richard 25- 8400100 $131,300 103. Randall, Thomas S. 25- 4200430 $201,800 I 104. Richmond, Rhonda & John 25- 2730660 $124,100 105. Robinett, Robert W. 25- 8810250 $119,000 106. Rossing, Margaret D. 25- 1602060 $ 8,000 25- 1602070 $ 7,000 II 25- 1602080 $ 7,000 107. Sathre, Robert 25- 7660030 $201,600 •' 108. Schmidt, Mike 25- 6850040 $100,000 109. Schmidt, Roger 25- 0150800 $119,000 110. Schmieg, Oonald 25- 0500221 $ 10,000 111. Scholer, Robert 25- 8230020 $ 24,800 II 113. Schott, Wendal 25- 4110070 $151,300 114. Schrempp, Teresa & Daniel 25- 1620160 $161,000 115. Schroeder, Larry 25- 0500020 $111,200 II 116. Schroeder, Albert 25- 2080120 $107,600 117. Schueren, Gladys 25- 0122500 $ 69,700 118. Schuette, Richard 25- 2630200 $116,300 II 119. Schumacher, John 25- 5200010 $ 29,700 120. Schwartz, Michael 25- 2700080 $238,000 121. Scott, Judith 25- 5050170 $ 84,400 122. Segner, John 25- 8400110 $118,600 I 123. Shorba, George & Margaret 25- 0133600 $ 14,800 124. Shorba, George P. 25- 0500400 $ 95,000 125. Smith, Donald T. 25- 1820280 $121,500 I 126. Spliethoff, Wm. & Margaree 25- 2380030 $361,500 127. Spohr, Clifford & Oarcee 25- 8810350 $101,700 128. Stedman, Denis 25- 8800050 $114,600 II 130. Stockdale, David 25- 0140900 $159,300 131. Sulerud, James 25- 1220020 $125,800 II 24 II Board of Review Meeting - May 11, 1992 I/ li Ref. Agreed to No. Name_ PIN Value II 132. Sullivan, Ross 25- 0800190 $104,900 133. Swanson, Bruce & Tauna 25- 2550040 $112,300 II 134. Swedberg, Einar 25- 1800330 $109,500 136. Thielges, Robert & Terese 25- 8210150 $120,500 II 137. Thies & Talle/ Heritage Park Apts. 25- 3150010 $2,050,000 138. Thies & Talle/ Medical Arts Blvd. 25- 0121900 $1,450,000 II 139. Tritz, Kevin & S. 25- 8060150 $ 65,000 141. Wildermuth, Jim 25- 2300120 $173,800 I 142. Winkel, Conrad 25- 8810060 $117,300 143. Wrase, Henry 25- 0160200 $164,900 144. Zakariasen, Louis & Gladys 25- 0080700 $ 95,000 II 145. Zamjahn, Louise et.al. 25- 0351000 $ 2,100 All voted in favor and the motion carried. 1 Mayor Chmiel: The second is the property owners that have not come to agreement with the Assessor and request Board consideration. All except for the last, II Charles Wagner from $102,000. to $100,000 with additional discussions with Helen Hartmann to make some difference but that will be determined by Oon. Councilman Workman: So moved. 1 Councilman Mason: He so moved and I'll second it. Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the following II list of property owners who have not come to agreement with the County Assessor and requesting Board consideration with direction to the City Manager to contact Helen Hartmann regarding information on tax relief available and adjusting the II amount for Charles Wagner as shown below: Ref. Agreed to II No. Name PIN Value 17. Burchet, Don 25- 0250700 $ 84,700 II ' 31. Oingel, James & Janet 25- 1220010 $113,100 36. Fink, Steve 25- 0030500 $123,100 II 37. Finley, Robert & Debra 25- 1220030 $108,700 45. Goetze, Donald 25- 0124000 $123,100 ' 46. Gorriil, Oeb /Oegner, Terry 25- 2730570 $110,500 56. Hovanec, Jeffrey J. 25- 2540020 $232,000 57. Hultner, Charles 25- 6150190 $114,600 25 1 II Board of Review Meeting - May 11, 1992 1 Ref. Agreed to No. Name PIN Value 67. Kubitz, Cecil & Jane 25- 7600070 $100,700 74. Lord, Miles & Maxine 25- 2600110 $293,500 I 112. Scholer, Robert & C. 25- 8210170 $103,800 129. Steward, Thomas & C. 25- 0022800 *208,800 135. Swenson, Ben & Pat 25- 0240300 $137,600 1 50. Hartmann, Helen 25- 6300230 $102,500 3. Anderson, Larry J. 25- 8810220 $112,000 I 140. iiagner, Charles 25- 0270300 8100,000 All voted in favor and the motion carried. 1 Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Workman seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.. ' Submitted by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Mann Opheim .1 .,1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 26 1 CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MAY 18 1992 Mayor Chmiel ca11ed' 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, and Councilwoman Dimler. Councilman Workman arrived during discussion of item 4(b). !' MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Wing STAFF PRESENT: Don, Ashworth., Roger.Knutso,n, Todd Gerhardt,`Charles Folch, Paul Krauss, Sharmin A1- Jaff and Kate Aane.nson .APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve the.agend'e amended as follows: Under public announcements Mayor Chmiel wanted to share something he received fromtongressma,n Jim Ramstad; table item (f)• and (k) under .Consent Agenda; and add under .Council Presentations, goals meeting, , May .28, 6 :00 to 7:30 prior to the HRA; and add items'8, Data. Serv- 11 . Assessments and item 9, Executive Session regarding Frontier Assessments. Councilwoman Dimler wanted to•di'scuss under Council Presentations discussion for fining for building without a permit. All voted in, .favor and the motion I carried. PUBL'IC.ANNOUNCEMENT: IF Mayor Chmiel: One item that I have under public announcements anclit's really sort of tickles me because I'm glad to see that someone from Congress is. going to finally take a position in saying. that there's going to be a taxpayers summit I on deficit crisis and'some way to get to Congress, the'ba•Tance of Congress. ,Let them. be aware that there are real problems. It appears that the. National Debt is approaching.4 trillion dollars.. The budget .deficit projected to pass •the 4400 billion mark this fiscal year and gross interest payments on the Federal Debt consisting' of the taxpayers nearly 5300• billion dollars a year. Congressman Ramstadlis going to have his town meeting covering the taxpayers summit, which is going to be held oniJune thei6th.at 9:30 a.m., which is a ' Saturday morning.at'No Community College which is located at 9700 France Avenue South in Bloomington. If there's any questions .on this, 'City Hall will have this in their hands to provide you some of the answers. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilwoman Dimler moved; Councilman Mason seconded to , approve the following.Consent.Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: .a. Resolution 192 - 59: Approve Plans and Specifications for Dell Road' Improvements 'North 'of TH 5• (Eden .Prairie Cooperative Project)•, Project No. 90 -8. d. 'Resolution 2 - 60: Approve Re olut' ni #4 pp s io Providing for the Prepayment and Redemption of the 1983 Improvement Bonds. ' 1 City Council Meeting - May 18, 1992 1 e. Request for Reimbursement of Connecting Fees, Chuck Van Eeckhout, Edwards/ ' Vogel Subdivision, LUR 92 -2. j. Resolution 192 -61: Approve Resolution Acknowledging Satisfaction of Contingencies necessary for the Vacation of Street Right -of -Way, Utility and Drainage Easements located on a portion of West 78th Street, Picha Drive and Monterey Drive in Burdick Park Addition, Market Square. 1 m. Approval of Summary Ordinances for Publication Purposes: 1) Ordinance Expanding the Public Safety Commission from 5 members to 7 ' members. 2) Ordinance Amending Chapter 7 of the City Code Regarding Buildings and Building Regulations. I - 3) Ordinance Amending Chapter 19 of the City Code Regarding Water, Sewer and Sewage Disposal. 1 n. Approval of Accounts. p. Resolution 192 - 62: Approve Plans and Specifications for Dell Road Improvements South of TH 5 (Eden Prairie Cooperative Project), Project 90-7. All voted in favor and the notion carried. 1 C. APPROVE 1992 SEALCOAT PROGRAM; AUTHORIZE ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS, PROJECT 92 -8. II Councilwoman Dimler: Item (c) is the approval of the 1992 Sealcoat Program and authorizing advertising for bids, Project 92 -8. The reason I pulled it is because I looked over some of the streets that are being done and my question 1 was, that a lot of them are relatively new construction. Within the last 3 or 4 years anyway and then I'm wondering why the roads in Chanhassen Estates which seem to be in worst condition aren't slated to be done. Charles Folch: Mr, Mayor, members of the Council. To answer that question Ursula, you're correct. There are a number of streets that are probably in their third to fourth year following construction. From a lot of the technical I information and studies that are being done now on maintaining and improving longevity of streets, they're recommending that at about the third or fourth year after a street has been constructed, when the pavement is starting to just I chalk up if you will, turning to a gray color, is the perfect time to get a sealcoat covering over that if you will. It's almost like a suntan oil on your skin to protect the pavement and improve longevity and rideability. As far as ' in relation to the roads down in Chan Estates, the recently completed pavement management study basically recommended that the needed repairs down in that area involved reconstruction work. Basically removal of the existing pavement. Removal of some of the poor soils that you have down there. Reworking the base II and reconstructing the street itself. This program here that we're doing is basically just sealcoating operations. In fact to stretch the $90,000.00 budget that we had for this project, our street forces this year will do their patching 1 2 1 City Council Meeting - May 18, 1992 and their own crack filling to take that out so that we have more dollars that can go to sealcoating itself. ' Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. So are we addressing the problems in Chan Estates or are we just letting them go? Charles Folch: Following the acceptance of the pavement management report, I believe it was back in February I prepared a 5 year CIP of which the first two years recommended work to be done in Chan Estates. Unfortunately, one of the things that we need to do with acceptance of that program is to develop some sort of assessment policy for reconstruction projects. We felt that we also need to evaluate the forth coming comprehensive sewer and water policy plans which will also have their own CIP's for the next 5 and 10 years. Look at what those overall dollars and needs are and what impact that has to the city and what reasonably can we share on some of the reconstruction projects. Unfortunately, we can't determine what that number's going to be for street recon assessment policies until we look at what those overall needs are. Councilwoman Dimler: And you're saying sealcoating those roads at this time is ' not going to be help them or improve them at all? Charles Folch: No. Not at all unfortunately. ' Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. Then I have no further questions and I move approval of item 1(c). 1 Councilman Mason: Second. Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the 1992 , Sealcoat Program; Authorize Advertisement for Bids, Project 92 -8. All voted in favor and the motion carried. I. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF COUNTY ROAD 17 AND THE 1 MITIGATION OF AN ADDITIONAL 0.005 ACRES OF WETLAND ALONG LAKE DRIVE. CITY OF CHANHASSEN. Councilwoman Dimler: Item (i) is a wetland alteration permit for the reconstriction of County Road 17 and the mitigation of an additional 0.005 acres of wetland along Lake Drive requested by the City of Chanhassen. I have a problem with that because if you look in the Minutes of our April 27th meeting, that whole project was defeated on a vote of 3 to 2. And therefore there's no need for this alteration permit as far as I can see. 1 Mayor Chmiel: That is very true. At least was the position unless you have something different than that. Councilwoman Dimler: Isn't that the same project we're talking about? So if II that project was not approved, that we wouldn't need a wetland alteration permit. ' Mayor Chmiel: MnDot was putting in that certain segment from TH 5 back on CR 17 south. 3 1 City Council Meeting - May 18, 1992 Charles Folch: Right. They will build down to about 300 feet south of TH 5. Mayor Chmiel: So this really was what we looked at before with that wetland alteration permit? ' Charles Folch: That's correct. Actually the WAP permit process and some of the other agency permits were already in the progress, or in the mill if you will ' from a time standpoint prior to the project being cancelled. Councilwoman Dimler: So there's no need for the permit anymore or what are you saying? Charles Folch: Well at this point I think the reason it's before you is just to finish through on the process. At this point. Councilwoman Dimler: Because the project doesn't exist, we no longer need it, is that correct? Charles Folch: That's correct. This is not needed unless the project was to move forward. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. So then with that I would move denial of the wetland alteration permit for item (i) by the City of Chanhassen. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Denied or tabled? Councilwoman Dimler: Well we don't need it so we deny the application right? _1 Charles Folch: Yeah, unless the project would come forth again. That would be { the only reason or need to have this permit. 11 Roger Knutson: I was just going to suggest that if someone looking back later trying to figure out what happened this evening and this became a controverial issue in the future if it came up again, a denial might be taken as you thought ' something was wrong with the permit application. I'm not suggesting that you do or don't. Maybe since the City of Chanhassen is the applicant, you can do what other applicants have done in the past and withdraw your application. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. That would have to be done by staff. Roger Knutson: No. Move it here. Mayor Chmiel: No, you'd have to move to withdraw the application. Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. ' Don Ashworth: From that meeting where the project was denied, I got the impression that Councilmembers wanted to see some additional research as to why the project should occur. Charles and I have met with the County Engineer. I ' think there's some very good reasons why the Council should consider that project. Roger Gustafson was in the process of drafting a report back to me to 4 City Council Meeting - May 18, 1992 submit to the Council. Rather than withdrawing, it may require then a new application process. I would recommend that it simply be tabled. 1 Councilwoman Dimler: Well, I have a problem with that because reconsideration has to come from a 4/5 vote of the Council and we have not had that vote come forward so there should be even no looking into the project as far as I'm concerned. Mayor Chmiel: One member of the Council can bring it back up for discussion though. Councilwoman Dimler: Right, but that has not been done. 1 Mayor Chmiel: No. Not as yet. Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah. So we would have to do that and we would have to have a 4/5 vote to go ahead. Mayor Chmiel: That's correct. ' Councilwoman Dimler: So at this point this application is totally out of line. And so I would submit that we withdraw it. Councilman Mason: I guess before I would, although I'm inclined to agree with you, I guess I'd like to see what this Roger Gustafson and those people came up with too. ' Councilwoman Dimler: But we would have to do that at another Council meeting and bring it up for reconsideration. ' Councilman Mason: True. True, but I think if we withdraw this now, that sends a different message than tabling it. I mean we can table it and withdraw it later after we get some additional information. Mayor Chmiel: That was my thought behind it. Only because if it did come back and there were things that were there that's going to still be a benefit to the City, I thought it should be done as such and to table I think would probably be better as well. Councilwoman Dimler: You want to table it? , Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. I would like to do that. Councilman Mason: Let's see what they have to say and then. Councilwoman Dimler: That would be like reconsidering before we reconsidered though. Mayor Chmiel: No. ' Paul Krauss: If I could. There's some time and expense involved in bringing this things up before you. It had to be designed and taken to the Planning Commission and Council. There's no obligation. I mean even if you approved 1 5 1 City Council Meeting - May 18, 1992 this tonight, there's absolutely no obligation to proceed with the project at II all. It simply eliminates the need to go back through this process, if in the future you decide. Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I didn't understand why it came forward right now 1 if the project was denied. Paul Krauss: As Charles indicated, we started this 2 months ago so we try to I bring everything up to you at the same time. But again, I mean even if you were to approve this, you still haven't ordered the project in. There's nothing that says you would or you wouldn't. That's completely in your hands. It simply eliminates the need to go back through and resubmit and do a new plan and II whatever else in the future. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. I move to table item (i). II Councilman Mason: I'll second that. Councilwoman Disler moved, Councilman Mason seconded to table the Wetland Alteration Permit for the reconstruction of County Road 17 and the mitigation of an additional 0.005 acres of wetland along Lake Drive, City of Chanhassen. All voted in favor and the motion carried. L. APPROVE PARK AND RECREATION NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND OPINION SURVEY- !' Councilwoman Dimler: Item (1) is next. (1) was the approval of the Park and Recreation Needs Assessment and Opinion Survey, which I have no problem with except Iwas wondering if we wouldn't, the way some of the questions were stated, I had a little bit of a question, especially under question 3 in regards I to a trail system. It gives you only two options basically that are worded for you and then you can write in anything else you want. But I know one of the big things that we've been contending with is that if you just say I am not in favor :1 of a recreational trail system in Chanhassen, it doesn't really give you the option of saying I'm in favor of a system that includes connecting all major streets. You know we've talked about that often. And you're saying that either ' I'm in favor or I'm not in favor and I'm afraid you're going to miss that middle ground if you don't put something in there stating that. Mayor Chmiel: Right. No, I agree. I also had that to be pulled but. I Randy Erickson: What would you like to add? II Mayor Chmiel: Would you just please state your name for the record. Randy Erickson: I'm Randy Erickson, a member of the Park and Rec Commission. II Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Councilwoman Dimler: Hi Randy. I Randy Erickson: Hi. 1 ' 6 City Council Meeting - May 18, 1992 ' Councilwoman Dimler: My point is that if, you're only giving us two options. One is saying I am in favor and the other one is I'm not in favor. Okay? I'm saying that a lot of people might be in favor. They may not be in favor of a total system that includes going into the neighborhoods and putting sidewalks and trails and all that but they might be in favor of trails along major connecting streets such as Kerber Blvd., TH 101, Minnewashta and wherever else. But by only giving them an option of I'm in favor and I'm not in favor, it doesn't really leave. Do you understand? You're not getting an accurate survey. Because if I were to mark this and it only had these two options, I would probably say I'm not in favor of a total system that goes into sidewalks in neighborhoods and all that. Requiring all that. But I would be in favor of connecting the major connector streets. You know because people use the one on Kerber. I see them walking all over on the ones that we do have and I think we should maybe go for some more on those major streets but not, the problem was that people didn't want their sidewalks mandated in neighborhoods and stuff like that. Mayor Chmiel: Neighborhoods with low traffic, basically I think is what Ursula is saying right? Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. Mayor Chmiel: Your major arterial roads are the areas that trails should be and I think we discussed this many years ago. Such as areas of TH 101. Some of the County Roads. ' Councilwoman Dimler: Kerber. Mayor Chmiel: Which Kerber also had gotten. County Road 17. Areas as such. , Councilwoman Dimler: Audubon. Mayor Chmiel: Right. That was something that we had looked at before. Rather than going through neighborhoods and putting sidewalks through, those front yards that it's just not going to go because people just don't want those within a residential area. The other thing too which I also agree. Being that we have a, mine is a little bit askew on mine so I can't really tell some of this but it doesn't appear that there's any cost involvement. What the cost would be for these and where the dollars would basically come from. I think people should be aware of that also as to what's going to be there. Because that way they get a better feel because of the additional taxes. Whether they're going to incur or not incur and how you plan on doing this and what would be accomplished then. ' Randy Erickson: Okay. Councilwoman Dimler: And then I had one more and I know it seems trivial but 1 it's under question 5. What is your age? I'm not sure it's legal to ask that and I was going to suggest that we put in an age range instead of direct age. Like from 18 to 25, 26 to 40, 41 to 60 or 60 and above. I might be more inclined to answer it that way. Don't you agree Mike? Councilman Mason: Next month I probably will. 7 1 1 City Council Meeting - May 18, 1992 Randy Erickson: Okay, well I can talk to the Commission about making those changes in the questions. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, thanks. With those changes I recommend approval of I item (1). Councilman Mason: So moved. ' Councilwoman Dialer moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the Park and Recreation Needs Assessment and Opinion Survey as amended. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 0. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES DATED APRIL 27. 1992. Councilwoman Dimler: Those are the Minutes from the Council meeting from April 27th. On page 23 I believe. That goes back to the referring of that project on County Road 17. I think that the motion needs to be corrected there. It says the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1 and I think it should be corrected to 3 to 2 because Councilman Wing abstained and abstenance counts as a no vote. Am I correct? Mayor Chmiel: No. Abstention means a yes vote. He didn't abstain basically. Or did he pass that vote accordingly? Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. He said I abstain which counts as a no vote. ' Mayor Chmiel: That's a yes. Roger Knutson: Silence are. Councilwoman Dimler: No, no. Silence is a yes vote. Abstention is a no vote ' if you check in our records. So it should be 3 to 2. Mayor Chmiel: That's correct. ' Councilwoman Dimler: So could you have that correction made please? Thank you. Thank you very much for your time. ' Mayor Chmiel: Can we get a motion for it? Councilwoman Dimler: With that correction I move the approval of the Minutes ' and all the Minutes in item (o). Councilman Mason: So moved. ' Councilwoman Dialer moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the following: City Council Minutes dated April 27, 1992 as amended on page 23 by Councilwoman Dialer, Planning Commission Minutes dated May 5, 1992 as presented, and Public ' Safety Commission Minutes dated April 16, 1992 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 1 8 1 City Council Meeting - May 18, 1992 1 G. INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR GRADING/EXCAVATION LOCATED AT LOT 5, VINELAND ADDITION, FORTIER AND ASSOCIATES. H. INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR GRADING/EXCAVATION LOCATED AT LOT 7, PARK ONE 3RD ADDITION, FORTIER AND ASSOCIATES. ' Councilman Mason: I can do (g) and (h) at the same time I think. About the interim use permit. The concern in the report and I agree with it, is the amount of traffic during rush hours. I'm wondering if Council wants to limit when they can do their excavating because they will be going down West 78th Street to TH 5 and we already know what it's like at West 78th and TH 5. Mayor Chmiel: It's going to be open soon. Councilman Mason: Is it? Well maybe it's a moot point then. , Mayor Chmiel: Well hopefully, they have much of the blacktop in. The only thing they don't is that center median portion. I drove there just by chance 11 yesterday to look at it. It's just about there. Paul? Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, in both report there's a condition there that gives the City Engineer the option to shut them down if any problems occur. Now if you are concerned enough about that to sort of pre - emptively just determine that they can't do that, that's fine but otherwise, we have some means of going back in and modifying it. ' Councilman Mason: Well in view of, if TH 5's opening up pretty soon, maybe check back on it. Alright, that's fine. I'll move approval of item 1(g) and 1(h) then. Councilwoman Dimler: Second. Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Disler seconded to approve Interim Use Permit for Grading/Excavation located at Lot 5, Vineland Addition, Fortier and Associates. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 1 Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Disler seconded to approve Interim Use Permit for Grading/Excavation located at Lot 7, Park One 3rd Addition, Fortier and Associates. All voted in favor and the motion carried. VISITOR PRESENTATION: FINAL PRESENTATION OF COMPOST DEMONSTRATION SITE, ERIC PODEVALS. Eric Podevals: I'm Eric Podevals and this was my Eagle project. I'm pleased to say my Eagle project, Compost Demonstration Site is completed. It took 25 people 125 hours to prepare, plan and carry out the project. I'd like to thank the City Council, Charlie from Park Maintenance and Jo Ann Olson, the Senior Planner and Lotus Lawn and Garden for donating all the plants and trees out II there. This Saturday, May 23rd I'm going to have an opening ceremony at 11:00 a.m. and anyone is invited. We're going to have a short ribbon cutting which should only last 15 to 20 minutes so anyone's invited and. I just wanted to thank you guys and it's completed. 9 11 City Council Meeting - May 18, 1992 Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you. Job well done Eric. I took a look at it as you II and I had discussion on the phone. It really looks neat. Really looks good. Professionally done. Proud of it. Thanks. CONCEPT PLAN AND REZONING FOR A CONFERENCE /SPA CENTER ON 19+ ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED A2, LOCATED AT 1350 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE (FORMER ASSUMPTION SEMINARY PROPERTY), LELAND GOHLIKE. II Sharmin Al -Jaff: The applicant is requesting a planned unit development concept plan approval to rennovate the former Assumption Seminary. Proposed uses of the site include historically consistent rennovation of the main building as a II business retreat and conference center, a wedding reception/banquet hall and small spa hotel for weekend getaway. Staff has been working with the applicant on this site approximately 2 years ago. It is proposed that the project be developed in phases over a period of 2 years. All buildings, exterior walls, and houses as well as the surrounding grounds will be cleaned out in the first phase. The applicant is hoping to start operation of the meeting space and banquet facilities in the front wing by October of 1992. The most sensitive II environmental areas are located along Assumption Creek. A designated trout stream and the northwest portion of this site occupied by a calcarious fen. We believe that the concept plan is sensitive to protecting these areas. Major I issues of concern is the on site sewage treatment system. The existing sewage treatment system was built in late 1968. The capacity of the existing system remains unknown. At first we'll need to be coordinated with other involved ' agencies to insure that the design is acceptable. Staff believes that the utilization of the PUD ordinance to develop this property is an ideal use for this type of project. Keeping in mind that what we have before us is a concept submittal, we believe that most of the development issues have been dealt with I on at least a preliminary basis and can be refined further when formal application requests are made. Staff finds the request to be reasonable. We believe that it will result in a high quality development that is consistefit I with the comprehensive plan, ordinance standards and the goal of creating a project that is sensitive to it's surrounding. Staff is recommending approval of the planned unit development concept review with conditions outlined in the ' report. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Sharmin. Is the applicant here? Is there anything that you'd like to say in reference to staff's information that's just been II provided to us? And if there's something more you'd like for us to see. Jennifer Luhrs: Sure. My name is Jennifer Luhrs and this is Lee Gohlike, the I owner of the property. I do have a short slide presentation if you'd like to see that and it gives you some background on the type of rennovations we've been working on in the past couple of years. And would help you to visualize what we intend to do at the Assumption Seminary site. I'd like to keep this fairly II informal. I'll just go through the slides and sort of comment on them. I'm sure you're all familiar with the project as it looks today... II (There was a tape change at this point in the presentation.) Jennifer Luhrs: ...medicinal healing qualities to the sulphur water and sulphur ' mud. And he proceeded to build the sanitarium and they started treating people. I should point out that in our restoration we will not be making any medicinal i 10 City Council Meeting - May 18, 1992 ' claims for our sulphur water and mud. This is a little bit later photo showing the benefits of landscaping. And here's an aerial view of the project. This is a postcard. Colorized postcard a little bit later. The mudcura treatments consist of hot sulphur mud baths, hot and cold shower baths, hot and cold sulphur water baths, massage and electric treatments. And they were recommended for all kinds of rheumatism, gout, neuralgia, kidney, bladder and nervous diseases. Councilwoman Dimler: But it's not in Shakopee. Councilman Mason: With those electric treatments, it's just as well. 1 Jennifer Luhrs: These are people who have been wrapped in mud. We've been very lucky. Joe and Mike Huber who actually, they live in St. Paul now but they're from this area, have had a fascination with the mudcura project for years and they collected all of these postcards and photos and have been sharing them with us. In fact, if anybody has any other history on the property, we're very interested in it because we're trying to restore the property as close to the original as possible. Councilwoman Dimier: My father -in -law worked there. You might want to talk to him. Jennifer Luhrs: Yes, we would like to talk to people who worked there. And just to show that it really is mud underneath there. Now we will be doing mud treatments. We have sort of a three part approach to this, developing this project so that it is financially viable. We will be opening a health spa on the premises. We will be doing mud baths, mineral baths, aroma therapy. Some of the more modern spa treatments but we will be putting the emphasis more on health and wellness and rejuvenation and not on any kind of healing. But mud treatments are very popular right now. Mud is making a big comeback. Believe it or not, I have to confess, I had to see what a mud wrap was like and I thought well, it will mainly be relaxing if nothing else. And they heat the mud. It's not cold mud. But really what you do is you sweat profusely and that of course draws toxins out of your body. It was more than just relaxing. It had a profound affect so this was in Europe and we were fortunate that we have a spa director with some experience with European spas and so we're pretty confident that it will be offering the highest quality mud treatments possible. This is the only interior shot that we have really of the rest of the building, • and that was the dining area when you come in the front door. This is fairly sparse decorating theme. We probably will not be that sparse. I think they were trying to look more like a hospital. And these are, this is called the pagoda. These are two little structures over the springs out in the fen. One of the springs has sulphur water and if you go out there you can smell the sulphur. And the other one we think was the spring with iron water. That's ' where people went to either drink the water. We're not sure if they actually sat in the sulphur water at the spring on the left but this is something that we want to reconstruct exactly as it is here. Because it is in the fen and the DNR is very concerned about the fen, as we are, we're going to keep the traffic mainly directed towards these two structures and restore the pathways out to those structures. Now this was the original dormitory for the nurses and we hope to be able to reconstruct this building too later on. And this is the dam. Actually it supplied some electrical power. Had a small hydro- electric 11 11 City Council Meeting - May 18, 1992 generator in it. And the bridge over it, right now the bridge is out•and it's sort of a mess down there. This is how it looks. That's where the bridge used to be. This is one of the projects we've started on until we get approval. We've mainly been cleaning up that part of the creek and we were just down there ' this weekend and pulled out a few carburetors and mufflers and a car door and a few other things in the creek and we're just trying to get it cleaned up so it's not such a mess. Also before the clean -up. And this is the inside. We've also been cleaning that up and basically demoing it at this time. The point of this picture, I know it's dark but there was extensive rennovation to the building and we're interested in anything that we can possibly save or salvage. We also use a lot of architectural antiques in our restorations and we took off some asphalt tile and found wood floors underneath so. We found some wood floors and we've also found some original brick that we can restore but in all of our restorations we try to go as close to the original as possible and like I say, not modernize but add architectural antiques or whatever we can to make the project look old. Out at Pine Point, which is a similar project, we used a lot of 100 year old pine and fir boards on the floors and walls to give it ' character. Now this is, if you're wondering why anybody would want to deal with such a mess with what the Assumption Seminary site looks like right now, this is Pine Point. This is the basement prior to being rennovated. And it's a mess but it ended up like this. And that is the basement and as it turns out, it's one of the most popular meeting places. Pine Point is in Stillwater township. It was also a PUD working with Stillwater township and it was a building that had been abandoned for several years. Was badly vandalised just as the Assumption Seminary site is. They wanted to put it back on the tax rolls and they felt that Lee's proposal for using this property as a bed and breakfast and conference center would be compatible with the 350 acre park in which the ' property sits and it's worked out beautifully. I think everybody's happy with that project. These are some of the rooms. We try to have every room be a little different. We put antiques in wherever we can. This is a bathroom. This had been divided into a number of tiny rooms. It started originally as the ' first poor farm, or second poor farm in the State of Minnesota in 1858 and eventually became a nursing home. It was a bunch of tiny little rooms. Had to all be demo'd and the new rooms put in. We pride ourselves on our staff. We offer very, very friendly service and we'll be doing the same thing out in Chanhassen. We don't operate like a big business. We operate like a very friendly, personal, small business. We have a full time chef on staff and we're known for our excellent food. At the Chanhassen project, we will be I think even going one step further because we are a health spa. We'll have organic gardens and we will offer a lot of organically grown foods and just generally healthy foods. We weren't originally going to have a restaurant open to the ' public at all times but everybody that we've mentioned this to or talked to says, please put a restaurant in so we're going to try to have our restaurant open to the public with a limited menu but people can drop in anytime, especially if they're interested in the health food. Or whatever the special of the day is. Landscaping is going to be a very important part of the Assumption Seminary project. This is Pine Point before landscaping. This is after. Another before picture and after. And one of the reasons that the landscaping ' is important is because we do a lot of weddings and that's also part of our formula for being financially viable. On weekends we do weddings and if we have a wedding party, at the Outing Lodge at Pine Point, they're required to take the ' whole building so they're not causing a disturbance for other guests. And that actually turns out pretty well for them because most people have out of town ' 12 City Council Meeting - May 18, 1992 guests. The bride and groom stay there. There's not such a problem with drinking and driving and then in the morning they get up and open their presents. Have a wedding brunch and they end up getting much more of a family experience for all the money they're spending. More impact for the expense of the wedding. Winter weddings are also popular and I brought this photo along to 11 brag that that's Sill Moyers and his son was married at Pine Point and I think they really appreciated the privacy and being able to be there for 3 days. For the whole wedding experience. And we do a lot of Christmas parties and other special events such as anniversaries. Some fundraisers. This is Pine Point in winter and we, as I mentioned, we do co -exist beautifully with the 350 acre park we're in and we do have cross country skiing out there which is popular. The main feature of course at Chanhassen is the calcarious fen. We feel that that will be an important part of what the theme of the business. And of course the other part of our formula for being financially viable is to have business conferences during the week. We have a lot of 3M conferences, Cray Research. 11 We've had Honeywell, IBM. The nice thing about the Chanhassen site is that we're a little bit far away for some of the businesses from this side of town and this will allow us to also serve their needs for business conferences. Now this is another property that Lee owns and this one is also a very historic property. It's in Lewis, Wisconsin and it's called Seven Pines Lodge and it was built in 1903. Not only is it historically significant. Calvin Coolidge stayed there when he was President. 8ut it's also a very environmentally desireable project. It has a natural trout stream on it. That was a picture taken in 1915 and this is a picture of it today so you can see that we've really worked hard to keep it looking original and not to modernize it or stray from the original concept. Here's a picture of the interior in 1915 and here it is today. This is the gatehouse in 1915 and here it is today. And this is the spring house which is right on the trout stream in 1915 and here it is today. And we worked with the Wisconsin DNR on a big improvement project for the trout stream. We're very pleased to have the native brook trout stream in Seminary Creek on our property now. As I mentioned, the DNR was out. They indicated that they think it's the last native trout stream in the seven county metro area. It's a beautiful stream. It's very delicate. It's going to require a lot of care and we're definitely going to be very careful with it and work to make sure that it's protected. We probably won't be doing anything with the lower part of the stream but if we do make improvements up towards the dam, we'd be working with Trout Unlimited. They've been out already and they're interested in the stream too. So I guess in conclusion we try to do projects that are sensitive to the history of the building and to the environment. , Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Are there any questions? I think if and when we get this really pulling together, maybe it would behoove us to probably try to get II that as a Chanhassen address rather than Shakopee. Maybe we can make that part of the approval once we get that going. Whether we can achieve it or not, I don't know. II Jennifer Luhrs: It's because it's a Chaska post office. I do know when Inver Grove Heights shared a post office with South St. Paul, you'd still put Inver Grove Heights on the address and it would still get there. So maybe we should check into that. Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions? I guess I have just one more. In doing the total buildings that are there and what's contemplated with what you're planning 13 , City Council Meeting - May 18, 1992 on doing. What is the timeframe that you feel might be in order to pull this all together? Jennifer Luhrs: Well we indicated that we'd like to try for an October opening of the first part of the development. II Mayor Chmiel: Phase it in, I guess I heard that part. I Jennifer Luhrs: Yeah. And that's a really aggressive deadline but if we don't set these kinds of deadlines you know, it drags on forever. We'd like to develop the front part of the building and start doing business meetings and II weddings. Wedding receptions in those big common rooms and then add bedrooms and sleeping rooms as we begin cash flowing. Realistically, if we shoot for October and it gets to be more like Christmas, then we go into a slow period in March and April. If we're open and doing weddings next summer, that would be the most, probably the most realistic thing that we could hope for. And its to our advantage to then finish it up as soon as we possibly can because that's what produces the income to support the project. So that's probably the most ' realistic picture. Councilwoman Dimier: I was just wondering, I read in the report that you have ' plans for a golf course. Could you elaborate on that a little bit? Jennifer Luhrs: Now originally we thought the golf course would be out near the fen and having gone out with the ONR, we agree with them that's not a good idea. But we do have some cornfield area where we'd like to put in, right now we could II probably put in about 3 regular holes or we could put in a par 3 course. We hope to acquire more land to be able to put in a 9 hole executive course. A golf course is a very important draw when you're doing business conferences. Councilwoman - Dimler: So that won't be part of your phase 1 though? II Jennifer Luhrs: No. Councilwoman Dimier: Okay, thanks. II Mayor Chmiel: There was one thing I did read in the staff report. Something of concerns as to grading. Some grading plans. Can you address that? II Sharmin Ai -Jaff: None of the grading plans have been submitted yet. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I realize this is strictly a concept approval is what we're II looking at today. Sharmin Al -Jaff: But we would like to make sure that any grading that takes ' place does not affect the creek or the fen area. Mayor Chmiel: That's my concern. I Sharmin Al -Jaff: That would be taken into consideration at the time when the plans are submitted and as we review the plans. 1 14 City Council Meeting - May 18, 1992 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I was just looking at some of my notes and as you said, I'd like to keep this natural feature of the area with the fen of course and that's not too much of that around anymore. That's something we really want to try to protect. I guess I don't have any other questions. Councilman Mason: I was going to comment on the grading and drainage too. Jennifer Luhrs: We're aware of the requirements for the grading and drainage and we're working with an engineer to make sure eveyrthing drains away from the creek. It doesn't right now but we'll make those changes. Councilwoman Dimler: Was it my understanding that the only thing were ' considering tonight is the approval of the PUD and then all these other things will be. Paul Krauss: This is just a conceptual review. Mayor Chmiel: Just strictly a concept plan. Councilwoman Dimler: Oh, just a conceptual review? Okay. Not even the PUD? I like the idea. I think it's great. I think we should preserve the history there as much as possible. I'm glad to see them come forward to do that. I like the idea of a restaurant and to hold weddings. It really will beautify our southern border. It's the beginning. I'm real pleased. I'm sure we can work out the details and the things that we need to have as a city to preserve the ' environmental sensitive areas. I think we can work together. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. With that, can I have an approval as to staff recommendation? 1 Councilman Mason: I'll move approval. Councilwoman Dimler: Second. 1 Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Disler seconded that the PUD Concept Plan for the Spa /Conference Center be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Prepare a formal PUD submittal responding to issues raised in this report, white working with staff on the plan development. 1 2. Respond to issues raised by the conceptual review. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ' BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND NON- CONFORMING USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT FOR TROLLS GLEN HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. • Kate Aanenson: As you know back in February we adopted a non - conforming use, recreational beachiot use permit which requires that all beachlots within one year of the adoption of the ordinance come in compliance. So the intent is to try to determine what existed in place in 1981. What the staff has tried to do is put together a permit form showing what the applicants of the beachiot , associations feel like they had in place in 1981 and then we've also included 15 1 1 City Council Meeting - May 18, 1992 II what the Planning Commission recommended after their hearing. Staff is not II making a recommendation for the fact that there was a one day visit to the sites and all we can say is that to our best knowledge this is what we felt was in place. And since we weren't here at that time, we've gotten kind of uncomfortable making a recommendation but we're putting that in. Again a I concern came up that it's taken us most of the summer to get through all 12 beachlots and since some of them will be coming in at the end of the summer, what would be the intent as far as the city is, those that come in first coming II into compliance. So we felt it'd be appropriate to make it effective one year from the date of adoption which would be February 24, 1993. So even though they're going through the process now, they have to be in compliance by 1993. So with that, we put together the beachiot format and the first one we held was II Trolls Glen. Do you want me to go ahead and start with that one? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. II Kate Aanenson: Okay. This beachiot association has been in place since 1975. It's not complying as far as the width of the shoreline, the square footage. We II included a lot of things that they had in place that are not necessarily part of the ordinance but just that those recommendations if someone wants to complain of what they actually had in place. Such things as the picnic tables and the like, although those are not really regulated by the ordinance. Staff did not ', do inspection of this beachiot in 1981. Although there was a legal action brought against two members. Two neighbors and it was determined by deposition which we've included in the report, the number of boats that were at that II association. And those depositions say that there was 2 boats docked and two boat lifts -in place. I think the homeowners association agrees that there was 2 in place at that time but their contention is they always intended to put in 4 II and they showed Minutes from the Association meetings of their intent to always have 4. Now at the Planning Commission meeting they had pictures showing that there may have been 3 and I'm sure they'll provide the information for you tonight. In summary then, we've shown on the permit what they've requested and II the Planning Commission recommended on a 4 to 3 vote that they continue to have the 64 foot dock, 1 canoe rack and 2 boats at the dock and they can continue to use their swimming beach. So we've outlined for you the four areas that you •, need to give action on. That being the dock, the canoe rack, number of boats and the continuing of the swimming beach. Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Kate. Any discussion with regard to exactly what Kate had II said? Councilwoman Dimler: Is the only thing that we're contesting now is the boats? II Kate Aanenson: Well those 4 items that we've outlined on the permit. i Councilwoman Dimler: But the others are, nobody's contesting any of the others? It's only the boat that's being contested? The boats. Kate Aanenson: As far as disagreement as to what, yeah. II Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah. Okay. II II 16 - II City Council Meeting - May 18, 1992 , Mayor Chmiel: Do you have anything more Kate? Okay. I think I've probably done more reading on one beachiot than I probably have done for more things than we've done within the city. We also received, hopefully everyone received the memorandum that was pulled together by Mr. Merz and Mr. Johnson's attorney. Councilwoman Dimler: I didn't get that. Mayor Chmiel: Did you receive one of those? 1 Councilwoman Dimler: No, I didn't. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, it shows that all of this was being sent to each , individual. Councilman Mason: I don't. ' Mayor Chmiel: Didn't you get one either? Maybe you'd like to take a look at mine but it shows that each of these have been sent. You can take a look see at that. I'll wait until you review that just a tad. Basically what it covers is the depositions by the people. Some of the depositions that are in there. There are some things that are not finalized with statements regarding some of the things such as page 12 or 13 in there. I had some concerns with that. It does show basically what you have in your packet or contained in your packet. I think everything that is there is in, and information that we have pulled together totally by our staff. What they're looking for in opposition of course is saying that 2 boats should be remaining. The Association is requesting 4 boats be docked on site. Some of the information that I have read and some of the Minutes, it also shows that there's some discussion of boats. 4 boats as well and depositions sort of take a little different twist to it. As you may or may not be aware, the Judge who did review this decided it wasn't in the Court's jurisdiction. It was in the City's jurisdiction to determine those respected needs. Isn't that correct Roger? , Roger Knutson: Simply, yes. Mayor Chmiel: So with that. ' Councilwoman Dimler: The gist of the report is that they send it back to City Council to make the decision? ' Mayor Chmiel: No. That is prepared by Mr. Merz' and Mr. Johnson's attorney with all the information that we basically have here plus some other things that II they had you look at. Or to re- review. Our determination right now is to determine how many we can have as well as the dock, the canoe rack, number of boats and what was the fourth item? Kate Aanenson: Swimming beach. Mayor Chmiel: Swimming beach, right. Does everyone understand where all this is coming from? Councilwoman Dimler: Sort of. I'm not real clear but anyway. 17 , City Council Meeting - May 18, 1992 Mayor Chmiel: What clear do you need? i Councilwoman Dimler: I remember that, and I didn't see the Minutes attached from our last meeting when we brought this on and I think I would have liked to II see them. I remember something about the Minutes of the Homeowners Association pre - dating our ordinance. Is that correct? Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Some of that's in here. II Councilwoman Dimler: And those Minutes stated 4 boats and it pre -dated our , ordinance so I'm saying my feeling is still the same. If it pre -dated our ordinance, then it was 4 whether they had 4 out there physically or not. I'd be inclined to go along with the 4 boats and all the other things that they are asking for. One dock, 64 feet. Swimming beach and what was the other one? II Mayor Chmiel: Canoe rack. Councilwoman Dimler: Canoe rack, okay. I haven't changed my feeling on that 1 since our last meeting. Mayor Chmiel: Michael. 11 Councilman Mason: In the scope of what's going on in the world right now, I guess I do question a little bit spending this amount of time on this issue. It's real hard to know on that one date whether there were 2 boats out in the II water or not. Or if there was one boat out in the water. Whether there were no boats out in the water. The fact remains there have been 4 boats there for quite some time I believe. Does anyone know how long? Do we have that ' information? Do you know off hand? Kate Aanenson: They have documentation as far as the 1986 survey which we included. And they provided documentation too. In the 1986 survey they said II they had 4 speed boats. The staff did. Mayor Chmiel: Tom, we're on Trolls Glen. II Councilman Workman: Shoot. I Councilwoman Dimler: Did you get this report? Councilman Workman: Yes I did. 1 Councilman Mason: In terms of what's my personal preference would be 2 boats. I think what's best for the city. There have been 4 boats there for 6 or 7 years and I'm a little hard pressed to say that we need to take those 2 back, I although before I make a, I want to hear what everyone on Council has to say. I know we've gone through the argument before about well, it's wrong and there was that ordinance with the Minutes prior to that saying there could be 4. I think ' that does change it. So I think I'll let Councilman Workman catch his breath. Councilman Workman: I guess I don't have a whole lot to say. It's the discussion of whether it comes down to 2 boats or 4 and we had looked at this II one earlier on. I guess I fell on the side of the 4 for a lot of the same 1 18 City Council Meeting - May 18, 1992 II reasons. I didn't hear a lot of the other reasons you guys had. To me it doesn't appear to be so overly used that it is a problem. In a general sense, II it does come down to a property right that may have been built into some of the other properties that, if they have those rights, it means their properties more valuable. If they don't, and so it's not just a lake useage as much as it is what is perceived by the property owner as something that he has that maybe II somebody else in the neighborhood doesn't. Which makes it difficult. Which is an added dimension to all of it. It's not just, I like to go fishing and so I keep my boat there. It's an issue of, if I move and sell my home someday, it II makes a difference at that point. And so that's why looking through all the details and trying to weigh it all out, I ended up on that side. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I guess some of the same reasons that you have just II finished saying is what I went through in reviewing this and came up with pretty much some of the same determinations. Although I did come up with a couple things that I did want to find out. When that was platted, was that outlot be part of that plat as well? And there are how many homeowners within that association presently? Kate Aanenson: 12. II Mayor Chmiel: Total of 12. 5 of those existing and with the others on the out portion. Okay. 4 for 12 to me is not that bad either, and I know there's some safety concerns that some of the things that were brought up by Mr. Merz and Mr. Johnson too. We can't police that but I'm sure the homeowners themselves can police that portion of it within that area. I feel that if everyone in that II specific residential development watches what happens and whether it be you or your grandkids or your nieces or nephews or sons or whoever, they have to be cautioned to the safety of that. Because I think that was some of the concerns II that were there by the other homeowners and I think we have to look at that. You're the people that have to do the policing of it. We can't as I said. But other than that I think I have sort of leaned to that 4 boats on there. II I realize too the least amount of boats that we put on that lake environmentally it's the best for the lake as well...association bringing that up in 1981. My tendency is to lean that way right now. Michael. II Councilman Mason: Can we do anything about the safety issue? If safety becomes a concern, can we pull this back if we approve 4 boats tonight? Mayor Chmiel: I think that's part of the Sheriff's responsibilities rather than II ours when they do police those particular areas. The water patrol. And I don't think that we as a city have that kind of jurisdiction. Can you make that II correction Roger? Roger Knutson: Unlike a conditional use permit where if someone violates the conditions you impose on it or a variance or what have you, they don't follow II the conditions you can revoke the permit. In this case you can't because all you're doing, in this process is inventorying what you think they have the right to or had in place on that date in 1982. So all you're saying is here's our II grandfather rights. Here's our rights to continue to use the property because that's what they've got. That's how they're using it in 1982, unless they come into conformity with your current ordinance, which in this case would be II impossible. So you couldn't revoke it. 19 1 II II City Council Meeting - May 18, 1992 I Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you Roger. Councilwoman Dimler: One other question and that's pertaining to all of the beachlots that Kate brought up and that was to set the date at February 24, 1 1993. Does that need approval by Council or was that different than it was? Kate Aanenson: Your ordinance only adopted it. It said you have to come into I compliance or cease within one date of the adoption and we adopted it on February 24th so that's where that. Councilwoman Dimler: Oh, so that doesn't need further approval? Okay. Councilman Workman: I don't know how much I didn't catch. Maybe I can...Roger, I was kind of through this whole process back earlier a few months, I was kind II of shocked at how the Council kind of had to become the Judge and jury in all this. There's been people that have put a lot of time, effort and money into protecting what they thought was theirs. How did that happen? How did we get I into the business of, I mean the courts kind of said, tell that Council to figure it out. Roger Knutson: Mayor, if I could respond? Mayor Chmiel: Yes, go ahead. I Roger Knutson: A lawsuit was brought by someone against the Association or it's members saying that they were in violation of the city's zoning ordinance because they had too many boats out there. The court found, as it really should have, that private citizens can't enforce the city's zoning ordinance. Only the city can enforce their zoning ordinance so it dismissed the case saying that if there's a violation, the city is the person that has to enforce it's ordinances and prosecute violations. II Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? 11 < , Councilwoman Dimler: It's all been said. Mayor Chmiel: If hearing none, I would then call a question and ask for a ' motion. Councilman Workman: Can the motion be as simple as 4 boats versus 2? II Councilwoman Dimler: Well there's 3 other things we have to approve, right? Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. We also have the dock, the canoe rack and the swimming area besides 4 boats. Tom Merz: Can we ask a question? II Mayor Chmiel: Sure. Would you like to come up to the microphone and please state your name and your address please. I Tom Merz: My name is Tom Merz. I lived on this lake and been part of this thing for 30 years. I served the first, or probably 10 years on that Carver ' 20 1 City Council Meeting - May 18, 1992 , County Parks in preserving Lake Minnewashta and I was on the Planning Commission for 6 to 7 years. Or 4 to 5 years. What bothers me is I sit here tonight and I think this is the third or fourth meeting that we've come to and this Planning Commission and your other members have been, we're so exactly opposite. They had voted in favor of number one, to maintain this 1982 baseline for purposes of, we spent so much time screwing around, for lack of a better word, trying to figure out whether they should have 2 or 4 boats but you've got to remember that this is a precedent case and if you allow this, it isn't 2 or 4 boats. It's a 50% or 100% increase over the useage that they presently have. And now you're going to start fooling around with Carver County Parks. These people have got 50 -60 boats and you want to increase this useage 50% or 100%. You're starting something that you can't stop and that's the purpose of this thing. We said we finally had a guideline or a baseline so that all of us would agree to and now the first thing we're going, we're throwing that out the window and I think that's what I object to. Other than that, it just seems how can we be so diametrically opposed between our Planning Commission that does this work and now we go to the City Council and we have a completely opposite opinion. Thank you. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Tom, there was one additional thing that some of the people on the Planning Commission did mention. That maybe they should have 3 boats. So they didn't take that full stance with that. With the 1982 baseline. 1 Tom Merz: And it isn't, it isn't Trolls Glen. I mean Trolls Glen. Mayor Chmiel: No, I understand what you're saying. 1 Tom Merz: Because to me it's something that we're all involved in. The next one is going to be the Minnewashta Heights and they've got 10 boats and they're coming back for 20 boats and I mean my God, we're going to see this increase and we haven't set a precedent. We haven't established any rules that we want to live by and I thought that was the purpose of our 1982 baseline. And these people have gone back of the burden of the proof and maybe it's exorbinant but it is burden of proof. There were 2 boats there in 1982 and while yeah, but because we had an ordinance. Yeah, but well. On the Planning Commission we must have listened to every other week there was a new group of people would come in here and say, well yeah but we've got some plans in the future. Well, let's stick with something we agree to and that was 1982 was the baseline. Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I'd like to comment on that too and that it was the Planning Commission was not in unanimous agreement. I believe the vote was 4 -3. Also, I remember and that's why I would have liked to have had the Minutes II from our last meeting. We did specifically state at that time that we would look at each individual case and Trolls Glen was definitely one that I had said that we need to look at very carefully because the Minutes did pre -date the ordinance and to me that weighs very, very heavily. And I do not want, I don't think this is a precent setting case because we will look at the other cases very, very specifically and if they don't have some very, very good reason for doubling, I certainly won't approve it. Because I do agree that we need to protect our lakes and we need to have safety and for all those good reasons but in this particular case, because the Minutes do pre -date the ordinance, I think they have a very good case for the 4. ' 21 1 1 11 City Council Meeting - May 18, 1992 Tom Merz: Yeah but there's housing developments out there that have ordinances I that they haven't developed their pieces of property. I mean they could have pre -dated Minutes that they could come in and say that same argument. Then you'd arbitrarily let them? 11 Councilwoman Dimier: No, because we now have an ordinance in place that would cover it all. II Tom Merz: Excuse me. I'm arguing something that, you listen to me, I'll listen to you. 1 Councilwoman Dimier: It's just that we have been given the ungodly task of determining what was out there and I can only base it on what the information that has been given me. II Tom Merz: Yeah but we did determine what was out there. Councilwoman Dimler: Well but like they said though, you can't prove that. II Tom Merz: We did determine in 1982. There's pictures and you have depositions what was out there in 1982. II Councilwoman Dimier: Yeah but you can't prove that that was, that there weren't Q boats gone when the picture was taken. II Tom Merz: Yeah, but that was the rules. We said 1982 is the baseline. That was the rules when we left these last 3 or 4 meetings. 1982 is the baseline. We all agreed to it. Now the first one that comes in, we're talking. II Councilwoman Dimier: That's right but you can't prove that there weren't 2 boats gone in 1982 when that picture was taken. II Tom Merz: I'think if you read that deposition, that very definitely, and they took depositions of Mr. Bernie Schneider and Ivan Underdahl. I mean these are II very substantial people. And their deposition says there was only 2 boats. Correct me if I'm wrong. Councilwoman Dimier: Our interpretations are different. II Mayor Chmiel: Rather than have the rheteroic going back and forth. ' Councilwoman Dimier: Yeah, it's just difference of interpretation and that's what we're saying. Mayor Chmiel: We're not going to argue points now. And I don't want those II feelings going amongst neighbors to neighbor. That's not my intent. Tom Merz: That isn't my purpose either. I guess these people are very I substantial people. My children have gone through the grade school and my first checking account was through Bernie Schneider so believe me, I have no anomosity. Hopefully I'm good friends. I certainly, maybe I know him. Good I friends or not. Excuse me. That's the reasons. I'm sorry I stepped up. Anything else I can, I just thought I had to point that out. 22 1 City Council Meeting - May 18, 1992 Councilwoman Dimier: Because I want you to know this won't be precedent setting for me. I mean I won't give everybody else a 50% increase just because we did it here. Tom Merz: Okay. I would hope that our efforts would go towards fighting milfoil instead of boats or something on our lake. Thank you. Councilwoman Dimier: So with that I move approval. 1 Councilman Mason: I just want to make a quick comment on what Councilwoman Dimier said about precedent setting. We talk about that with variances a lot and I think we do take each one as it comes along. Obviously we're in a can't win situation up here. I mean make no mistake. Whatever we decide to do, there are going to be unhappy people. That's one reason we're up here and you're out there I guess. But I do think in this particular instance, there are some circumstances that I honestly don't know whether there were 2 or 4 boats there and I'm not denying the thing in the deposition. I'm not denying the thing that I got from Trolls Glen and I do think regardless, well I know regardless of how I vote on this one, I share Ursula's concerns that this by no means is precedent setting. I think each one does really have to look at very carefully. And I think you know this. You're certainly not the only one that shares a concern about the quality of the lakes around here. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Tom, anything more? Okay, with that then I'll call that question one more time and ask for a motion. ' Councilwoman Dimier: I'd make the motion if I knew what it should be. I guess it's to say Trolls Glen gets one dock, is it 64 feet in length? Correct me if I'm wrong. One canoe rack. A swimming area. Swimming beach and 4 boats. 1 Mayor Chmiel: 4 power boats. Councilwoman Dimier: Power boats. Mayor Chmiel: Somehow I would like for is to really emphasize that 4 power boats will only be allowed at that location. If you would accept that as a friendly amendment. Councilwoman Dimier: You mean it can never be amended? Is that what you're ' saying? They can never come in and ask for more? Roger Knutson: Not unless you amend your ordinance. Again what you're doing, in this case you're not giving a conditional use permit where you can amend it and add and subtract from it. You're basically performing an inventory function to determine what rights they had when this ordinance went into effect in 1982. By your motion you're finding that in 1982 they had the right to have 4 boats there. Mayor Chmiel: And not to exceed. , Roger Knutson: Not to exceed 4 boats. You can't amend this because you'd be amending history. All you're really doing is. 23 1 11 City Council Meeting - May 18, 1992 ' Councilwoman Dimler: Did I state it correctly or how should I state it Roger? Roger Knutson: Just perfect. II Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, thank you. Mayor Chmiel: There's a motion on the floor. Is there a second? II Councilman Workman: Second. Councilwoman Dialer moved, Councilman Workman seconded that Trolls Glen Non- ' Conforming Reacreational Beachlot be allowed the use of one dock, 64 feet in length, one canoe rack, a swimming beach and 4 power boats. All voted in favor and the motion carried. II RECEIVE FEASIBILITY STUDY UPDATE FOR STREET AN UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS TO TETON LANE (LILAC LANE TO ASHTON COURT) AND LILAC LANE ( TETON LANE TO COUNTY ROAD 17); ' CALL PUBLIC HEARING, PROJECT 91 -4. Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. Engelhardt and Associates has completed the feasibility study for improvements to Teton Lane. Proposed II residential development in the area has required an evaluation of needed service improvements for the local area. The specific elements on the project for improvements include street work on the portion of Teton Lane from Lilac to ' Ashton Court and Lilac Lane from Teton Lane east to County Road 17. Improvements of those road segments up to the city's current standard road section. Storm drainage, sanitary sewer and watermain is also included. Staff and the II consultant., project consultant engineer have had a number of meetings with the developer and the city of Shorewood during this study process. Shorewood will be taking this report before their Council on May 26th. As mentioned in the staff report, there are some issues surrounding the existing barricade on Teton I Lane north of Ashton Court. Staff continues to support it's removal. The total project cost is estimated at $142,610.00 which is to be financed via special assessments and general obligation. At this time staff recommends receipt of ' this report and calling of a public hearing on this project to be scheduled for June 8th. The project consultant engineer will give a formal presentation of this report at that public hearing. I Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Charles. Can we, there's some concerns regarding speed if this were to open. Is there any way that we as a city can put a speed bump in that location to slow that traffic down? If that is some of the concerns of I the existing neighbors. If and when that street once opens. And I'd also like to see us keep this contingent upon the Shorewood approval. If Shorewood doesn't approve it, then I think we should have another look at it. II Charles Folch: Yeah, we will have that information hopefully as I mentioned, they're meeting is scheduled for the 26th so we should have that information for the public hearing. We can certainly take a look at measures of speed control. I Speed bumps though, from that standpoint, are very difficult to maintain during the winter climate. They become. Mayor Chmiel: I realize that. ' 24 City Council Meeting - May 18, 1992 Charles Folch: But that's certainly something we can discuss and look at whether it be from a design standpoint or something else. We can take a look at the speed issue. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there anyone that would like to say something at this time? Donna Pickerd: I do have some questions but. ' Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to come up to the microphone please and just state your name and your address? Donna Pickerd: I'm sorry. My name is Donna Pickerd and I live at 1215 Lilac Lane and I have some questions but I don't want to kind of ask them out of context. I guess if the public hearing is where these questions should be heard. I mean I don't want to be out of line here. Mayor Chmiel: If you want to discuss some of these things and they can be discussed at this meeting or the next one as well. • Councilman Mason: It clearly will come up at the public hearing. Donna Pickerd: I'm sure they'll come up at the public hearing. I guess I had thought there was a mistake in the feasibility study. It said that James Donovan owned a strip of land along Teton Lane and as far as I know, I don't think he owns that. Who wrote the study? Nobody here wrote the study? Charles Folch: That's something we can check. Typically our consultants get that information from the County. That's something we can certainly go back and recheck but that information was gotten from the County property owner list. Paul Krauss: I probably can shed some light on that. I think the bank repossessed it from Donovan sometimes since the tax records were set up so they may not be up to date but it's my understanding that the... Donna Pickerd: So that would be a mistake. So that Nilioway would be assessed for 17 units on the assessment chart rather than the 15 that's in that chart now? • Charles Folch: Yeah, the proposed Ithilien subdivision would be assessed for each unit proposed within their plat so it ends up being 16 or 17 or 18. Whatever it is that they get approval on with their plat. That's how any units they will be charged. Donna Pickerd: And if we had questions about specific changes like to the road and stuff, that I can bring up at the public hearing? Paul Krauss: Sure. Donna Pickerd: So to understand how, what is being, what is the process now, 11 you're presenting this to the council to look at between now and June 8th and for them to study and if we have any problems with it now as a neighborhood or 25 1 II City Council Meeting - May 18, 1992 as individuals, we can either write letters or talk to them between now and then or also bring up questions then? I think that's all I had now. Don Ashworth: Well, if I may. The City Council is the one that calls for the I public hearing so we're presenting the item asking that the Council call for the hearing on June 8th. That's the reason at this meeting. ' Donna Pickerd: Yeah, okay. Thank you. Councilwoman Dimler: Do you have a copy of the feasibility study? II Donna Pickerd: Yes I do. Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else? 1 Florence Natoli: I can't keep my mouth shut. Florence Natoli, 6251 Teton Lane. Now, I've got so many things marked in highlights on here but mostly what gets ' me is on page 1, 2 and 8. There's the words benefitted properties. Good lord, we are not being benefitted in any way that I know of. I just can't see it except that someday when we're both ready to die or one of us does, we might sell the place. God forbid that either one of us does in the next 10 years. I'm I supposed to live until I'm 88 because everyone in may family did so I've got a long ways to go. But this bugs me because that little bit of wording there. Now let me find this on number 8, is going to cost us $6,571.78. That's a lot 11 of benefits which we're not going to get. And as far as the safety of that road is concerned. If it had been done like it was supposed to, and I have looked back in my, I've got all the feasibility studies and all the background. And it should have been a break away like we suggested they have over on Christmas Lake Road and it's been there for 10 -12 years that I know of and it's never been re- -, . opened. There are 4 houses that are completely cut off with the break aways on Christmas Lake Road and they haven't done a thing or nobody's hollered. They're 1 getting along just fine. It can be done. That road can be closed. When we talked to the Commission, what would that be? The day I came back from San Francisco. About the 26th of March and I was darn tired but I can't figure ' out why they had it figured out in their little minds that Ithilien is not going to use that road going and driving all the way through Centex. The only people that are going to make use of that Teton Lane are those that are mentioned here, 21 homes on Teton Lane. They're the ones that are going to have this 210 cars going down the road. So there's no reason that it still can't be left closed and use break away. That was what it was supposed to be. Centex got out of paying some money because no one kept after them to change that blockade. I say I that blockade can't be driven through. There's no way it could be but it should have been a break away. So Bill did that feasibility study too so he knows that he wrote break away in there and it should have been done and I just can't ' understand why we, the three people on that road one of which, us. The only one that use it and we're going to have to pay for this roadwork which we don't need. We don't want. Because of the fact that it is benefitted property and we're not benefitted in any way. I am in favor, if they want to build those I houses, fine. I'm not against development. This is not what I'm mad about. I am angry that they're going to disrupt our whole area for those houses and those houses do not even need to use that road and we don't need the sewer. We don't I need the water and we don't need the road. We're happy just the way it is. So I don't know. I'm going to have to come to that other meeting too. I'll be at ' 26 City Council Meeting - May 18, 1992 ' every meeting until you guys make up your mind but I have enough arguments against it and I thought that Bill would be here tonight and I would ask him what happened to his ideas before. I don't know why we and those poor people on the corner that just moved there a little over a year ago. They're going to be stuck with that same $6,500.00 and they don't use Teton either. It's getting to be kind of a nasty feeling for all of us. We're going to be against those poor people when they move into Ithilien before they ever get there. But thanks for listening because when I got this thing today, I started reading through it and marking and I thought, this is ridiculous that we should be paying for something we don't need. But if you guys can prove to me there will be a benefit to me, I'll be real happy. I don't know how it's going to be but I've already told you that several times. Thank you. Frank Natoli: The storm sewer. Florence Natoli: Oh yeah. I guess he forgot that we have a storm sewer in 11 front of our house. When they put in our sewer, they put in a storm sewer because there was one all the time when Bach had it 40 -50 years ago, it was put in there and they were going to close it and Frank talked to them before they got it done and they put in a storm sewer. So we even have the storm sewer in front of our house. Mayor Chmiel: That's existing. Charles Folch: I believe it's a culvert right now. 1 Florence Natoli: No, it's an open big thing like this with. Charles Folch: It has an inlet to it but I believe it's a culvert section that drains underneath the road there. This would be, the storm sewer we're adding is to take care of not only incorporate that but also incorporate the road drainage now that we'll have the barrier curb on it so. , Florence Natoli: So you're going to have 2 storm sewers? The one in front of our house and then you're going to have one up by Ware's too? ' Charles Folch: No. Florence Natoli: That's what the picture shows. f Charles Folch: They're not showing the. Mayor Chmiel: They don't show the one in front of Natoli's. II ` Charles Folch: It may be because it being considered a culvert type situation but we can certainly take a look at that. II • Florence Natoli: Centex put it in. Mayor Chmiel: They did? Does that drain directly into the field or into that proposed development area? 27 1 City Council Meeting - May 18, 1992 Charles Folch: It will drain into, any storm sewer system on Teton will drain into the detention pond that's being proposed on the Ithilien development there. Florence Natoli: Okay, thank you. 1 Mayor Chmiel: That'd be drawing number 4 I think is what he's referencing. Is that correct? 1 Charles Folch: Right. Frank Natoli: I'm her better half. Or she's my better half. One or the other. ' Anyway, I was talking to some people on the south side of the blockade today and they don't want it moved because they don't want all that traffic going by their house and I don't blame them. And they have little kids and they don't know how they're going to get a fence up to keep their little kids in. And one woman says she's ready to move already. She's only been there a couple years and she says we're about ready thinking, if they open it up, then we're thinking of moving out. And I don't blame those people. These cars come down that road and they're doing 40 -50 mph and if there's kids out in that road, somebody's going to get killed out there. I know that for sure. I'm just glad I haven't got any kids out there now. I have great grandkids that come out and visit me once in a ' while but we tie them up when they come out there so they can't get out. But my great grandkids used to come out there and they thought they were out in the country and they'd run all over and they'd climb trees and they'd go out in the ' road and they were very happy. And a lot of these people over in the Centex area and the south end, they're happy the way it is because they go down there with their baby buggies and wagons and the kids come down there with skateboards and walk their dogs. Of course that's one thing I object to but I'd rather see ' it that way. They let their dogs go on my lawn, I'm not going to like that either but I'll get along with the people as far as that's concerned. That's all. I just wanted to bring that up. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Frank. Michael. Anything? Councilman Mason: I have some concerns that I think I will probably end up coming up in the public hearing. Mayor Chmiel: Thomas. Councilman Workman: Yeah, me too. I feel like we're doing some other City Council's work here. You know. Don't you? Don, which Council was it? 1 Councilwoman Dimier: Former Council. Councilman Workman: former Council. They should never have connected this road ' up to this. Match these roads up together or should already be through or something. Even if the barricade doesn't go up, the Natoli's still pay for improved road, sewer and everything else, right? 1 Charles Folch: No, the properties located on the east side of Teton are not, there will not be a sewer or water assessment to those properties. Although the developer has agreed to provide stubs underneath the roadway for future service. 1 28 1 City Council Meeting - May 18, 1992 Councilman Workman: Why does the barricade cause them? Why do they get the assessments if the barricade comes down? , Charles Folch: There'd be a road and storm sewer assessment. Not sanitary sewer and watermain. , Councilman Workman: The road isn't going to get upgraded if the barricade doesn't come down? Charles Folch: Well I think it has a chicken and egg situation here. As a part of, or at least the needed improvements in the area to facilitate the development that's occurring, you need to both improve the roadway up to city standards to provide adequate road capacity and the other thing is, it's time for the barricade to come down. Looking through previous Minutes, back from those previous Council as was referred to, it's quite clear from their statements that at that time they assumed this would be a temporary situation. Although they were told that, by Mr. Donovan on the record that his property was in a 100 year trust. Would never be developed and we're sitting 3 years later, now there's a development proposal on there. But it clearly was the intent when , it was approved previously that it was probably an interim situation. Councilman Workman: I still don't understand why they get the assessment if the barricade comes down but not if it stays up. Charles Folch: No. There would be an assessment for the improvements irrelevant of the barricade. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, the barricade initially was a safety factor that they were using that. ' Councilman Workman: But still nothing really changes in their assessment. So there's two issues here. One, the big bucks regardless and two, the barricade. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Safety factors with the fire department and ambulance. Councilwoman Rimier: I guess to piggyback onto that. Could we discuss the ' feasibility of a break away and how that would impact the entire situation? Charles Folch: Sure. In fact I've talked for about a year now we've been working with a street maintenance personnel and the public safety department on this issue because we have had a couple of calls where we've had some problems. In talking to our street maintenance personnel, their thought was, even if the barricade was a filmsy drive thru barricade that you could push over with your hand, the problem is in the wintertime they have no place to turn around or no place to push the snow. So what happens is they end up. Florence Natoli: They've got an easement. They can turn in our driveway. We gave the city an easement to turn in our driveway for maintenance workers. Better look in the files. It's in there. 1 Charles Folch: It's an awfully large file. Evidentally they aren't aware of any easement either to turn around but basically they really, there's no place. It's not like a cul -de -sac where they have maneuverability to go around and push 29 ' City Council Meeting - May 18, 1992 the snow away from the barricades so what ends up happening is it gets piled up along the barricade so in the wintertime it'd be non - functional. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other questions? ' Councilwoman Oimler: So you're saying it's not very feasible. How's it working on Christmas Lake? Charles Folch: That must be the city of Shorewood. That's not ours. Mayor Chmiel: No, that's the access to Christmas Lake and they were trying to ' alleviate the problems with cars going to and from as well I guess. Okay. No other discussions. I'll call the question for the potential of public hearing that would be held on June 8th. 11 Charles Folch: That's correct. Mayor Chmiel: For the update street and utility improvements to Teton Lane. ' Councilwoman Dimier: If we don't call for a public hearing, can we stop the project? 11 Mayor Chmiel: That'd be rather difficult. I think we've got to get all the perspectus and get everything tied in. ' Councilwoman Dimier: I know. I'm just teasing. Mayor Chmiel: You were being facetious. ' Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. Resolution 192 -63: Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dialer seconded to receive the feasibility study update for street and utility improvements to II Teton Lane and to call a public hearing for June 8, 1992. All voted in favor except Councilman Workman who wasn't present in the room at the time, and the motion carried. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (FIRST READING) ' REGARDING MINIMUM LOT SIZES IN THE RURAL SERVICE AREA. Kate Aanenson: I apologize that the original Planning Commission memo didn't go with this report but just to give you some historical perspective of why this is ' before you. Originally the Met Council had required the 2.5 acre minimum lot size and when we did the Lake Ann Interceptor Agreement we asked them to look at it since we realize that they had now eliminated that. That they agreed that we ' could also eliminate that minimum standard so in December, 1991 when they adopted that. 1 per 10 still remains in place but there is no minimum. So therefore we took it to the Planning Commission and we went ahead with no minimum. The Planning Commission felt uncomfortable with that because our minimum lot size in the city is 15,000 square feet so they felt it would make sense to be consistent with that minimum lot size. So then we also looked at the ramifications of the 2.5 acre lots, subdivisions that we already have in place such as Timberwood. So what we did is, it's kind of hard to read this. ' 30 City Council Meeting - May 18, 1992 , Your copy got crosshatched but we recommended that the comprehensive land use plan be amended and that the zoning ordinance be amended in two places. The A2, Rural Estate zone and then the RR zone. And what we're recommending is that those subdivisions that are in place right now continue to have the same minimum lot size which would be 2 1/2 acres but any new subdivisions that would come in • would still have to have the 1 per 10 density but the minimum lot size would then be 15,000 square feet and the same development standards for the RSF, which is 15,000 square feet would apply. 1 Mayor Chmiel: That almost all sounds like double talk. Councilwoman Dimler: It does to me too. , Mayor Chmiel: Go ahead. I'm sorry. - Kate Aanenson: I was going to say that really we fell that it makes sense as far as urban sprawl. If the people do want to be out in the rural area and then later at a future date they want to split those lots off again, it makes sense for land use planning to have those in the fashion that they can be easily subdivided again. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. This is in accordance with the Metropolitan Council. The City adopted, December 5, 1991 right? Okay. Councilwoman Dimler: Is this favoring clustering then to make future development easier for connection to utilities? Kate Aanenson: Right. Paul Krauss: Well frankly also...it also allows somebody in the non -MUSA area to continue farming but still get a little bit of value having a few homesites on the corner... ' Mayor Chmiel: Any questions? Councilwoman Dimler: And it does prevent Timberwoods from occurring again? ' Kate Aanenson: They could go in that way. ' Paul Krauss: It doesn't prevent it from happening. It gives another option to that rural property owner so hopefully he won't do that. You can still come in with whatever sized lots you want. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, can I have a motion regarding staff recommendation? Councilman Workman: So moved. , Councilman Mason: Second. Resolution 192-64: Councilman Workman moved, Councilman. Mason seconded to approve the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance to eliminate the minimum lot size in the rural area as noted in the staff report dated March 20, 1992. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 31 1 City Council Meeting - May 18, 1992 Councilman Workman: It's kind of funny that the word Timberwood now, it's kind ' of Chanhassen speak now. It's you're acting so Timberwoodish. Somebody can be, oh you're from Timberwood. ' COUNCIL PRESENTATION: Mayor Chmiel: The only thing I just wanted to remind the Council of was that we will have a goal setting meeting on May 28th. The same day that we have HRA and ' I think Scott indicated that it was from 6:00 to 8:00. HRA starts at 7:30 so I would think that we would either be from 5:30 to 7:30 or from 6:00 to 7:30. Councilwoman Dimler: We have Southwest Metro that night and also I'm going to be out of town. Mayor Chmiel: What time? 1 Councilwoman Dimler: Southwest Metro starts at 7:00 to 9:30. Can we make it another night after the 28th? ' Mayor Chmiel: My suggestion is to talk to them and see if we can't come up with another date then if that's not going to work. Make sure that everybody else ' will be there. Councilman Mason: Fourth Thursdays are always Southwest Metro. ' Mayor Chmiel: Don, could you check that out with Scott? We have 2 that can't make it. •I can make it and I know Tom can make it. Don Ashworth: Those meet earlier? Councilman Mason: Yeah, Southwest Metro is at 7:00 and it's the fourth ' Thursday. Councilwoman Dimler: It's always the fourth, the same as the HRA. ' Don Ashworth: Okay. Ue weren't very good then in picking out the HRA night as the night to do those on. ' Councilwoman Dimler: No. Because two of us will never be able to make that. Mayor Chmiel: And I'd just as soon have all Council there for that goal. Don Ashworth: What about Wednesdays? Mayor Chmiel: The 27th? ' Councilwoman Dimler: I'm going to be out of town. ' Mayor Chmiel: How about Sunday morning the 31st? Councilwoman Dimler: That's great. That's my anniversary. I can be here. ' Don Ashworth: What about the Planning Commission in June. ' 32 City Council Meeting - May 18, 1992 ' Kate Aanenson: The 3rd and the 17th. Don Ashworth: The 3rd and the 17th of June. Mayor Chmiel: 3rd and 17th of June? 1 Councilwoman Dimler: June 3rd rings a bell. What is it? Mayor Chmiel: Planning Commission meets that evening at 7 :30. So meet that night? Don Ashworth: Yeah, start at 5:30 -6:00 and be done by 7:30 so Paul can get down there. Mayor Chmiel: How does the 3rd of June look for everybody? ' Councilwoman Dimler: Is that a Wednesday? Mayor Chmiel: That's a Wednesday. Same evening that the Planning Commission ' has. If we started that at say 5:30. Don Ashworth: I think the first one will be public safety. Or this one is , proposed for public safety. I really think we'd be done in an hour and a half. Really, from Planning Department standpoint, it really wouldn't matter if it did go past 7 :30. So I mean Scott's position of 6 :00 to 8 :00 would work just fine. ' Mayor Chmiel: Alright, let's put it down for the 3rd. Might I suggest that with the abvent of summer coming upon us, that we try to eliminate all these additional meetings because of other things. Don Ashworth: Do you want to skip July then? Kate Aanenson: Mr. Mayor, on the 18th of June didn't you commit to Joan Ahrens? I was just putting together a letter for the HRA meeting. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. That's at 5 :30. Councilman Workman: What issue is that? Mayor Chmiel: The golf course discussion. That would be prior to HRA on the 18th. Councilwoman Dimler: We don't have a meeting that night do we? Kate Aanenson: That's an HRA meeting. II Don Ashworth: That's a third Thursday. Kate Aanenson: You'll be getting that letter this week. , Mayor Chmiel: So put that down on your calendars. June 18th at 5 :30. Councilman Workman: That's specifically on the golf course? 33 ' 1 City Council Meeting - May 18, 1992 Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. The study that they've gone through and some of the ' reviews. Councilman Mason: Now we're meeting on the 3rd now right for goals? II Mayor Chmiel: The 3rd for. II Councilwoman Dimler: A joint meeting with. Mayor Chmiel: Public safety at 6:00 p.m. on goals. Item number 7. Single I family district lot sizes, Planning Director. Councilwoman Dimler- . Did you want to put Council Presentations in there first or shall we? II Mayor Chmiel: I just did it. Oh no. Wait all. Stop it Paul. Ursula did have something. II Councilwoman Dimler: I had one, yes. Mayor Chmiel: Yes you did and I had it over here. I Councilwoman Dimler: In reading through the Minutes of April 27th, I came upon the variance of Mr. how do you say his name? Whatever. You know what I mean. II The deck and then I remember that we said something about in order to prevent this in the future or to have some bite for future Councils that we should maybe come up with.an ordinance to have a stiff fine for anyone that builds anything without a permit. And I don't know who specifically. I didn't want to drop the ' ball on it basically. That's why 1 brought it up. Who has to draft that type of an ordinance or that type of a ruling? Is it an administrative procedure? Roger, can you tell us. I Roger Knutson: I guess I'm in charge of drafting ordinances. I Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. Would it take an ordinance to do that? To put a fine onto. Roger Knutson: You have a fine right now so to speak. Double permit fee right ' now. Under the Uniform Building Code. Councilwoman Dimler: I'm talking about something stiffer. II Councilman Workman: Doesn't that, even if it's stiffer, don't you kind of. Then we're giving people the option to go ahead... II Councilwoman Dimler: I understand that argument but on the other hand, they're going to continue to do it and we're going to get nothing out of it except to approve it after it's done. I don't see future Councils being too likely to II say, well take it down. Mayor Chmiel: We've done it. ' 34 City Council Meeting - May 18, 1992 , Councilman Workman: Say okay, you've got the option to keep it up. It will be 5 times... Because otherwise people are going to say, it has to be really steep because otherwise they're going to say, well let's see here. I've got an option. It only costs me an extra thousand. Heck, I make that every day. Councilwoman Dimier: You do? I don't. To me a $1,000.00 fine is pretty stiff I mean I think. Councilman Workman: But no, there's going to be a lot of people in town that ' will say, that's nothing. I'll build the deck. I'll keep it up and I'll be in violation but tough. Councilwoman Dimier: Well okay. This gentleman was in violation and absolutely nothing happened to him and we've seen others like that and I don't remember, did we make someone actually take it down. ' Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Don Ashworth: Chan Estates. 1 Councilman Workman: They just modified it. Councilwoman Dimier: They modified it and they bought extra land. I mean they got around it. Paul Krauss: No, there's two separate ones. The Febreves up in Pheasant Hills , bought extra land. The other one actually had to slice off a piece of their deck and... Councilwoman Dimier: But they didn't take the whole thing down? Paul Krauss: They sliced off the offending portions. , Councilwoman Dimier: Okay. Now in this particular one would have had to take the whole thing down because the whole thing was offensive right? Was the whole thing offensive in this particular case that he would have had to take everything down? Paul Krauss: Well, in this particular case, as I recall, where he put the deck he probably would have only got about 5 feet of it. Mayor Chmiel: Each case is separate upon review as we look at that rather than do. Roger Knutson: If I can point out one of the difficulties. Here, where you 11 have a situation where you say gee, we think this guy did it deliberately. That's how you feel but it's up and therefore we're not going to be the mean guys and make him tear it down. That's unusual. Most of the times I would think when someone comes in and doesn't get a building permit, everything is just fine. I mean oftentimes they come in. They build their deck. They build their addition. Councilwoman Dimier: Oh they don't need a variance you're saying? ' 35 1 City Council Meeting - May 18, 1992 ' Roger Knutson: No. They just build it and they didn't know or they deliberately didn't get it or whatever the situation and so the building inspector comes out. Inspects it. Stamps it. Everything's fine but so you get the double permit fee. That's the more norm so if you were to have a situation where someone was totally legal except but for a building permit, you might not feel this is appropriate to impose a super fine on those folks. Councilwoman Dimier: I see. So this is not a variance situation you're talking about here? Okay. ' Roger Knutson: No. Most of them aren't because they won't get building permits. They're just trying to save the $50.00 or whatever the permit fee is. Councilwoman Dimier: Well, that's a major concern. That's a real major- concern. But if you don't feel we need it, I guess I just didn't want to drop the ball and carry through on my part. If the rest of you want to drop the ball, that's fine. Mayor Chmiel: Drop the deck. Okay, let's move on. 1 ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT LOT SIZES. PLANNING DIRECTOR. Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, in April there was some questions raised at the City Council meeting about lot size. I was not present that night but I was asked to write a response addressing your concerns and it fit in rather well since the ' Planning Commission wanted a similar memo from me so I didn't have to write it twice. The first thing I wanted to make clear is the Planning Commission has indeed been - reviewing lot area requirements. But they have not been reviewing it in the context of the RSF district. With one or two minor exceptions with v I statements -of individuals on the Planning Commission, they've solely been looking at lot area relative to single family lots in PUD's. You may recall we adopted a new PUD ordinance last year. About a year ago right now and when we I did that, I urged the Planning Commission to move forward with it because I thought we needed it to accommodate the kinds of development that we're seeing on TH 5. Ryan Development, that kind of thing. Because the Planning Commission at that point couldn't figure out how small lots could be allowed to be in a PUD, I said let's move forward with that section of the ordinance. We'll just forget about the residential for now. We'll work that out. Unfortunately, so far we haven't been able to come up with any solutions but that's the only ' context that we've talked about lot sizes. There was really never any conscience effort to raise lot sizes beyond 15,000 square feet. Now beyond that I put together information on the 15,000 square foot lot size or lot size in general. The first thing I put in this report is, I picked a number of communities that I thought had some similarity to us either because they're in proximity to Chanhassen or they're in a similar development status. And that's on the second page and I think you can see from there that our lot size is considerably in excess of most communities standards with the exception of Shorewood and Minnetonka. Now both Shorewood and Minnetonka take, I don't want to characterize it unfairly but they have a fairly, well elitest approach to ' development. I mean the only home you can build in Minnetonka, I mean I don't think you can build one today for under $350,000.00 and the city doesn't ' 36 City Council Meeting - May 18, 1992 1 particularly care because that's just the way it is. Shorewood I'm not as familiar with but the fact of the matter is, our lot size is quite large when stacked up most of the metro area. I'd also like to point out that the density in Chanhassen, density we develop at is a lot lower in Chanhassen than virtually anyplace else in the Twin Cities. In large part I think that has to do with the field that makes this a special place to live. There's a lot of reasons for that but I note that the Metro Council assumes the average density is 2 1/2 units an acre in suburban development. Our average density is 1.7 units an acre and it's because we were protecting wetlands before anybody else was. We have a pretty hefty park dedication requirement. Our streets are nice and wide. You add all that stuff up and you're just not getting the same number of units that you could in another community. Now all the cities are supposed to adhere to the wetland protection that we've been doing for 8 years so maybe that will come down a little bit in some of those communities but still I think it's a good factor. The last thing I note is that we've got, if you view this as a regional or community wide system, we've got a tremendous amount of open space in this community that's permanently set aside and it's wonderful that it is. It's the National Wildlife Refuge. It's the Arboretum. It's Minnewashta Regional Park. It's our parks. You add all that up and you keep chipping away at what there is left to develop and I think you've got a system where we have a tremendous amount of green space and the development is happening almost inbetween. The next thing I touched on is the issue of sprawl in general. Suburban sprawl's that derogatory term that we've often heard about and I'm hoping that it's not occurring term. That the kind of development that we've been having and other communities have been having over the last 10 -12 years is much more reasoned. Much more intelligent and I think you see it in Chanhassen's efforts to develop it's downtown. It's public facilities. The care we have for protecting the environment. I saw a line in the newspaper a couple months ago that there's nothing sub about suburbs anymore and I think that really fits quite well. The Metro Council was set up to stop urban sprawl. I mean that's their primary goal. That's why the MUSA line exists and sprawl is quite simply is the gobbling up of land oftentimes leaping over some unused parcel to get something cheaper a little further out. It has some very significant costs. I mean you have to build schools. You have to build roads. You have to get fire and police protection. School buses have to run down these streets. I think whether Timberwood is right or wrong isn't an issue but I think it's an example of tremendous land intensive development. It has 26 homes in there. I think very comfortably we're fitting 140 homes in a development site that's smaller than Timberwood is and it's not to say that that lifestyle is good or bad or indifferent. Simply that it's a much more land intensive type of development. Land intensive development pushes the urban perimeter out at tremendously fast rates. If we all develop, if this community and Eden Prairie develop the same way Timberwood developed, you'd have urban sprawl out to Young America and it would be going fast out there. Now that's the regional issue but I think the local issue is similar. I mean we're paying for the roads and utilities. People who buy houses are paying for the linear stretch of street and utilities that go in front of their houses. So it's not this philosophical construct that the Metro Council has. It's a very real cost on the ground for us as a community and for our residents. Environmental impact is oftentimes, it almost goes II against the grain to think that bigger lots are more damaging to the environment but I often think that that isn't actually the case. Frankly I think there's nothing holy about the urban lawn. It's a very massaged environment. There's a certain amount of grading that has to go in for streets and homes, no matter how 37 City Council Meeting - May 18, 1992 big the lots are and to a point, the bigger the lots are, the more area you're massaging to get those units in. This is one of the primary reasons that as a staff we've been advocating the PUD. Now whether that goes anyplace or not will be up to you. But I think in Hans Hagen's development, he presented a very interesting scenario where he was willing to adhere to our 15,000 square foot average lot size. Old PUO's that caused us a lot of problems in the past went below that and we've got a, we think we can address all those problems that those PUO's have caused in the past. We're not going to try to defend them because they did cause a little bit of problems but Hans was willing to come in with a 15,000 or better average lot size. He wanted to put 20,000 - 25,000 square ' foot lots in the woods by Timberwood but the 10,000 square foot lots would have been out in the soybean field where you're basically masquerading anyway and it doesn't hurt anything. I couldn't advise him to do that because the Planning Commission hadn't decided this issue after 8 months of wrangling with it. I ' think that environmentally it would have been a lot better in that. That would have been appropriate clustering you know instead of massive use of 2 1/2 acre lots. Appropriate clustering in the area that could have taken it. It also got at that concern that was raised at the Planning Commission and I think here that rightly or wrongly the folks in Timberwood seemed to feel that you had an obligation to put bigger lots next to them because they were different. Well, I don't know that I agree with that philosophically but functionally, Hans' plan would have achieved that but we couldn't do that because we just had a, we did 15,000 across the board and I think we did an okay plat. I think we could have done better. Costs of larger lots is an important factor. I think average lot ,' prices, and,Tom you just purchased a home but lots cost $40,000.00 to $50,000.00. Charles has been looking at lots and that's gradually if not rapidly going up this year because we have a shortage of lots and a lot of demand. It makes some sense that if we increase the lot size by 25%, you're r' going to increase the cost by at least that much. Land is bought on a square foot basis. A developer has to get what they think is a reasonable number of lots out of it. There's additional linear feet of street and sewer and water ;1 lines that,.have to occur to get the bigger lot. And just multiplying that out, if you're $40,000.00 to $50,000.00 lot would have increased by $10,000.00 to $12,000.00 if you add another 5,000 square feet. There's also a question I ' have, and I don't know if this verges on an illegal. I touch based with Roger on this or frankly the ethical but we have been assessing projects for years in this community based on the assumption that people will get 15,000 square foot lots out of that. Now that becomes meaningful if you own a piece of ground and you accepted the assessments that you can get 10 units out of it. You paid x number of dollars over the last bunch of years. If we then change the ordinance it says, well you can't get your 10 lots but maybe you can get 6 or 7 because we ' raised the lot area. I think we have something of an ethical concern at any rate because somebody's been paying for something that they're not going to get. So I guess in summary, I think it's clear that we're not particular in favor of raising the lot size. I mean there's nothing to stop anybody from coming in with any size lot above 15,000 square feet that they think the market will bear and I think we've seen time and time again 'where we have the more attractive land. I'm not talking about the soybean fields right now but the wooded, rolling land that we have so much of in this community, you tend to get larger lots. The market bears it. It can support it and we get it. Over the 15 years that I've been doing this, I find I get to be much more l'ais affaire. Let the ' economics of the thing decide and I think that with the quality of land we have in this community, we've got every expectation that most of our lots are going 38 City Council Meeting - May 18, 1992 ' to be somewhat in excess, if not greatly in excess of that 15,000 square feet. I do think that there are some issues with lots that need to be explored. You know the Planning Commission's going to talk about the PUD again on Wednesday. If you have any guidance for them, I'd sure appreciate it because they could sure stand to be pointed in one direction or the other. And frankly this is not an issue that we want to keep beating a dead horse on. I mean if we're going to use 15,000 square foot lots, tell us. It's just being stuck in the middle and it's kind of difficult right now. The other thing that I pointed out is that I think we can fix the errors of the PUD's in the past. I mean those PUD's were sold to old City Councils for the wrong reasons. I'll save you money. I'll put cheaper homes on there. I'll do this and this and this. There was no expectation of quality development. There as no guarantee of what a developer would provide. The ordinance was ill equipped to deal with things like if you build on this little lot, you can't put a deck on it. All those things can be addressed but another thing that I think needs to be addressed not only in PUD's but everyplace is the useable or buildable ground on a lot. You can have a 15,000 square foot lot that's pretty junky and they're going to come back to you for a variance if it's gobbled up by easements and wetlands and whatever else. And one of the things that I would encourage us to look at is mandating a minimum buildable area. It's going to be smaller than 15,000. You'll still have that area requirement. Gross area requirement but you'll have a buildable area requirement and anytime a lot's platted, they would be obligated to demonstrate to you that it can accommodate a reasonably sized home and a deck and a yard area. That's something, whether or not you do the PUD I think you ought to look at. With that I think I've said my piece. II Mayor Chmiel: Amen. Thank you. Any questions? Councilwoman Dimler: Let me see if I've got this straight. You don't want to , go larger than 15,000 but you might be looking at going smaller? Paul Krauss: Let's separate the two issues if we could Councilwoman Dimler. ' The 15,000 square feet in a standard subdivision, I'm not proposing and the Planning Commission's never proposed a change. The only place they're looking at doing something different is within a PUD and the reason for that is two fold. I mean we have expectations that we can have clustering and more open space and more tree preservation and hopefully better quality development by going PUD. That's what we're getting. The developer on the other hand either expects to get more homes or expects to lower their development cost or expects to be able to market a better quality product for the same dollars. One way of achieving that is to lower the minimum lot area. Councilwoman Dimler: Within a PUD. Paul Krauss: Within a PUD. I've even come to the point where I'd be II comfortable saying that the average lot size in the PUD as Hans Hagen was proposing is 15,000 but within that you've got a bottom end of 10. So developer, you show us how you, right. The average is 15. So you show us how you're going to do this and we will tell you if you've done a good enough job to earn a PUD. Otherwise you don't have to do it. There's no obligation on your part. Councilwoman Dimler: I thought our PUD already allowed that. I guess that's. 39 , 1 City Council Meeting - May 18, 1992 Paul Krauss: No. The old PUD ordinance had an average of 12,500 and I think it went down to 10 or 9 but that was eliminated last summer when we adopted the new PUD ordinance. That was a bad PUD section and there was no desire to keep that there because the projects that we had come in under it weren't very good. 11 Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I think with the smaller size lots and the thing that bothers me some is that when they do get smaller lots, the footprints on those lots are much larger. They're not too large for what the size lot is so they're still trying to get their buck out of that. That's where we're running into problems with the decks and all these other things. Some of the concerns I have ' with that as I told Paul is that there are no backyards for kids to really be in as well and it eliminates a lot of that. Councilwoman Dimler: And you're creating a lot of variance situations. Paul Krauss: Well, one of the ways we thought to address that and we've had the draft ordinance sitting around now for 8 months or 12 months, is that it gets ' back to that buildable area concept. And I forget the exact numbers we use but I think we said okay. Yes, you can go down to 10 and maybe an average of 15. Maybe an average below that. Whatever but within that, you're going to have to demonstrate to us how, on each lot that you can get a, what was it? A 40 x 60 building pad, 10 x 12 deck and 30 foot backyard. And if you can't do that, your lot's going to have to be big enough to accommodate whatever it takes to put r that on. Councilman Workman: Put Willard out of business. ' Mayor Chmiel: Kind of look at some of those areas within Near Mountain. That was some of the 10,000 square foot lots and those are bunched up right on top of each other,and that's a real concern to me. I don't think it's that great. And what does it really benefit the city or the people living there? It doesn't. It benefits the builder and I don't degrudge them making their money. Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah. In a PUD we should get some benefit too. Mayor Chmiel: You bet. That's the whole thing. Councilman Mason: And it sounds like, if I'm understanding what Paul's saying, it sounds like the city will take control of that. If we take a look at this other option here about minimum. ' Mayor Chmiel: We have that opportunity to review that, that's correct. To make sure that they're going to comply with all those things but yet after it gets done, you look at it. Does it look that good. That's the other part. ' Councilwoman Dimler: So will this come up before us? Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, probably. Paul Krauss: Well the Planning Commission as I say is going to talk about it again on Wednesday. If they can get off the dime on it. One thing too, if you ' refer to that table on page 2. Even if we allow a minimum lot size of 10 with an average of 15, we've still got lot sizes that are as big as most of the ' 40 1 City Council Meeting - May 18, 1992 1 minimum lot sizes in well, Excelsior, Maplewood, Maple Grove, Chaska. 1 Councilman Workman: How do they get away with 9,000. Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, Chaska's low. Is this their regular lot size? This 1 isn't their PtIO? Paul Krauss: No. This is their regular. 1 Councilwoman Dimler: Boy, that's low. Councilman Mason: That is small. That's very small. 1 Paul Krauss: Well keep in mind. And again, we've pulled this information together enough times that we might have gotten it jumbled up but Chaska has a lot of old in town development and it's not, I mean South Minneapolis the average lot's 5,000 or 6,000 square feet. Mayor Chmiel: 60 x 150. I used to live on a 60 x 150. 1 Roger Knutson: Most of them are 40. Councilman Mason: And I do sometimes think that's something we need to take in mind here. That a lot of people do live on a lot less than 15,000 square feet. I mean I'm not saying I think we should make it smaller or anything like that. 1 Mayor Chmiel: But, that's the reasons why people are leaving there to move out here to go with what we've got. So okay, any other discussion? 1 Councilman Mason: Obviously you've spent a lot of time on this Paul and to me it makes a lot of sense. Lot of sense. CONSENT AGENDA: Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I'd like to go back to the two items that we tabled under the Consent Agenda because we need a 4/5 majority to vote on those two and now that you're here Tom. It's item number (f). Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend Chapter 20 of the City Code pertaining to the mining and earth work, first reading. Anyone have any concerns with that one? Councilman Workman: I'd move approval. Councilman Mason: I'd second it. Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Amend Chapter 20 of the City Code Pertaining to Mining and Earth Work, First Reading. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Workman: I'd move item (k). 1 Councilwoman Dimler: Second. 1 41 1 1 ' City Council Meeting - May 18, 1992 Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dialer seconded to approve Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Require that Boats be Moored in front of Lake Front Parcels be Owned by and Registered in the Name of the Lake Front Property Owner, Final Reading. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 11 Councilwoman Dimler: I move adjournment. ' Mayor Chmiel: No, we have a couple more items. We're talking about DataServ's assessments. Don Ashworth: During the course of the year I try to keep the Council aware of ' where we stand with pending litigation items. I think you've seen various correspondence in regards to DataServ. You're aware of the fact that we've had some pending litigation as a part of Frontier Trail assessments. In talking ' with Roger on Friday, those were all scheduled for today. We really reached agreement on two on Frontier conforming to the other assessments in that area. The one on DataSery also fell into place. I think you may have remembered they ' had made all kinds of requests. Some dealing with zoning and some other type of items. All of those kind of disintegrated and we reached agreement that they would be assessed and I think it's like $104,000.00 for the cost of the land for the roadway itself. That isn't the exact number that we've already assessed them for from a year ago so I mean this isn't anything new but we included in that assessment they initially then took the position we didn't have the right to do that. They wanted a higher amount. They showed some other, well it got I down into last throws and they have agreed so that one settled out. There's one other one that Roger discussed with me on Friday and I said, I really think that we should use an Executive Session format to allow you to, meaning the City Attorney, to tell the City Council where we're at on that. The way an Executive Sessions works is we will continue to record all of the discussion that occurs after the Executive Session starts. The newspapers, general public, etc. are welcome to come in and listen to that but they don't get it until after there's ' a court settlement of the case. So again we will record everything. If you will agree to the executive session, I would recommend that. Again it would be, you'd have Roger give you, tell you what he basically had told me on what I'll I call the final one of these assessments as it deals with Frontier Trail. I don't like to do this. I think this may be, I don't know when in the last, I don't think we've ever done this in 4 years. ' Mayor Chmiel: I don't think we've had one. No, not to my knowledge. The only thing that I would suggest is that we then terminate our. Don Ashworth: Would you check to make sure that the outside speaker is out. Councilwoman Dimler: Should we adjourn then and then have this? Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Shall we adjourn? • Don Ashworth: Yeah, why don't we cut off the video portion and then if you just keep the cassette portion going. The regular agenda portion of the City Council meeting was finished and the Council held an Executive Session at this point in the meeting. 42 r ;1 I I CHANHASSEN'PLANNING COMMISSION I REGU MEETING MAY 20, 1992 Ih Chairman Batzli called the meeting to order at 7: _. 30.'p.m. I MEMBERS PRESENT: Ladd Conrad,. Steve Emmings, Matt Ledvina, Brian Batzli, II Jeff Farma:kes and: Joan Ahrens MEMBERS ABSENT: Tim Erhart 11 STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Kate Aanenson; Planner II and Todd .Gerhardt, Asst. City Manager I PUBLIC HEARING: NON- CONFORMING'USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT FOR. FRONTIER TRAIL HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. Y I Public Present: Name Address Randy Smith 429 Pleasant View A. Hiscox 7500 Erie I I .Larry J. Anderson 400 Cimarron 'Circle 'n TedIH. deLancey 7505 Frontier Trail Lenny Kiskis 491 Big Horn -Drive ,' Kate Aanenson. presented the staff report on this item. I Batzl.i: I'd like you to comme.nt o.n .two things. On• the little map that we got, it shows the dock. Can you show -us on the map where the dock sits in relation to their lot line? 11 Aanenson: Okay, that dock that's on Ihere, I just put that in. Tchey submitted that.way back in 1981 andi don't believe it's in the same place•. I defer that to the homeowners, association to show 'you where• that is. I II don't-believe- it's in the same spot. Batzli: And the second thing. is, your comment that the swimming , beach, we I shouldn't have to discuss that. In your opinion, in staff's.opinion, the swimming beaches don't negatively impact neighbors? Aanenson: The _recreational beachlot ordinance- does allow swimming beaches. :' Whether or not they meet the frontage requirements or not. That memo-was made in,1987 so really we don't need to discuss that. 11 ;1 Batzli: Say that again. Aanenson: In 1987 there was an amendment to that that said all beachIots, I whether or not they were non-conforming or not are allowed to. maintain a swimming - beach. Batzli: 0kay. Would the applicant 1i'ke to address the commission? If you II could go up to the microphone and give us your name and address. I 1 I I Planning Commission Meeting 9 May 20, 1992 - Page 2 Ted deLancey: I'm Ted deLancey and I have been there prior to 1981 so I I would just like to go back. As I said, as you said Kate, I think we're being very straight forward. We're not asking for anything differently. The one thing that I did want to bring up was last fall when we were here, ' when we saw when you had down on your check sheet. We made some changes to that and submitted that to you and I've got a copy from you this past week on that. There are some discrepancies. I think they're small. Number one, it says that we did not have a picnic table, campfire grills, or I seasonal docks and I'm saying yes, in 1981 we did. It gets kind of a sticky wicket. We have had in previous times, no consistency to this boat. Some boats were stored on the property. Some years there were. Some years ' there were not. Boats moored, occasionally. The swimming beach is always, well since 1981 or prior to 1981 was there also. But you're allowing the swimming beach is my understanding. Now one other thing. If I'm correct. If I heard you correctly. I think you said that the boat launch was not in the same position? Aanenson: No, the dock that was shown on the map that you originally '' submitted. Ted deLancey: The dock. Okay. The launch is in the same position it always has been in. Batzli: Can you illustrate on the overhead where the dock is currently located? I Aanenson: I've just got a photograph from last summer. ' Ted deLancey: The dock is approximately right here and the boat launch is right here... 1 Resident: Ted, I think maybe that is not quite the location. The dock is approximately 25 feet to the left of the ramp. Emmings: Is that north? I Resident: North of the ramp... ' Batzli: My concern on this point is that on the map that it's drawn, it looks like the dock somehow encroaches on the neighboring property. ' Ted deLancey: I couldn't hear you. I'm sorry. Batzli: The dock appears to encroach on the neighbor's property on the map that we have so I don't want us to approve or pass on a recommendation that the Council approve a dock that's somehow does encroach. Resident: Do you have an overhead of the map? Batzli: No. Aanenson: That was part of the original application when they came before I for a conditional use permit. I just put that in there for your 1 Planning Commission Meeting May 20, 1992 - Page 3 edification. That is not where the boat, when I went out there this ' summer, it's not where the dock is right now. Batzli: Okay. If I can summarize it. I don't know if you have any other I issues to cover but it sounds like what you're disputing is perhaps that you would like grills and picnic tables? Ted deLancey: We have had that before and we would like that. And there ' has been some discussion in reference to canoe racks also. At one time we had canoes stored down there but again, not on a consistent year to year basis. Batzli: So are you in fact requesting canoe racks? The Association. Ted deLancey: If it's not a problem. We don't want to create a problem, okay? I guess in effect what I think you're telling us is had we had canoe racks there, had we had boats there on a consistent basis, you would allow I it. The fact that they have been sporadic, you may not. Is that correct? Batzli: I think so. What we're looking for is, we're trying to establish • what your use was in 1981 from which time period forward you'd be grandfathered. If you haven't had consitent useage, then to that extent you probably would not be grandfathered in for that type of use and that's what we're trying to do tonight. 1 Ted deLancey: Yeah, we have not had consistent useage of a canoe rack. We have not had consistent useage of boats moored on a consistent basis. We I have had consistent use of dock. We have had consistent use of boat launch. And the parking. Batzli: Okay. Ted deLancey: Now Larry, do you have any comment? Larry Anderson: No. I think that's right as far as consistent. I think I if you go back to 1939 and find that there were boats stored on the property. That there was a dock. That there was parking. All of those things... 1 Resident: How many parking spots? Larry Anderson: They're really not designated parking spots so... Ted deLancey: We haven't drawn yellow lines. Batzli: Do you have anything else? Ted deLancey: No, I don't unless Andrew, he's also a member. Do you have I any comments? Andrew Hiscox: The only comment I'd make is the map. It says...not be to scale but the general...but since I've been there I've owned the property 6 II years now. There has always been a dock. There has always been a boat launch. There has always been clean picnic tables... 1 Planning Commission Meeting May 20, 1992 - Page 4 Batzli: And your name for the record was? Andrew Hiscox: Andrew Hiscox. Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the commission at this time? ' Lenny Kiskis: My name is Lenny Kiskis and I live on 491 Big Horn which is on the west side of the lake. I guess I don't really have any real major problems with what they're doing here but I just would like to say a couple things. One of them is that I'm concerned about the milfoil on the lake ' obviously and obviously the more or less restrictions on the lake and access to the lake in the form of boat launches, create more problems on the lake. Also the additional stress it puts on the lake in the form of ' additional boating activity going on. So I don't know if that's part of the issue here that you're even contemplating at this point in time but I would want to go on record that I would be against the use of unattended and unrestricted boat launch. ' Batzli: Thank you. Anyone else like to address the commission? Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Emmings moved, Ahrens seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Conrad: I think this is a good recreational beachiot and I don't have, they're real close to being a conforming beachiot and when you look at the situation, it is a real classic case of how a beachiot should be used. So ' I don't have a, and I'm not sure how this affects other beachlots coming in but I really don't have a problem letting them having the picnic tables, the grills. That just doesn't bother me in this situation at all. They ' haven't necessarily had them before but, or when we've inventoried but I don't have a, it's a good beachiot. In terms of the overland launching. That's a real interesting point and I guess Ted, how do you, milfoil is a ' big deal. And as a boat launch on the lake, they're talking to everybody that comes in about milfoil and we probably do have it in Lotus right now but the question is, how do you police your members? How do you keep others from going in there because that is boy, you talk about expense ' later on if milfoil really spreads. That is a big deal. Ted deLancey: First of all, it is not an unrestricted. It is restricted ' to just the members who belong obviously to that boat. How would we police the entry of somebody who does not belong there? This has never been a problem but there are 3 of us who live right where the road goes down. We can visually see that... There's a gate. There's a gate. Larry Anderson: A chain and lock. I Lenny Kiskis: My point I'm making is, the people that live on the lake typically don't trailer their boats. They're go to other lakes where there is milfoil and bring them back... In an environment like you have, my I sense is you have people that use the lake and trailer their boats. Use other lakes and do bring those boats back into this lake. There is milfoil in the lake. We've identified it. It can be a major problem. Hopefully 1 Planning Commission Meeting May 20, 1992 - Page 5 it won't be. We'll be able to irradicate it but I don't know if that's possible at this point in time. I guess the concern I have is that the more access points... the more possibility that people can bring boats into the lake, the more problem they're going to have with more possibility that you're going to have additional problems... And the very least I think we ' can educate and provide...information concerning milfoil. All your members. Make sure that they can identify it and ultimately the best thing to do would have the ability to have one access on this lake and police it.' That's obivously not going to happen... Resident: Why can't it happen? ' Batzli: Excuse me sir. Lenny Kiskis: ...legislative move to make it happen and I certainly would I support that. I don't see that happening in the very near future. Batzli: Paul? As far as can we even put conditions on the things we're I looking at? There are non - conforming beachlots regarding conditions to post a sign, check your boat for milfoil. Can we even do these things or are we, is it just something that we can't do at this point and we can just' talk about it? Krauss: We have raised that with the City Attorney and he believes that 1 you're pretty well constrained looking at the issue here of a non - conformity and not, you don't have a lot of flexibility to add on additional conditions that are not related to that specific non - conformity request. You could certainly ask that it be done. Conrad: More than likely the group wouldn't mind posting a sign. I think they're sensitive to the issue. Ted deLancey: Yeah. We will do whatever is the standard practice when we're educated to what the problem is and what we should be doing. It's something we didn't take up in 1981 because we weren't aware of it. And I don't think even the cities...a policy but whatever that policy would be, we would... The other thing I'd like to point out is, by numbers you have a very small amount of boats going in and out of that. 1 Resident: Then why is it important? Why don't they just use the public landing? I'm not being sarcastic. Ted deLancey: It's the parking. Resident: That's one of the bigger issues. I'd like to make a point here.' Batzli: Excuse me. The public hearing has been closed. If you'd like to make a point, please raise your hand and I'll try to get to you. Ladd has ' the floor right now. Conrad: Oh sure. Batzli: You do. Planning Commission Meeting May 20, 1992 - Page 6 Conrad: I don't know that I want it any more. I have no more questions on this issue Brian. I think Paul answered conditions on the launch. I think that is an important issue. The folks do have the right and are grandfathered in on the launch. I think a sign has to be there and it's not a matter of a condition. I would just hope if the association would want a sign there reminding the residents that, or the members that milfoil is a problem. I don't know beyond that what to do. I don't kow that there is. When I compare it what the launch does do. The people at the house say, milfoil's a problem. Please check your boat and here's literature on how to do it. I guess there's not a real tough enforcement. If you go through a launch and it's still left up to the individual and I would trust ' that the people that live close or on the lake are as motivated, if not more motivated to check their boats than maybe somebody coming in over through the public launch. So in my mind the issue still is just to make ' sure we remain people when they bring their boats in, that they look for milfoil and maybe that we make sure that all residents in the beachlot get the literature so you know what you're looking for. That's all I have. ' Batzli: I'm sorry. Sir, did you have a comment to make? Resident: Yeah, he kind of summarized what I was going to say. We live on ' the lake. We live near the lake. We have ownership in this thing. I think we're more motivated than the average person, certainly...boat launch for keeping this lake free of milfoil and loosestrife and other kinds of ' noxious weeds. So I agree with what you're saying. I'd like to limit the access too but the public access for 17 boats can park, I think maybe your attention might be better directed towards that and the enforcement there which I've talked to the DNR about personally in the last few years. Never ' really gotten much of a response or satisfaction... And today it's pretty simple. It's around. It's going to get into lakes if you're not careful. I think it might already have been spotted in Lotus. I think...if the city ' will show the association how to acquire signs at maybe some kind of good rate, I don't think we'd have a problem trying...We wouldn't want a big one but a little one would be alright. 1 Krauss: Well we don't know where signs, where you obtain them from but we have seen them and we'd be willing to check into that. ' Resident: Let us know. I mean I don't think, we're very motivated to keep milfoil out and do what we can to make... ' Batzli: What I guess I'd like you to do is after this hearing, if you could talk to Paul and get each other's number or something and try to follow up after the meeting because I think it's an important issue. Where were we? Okay, Matt. Ledvina: I think that the request that's being made is very reasonable and I also have concerns about the milfoil issue and would like to see a follow up on that but beyond that I have no other questions or comments. Batzli: Steve? Emmings: I don't have anything to add. I think it's a reasonable request. We're not again, we brought this up last week but we're not going to get 1 Planning Commission Meeting May 20, 1992 - Page 7 1 into the business of approving picnic tables and grills and stuff like that. Aanenson: The ordinance does address that. Emmings: So that isn't an issue. Okay. Batzli: Jeff. ' Farmakes: I have no further comments other than the one that you mentioned about the dock crossing the lot line. That would be something to look at. Batzli: Okay. Can you Paul, also follow up with the association to make sure they're aware of the setback requirements for their dock? Thank you. Joan. , Ahrens: I don't have anything. Batzli: I don't have any questions either. Would somebody like to make a I motion? Emmings: I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the I request of Frontier, what's the name of it? Frontier Trail Beachlot maintaining the 1981 status quo with one dock, 40 feet in length, no boats being moored, continued use of the motor vehicle access, parking for 5. Well, for a maximum of 6 cars and a boat launch. And also approval of the swimming beach. Conrad: Second. , Emmings moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend 1 approval of the Frontier Trail Non - Conforming Recreation Beachlot with one dock, 40 feet in length, no boats being moored, continued use of their motor vehicle access, parking for a maximum of 6 cars, a boat launch (20 feet wide), and a swimming beach. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Batzli: When will this particular item go in front of the City Council? Krauss: We don't have the thing up on top but we think it's June 8th. PUBLIC HEARING: NON - CONFORMING USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT FOR SUNRISE HILLS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. Public Present: Name Address 1 Craig Luehr 7226 Frontier Trail Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Batzli ' called the public hearing to order. II Planning Commission Meeting II May 20, 1992 - Page 8 I Craig Luehr: My name is Craig Luehr. I'm at 7226 Frontier Trail and I've been there about 2 years now. Actually 2 years almost to the day so I haven't been there since 1981 but it's my understanding that it's pretty much a status quo type thing. We haven't changed it much. In fact I think I it's about a 4 foot shorter dock than it was several years ago but in terms of the milfoil, I just want to bring up that we do have a sign next to it and I don't .know where it came from. It is a warning of checking it and it 1 stipulates the fine for not checking for the milfoil. And so we have that. We have a locked gate that prevents anybody from coming through. And just like the other group, I think we are all very concerned about the milfoil I and I would say we probably police ourselves more than the general. So I don't think I have anything else and I just want to offer myself for any questions if you have in your further. I Batzli: We'll probably have some questions a little later. Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the commission? I Conrad moved, Emmings seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. I Ahrens: Any problem with the location of the dock on this one? Aanenson: No. I didn't note it on there but in my site visit last fall, it didn't seem to be a problem. II Ahrens: We're not going to get, I noticed in 1981 there were two canoe racks with spaces for 12 boats but on the survey it showed that there were 1 no boats there. We're not going to get into that I don't assume. Aanenson: Well it just, the survey is vague. It just says there were two canoe racks. It didn't specifically say if there were any boats in it or 1 not. I'm not sure if that was just an oversight or if somebody. Ahrens: I don't have any problems with this. It looks pretty straight II forward. It looks like they're asking exactly what they had in 1981. Batzli: Pretty darn close it looks like. II Ahrens: Two more spaces for canoes. I don't have any problem with it. Batzli: Jeff. I Farmakes: I have no comments in regards to this. You may want to pass on the issue of the milfoil. They have a sign of some sort there. We might I look at making these, looking at these signs for these non - conforming accesses to the lake. That's all. J Krauss: It occurs to me that this is a lake water quality issue. If there's a reasonable source of signs, we probably can just get the funds out of the swamp program and just give them to the beachlots. II Ahrens: Yeah, I don't think we should to raise it on every single beachlot. The milfoil issue... Planning Commission Meeting May 20, 1992 - Page 9 1 Farmakes: I think the issue is when a boat launching for a substantial amounts of homes. Batzli: Yeah, do we have any brochures about milfoil or has that ever been covered? ' Krauss: They are available. We have not given them out. Well, I'll take that back. Our Public Safety Department does have some access to some of 1 that. The milfoil control really has been the problems of the DNR so far and it hasn't worked very well. But some of the stuff we've talked about on the swamp committee is our ecologically sound ways to control milfoil. There's apparently a linkage between milfoil and water quality. The more I nutrient rich the water is, the more likely you have that milfoil is going to root and take hold. And there's some evidence that the introduction of oxygenating plants will help to offset that or retard the growth somewhat. ' It's something that's being dealt with peripherally but it's dealt with by the swamp committee. Batzli: Yeah, I guess I'd like to, if we can, I'd like to see us somehow getting some brochures and signs and things to some of them. The beachlot homeowner groups. Steve? Emmings: It looks like a reasonable request to me. Batzli: Matt. i Ledvina: I had a question regarding the portable restroom that's at the site. They indicate that it didn't exist in 1981 and it does exist in 1991. Can you describe that in terms of how it's maintained? Craig Luehr: This last year, last summer was the first time we had put that to my knowledge on, a portable restroom. It was mainly for the convenience and the prevention of going behind our canoe racks with the little kids rather than walking all the way home. And we have within our association we had some discussion around this. It's odors and what not I and the important thing that we came to was, we as a committee or we as an association are going to demand a weekly maintenance of that to keep that down because some of our members ever were somewhat concerned of that. And last year it was maybe not maintained quite as nice as what we would have I liked it to and need corrections along those lines to keep it on a weekly basis maintained to minimize those problems. It is also situated just behind a tree so you really don't see it from the lake that much either. And last year it was even kind of green so. Ledvina: Okay, so it's a portable plastic? Craig Luehr: A little portable plastic, yes. Ledvina: Like the Satellites or whatever? ' Craig Luehr: Yes. Exactly. Emmings: Do they have a permit for that? Did you have a permit for that? 1 Planning Commission Meeting May 20, 1992 - Page 10 Craig Luehr: That I'm not sure. Emmings: Is that a Satellite out there? Aanenson: Yes. ' Emmings: Did they have a permit for it last year? Aanenson: I don't remember seeing it. ' Emmings: I only remember one coming in on Lake Minnewashta. Aanenson: That's right. I have zero on the application. I remember seeing that, yeah. Batzli: It's on the survey but not on the application. Craig Luehr: Okay, so what should we do to correct that? Aanenson: It's a separate issue because they need a separate conditional use so. Emmings: But he should know that. Aanenson: We'll check on that. Craig Luehr: Okay, thank you. Ledvina: No, I think that was all. ' Conrad: Nothing. This is a real good beachlot. They have their buoys up which leads to a point. A lot of the beachlots that we've looked at in the past, we've approved swimming but they don't have buoys. So the question is, did we hear that we couldn't demand the buoys given that the swimming was grandfathered in? That seems like a reasonable thing. Batzli: Well it seems to me, for health and safety, even the issue of ' putting a lot of picnic tables and parking in the same location, you'd think that we would be able to at least look at a map at what the heck we're grandfathering in or approving or something. But I don't see that ' kind of information in front of us either. So I don't know. Emmings: It might be issues best left to the associations. Conrad: Did you hear what I just said? Not this particular beachlot. They have buoys up for their swimming beaches but there were a couple in last week. ' Aanenson: The ordinance does say technically if you're to have a swimming beach, that you are supposed to have it marked with buoys. Conrad: So if they didn't? 1 Planning Commission Meeting May 20, 1992 - Page 11 Aanenson: We wouldn't enforce it. I'm sure the DNR may enforce that technically I think if you have a swimming beach, you are supposed to have II it marked with buoys. I think that's up to the association. Conrad: The buoys are not our issue? 1 Aanenson: I'm not sure if we enforce them. Conrad: Even though we say you should have buoys? ' Batzli: Do we say that? Where does it say that? Conrad: In our ordinance it does say swimming beaches have to be marked. 1 Aanenson: They should be, yeah. 1 Conrad: But Kate is saying that's really the DNR. Aanenson: But if they've been in place since then. If they've been in place. That's the ordinance I was talking about that in 1987 there was an amendment that says, you can have a swimming beach whether or not you're conforming or not but that should be buoyed. But some of these that were I existed prior to that, didn't have buoys. Emmings: They may be grandfathered in. Aanenson: Exactly. Batzli: But this last one that said in 1987, we weren't going to talk about the swimming area. Did the last one have buoys? We said we didn't have to talk about it because of the 1987 ordinance. Well the marker buoys weren't requested but it seems to me we could require them under the 1987 I ordinance. If we're allowing it under the 1987 ordinance, we should be able to enforce the '87 ordinance. Aanenson: Yeah, but they also had the swimming beach prior to that though I too so. Batzli: I thought they didn't in 1981? They didn't in '81 so we're allowing it because of the '87 ordinance. Aanenson: Right. We probably should make them buoy it. Emmings: Well more importantly, is it buoyed or moored? Just musing to myself. Batzli: The question is whether this is an issue that we want to at least II try and be consistent on. I think that if they're going to allow the swimming beach due to the '87 ordinance, we should try to get them to mark I it in accordance with the ordinance. Ahrens: It's just that it's not a big deal is it? I mean not a big request. Planning Commission Meeting May 20, 1992 - Page 12 Conrad: No. Batzli: Well between now and City Council. Aanenson: Gotchya. Straighten that out. Batzli: Straighten that out with the homeowners association. That they should be buoying that. If they're going to have that beachlot. I got lost again. Did we listen to Ladd on that last one? Conrad: Yeah. Sorry I brought that up. I don't even like buoys. Batzli: Ladd, are you done? ' Conrad: Oh boy, I'm done. Batzli: Okay. We're having a good time now. I think I just want to echo Jeff's comment that I would just like to make sure that we're consistent ' with all these groups coming through. That they're aware of the setback requirements for the dock and I'd also like to, this particular one had the swimming beach prior to and it also has buoys so that's not going to be, that's it. Emmings: Okay. To clarify or to follow up on what he's talking about. I would assume that whether they're grandfathered in or not, they're still subject to the dock setback requirements? Aanenson: Roger says they're not. That's why I haven't been raising that issue. Emmings: Oh, they're not? Aanenson: Because if they've had the dock in the same place every year. Batzli: Yeah, but that last group didn't. Aanenson: That was just a rendering of how they were going to develop their beachlot. That's why I put that in there. Batzli: Yeah but how to develop their beachlot. See that's the operative phrase. They are not, they've moved their dock so they're not ' grandfathered in in one location. Emmings: Well, in any case, all we're approving here is the fact that they have a dock and how long it is. We're not approving the site of it or anything else. Aanenson: As long as it stays within the setback. But if they have one, I don't want to make this really complicated but the way the ordinance reads, you extend. There's been confusion on how you determine. Krauss: Why don't you put that thing up and we can illustrate. 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting May 20, 1992 - Page 13 Emmings: Well it's hard on both of these that we just looked at because the lot lines, especially this one. Krauss: Well see, that's the thing. It's a matter of interpretation. We interpret this by saying, I mean the whole thing's a little goofy anyway because it goes out beyond your natural property line. But we've interpretted it that it is the natural extension of your property line out into the lake. 1 Emmings: Not at a right angle to the shoreline? Krauss: No. Not perpendicular to the shoreline. 1 Batzli: So we decided it was perpendicular to the shoreline. Krauss: The ordinance doesn't say that. 1 Aanenson: No someone, I think Dick's always believed it that's the way it reads but the ordinance doesn't read that way and I confirmed that with Roger Knutson. He thinks, Dick thinks they meet out in the middle of the lake. That's not it. You just extend the lines out. So the fact of the matter is, some of these beachlots who have their docks in place, okay if II they go out 60 feet, they may cross that line but if they've been that way, they do have that grandfathering status. Okay? That's where some of the confusion comes in. Emmings: Okay. Aanenson: Okay? That's why I haven't always been addressing it because 1 some of them they do have some of that. Conrad: It doesn't make sense to follow the property line. Once you get II to. Ahrens: ...so you have a line drawn to the center of the lake with all these lot lines meeting at some point but sometimes they meet them like this. You meet them like this. Krauss: There's problems equally with either interpretation depending on I how the lot line goes. Farmakes: If it's not a permanent structure, it's taken out and put back II : in every year. Aanenson: No. It has to be out of the water for one year continuously. Then it would be non - conforming. As long as they put it in every season. II Batzli: But to be grandfathered in at a location, it would have to be in the same spot? I mean they can't be going? i Aanenson: Exactly. Batzli: But what I'm concerned about on this is you've given them an argument somehow when you put a dock on their map which crosses over a lot 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting I May 20, 1992 - Page 14 line, regardless of whether they're grandfathered in and we approve it, 1 that somehow we're approving that location. Aanenson: I'm not approving that site plan. Maybe I'll take that out for 1 the City Council. That was just something for you. We're not approving that site plan at all. I'll take that out to make sure there's no. Batzli: Okay, we've seen in the past that people bring in arguments I whenever they can find them and I don't want to cause problems for somebody 10 years down the road that we somehow approved this tonight. So, those were my only comments. Do we have a motion? II Conrad: I move that the Sunrise Hills non - conforming recreational beachlot permit or application be approved specifically allowing motor vehicle access, off street parking for 12, one boat launch, a dock of 60 feet, two 1 canoe racks with 12 spaces, swimming beach, marker buoys, swimming raft. Farmakes: Second. 1 Batzli: Discussion? I just want to make it clear to the applicant that we're not approving right now the portable restroom and you do need to come II in for a separate permit for that. If there's no more discussion, let's call the question. Conrad moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommend 1 approval of the Non- Conforming Use Permit for a recreational beachlot for Sunrise Hills Homeowners Association with one dock, 60 feet in length, no boats being moored or docked, continued use of their motor vehicle access, I parking for 12 cars, two canoe racks with space for 12 boats, swimming beach with a raft, marker buoys and a boat launch. All voted in favor and the motion carried. `1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Batzli noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated May 6, 1992 as presented. : 1 CITY COUNCIL UPDATE. Batzli: There's nothing in the packet. 1 Krauss: There was not an intervening Council meeting. I Batzli: Wasn't there one last Monday? Krauss: This past Monday? 1 Batzli: Yeah. Krauss: Yeah, but that. 1 Batzli: But that wouldn't have been in the packet? I Krauss: No. Batzli: I'm on track now. 1 Planning Commission Meeting May 20, 1992 - Page 15 ' Krauss: ...but there's some things I can verbally relate to you just to keep you updated. The swamp committee is continuing to meet. We're making' progress on the wetlands ordinance. There's an initial draft of it out and we're hoping that another one or two meetings will finish that off. The water quality program is continuing. I think you all probably got copies I of our newsletter at your homes. At least I hope you did. We had some folks out scuba diving around Lotus Lake 2 weeks ago. We had a bus tour of some of the wetlands and ponding areas in the community. And we're I suddenly getting a lot of good recognition for this program. I mean Kate got some calls today. I continue to get calls. People around the State, whenever they're having a meeting of water quality or wetland protection toll figure out what they can do, they inevitably say, well why don't you give Chanhassen a call and see what they're doing. Then they call us and we have nothing to give them because we're not done yet but we have a lot of good intent and I think we're making progress. I think you're aware of thee Highway 5 program is now starting. We're still trying to put together that task force. I've met with the consultants. They're going to start doing some, assemblying some base maps. What we plan on doing is sometime in June holding one or two meetings to define issues in the corridor so we get' it all on the table. I've worked with the consultant's to define what the corridor is initially and then it will be this group's determination. ' We'll probably have Bill Morrish come and do his dog and pony show once to this group. And then what we want to do is before everybody's gone for the summer, is have a public meeting on corridor issues. Where again we'll have Bill trot on his stuff and just try to get some feedback from $d8E8Ga to what they'd like to see. Batzli: Would these be special meetings? ' Krauss: Yeah. I think they'll have to be. It's hard to find a night any more. Batzli: I think we need to get going on it so I mean I wouldn't be opposed to doing it that way just to make sure we get going on the corridor. Krauss: Well, as soon as we pull this committee together, we'll be asking II folks when and if they're available. I was appointed to a new program on the Minnesota River managed by the Pollution Control Agency called Minnesota River Improvement Program which is supposed to deal with the issues of Minnesota River water quality all the way to the Red River Valley or however far it goes. Serving on the wetland rules making committee for Bouser, I've become relatively disenchanted with the ability of this State to deal with anything. So I hope this committee does better but I've spent literally 28 hours with 23 people arguing about the definition of farmland. It's rather tedious. Apparently the ag interest want to define I everything that the sun rises on in the morning outside the 7 county area as farmland, therefore exempt from wetland protection measures. The environmentalists cut a deal with the farmers saying well, that's okay. We'll fix all these problems on the backs of the cities and the developers.' So it's a real strange process so far and again I'm not very optimistic that it's going to be resolved anytime soon. Or if it's going to be resolved, it's probably going to be resolved in the courts. There's the I inequities in the State law, which is unfortunate. It's a ground breaking law but the inequitities in the law are so blatant that I can't see that a 1 Planning Commission Meeting May 20, 1992 - Page 16 court's going to uphold them and I've got to believe sooner or later, ' sooner rather than later, somebody's going to challenge them. A developer's that disenfranchised or whatever. Moon Valley is ongoing. I spent the afternoon in court again today. I think I updated you a while ' ago. We got the Judge's opinion where the Judge said, they are. Which we always agreed. They were grandfathered non - conformity on the south parcel where the pit is. On the north property, it's a whole new application. They wanted us to piggyback their application for the south property and the north property together and we refused to do that. And we weren't trying to be arbitrary. We were trying to say, the north property is subject to the full extent of our ordinances and rules and you've got to give us a legitimate application. Judge Kanning's told us we have to accept what our limits of our authority on the south hall but that does not apply on the north half. And apparently they tell us they're working diligently to bring us both applications. Right now you're scheduled to hear I guess we're calling it the non - conforming earth work permit for the south gravel pit. That's supposed to come to you at your next meeting. I'll have Roger there because I'm sure they're going to have their attorney 11 there. We'll give you all the background on that too. It's rather lengthy but I had Roger write a synopsis but you'll have the Judge's opinion and everything else. Batzli: Get your gavel ready Joan, I won't be here next meeting. Seriously`. Okay. Did the Council look at the ordinance, the size lots in the residential area? ' Krauss: Yes they did. I guess I was saving that for when we got to that item. But do you want me to touch on that? Batzli: Oh we can wait. It's down there, open discussion. Okay, never mind. ' ONGOING ITEMS: None. ADMINSTRATIVE APPROVALS: Krauss: We have one in the works but none to report on. OPEN DISCUSSION: ROLE OF HRA IN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /TODD GERHARDT. II Krauss: If I could, over the years there's been some questions as to the relationship of the HRA...City Council because they are on an operative role in some of the tax increment districts relative to development. Who's I in the driver's seat? How do things happen in this community and we're in a community that a lot of what we do is in tax increment district. And a lot of what happens out there involves some sort of city support. In my II time with the city, I've found the relationship to be a real good one. Todd and I have worked at length on projects for literally months before anybody really gets to chew them over and I think that there's a good process outlined nowadays where things flow rather smoothly wherein boiled down, I the HRA is a financing arm and the Planning Commission and City Council really are the development review arm and I think it's worked rather well. 1 Planning Commission Meeting 1 May 20, 1992 - Page 17 There's been a certain realtor, who's name need not be mentioned who's initials are BJ who runs around a lot seeming to confuse the process but it 1 really does work well. Batzli: I'm sure we don't know who you mean. Krauss: Oh, I couldn't imagine. But anyway, you know we heard that. We 1 had a meeting about 3 weeks ago now on the Target proposal and the Target proposal meeting was one that I found real intriguing because we never tried this approach before. We thought of this meeting as one where in rather than just wait, the tail wagging the dog for a developer to throw a 1 plan on our table and we're in a position of either taking it or leaving it, or in the case of a Target being able to add some bushes to make it look pretty but the developers presented us with a...we wanted to put the city somewhat in the drivers seat on this and hence we had a meeting that involved members of the Planning Commission, HRA, City Council and the developers and some other folks. I thought the process was a really unique one but coming out of that there were some questions again about that 1 relationship between the HRA and Planning Commission. Growing out of that we've asked Todd to come to the meeting. Todd is, one of his hats is Assistant Director of the HRA and we thought he could help explain the process to you a little bit. Gerhardt: I think Paul sort of laid out the ground work there. I talked to Kate last week and there seems to be some concerns or it was brought up as a discussion or something regarding the Target development. She said well, why did the HRA go get Target and bring them to this community? Why are they here? The HRA has never, ever gone out and gotten anything that 1 we have in the downtown or in the industrial park. We never solicit any type of businesses to this community. Everybody that has come to the community has contacted me to see if we have available land or whatever that is zoned properly for these type of developments. And to take it a step back even farther, the downtown redevelopment started, oh I'm going to say 10 -15 years ago. And the reason for that development is that you had a II lot of inappropriate uses in your downtown area. You had a chrome plating company. Auto racer. Auto repair shop. A boat repair shop. A lot of car maintenance facilities, which aren't appropriate uses for a downtown. There's no real service or commercial aspect of any of those. And that was all mixed in. You had a few in there. You had a bakery which was dividing • your chrome plating company by a half ince piece of plywood. I mean if people knew what was behind that door, they would be appalled. I mean to see this facility that was downtown was unbelieveable. The HRA spent close 1 to $22,000.00 in cleaning up those chemicals and disposing of them properly. The whole affect along downtown is a very complicated process. You had an old gas station that was converted into a bait shop that had i contaminated soils. Plumes of gasoline leaking from the tanks that needed to be corrected. You had an old grain mill that had burnt down that was buried on site that need soil correction. You had a single family home, an elderly lady that lived in the back of all this that she just wanted to get 1 out of there you know. She wanted to be bought out. We bought her out early. You had the apartment building element that the HRA fought over 3 years to figure out should this be in the downtown. Shouldn't it be. They really were sold on the idea. It took them 3 years and that it was going to be a senior housing project. Up until the very last 6 months it got 1 Planning Commission Meeting May 20, 1992 - Page 18 converted into a subsidized, low to moderate income, regular housing project. So you know some of the developers we've worked with and some of the promises that were given to the HRA changed from minute to minute. But one of the processes that I thought I was always under the understanding is that they'd always bring in site plans because they were always asking for money. So they'd always show us the concept of what they were going to do. And the HRA says okay, if that's the concept but your process is one that they should take it to the Planning Commission. Meet all the rules and regulations that our Zoning Ordinance has laid out and get City Council site plan approval process. And I can see Brad Johnson coming in and saying that you can't play too much with this development. That we're ( limited on some of these. We're limited on revenues but I mean, you are the ones that create the zoning ordinance. You're the ones that provide the recommendations to the City Council and the City Council finally adopts. The HRA has absolutely no say in asking you to forgive any of those for any reason at all and I don't think it was ever their intent to try to do any of that. They have architectural approval of buildings but it's very limited. It's color and we stretch it to make sure, we tell everybody that you've got to pitch your roof. That you have to have a similar, you know they wanted wood shakes on everything but they're saying fire codes and everything else wouldn't allow something like that to happen. Well then we want something very similar and do a wood 'shake looking shingle or shangie. Whatever they call them. That's about the extent...has taken this into a site plan. They had quite a battle here a while ago on Market Square. There were some members that felt that that should -have been a pitched roof. I don't know how many meetings Paul and I fought over that one trying to figure out how this thing could be pitched and what would it look like if it was pitched. That would put a huge roof system on the thing and it would just, I think jump right out at you. Krauss: One thing that's important to know though`is the HRA had set up ( some subsidy programs that were almost routine. If you were going to build in Chanhassen, there was a program where 3 years of your increment was 'used to pay down specials and I mean it's a standard program that we have. And it still is a standard program. Okay? But the same way the Planning Commis,sion's expectations over the last few years have raised, your 1 expectations, demands for quality and development have been increased and the ordinances have been changed to back it up. The HRA provides us some real dandy leverage to get better quality because we've been taking the stand for the last few years saying, you know. You want to be in Chanhassen. We probably want to have you here and we're willing to throw some money in the kitty to make itia reality but if you're going to do ii that, you're going to do it our way. You're going to add some detailing. I mean some of the issues with the Target stuff, I don't know if we get into any detail on that but we're using some HRA funds. We're thinking of ,I using some HRA funds to secure preservation of that stand of trees between 'TH 5 and the site. We need to buy up some land to remove some inappropriate old rights -of -way that were allowed to stay. To induce them to build that, instead of building individual fast foods, to go with that courtyard'concept. Things like that. So the money or the inducements are benign a lot of times. Yeah, we are, I mean the city does have an active subsidy program but it's not a one way street. I I iI Planning Commission Meeting May 20, 1992 - Page 21 when Brad Johnson was proposing Hardee's and he went to the HRA first and, i] I mean I think he wasn't even on the agenda. I think he just kind of showed up to one of their meetings and kind of coerced them into talking about it. But it was something that we managed to scotch. I mean they never came to the Planning Commission either at that point. Gerhardt: Well Americana Bank was a recent one that you had a review on that the HRA dealt with. The scenario I laid out for you. I physically took the site plans that everybody approved and showed them to the HRA and they all sat there and said, they say the renderings and said yeah. That's a nice building. It's got a pitched roof. It's got some architectural !1 style to it and will it have the cedar shake looking shingles? Oh yeah. It will have that. Okay. Well you can have your 3 year program. In some of the cases in the downtown, it tooks, I'm going to say, well Market � i Square it took 3 years for that to get all the financing and everything put together on the thing. But all during that process they never looked at different renderings or played with their renderings of any sort. But it took 3 years to physically figure out how you're going to subsidize a It� grocery store to operate in this community and over that 3 years, the market changed so the financial picture of assisting that store changed. And the whole aspect is changing from month to month. Same thing with the hotel. The public improvements associated with that thing and tearing down the building, relocating the waterrnain that went through there and some soil problems over there. I remember that one, that one didn't have a pitched roof at first. It had, it was one of these Budget 8 designs with all mansard and it had a flat roof. The HRA said no, or somebody said. I don't remember if it was the HRA, Planning Commission. Somebody but we ti can't accept that. I mean you're riot going to come in with this big thing. Pitch it all the way to a peak and make it look, and you've got a 10 times better building today than what they first brought in with that mansard roof. As a matter of fact, they use this as their example to sell the fi franchises. They always bring everybody to Chanhassen. They don't take them to Burnsville or Coons Rapids , or wherever the other ones are. They bring them to Chanhassen because this one really looks nice. Emmings: Maybe you've addressed this and I didn't get it but when somebody comes, do they go through the site plan process here before there's a 1 1 commitment by the HRA? l Gerhardt: I'm going to say in most cases they come here first. If it's just a simple 3 year deal where we write down specials or we might write down some land, but the complicated ones. The housing project. The Market Square. I mean we're talking about 3 years. They went, Market Square went through here.and got site plan approval before the HRA finally gave them full assistance. 1- Emmings: Shouldn't they always withhold, even if they're working with the 11 applicant, wouldn't it be a good idea for the HRA to say we approve you subject to approval by the Planning Commission or just say, we think it's a good plan. Now you have to get approval from the Planning Commission and the City Council before we're going to put our name on the line. If that's not happening, why shouldn't it? - 11 1 Planning Commission Meeting May 20, 1992 - Page 22 ' Gerhardt: In most cases developers won't take it that far. They won't invest the money into site plans and everything else if they don't know they're going to get the assistance from the HRA. Emmings: But how can the HRA tell them they're going to get the assistance before there is a site plan? That doesn't make any sense. 11 Gerhardt: In most cases they don't. I mean they've never given assistance upfront before they've come here. They'll give it their blessings, yeah. We'll look at it. We'll consider your options. Go through the city ' approval process and then all through that entire process we'll negotiate and try to work it out type thing. Ahrens: The developer's think they're getting it at that point. Gerhardt: Right. 11 Emmings: As long as there's no. Can you tell me that there's never a commitment by the HRA to a project and where they're obligated before 4 there's site plan approval? Gerhardt: Well they should never be, maybe we've got to make it, between Paul and -I make it clear to them that, and here's a perfect example. To Mr. Target here, my letter to him. The City will purchase 10 acres of land from Mr. Burdick for $4.00 per square foot and we sell it. Krauss: I think you've got to back up and tell them. We received a letter I . the developer, from a potential developer, Ryan wherein, I mean the sense of the meeting that we had was that the Burdick site was the ,- ; preferred site. The stuff the University folks did said that, showed us that that site was demonstratively better for downtown Chanhassen if it was done properly. So we got a letter back from Ryan saying, what are you going to do for me? I've got a list of 5, 6 demands, expectations. How are you going to meet them? And it was addressed to Todd through the HRA ' because these are financial demands. He's not saying, and demands don't imply or don't in any way say, the Planning Commission will look the other way and allow me to put a cinder block building up or something like that. 1 Gerhardt: This is staff's interpretation. This is, he put 5 parameters together for the layout of Target to occur. This is from Ryan. To occur on the Burdick piece. And he says the Target parcel, as laid out by Target, will be acquired and sold to Target for $3.00 a square foot. Well, you know I don't care if Target lays out a plan but you know we're saying that you've got to get site plan approval and follow through with all the ' other things so I respond, the city will purchase 10 acres of land from Mr. Burdick for $4.00 per square foot and resell this property back to Target for $3.00 per square foot. This would be contingent upon Target entering ' into a redevelopment contract with the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, receiving City site plan approval, and other approvals consistent with the general principles as outlined in Scheme B which was presented to this group of individuals over here. And it's just the general principles of this scheme. This is what was presented at that goal session. Batzli: Why did we decide B and not C? 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting May 20, 1992 - Page 23 ' Ahrens: I thought C was the one. 1 Krauss: Yeah. I thought C was the operative one. This letter hasn't gone out yet. We can correct it. Ahrens: C was the one that everybody thought was good because it's the building at the angle. Krauss: Oh, I know what it was. It was C with the food court. 1 Gerhardt: No it was B. 1 Emmings: No. It's C. Ahrens: No, it's C. Yeah but you know what else people liked this about 1 B. Krauss: That's the thing. That's what I'm saying. The C alignment and going with the B food court. Ahrens: Yeah. Gerhardt: I'm saying that they approved Scheme B with the general principles. That means you can lay out the building and everything else but I thought it was. 1 Batzli: But the roads were better on C I thought too. Gerhardt: No, they're the exact same. 1 Batzli: Are they? I thought they had, the one was offset because we had a 1 retail versus an office. Gerhardt: They also liked just the two buildings up here instead of this big, long parking lot type thing here and it provided more green space there and that the building was brought away from the street here. Batzli: I thought we didn't like the fact that it was the back of retail. 1 Gerhardt: Well in both schemes you're going to get that. But this one. Ahrens: But this was the office building /retail which is what people 1 liked. Gerhardt: You guys need to rezone the property because it's zoned retail. 1 Ahrens: Okay, we can do that tonight. Batzli: Let's rezone the little piece where it says office. 1 Krauss: I should also add that in a lot of ways, well one thing, two things you should understand. The HRA is not the only operative redevelopment authority in Chanhassen. The HRA is in charge of the downtown redevelopment district but the tax increment districts that have 1 Planning Commission Meeting May 20, 1992 - Page 24 been created in the industrial parks and new districts that have been ' created in the industrial parks and new districts that we're going to create are operated by the City Council. The City Council handles it in pretty much the same manner but. ' Ahrens: What do you mean they're operated by the City Council? ' Gerhardt: Downtown is a redevelopment district and what I'll say is the Chanhassen Lakes Business Park area and that's within our redevelopment district and the redevelopment district is in the controls of a housing and redevelopment authority. And in somebody's wisdom back in 1977 they made a very large district in Chanhassen that encompassed a lot of the industrial lands. You really don't take a farmland and call it blighted and redevelop it. But in that case it was what the legislators call pre-'79 district and ' if you didn't have that, you wouldn't have a downtown like you have now because with the economic development district and the restrictions against it, you just can't create enough increment and money that you can come in and buy the big building with all the, and appropriate uses in it. The chrome plating and everything like that. Because it's an 8 year district and they're controlled when you create an economic development district to create an EDA which is an Economic Development Authority. And in this city the Economic Development Authority is the City Council unless the City Council pushes that authority onto the HRA or another agency. ' Krauss: So when new districts are established, like for the Ryan Industrial Park, that's wholly under the arm of the City Council. But I'd also like to say too that a lot of stuff the HRA does is pretty benign and ' I think you'd basically be supportive of it. I got the HRA to build us the Senior Center. That's where the money's coming from for that. The HRA is paying for the Highway 5 Corridor study. ' Ahrens: They're the only ones with the money. Krauss: True. Gerhardt: But I mean, they don't sit around and scheme up these things. I mean our meetings, we're out of there by 9:30. We meet once a month. I mean we're not even going to be able to meet this month because we don't ' have anything on the agenda. Emmings: How do we get on it? ' Ahrens: Yeah. Gerhardt: If somebody has an idea, you know the Senior Center was an idea that...they approve it so the money source is there. A lot of it stems off of ideas that the Planning Commission, City Council or some other commission comes up with. Emmings: Well there shouldn't be any way a developer feels he can come here and play off the HRA against the Planning Commission. They should be ' told by the HRA that they have to go through all these other steps and they should be told when they're here that they have to pay attention to the HRA. 1 Planning Commission Meeting May 20, 1992 - Page 25 Krauss: And that's one of the reasons, I know Matt hasn't been getting his agendas but that's one of the reasons why there is a liason person from the 1 Planning Commission. It's also one of the reasons why I go to probably a third of the HRA meetings because there's a planning item that needs to be carried forward or represented to them. 1 Gerhardt: And the HRA can't take any projects on. I mean I come here once a year and we do an update and I give the list of things that they're looking into doing. One was the senior housing project and the park out ill front of City Hall. Some of the other projects. Krauss: Well all the downtown streetscaping. All the stuff that we want II to do along TH 5. The City contribution to building a bridge rather than a culvert over Bluff Creek. The landscaping. The entrance monumentations that's going to go into downtown. The reconstruction of TH 101. That's II all HRA. Emmings: ...the monumentation and so forth. Did we ever see that? Conrad: We talked about it. Emmings: But was there any kind of, now there's a. 1 Krauss: I don't think it has come before you. Of course they haven't been able to make up their minds anyway. 1 Emmings: But now why would or would it not? Should it? Gerhardt: Those are little amenities I guess you know. Like the clock 1 tower. The little gazebo in front of the Dinner Theatre. Those things. Those are decorative entry monuments in the downtown. I don't know how you'd do a site plan with this kind of stuff. 1 Emmings: We do a lot of things where the city's the applicant. You know we're planning to do this and so we're coming through the. The reason I thought about it is, years ago they brought up some monument signs for entry signs for Chanhassen and they were just awful. They looked like a cheap subdivision. Gerhardt: I remember. Emmings: And they showed them to us but not to get any approvals or anything. Just kind of keep us apprised of what was going on. Now the new 1 ones that we've seen the plans for I think were nice and everything like that. Batzli: Actually we didn't like the style of lettering I thought. Emmings: That's right. 1 Farmakes: I had more to say to it than that but I agree. I thought it was pretty much a forgone conclusion we didn't, they were just waiting to get 1 our comment. 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting May 20, 1992 - Page 26 Emmings: But if we're sitting here and talking about standards and talking ' about that Chanhassen is going to be and what it's going to look like and all those things, I don't know why we wouldn't have input on an issue like the monument. ' Krauss: It's not a problem to run it past. We can make sure that you get it. Gerhardt: When I did show you that concept, I think once we get some construction drawings put together, we'll bring it in and have the review on it. I think it's a good idea. Emmings: Did anybody follow up on Jeff's suggestion for lettering? ' Gerhardt: I went to the HRA and they're going to look at changing the lettering. They agreed. Farmakes: Yeah, I guess I would have had more to say if I thought, the point I was making, I would have more to say specifically about the sign if I had thought that it was still in development. I'd rather just make that comment. I wasn't expecting to show the drawing and I just free formed the comments on the spot so. Batzli: ;,The issue I think is, I've never felt that the HRA was scheming behind our backs. What I felt though is, I didn't know.what they were ' doing until it came before us and then I always have had a feeling that we didn't really the ability to change it. Either because of the way it was presented or because of the developer standing there saying, look. We've .I already negotiated with one group. You're trying to get two, second, third bites on the apple and so I think personally the issue is, how can we find out what it is that the HRA is going because I don't think any of us 1' want to do that job. We're all kind of busy enough doing this. But how do we find .out what they're and how can we work together so Chanhassen gets better development? That's really what we need. I don't think any one of us wants to sit here and play God over what the HRA decides. Farmakes: It's not only that but the communication between these different levels gets back to that original think. Crystalizing that idea. What ' exactly it is we want this city to look like rather than just have the developers bring in what we're going to get. ' Ahrens: I think what we're most concerned with at this point too is the Target project. I mean that's why you're here. Gerhardt: Right. ' Krauss: Well and that's why we asked, we broke the mold on how to handle that project with that meeting. I mean that did bring together, or ' supposed to bring together. I don't think we had any HRA members there. Well the two Council members that are on the HRA but basically we had Planning Commission and City Council representation there. ' Ahrens: And we don't want it to come to us and have it be a done deal. Planning Commission Meeting May 20, 1992 - Page 27 ' Gerhardt: It won't be and this is again another one that, you can see that they're already making representation to the HRA prior to going through this because they don't want to commit to Chanhassen until they know what their costs are. That they can tie up a piece of property that the City will potentially come in and condemn Charlie James' piece and that if they ' don't do that, will they have the nigh -in /right -out off the Burdick piece? Those are some things that the city has no control over. We don't have control over the right -in /right -out. That's a County road. They're the ' ones that pass the resolution limiting the number of cars that can travel on it. But the HRA, and it just really bothers me that it came across as if these were slam dunk things that came to you. If I have to follow every project here and stay here and listen to the developer, that you have every' say in changing something if you want, I'll do that. Because that's not the intent of the HRA and if they were all here, they'd say that. Because they expect a thorough site plan review with all the rules and regulations that we pass through ordinances. And it just bothers me that there was that feeling out of this and it wasn't the intent of the HRA or staff or anybody to give you that indication. And Target is a perfect example. I'm' trying to find things that we can make sure that this is a nice building and that it does meet some of the architectural styles of what we want to see a 116,000 square foot facility like. And they come out and say, well it's going to have brick on it. Well, do you even want brick? You know II our brick buildings are the bank, you know what I'll say is the public facilities. There's very few other buildings in the downtown area that have brick. The school, post office, the bank and city hall are the only brick buildings in the downtown. Krauss: But still, that along with site plan review are decisions that you'll be making when you get it in front of you. Our discussions with Target have in no way predetermined those kinds of issues. The only thing that we're trying to push it towards are those kind of gross issues that we got some concurrence on from that last meeting about how access should be I maintained. Batzli: There was concurrence? Farmakes: How realistic is it commercially to ask a discount realtor to build a Kasoda Stone edifice? I mean how, where do you? 111 Krauss: I don't know if that's the right building material or not. Gerhardt: They'll walk from it. They won't do it. They were in 11 litigation with the facility over in St. Louis Park for 3 years in putting that kind of brick on that facility. If they want to be here bast enough, they'll give some other places but Kasoda Stone, they'll just walk from the deal you know if that's going to be the criteria for everybody. But you can only implement the ordinances that you have in place you know and you're limited to some effect because we don't have a brick or better ordinance.- Well, to some extent. ' Krauss: We have architectural review. But this is one of the places where the leverage of having an HRA that's partially funding a project comes in real handy. You can go, ordinances deal with minimums. Here's the minimum 1 Planning Commission Meeting ' May 20, 1992 -- Page 28 criteria the ordinance has. But, if we're going to give you $600,000.00, here's our expectations from you. Conrad: Yeah but that's exactly the point Paul. That's where I feel, I don't have any problem with the HRA. I think it's, and I don't think anybody here does in terms of feeling that you're trying to do something without our involvement. Todd, I don't have any problem with that but it's ' exactly what Paul just said. If we felt we could throw some stuff into the negotiating pool, because I do feel that our hands are tied pretty much by ordinances. In fact that's the way I want it. The ordinance should be out there to lead the way so the developers know what the standards are. But, if we are contributing to their project, sometimes we may want to go beyond what that ordinance is but we can't do it because we felt the deal's been cut. You've negotiated the trade off before it got in here and we didn't ' have a chance to go beyond. All we can do is implement with what we have control over and typically those aren't. Gerhardt: When the HRA's hit up from the developer's side saying boy, we'd like to build this project in Chanhassen but the market isn't there yet and we need your assistance to build this thing. We're limited on resources and the market can't really support a full service grocery store and blah, blah, blah. So that's the end the HRA hears. There's not a housing project -being built anywhere in the Twin City area without some type of public assistance. Just the architectural style of that apartment ' building. When they first brought it in. I don't know if you remember Ladd or not but the concept that they brought in to the HRA. This thing had bends and angles and decks and they all had their special little peaks and was-all brick and everything else. Well all you've got now if just an ' L shape building with a deck sticking out the side and some brick up there. That's it. I mean far different than the first concept that they brought in to the HRA. This was supposed to be a glamorous asset to the downtown. So I mean we were all taken for a ride on this one. Emmings: Now how did that happen? I mean if they present you with one thing and you commit funds to it. Gerhardt: They never committed to that. ' Krauss: Yeah, what they built is what was ultimately approved by the City but, and that's before my time but I think that the initial renderings were of a much more grandiose project. 1 Emmings: Yeah, they were. Krauss: And then when they ran numbers on it they saw that it didn't work even with assistance and they started throttling it back. Emmings: Did they give HRA assistance on that? ' Gerhardt: It's a very complicated. Emmings: Oh, you can't say yes or no? i 1 Planning Commission Meeting May 20, 1992 - Page 29 1 Gerhardt: Yes, we did. Yeah, but...I've got to deal with it right now. II It's a very complicated formula on how they get this assistance and then the HRA is also supposed to get money back from it. It's just, but yes. They did get assistance to locate there. And it goes out for several years. 1 Emmings: The other thing I guess is, you know we sat here a little bit last time and said well, just as an idea, if Target doesn't want to have. If they want to say we're going to bring in our building and you can take it or leave it. Are we comfortable saying, waving good -bye to them as they leave our community. I think everybody was pretty comfortable with that. 11 And then that raises another question you know. Is it possible for an HRA to go out. If we decide we don't want Target and if there are things that we would like to have, can you go out there and solicit? Can you go out and seek the kinds of development or developers that you'd like to have to I work with? Gerhardt: I tried it. I asked the HRA would you like me to go solicit Red" Lobster into this community and they told me, no. We shouldn't go out looking for specific users. We'll deal with people as they come in. I really got read the riot act in trying to go look for this Red Lobster and • I wasn't going to touch it again you know type thing. Emmings: What's the thinking there? Gerhardt: They just don't want to go out looking for specific users. They" don't want to cater to. Krauss: This is one property that the HRA is actively marketing. There's 1 ads in the paper and what not but Todd's just not going door to door to specific doors and asking. Ahrens: Why wouldn't they want him to do that? Krauss: I don't know. I mean Todd and I talked about that and we'd both II like to be more proactive. Batzli: It's stunning to me that you don't choose people that you want in your downtown so that you have the right mix. I mean why wouldn't you want t hat? Farmakes: I would think if you had two competitive restaurants that were I discount developers, that you would get, you'd be in a better negotiating position. Gerhardt: Well, to get a Red Lobster out here you would have to get into II the subsidy aspect of it because most of the times they locate somewhere along the 494 strip or somewhere where they've got populouses surrounding them by 6 to 7 miles on each side of them. Where we don't have the populous to the west of us as of yet. Emmings: Is this a restaurant that you particularly like? 1 Gerhardt: No. 1 Planning Commission Meeting May 20, 1992 - Page 30 Emmings: How did you pick Red Lobster? I've never been inside one. ' Gerhardt: It was one that was brought up by one HRA member. There was interest by one HRA member to see this thing but it didn't need to be a Red Lobster. An Olive Garden or a Ciatti's or anything of that sort. Some type of nicety that you don't have in Chanhassen. Not a Hardee's. If we're going to have a restaurant, we didn't want to see a Hardee's or we've got a McDonald's but a fast food thing. And I think the site down on West 79th Street is a restaurant /banking facility type setting. It's got enough depth that it allows for some nice landscaping and parking associated with some of these. And it's not big enough for a Target. It's not big enough for, I was going to say a Walgreen's or a bigger type facility. It's a 10 to 12,000 square foot building pad area down there. For two buildings to � exist. And they didn't want us going out looking for specific things. We ' went out and I think Fred did talk to several different type users for the property and the market isn't there for some of those things to come to Chanhassen. Of the sit down restaurant types. Batzli: It would seem to me for example though, if we had determined that we wanted a large retailer in that particular site that that Target is looking at, it would make sense to me to go to Walmart and Target and ' K -Mart and whoever else and say look. We want a retailer. Give us your best shot and you're going to get a heck of a lot better development doing that if we can decide what we want on a spot than letting someone come in and. ' Gerhardt: Target...I mean Charlie .lames who owns the piece on the north side has built, I'm going to say, at least 12 to 15 Walmart stores and he's already been contacted by the K -Mart people so that's why Target has. Ahrens: For that site? ' Gerhardt: For his site. ' Ahrens: There's a K -Mart right down on TH 101. Why would they do that? Batzli: And a Walmart going in across from Flagship. We're going to be innundated. Gerhardt: To add to the fear, K -Mart also has what is called a Pace store. This is a Sam's Club type thing. They have the K -Mart over there but they ' don't have the Pace so you bring in your Pace and your Builders Square type thing and they call it a power center. You bring in all these uses all together on one center. ' Farmakes: The Sams Club is in an industrial area in St. Louis Park. Gerhardt: But it is a retail use. II Krauss: It's also in a shopping center in Inver Grove Heights. Ahrens: How about Northwest Health Club? Nice site for it. Farmakes: ...pretty low buck warehouse operation. Planning Commission Meeting May 20, 1992 - Page 31 Ahrens: Low buck warehouse? Farmakes: Yeah, you bet. Batzli: Let me if I can try and do something with this so we're actually II going somewhere and that is, do we expect to get something out of this item tonight? Are we looking for improvement in communication? Are we looking for more input from us? Are we looking for, to get a liason attending the HRA meetings so we know what's going on? And the second issue that we need., to decide, so we can move along here is, how do we work with the Target development down on the west end? Gerhardt: Well right now, I mean you've already started some of the negotiations with these people. I mean you have two choices. Do you want to see the Target on the Charlie James piece or do you want to see it on II the Burdick piece? Right now Target's playing one off the other. They'd like to go on the Burdick piece but there's a lot of problems that go along with the Burdick piece. You've got storm water ponding. You've got the trees. You've got a lot of grading that needs to be done on that. Ahrens: I think we made it clear we didn't want•it on that piece of property. Right? 1 Emmings: On what piece? Ahrens: The Burdick piece. 1 Krauss: No, no. That's the south piece. Ahrens: Or.. Emmings: Charlie James is across the street. ' Gerhardt: The James. Okay, well, Target picks up on that kind of stuff. They said, well if you don't want me on the Charlie James piece, you're II going to have to give in on some of this stuff. On grading you know. We might need some help on the fixing and grading. That type of thing. Batzli: I think looking at the thing that we got here, you mentioned that 1 we're not zoned properly for the office and I think that after looking at the development plans by the University people, that that above our West 78th Street should be zoned office and so I think we should start doing ' that right now. Ahrens: I agree. Batzli: Let's do it. We don't want retail up there. Ahrens: With delivery trucks and everything else on that side. , Gerhardt: Well there's such a glut of office. That piece of property's going to be vacant for the next, I'm going to say 15 to 20 years at least. II Planning Commission Meeting May 20, 1992 - Page 32 Ahrens: Yeah but because there's a glut of office does that mean that we II settle for something we don't want there? Krauss: No, I would never advocate that you dictate your decisions based upon the market because the market changes all the time and it's really irrelevant. The issue of down zoning or changing the zoning of the property I think it's something that you can initiate. I'm not sure if the Council would back it up or not but it's a different set of issues. Can we II bring together something for you on that? Emmings: What's that? Krauss: Are you really all directing us to bring an action before you to down zone that property to office? Emmings: I wouldn't support that just as an initial reaction because we've always been concerned about running out of retail space in the central business district and there's no demand for office. And doing it just to 1 frustrate Target doesn't make any sense to me. Ahrens: Well it wasn't to frustrate Target. II Emmings: Well, that's what it sounds like to me. I think I don't care so much where Target goes as how they do it if they're going to do it. I'm I less worried about where it is. We're talking about whether it's going to be on one side of the street or the other. I guess I'm less worried about which side of the street it's on as to how it's going to look when it's done. So that is my feelings on it. Conrad: I agree with Steve. I'm more concerned, I don't care if it goes north or south. Until an argument is made not to put it north. I do care II how they fit in. I do care how a parking lot as big as they're going to create works in downtown Chanhassen. ' Ahrens: You know at that meeting it was, the north part was discussed at length and I think the big concerns were that we didn't want delivery trucks pulling into, on what's the street that runs? II Krauss: Kerber, Ahrens: On Kerber Blvd. where the city park is. Where City Hall is. I Where there's a lot of kids and everything else on that side of the street and there would be no way to develop a Target on that site and not use either, not have a lot of unwanted truck traffic and delivery traffic in areas where we don't want it. I mean I think that was the big thing. I Emmings: Well can Kerber, what kind of a street is Kerber? Can you put truck traffic on it? II Krauss: Well Kerber can handle the traffic but it was also that, the plan that was developed by the developer for that showed Target facing with the door on the west side which gave us two 30 to 40 foot high dead walls. One on 78th Street and one on Kerber facing our which really fundamentally was the end of downtown if you did that that way. 1 Planning Commission Meeting May 20, 1992 - Page 33 1 Ahrens: And that was the only way that they felt they could put the Target on that site. , Emmings: Then they can't do it. Krauss: Well but see, that's the thing. They can do it. They can fit one" by ordinance right now and it's a real alternative for them. We might not like it and what we're trying to do is theoretically use the leverage that we have through the HRA to do it where and how we think is the more appropriate way of putting it in. Gerhardt: Right. I mean the HRA is saying, we're not going to give you 1 any assistance if you locate on the Charlie James piece. Based on this community meeting, it was decided that the Burdick piece would be the preferred site. We would look at providing the dollar square foot write II down. Writing down the specials down there similar to our 3 year program and however you've got to go through city site plan approval process and all that and enter into this contract. That you have a minimum market value so we can generate a certain amount of taxes to pay all this off over the years. The key, I mean the negotiations have already started and I think Target wants to be down there but again, they like this Cottage Grove effect where they've signed petitions. Say come to our community. Come toll our community. And it's not the feeling like that in Chanhassen. It's not come to our community and if you are going to come to our community, we want to see a quality project. We want to see you preserve the trees. We II want to tuck you back into those trees so we don't see these 20 to 30 foot high walls and that you do come in and landscape the area. You turn your building so we get some type of visual effect that's pleasing. Not big old walls and a few trees scattered along side. And that's what Paul's job and ' my job is to express that to Target. That they come in with a site plan to the Planning Commission and City Council and HRA that is acceptable to everybody. 1 Emmings: That piece on Kerber across the street from the park, for what will be the park, seems to me, that might be worth looking at as a separate" item for some kind of special treatment that's compatible with being next to City Hall and across from the park and everything else. Krauss: Yeah, and see we really. 1 Ahrens: Isn't that what we were talking about? Emmings: Well we're talking about everything north of West 79th Street at II one time. I guess I'd be concerned about the corner. Ahrens: I think that's what I was talking about. 1 Krauss: The process that we went through on this site was really kind of neat because for the first time. One of the primary goals of the Highway 511 corridor study I think is to be able to do this sort of work so that we're not playing catch up when a developer comes to town. I think you saw that with one, I mean Bill Morrish just said academically we know that Fleet Farm bought the corner out on TH 41. Nobody's saying, committing to a Fleet Farm going there but if you're going to set the academic design 11 Planning Commission Meeting II May 20, 1992 - Page 34 I exercise, how could you put a Fleet Farm in there reasonably and he came up with some pretty good ideas for that. And if in fact this corridor study says that's a commercial corner, we would adopt a couple of possibly alternative concepts in the plan which is an appendix to our Comprehensive II Plan. We're going to say look it. You want to rezone this site to commercial. You're going to have to meet our guidelines and here's our guidelines. We did that for the Target. It's the first time we ever did II it. I don't see why we couldn't do it for other sites in town possibly including the Charlie James piece. Now the down side of the Charlie James piece honestly is a legal one in that he's already properly zoned to do II lots of stuff so our leverage there is not one of zoning but rather what, the only leverage we have is really what we can leverage through the HRA subsidy. We cannot play the game if we don't want to but somebody could A still go ahead and put something else in there. II Conrad: Without HRA assistance, what's the extra cost to Target to go into the James property? Is it something that's possible? II Krauss: I don't think we know yet. Conrad: Might they? II Gerhardt: Go to the Charlie James piece? II Conrad: Could they do it? Gerhardt: Oh yeah. Paul and I saw site plans 2 days ago that showed that II it could fit and meet our zoning requirements on the Charlie James site. Conrad: And financially they might do it simply because of getting a position in this marketplace? II Krauss: You know a half a million dollar subsidy. II Gerhardt: Charlie James...with the city assistance, I mean it's $700,000.00 worth of assistance that would be generated off of this facility over 3 years. So I mean Charlie would like to work with us so he could get that $700,000.00 worth of assistance. His site isn't perfect II either. There's a lot of grading that needs to occur over there so. Conrad: Does Target see any financial loss or gain? 11 Krauss: I don't know. When you talk about a $700,000.00 subsidy for a store that cashflows how many million dollars a year. 1 Ahrens: They make that on a Sunday. Krauss: Yeah, I don't think it's a big deal you know. It's a bigger deal II to the developer and the landowners who are massaging the dollars on the front end. I really don't think it matters to Target that much. I mean they're going to cut, their business people will cut the best deal they can II and they're real big, they seem to be real adept at playing off different properties against one another and the city's position, as articulated by the City Manager is, guys we're not going to play the game. We think we II 1 Planning Commission Meeting May 20, 1992 - Page 35 know where it should be. We will do what we can to put it there but you II put this package together and come back to us and we'll work with you. Otherwise, don't ask us to play. Emmings: And are you telling me that if they decided for whatever reason 1 to back that store up to the park and the City Hall with their loading docks and everything else, that they could do that and there'd be nothing we could do about it? Something's terribly wrong if that's possible. , Conrad: I guess the question is, is there something we should do about that right now? 1 Ahrens: Yeah right. Emmings: Well that corner sounds like it needs some protection that it ' doesn't have. Just on the corner. I don't know about the rest of it but at least on the corner. Krauss: Well Target, this is not a two parcel deal. Target also has an II option in on the American Legion site. If you think the site plan for Charlie James' piece was bad, you should have seen that one. 1 Gerhardt: I think you've got to get a rezoning for that one. ...grant it because it's not an appropriate use. Ahrens: Back to Steve's question. How do we do that? How can we deal with that dilemma? Krauss: Theoretically you could change the zoning. I say theoretically 1 because I'm not sure what the exposure we would have. We might have bought the site. In fact frankly, we've been using the HRA to buy up sites so we get control over it. We bought up the outlot in Market Square. We've been doing that. Gerhardt: Well yeah, right across the street. The parcel out in front of II City Hall. The HRA is buying it. If the HRA did not buy that, you could see a Super 8 built there today. As long as they made all the zoning requirements, they could build a Super I in front of City Hall and you'd never see City Hall anytime into the future off of West 78th Street. Krauss: We could initiate, we being you as the City Council or Planning Commission, have the ability to initiate rezonings without the property owner asking it. We clearly have the right to do that. Whether or not a court would find that in so doing you took the guy's property and you bought it. 1 Conrad: Is there another mechansim? Is there something in an ordinance that we could do that would prevent a 30 foot wall being built? 1 Krauss: One thing we could, we're thinking of doing is. Gerhardt: Pushing the building farther back. 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting May 20, 1992 -- Page 36 Krauss: Well, when I laid out the Highway 5 corridor with the consultants, 11 we included that parcel in the Highway 5 corridor so if this sits around long enough for us to finish this, it's going to be under an overlay district that gives us some additional control and we may be able to leverage things like mandating that you do a PUD and establishing firm design guidelines that I'm not sure what the legal standing of that is but I think we may have a fair shot at it. Again, the problem is we're dealing with underlying zoning. Underlying zoning canveys a package of property rights. And if we take too many .of them, we bought it. Emmings: And is that true, can you justify it by virtue of the fact that ' you've got a park across the street from it or on some other grounds where you don't wind up? ' Krauss: No. I mean a taking isn't mitigated by the fact that it's a good idea. Emmings: It would seem to me even that that site shouldn't have a building that's, now that's zoned commercial right now? Krauss: Yes. Emmings: How tall of a building can you build on a commercial piece? Krauss: Where do we have that? General business. Gerhardt:' I think the bank at one point was 35 feet tall. 1 Emmings: It seems to me on that corner you wouldn't want anything over 2 stories. - Just to keep the park, keep everything real open. 1 Krauss: Well a two story building tops out at 30 feet. Emmings: I can't think of how that would look. If you were looking from the other way, that would appear smaller than City Hall? Krauss: Well no. It's actually on a site that's lower down than City Hall so from the west. Gerhardt: I think it's about 25 feet. City Hall's about 25 feet. 1 Emmings: But it sits up higher. Gerhardt: Right. You get this tuck in thing here. If you stood right out in front, it's 25 feet from the ground to the very top. About 12 feet. 12 1/2 feet for each floor. For a 2 story counting the basement. Emmings: Maybe it's something you can think about how we could. We're not II talking about all of Charlie's property but just the corner I think. I don't know how far back but. Krauss: Well again, I like to think that our best avenue is to use a resource that we have that almost no other city has which is that pile of cash that the HRA is willing and able to use to influence things. 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting May 20, 1992 - Page 37 Emmings: But you seem to be saying that that's chicken feed to Target if II they decide to get ornery. Krauss: I think it's chicken feed to Target in terms of cashfiow but it means a lot to the upfront developer and the underlying property owner. So once you get the ball rolling, then it's chicken feed but getting it going is the thing and we're priming the pump with that. Conrad: Target's not going to want the James' property just because of visibility. That's a big deal. Krauss: It depends on when you ask them. We've heard both sides. Yeah, 1 I mean Target is very good and professional at playing that game. I mean one day we hear from Target that their store criteria mandates that they 1 must be on a highway. The next day we hear that they're looking at the Charlie James piece and that the problem with the Burdick piece is that the City's insisting the trees stay up so you can't see it. Which one is it? Which day do we believe? 1 Gerhardt: And that's why Don is taking the approach, we're not getting involved in this. You pick your own site you know type thing. We're saying we prefer you on the Burdick piece and that we would give some assistance if you locate on the Burdick piece. If you locate on the Charlie James piece, you're waving your hands of $700,000.00 and that's a II lot to Charlie James because Charlie's going to have to make up that $700,000.00. Because if he goes down onto the Burdick piece, he could get $700,000.00 and Target knows that and he's going to say well Charlie, if you don't go get the $700,000.00 from the city, I'm going to go down to the Burdick piece. So he's playing both of the landowners off of each other. These guys play games all the time and that's why it's nice in this one that we can just sit back and say this is the way the community group that , met would like to see it laid out. We'd also like to have some architectural styles for the building and how it's laid out on the site. And that we want to preserve the trees and if it means, we'll even take an ownership position in the trees. That the HRA would come in and buy the 1 trees so they don't have to sit and own them. Because in our ordinance right now, if they had ownership in the trees, year, two, three years later they can come in there and clear cut them and there's nothing we can do... Batzli: Todd, is the community group going to continue to meet or was that a one time deal or how are we going to work from this point on? Is it ; going to be Target and the HRA going back and forth until they put a site plan together and then we'll see it? Gerhardt: No. No. This letter commits to what the HRA's intent is for II subsidy. It's a 3 year deal. We'll enter into a redevelopment contract. I'll bring in the site plans once you've approved them. City Council's approved them and this one will be played through exactly like Americana II Bank was. There won't be anything taken to the HRA. I'll keep them updated. It will be on the agenda so whoever gets the packet, they'll see an update on Target and that will just be the progress of how they're going through the City process. But right now Scheme B or C is the intent of how that land's going to lay out in it. And that the HRA is going to provide the assistance to make sure that we buy the Charlie James piece and add the 1 Planning Commission Meeting May 20, 1992 - Page 38 Burdick piece to get that food court area down off of CR 17. And that between Paul and I hammering on Ryan to come up with a site plan that seems to be acceptable tucked in behind the trees. ' Batzli: Okay. Sounds good. I think we need to also get our liason starting to attend so we do have some communication back and forth also. ' Gerhardt: And I don't know who gets the HRA packet but there's not a lot of detail to those packets... Krauss: So even though you haven't been g etting them, there's noth in it anyway. Gerhardt: You haven't been getting them? 1 Ledvina: No, I haven't. ' Gerhardt: Well, we'll make sure you get them. There isn't one for this month because there's nothing on the agenda for them. Conrad: You know the Planning Commission's never done a good job of ' attending HRA so if we're concerned, I think well Matt, you don't have responsibility yet but after the first packet, you're accountable. ' Gerhardt: And there's also agendas in the newspaper the week prior to the meeting so it is in there too. So that's something new that's been added. Conrad: But I guess Mr. Chairman, it's a matter of how you want to, if we care about the issue and we spent an hour and something on it, does Matt give us some reports? Do we expect that? Or are we just going to keep it informal? ' Batzli: Todd just said that HRA is out of it now and the site plan comes to us next. 1 Krauss: You mean in the normal chain of events will there be? ' Batzli: Or are you meaning in the future on other projects? Conrad:. In the future on other projects. Gerhardt: Yes. Batzli: What I would actually like to see more than that is if Todd could come in. Ledvina: You mean a written report? 1 Conrad: No. Oh no. Batzli: I think it's fine that Matt's going to do that to the extent he can and he has the time but I would prefer to see Todd come in here from time to time and let us know what's going on. 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting May 20, 1992 - Page 39 1 Gerhardt: I'm going to follow each of the site plans that the HRA has any say in. You know Tom Zwinkel, Mail Source, you reviewed that one. Again, you approved site plan approval before they even approved a development contract for that. That will be the process from now on and I will follow each of the projects. If they come in to explain to you that what the HRA has talked about to date on each of those projects to make sure that there is no miscommunication from developer to Paul to Planning Commission. Conrad: So when are you going to do that? Gerhardt: Whenever a site plan comes in where the HRA might be entering I into. Conrad: And you haven't cut a deal at that time? Gerhardt: No, we never. We never will from now on. If there was anything. Emmings: Now you just said whenever a site plan comes in. Are you talking" about a site plan, because do sometimes site plans come into the HRA before we see them? , Gerhardt: No. Emmings: Okay. I'm not sure what you mean then. Gerhardt: Somebody will come in and say, you know this it the kind of buildings we build for housing projects. Would you give us assistance in doing something like this and the HRA says yes. We'll consider it. It was/ done over here on the apartment buildings. It's mostly apartment buildings where people come into the HRA prior to that. Because they don't want to I move ahead if the HRA isn't going to give them money. Because it's really contingent upon apartments getting some tax increment assistance. There's not too many that have ever been built where they haven't gotten it. So those are the cases where they might come to the HRA with some type of concept. And if that person comes to you and says, this has already been approved by the HRA, you don't have any say in it. That's when I'll be here to say, that's not correct. The HRA has conceptually given authority ' to look at providing assistance but they have to go through the city site plan approval process first. Emmings: Or just a short thing from Todd in our packet on that site plan. I Just like we get things from the Fire Department and the Public Safety and III everything. We could have a letter from the HRA saying here's our understanding with them to date. Then he wouldn't have to be 'here. Gerhardt: I might have a racquetball game. Emmings: We all know that's primary in your life. 1 Batzli: What I'd also like to see though Paul is if we can have just a copy of their agenda put in our packet. So that if we have a question of what the heck are they doing with this or that or the other, we can at least be advised. 1 Planning Commission Meeting May 20, 1992 - Page 40 Ahrens: It is in the paper. Batzli: Yeah, if you catch the right day. Gerhardt: It's small print. That's not a problem for us to throw an agenda in. ' Batzli: I don't want a copy of the Minutes or anything big. Cut down a bunch of trees for us but that way if something catches your eye and you want to know something about it, we can follow up. And if we don't follow ' up, then who's fault is it? Emmings: Yours, Mr. Chairman. 1 Batzli: Okay, good. That's settled. Okay, thank you Todd. LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT. 1 Krauss: Before I mention that. The tree protection easements, Tim Erhart asked to have on and he's not here tonight. He asked if you'd mind if that ' got continued. Batzli: Tree protection? ' Krauss: Yeah. Batzli: Is that the former conservation easement? Krauss: Yeah. ' Batzli: Yeah, we can continue that. Krauss: And the architectural design guidelines. I mean that was just kind of a general discussion item. It's getting late for general ' discussions but that's up to you. The lot size requirement. Boy, I felt like I got my soapbox down and was preaching to the City Council. Do you want me to summarize what I said or do I need to do that? ' Batzli: Well, I think like I told Kate, I couldn't tell which way you were leaning. Why don't you just come right out and tell us. ' Krauss: Well, yeah. I do have an opinion on that one. And I think the Council largely agreed. Now it's tough to define the intent of the Council sometimes but in terms of a move to increase lot sizes, there was none. After going through and reviewing my memo with them, there was no move to do that. There was also some desire to see the idea of the PUD be brought to a head. Now as to what minimum lot size would be acceptable on a PUD, there was no comment. Emmings: No comment? Ahrens: No comment? Planning Commission Meeting May 20, 1992 - Page 41 1 Krauss: Well no, they didn't decline to comment. They just never got quite around to it. Batzli: No consent. Krauss: Well they didn't even, I continue to believe. It's hard to define' what people are thinking. I continue to believe the Mayor's got a concern over smaller lot sizes. We did discuss the PUD at some length. I discussed it. In the context of the belief that the design flexibility would really be useful and that in the Hans Hagen Home development we have a perfect example of even if we kept the 15,000 square foot minimum average" lot size, that we could have done a pretty decent job or better job with that and responded positively to some of the concerns that we heard raised by the residents, yourselves or the City Council. And the Council didn't disagree with that. But again I don't know if it's the 10,000 square foot I minimum lot size that they're willing to accept or if in fact they're willing to accept any kind of diminishment of lot sizes. What I would propose. i Emmings: What about the idea that we don't specify minimum lot size? Are they willing to? Krauss: I really don't think, my sense is I don't think they'd buy that. It's throws open the door. Emmings: To what? , Krauss: Nobody knew. 1 Emmings: To 5 foot, square foot lots? Krauss: One of the things that they really did accept and I think had a II lot of interest in is the idea in PUD's and out of PUD's to establish a minimum developable area which is something we attempted to do in the last draft of the PUD ordinance. Where we said even if we allow 10,000 square I foot minimum lot sizes, you've got to demonstrate to us that you've got a, let's see here. I don't know if I can find it on the spur of the moment but it's a, I think it was a 60 x 40 building pad, room for a 10 x 12 deck and room for a 30 foot rear yard. Exclusive of easements and wetlands and everything else. Batzli: So how do we do zero lot lines with those requirements? , Krauss: That doesn't apply to zero lot lines. That's single family detached. 1 Batzli: So that's just single family detached PUD? Krauss: Yeah. What I've done, what I did in Minnetonka and what I would II think that you might want to consider here is when you're talking about single family, zero lot line or cluster housing. Z housing or whatever you're going to call it, it's a very valid housing style. It's a valid I concept but my own personal belief is it may not belong in a single family district. And where I proposed it earlier to you and where we ultimately 1 Planning Commission Meeting May 20, 1992 - Page 42 did it in Minnetonka, we said that's fine. It's a good style of housing but the density of it is such that it belongs in areas that are guided for medium density housing. ' Batzli: We can argue about PUD for as long as the Council can and what I would propose we do is, first of all I want Paul to tell me at least one good thing about a larger lot before we move on. One good thing. You didn't say one good thing in your paper. Give me one good reason. Krauss: The guy at the hardware store who sells fertilizer really likes ' them. Batzli: I knew you could come up with something if you tried hard enough. I think we need to move. Pass it onto the Council. If they don't like 1 what we do, fine but they have given us no guidance up to this point. It's clear they're not going to tell us what the magic number is. We just need to get, if we want a PUD for detached RSF, kind of single family I environment. Let's do it. Let's pass it up there and let them wrestle with it. We've wrestled with it for however long I've been shouting about it. Farmakes: Dick, is there any feeling on your part that it's somewhere between 10 and 15? Or is it commercially viable to go ahead and stick it with 15? Are they going to do anything with it? Krauss: Well Jeff, I don't know what the Council's going to do. I honestly don't. But I think when you ask the question, do we even need a minimum lot size, I think you need a minimum for the sense of security it provides if nothing else. That nothing will ever be smaller than blank. Batzli: Do we have a minimum right now? I don't even remember. Emmings: Why do you need that for security? ' Krauss: I personally don't. Emmings: Your security is that you have to do a rezoning and you don't ' have to rezone it if you don't like the plan. Ahrens: He's saying for security for people who are worried about minimum lot sizes. ' Batzli: I mean we're doing an ordinance now to protect the current residents. Emmings: I'm a current resident, I don't need protection. I really strongly feel that way. II Batzli: Well then you can end up voting against whatever we do. But let's decide one way or another what we would like, at least 3 or 4 of us would like to see in a draft so we can vote it up or down and pass it onto the II Council. Planning Commission Meeting May 20, 1992 - Page 43 ' Krauss: I'm sure not going to read it now but this is the last draft that 11 we looked at. Farmakes: I'm assuming they would support 15 wouldn't they? I mean I've taken that for granted. Or am I? Emmings: Well why would a developer want to go a PUD with 15,000? Farmakes: You're absolutely right. , Batzli: That was the whole point of why I asked him to look into it. Krauss: I'm comfortable with the fact that if we're demanding that you accommodate a 60 x 40 home, a deck and a back yard, there are very few instances where you'll be under 10,000 square feet anyway. I mean because II remember, you've got a 30 foot setback on the front and then you've got the house and then you've got the deck and then you've got the back yard. Yor lot's starting to stretch out right there. 1 Batzli: Okay, but what I would like to see, just as a conceptual and 1 know that you've got the average lot sizes must meet or exceed 15 and that's in bold here so we can decide whether to keep it or strike it. And I the 10,000 square foot minimum. We also have the applicant must demonstrate the 60 x 40 building pad. I don't recall that there was a lot of other debate left on this. 1 Krauss: No. It really did boil down to that. Batzli: But you and I talked the other day and maybe you can repeat for ' everybody else. Ladd's concept of having a density rather than, you know putting a fairly low minimum in there to give people comfort if they need comfort. 10,000. 9,000 feet. Whatever that is. Make it low enough so that you basically couldn't get any lower and still have a 60 x 40 foot building pad. Whatever it is. How does density help us or hurt us? Having a minimum density figure in there. Or maximum density or whatever • we're going to use. Krauss: I'm trying to recall exactly what I said. Fairly profound I'm sure. ' Batzli: It was. It was very profound. Conrad: Anybody remember it? Batzli: I'll get you started here. As I recall, we were talking about howl that ties into the Comprehensive Plan and do our ordinances in general do that? Should we be doing that in this particular instance and is it helpful from the standpoint of will we be getting better developments out of it? I think your opinion at the time at least was that, well you didn't commit but I think you indicated that it would be worth looking at. The question is, is it worth looking at and do you think it would be helpful just off? ' 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting May 20, 1992 - Page 44 ' Krauss: I think to tie it back into the density though raises the same doubts and concerns that eliminating the minimum lot area has for people. I mean theoretically it's a good theoretical construct. 1 don't have a problem with it as long as we get decently utilizable lots. But at this point I'm not going for philosophical purity. I think that the ordinance, the way it's structured right now, it doesn't give the development community probably exactly what they would want which is somebody coming in on a parcel of ground saying I want this in it's entirety to be 10,000 square foot lots. But it does give a good builder like a Hans Hagen the flexibility to do the job that he felt, and I agreed, should have been done ' on that property. Batzli: Can we then direct instead, do something that Steve talked about earlier and that is saying we'll go down to 10,000 square feet and then instead of saying, average lot sizes for the project must meet or exceed 15,000 square feet. Why can't we say, and this is I hope, I think Steve said this at some point or another in the last 3 years talking about this, -, was why can't we say, look our average lot size out of a PUD is 15,000. If you start going below these lot sizes, we're going to look at it carefully. I mean put in an intent statement that tells the developer the smaller you get, average lot sizes and minimum lot sizes, the closer it is we're going to look at it. Put everybody on notice and why can't we do it that way? Krauss: We sure could. I mean I would love to have the flexibility that gives. Ahrens: We'll allow them to have smaller lot sizes. ' Batzli: They could have smaller lot sizes but at least it would put them on notice right up front so they don't come in here and say well gee, we've got this and that and now we got to go through the expense of another site plan. At least we'd be able to say look right at our ordinance you know. We told you up front. When you start going to these small lots, we're going to look at it and if we slam dunked you, sorry. ' Ahrens: I like that wording. Krauss: If you're comfortable doing it that way. I mean that goes back to more original and pure intent of what a PUD is supposed to do. Batzli: Yeah. Well that's what I think we have to pass up to the Council ' because I think that's what the Planning Commission. I mean we've been wrestling with it and my crusade to keep the 15,000 and make it attractive by doing something else has died a glorious death so let's move it along. ' That's my motto. Would people like to see that kind of language or with a minimum in there of 10,000 square feet like we have it right now? Would you feel uncomfortable backing it up with 10,000 square foot minimum plus language talking about kind of the intent? If you get smaller, we're going to look at it closer. Anybody? Farmakes: The point is, if they wanted to change that figure, they would. ' At least they'd commit to what the difference would be between 15 and 10, if there is any. 11 Planning Commission Meeting May 20, 1992 - Page 45 II Batzli: I'm sorry, who would commit? II Farmakes: City Council to give us direction as to what they want to do with that thing. Batzli: Well we may never see it again. I mean they change the number. II Farmakes: I understand that but it's still the problem is sort of we've II got this boat dead in the water. Batzli: Yeah. Yeah. Well I think we have to pass it up. I'm trying to 11 find something that we can at least have 4 people vote on and send it up. Emmings: I would be interested in the density approach. I'm kind of interested in the idea that you've got to have a minimum size of a building" pad, deck, and stuff exclusive of easements. I don't mind that idea. I don't want the 15,000 in there and I don't particularly want the 10,000. It sounds like a good, strong intent statement. Here's what we're doing. II Here's what we're looking for. Batzli: Well I think we already have the intent section in there in our II PUD. The question is whether you want another intent section in RSF. Emmings: Yes. Krauss: It's probably appropriate to do that. That's not difficult. II Emmings: It's always smart to put the intent in there. II Ahrens: On those 9,000 foot lots in Near Mountain, are those 60 x 40 building pads? Krauss: I honestly don't know Joan. I mean I think they've got fairly II good sized homes on them. Ahrens: Yeah they do. And deck. II Krauss: And to the best of my knowledge, we haven't had a lot of variances ' or any variance situations up there. Batzli: I hope they meet sideyard setbacks. Krauss: Well, I think the sideyard setbacks were relaxed for the entire II PUD. Batzli: So what concept would you like to see Joan? Let's take a straw II poll here. Ahrens: I'm still thinking. II Batzli: Okay, Jeff. Farmakes: I like the minimum building pad. I'd just split the difference II between 10 and 15. I think we have to go on with this thing. What is this II Planning Commission Meeting ' May 20, 1992 - Page 46 the fifth time it's come back? Split the difference. Other than that, your intent statement is fine. I just think we're talking about a difference between 20 x 100. ' Batzli: We're talking about how many angels can dance on the head of a man. Farmakes: We're talking about a very small piece of property. Batzli: Okay. Matt, what do you think? Ledvina: The history on this goes back way before me but I think, I can see the argument for both sides. The security issue of having the numbers in there. I can see the purity of if you're going to have a PUD, why don't ' you just, if you've got the control in other forms within the ordinance, why do you need to identify the numbers. So I don't know but I think generally a minimum of 10,000 in terms of keeping the thing moving and ' giving the developer something to work with. I would support a minimum of 10,000 square foot. Batzli: Now about building pad? Do you want to see that in there? Ledvina: Yeah, I think those are reasonable things. I added it up and I don't know, maybe I didn't look at this exactly but I got about 6,200 square feet looking at my calculations on the setbacks. So that doesn't make 10,000 square feet but no. I like the idea of having the setbacks. Ahrens: -If you have the building pad and the setback, but you could put that on a 6,200 square foot lot. What's the point of having that in there? If you want to go along with a 10,000 square foot lot? I mean what's the point of saying it has to meet these minimums? II Batzli: Well because you could have wetland. You could have a lot of things. You could do the deal like they had over on the Ersbo property. ' Ahrens: Yeah but if we're saying that the lot must demonstrate it has 60 x 40 building pad, 12 x 12 deck. I Krauss: If you provided those things, you have a 30 foot frontyard setback. The house is 40 feet deep. You have a 12 foot deck and a 30 foot yard, that's just depth right now. You've got 112 feet of depth. To II maintain a 60 foot wide building pad, you need 80 feet for 10 on the sideyards. So you've got just under 9,000 square feet would be the absolute minimum that somebody could do. You've got 112 so if you add 112 time 80. Batzli: Okay. So what do you think of the intent statement? Do you want to see an intent, an overall intent statement? Krauss: Wait, wait. I've got to take that back. We did relax the front yard setback in a PUD to 20 feet so you could knock off. II Emmings: You've got 102 x 80. So now we're down to almost 8,000. 8,160. 1 Planning Commission Meeting May 20, 1992 - Page 47 ' Ledvina: I think there should be an intent statement in there just to. 1 Batzli: Overall or we're going to look at it more closely if you start getting smaller? Ledvina: I don't know what you mean by overall? Batzli: Well, Steve wants an overall intent statement of here's what the I PUD is. Emmings: I want the other part too. The smaller you get, the harder we look. Batzli: Oh, you want that? Emmings: Oh yeah. Batzli: Oh! I thought you chided me and didn't like that at all. You said you didn't like that at all. Emmings: No, no. When I said intent statement, I meant. Batzli: Let's take a vote. Who thought Steve said that I was. Ahrens: He just changed his mind. ' Emmings: I'd like to go home. Batzli: Okay, so we want intent statement. Okay, Ladd what do you want toll vote for here? Conrad: Are we going to do something tonight? , Batzli: We're going to tell Paul to put something together so we can vote on it next time. , Conrad: Ah, okay. I still like the overall density direction and getting rid of feet. I'm not sure what the number is but something that's II comparable to development today that we feel comfortable with. And if we don't have the votes for that here. Batzli: We don't so far. You and Steve. Maybe me. 1 Emmings: Joan's still thinking. Batzli: Yeah, Joan's still thinking but I'm just, the people that spoke. 1 Conrad: I'm also trying to think of what's going to make the City Council comfortable too. Batzli: Density's not going to make them feel comfy. Farmakes: That's it. We'll get it back a sixth time here. 11 1 Planning Commission Meeting II May 20, 1992 - Page 48 Emmings: No, because then they'll make a decision to do it another way. II They won't send it back to us. Batzli: They won't see it for another 3 years if they send it back to us. 1 Emmings: I think we shouldn't try to anticipate what City Council's going to do. What we should do is the best job we can and then give it to them. II Conrad: But my perception is they might not settle on a solution and if we can give them a solution that they can buy into, we've got a good chance of getting something through. But if it's not palatable, I don't think II they're going to come up with one. Batzii: So your contingent choices are? 1 Conrad: I can go along with the 10,000 feet in here but I do need, some of the wording is just not comfortable yet. Like I really do want to .' communicate to that developer that it's not just a mix but, every time a mix of lot sizes. I'm not real thrilled about going under 15,000 feet period. And I want them to know that and I don't want it to be a standard. I don't want to set, what we basically said is 15,000 feet is the standard 1 here and that, all of a sudden that's exactly the number that they're going to come in at on average. Basically 15,000 feet is the minimum for a single family subdivision. And so I'm not sure what we're communicating in 1 this. And words are real important and so far I'm not sold that we've communicated to the developers what we want. And I know that that's not much direction for staff to word it but I'm just not there yet. But I can accept some of the numbers that are in here. II Batzii: Do you want to see a building pad in there? 1 Conrad: That's okay. Yeah, I don't have a problem with that and I don't have a problem going down to 10,000. I really don't have a problem going down to 9,000. I guess my problem is, if I saw more than a few that were 1 down that small, I'm not going to approve it. I can see one or two and 100 or 3 just because it may be the right thing to do. I also can say, from a philosophical standpoint, if there are, the reason Near Mountain works on a 10,000 square foot basis is because there are a lot of trees. That's the 1 only reason and it's got some elevation here and there and therefore it looks good. Well, a developer comes in here and they're going to put some 9,000, 10,000 square foot lots in the middle of a farm field, that doesn't II look good. I'm not going to approve it. But I want to communicate that as much front end as possible so I don't waste his time, or her time. I Batzli: But I think if you, not to you and him fight, but I think that what we're proposing with the PUD's is if we had a farm field going up into trees, we'd put the larger stuff up in the trees to save the trees and the stuff down in the corn field would come in as 9,000 square foot lots. I II think that's the direction staff would push on. Conrad: Probably so and I might have a disagreement with that. Because II I'm taking a practical example of something that I, I guess we'll preserve the trees by putting the large lots up there and I understand that. But in terms of quality development, the reason Near Mountain looks good at the 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting May 20, 1992 - Page 49 9,000 square foot in their PUD is because they had a lot of, they tucked II those houses in. Variety of styles, I don't know if I could say variety of styles. Not a variety but a fairly attractive housing types in trees in a terrain that was kind of rolling and not flat. I'd like it. 1 might not like a 9,000 square foot development in another situation. I don't know. 5o I'm not sure what we're communicating. I don't want to communicate to a developer the potential of doing something when I don't have, 1 don't want to mislead them I guess is my bottom line too. Batzli: Joan. Ahrens: I think that we should go with, I don't have any problem with the II language in here. The average lot size is 15,000. 1 think we should have an intent statement. Building pad thing should be, wording should be included. Batzli: Do you want to go density or no? Ahrens: No. Batzli: And the minimum? ' Ahrens: I knew that was coming. Minimum. I think we should have a minimum of, actually I feel uncomfortable having a minimum square foot in ' there. Batzli: So you'd just leave it as we need an average and a building pad size? ' Ahrens: Yes. With an intent statement. Batzli: I don't like the average because I think you're going to end up with the PUD that has 4 or 5 huge lots and everything else is small. That would meet it. Granted it may not meet the intent section but I think it's, 1 don't think it accomplishes what we want it to do so I don't really" • like the average other than as part of an intent section which basically says, our minimum lot size in other districts is 15,000 and so to the extent you're going below those kinds of numbers, then we start looking at I it more and more carefully. If it's included in the intent section. You don't even have to put the number in there. I mean you could basically just say, we're going to look at it related to lot sizes in other districts or whatever. Then we can look at it how we want to look at it. So I don't ' know if the 15,000 even needs to be in there in that regard. I'd be 1 interested in looking at density but it doesn't sound to me like Paul is gung ho about the whole thing and I don't know how it would work. I think II we're going to end up with like, I think we're going to end up looking at the density anyway during the development process. That's typically something that when the lot sizes start getting small, we end up asking those questions. What is the density of this project? So I don't know howl much that adds. It's an interesting concept though because it allows both us and the developer I think some flexibility. And I think that's what the" intent of the PUD should be. And so I don't know whether we're giving the developer enough flexibility to make it worthwhile to them and yet have not only a pleasing resource for the city but a nice place for the people who Planning Commission Meeting May 20, 1992 - Page 50 11 move in to live. And those two things I think are what we need to be worried about. Unless we make it economically attractive, the developers aren't going to do it anyway. And so we'll find out right away once we pass this thing, I think whether it's economically realistic or not. And maybe we'll make a mistake. Maybe we'll have to come back and address it but we're going to find out right away when we start seeing plans coming in, one way or another. If we don't see any for the next 3 years because the City Council puts a minimum of 15,000 square feet, we'll know. Conrad: Well it didn't work at 12,500. Batzli: Yeah. Conrad: We got no takers at 12,500. Showing the flexibility coming from ' 15 down to that number. Batzli: Well we had very few. ' Krauss: Yeah the only one really was Lake Susan Hills which was a big one but arguably the City didn't achieve any of the goals that we think you should be in a PUD. ' Ahrens: Practically speaking, I don't think developers are going to come in though: If we're working with average lot sizes, come in and fill this I . unit housing development and put 4 large lots in or half a dozen large lots and everything else small just to meet the minimum. - I Krauss: If you're really concerned about it, you can put a statement in there that lots larger than 40,000 square feet will only be counted as 40,000 square feet. So you artifically juggle the average. Ahrens: Who's going to come in and buy. I mean practically speaking, somebody with the money to buy an acre, and acre and a half lot is not going to buy it in a subdivision of 9,000 square foot lots. Krauss: It doesn't make sense, right. Ahrens: They're not going to do that and a developers not going to attempt to sell expensive lots that way. I just don't see it happening. Conrad: Okay, correct me if I'm wrong. You can, if you've got a wetland ' there, the wetland will count for your lot size. Krauss: But we can define that too. ' Conrad: And that's important. So you could end up having 4 way, you can divide up your wetland and end up with 4 large lots of x number of feet, huge and then every other property comesin at 10,000 square feet. ' Emmings: I get screwed up on this but why do we let them count wetlands? 1 don't understand that. Of course if we're going on density, we avoid that ' problem. Another good reason to go on density folks. Conrad: That's right, if you go on lot size. Planning Commission Meeting May 20, 1992 - Page 51 Emmings: But even if we're going on lot sizes. It seems to me they 1 shouldn't be allowed. I didn't think Lundgren Bros. on the Ersbo thing should have been allowed to count what was under water on their lot sizes and I think we should get rid of that. ' Krauss: Well, and that's a problem throughout our subdivision code too but the Lundgren development, I don't want to open up old wounds but the Lundgren development had an average lot size exclusive of wetlands of 18,000 square feet. Emmings: Yeah. I didn't mind the development. I didn't like them drawing II the lot lines out into the wetlands and saying this is part of this lot. That I didn't care about. Ahrens: Is that what TF said? , Krauss: TF? Oh yeah. 3900 Wayzata Blvd.. We actually make them though I draw those lines to the middle of the wetland for a different reason. We prefer not to go outlot status on the wetland. Emmings: Yeah, you want it in ownership? ' Krauss: Yeah. Emmings: Yeah I guess that's okay but when you tell us, maybe it gets back" to using the buildable area. I like that idea much better. It seems much more honest to me. Farmakes: I think that's how he did it in his chart. He used the total figures when he was charting them. Krauss: No we actually made up, the last time this came through we. ' Batzli: The last time. Farmakes: The first time we saw it here, he used the total. Krauss: Yes, but we presented charts that. ' Farmakes: He was asked about the question when he was up here and he said, yeah. It should be out to the middle of the lake. , Conrad: I think density has it. Emmings: I agree. ' I Batzli: Well, the density, I mean even if something is zoned PUD and it's developed PUD, the comprehensive plan densities still apply do they not? II Krauss: Yes. Batzli: So the only thing that that does is give us more leeway. It doesn't. II Planning Commission Meeting II May 20, 1992 - Page 52 Krauss: Well I don't think it does much of anything for you since it II allows up to 4 units an acre on the low density category and that's 10,000. Well, actually maybe it does. 10,000 square foot lots. We're right in that ballpark. So you can't ever exceed that anyway. Although, once you I knock out roads. Emmings: Right. You're down to your 2.8 whatever. Maybe less. II Batzli: I think the things that have at least the votes to pass here are building pad, intent statements and the minimum lot size. I don't know how Tim would vote. If he'd go density or not. I Ahrens: I think he'd go average lot size. II Emmings: I do too. That sounds like Tim to me. We'll find out next week. Batzli: But I don't think average carried the day other than Joan and .' perhaps Tim. So give us a 10,000 square foot minimum, intent statement and building pad. Krauss: So we eliminate the 15,000 square foot average? I Batzli: I think so. There was a minority of people who liked that. Krauss: I'd be happy to do it that way. I mean that's the way I would have preferred to have done it. Batzli: Oh, sure now he says. II Krauss: No. I mean Hans Hagen came in and was able to do it with a 15,000 square foot average and when I saw that, I said well maybe I can salvage I something out of this and if we can get a PUD that at least does that much, maybe I can get enough flexibility_ But this I think gives us more. I Batzli: So unless Tim comes in and is really gung ho with density, then we'll go this route. Emmings: I have a question. I Farmakes: ...convinced that they can still turn this down if they don't like what they see? II Batzli: The City Council? II Farmakes: City Council, yeah. They're hung up on the minimum pad. That's the numbers. That's the hang up correct? Emmings: Oh no, but then he tried to get some direction on that and it II doesn't sound like he got any. Farmakes: No, I understand that but the original problem was the 10,000 II square foot figure. That's what the original problem was. Emmings: It's still the problem. II Planning Commission Meeting May 20, 1992 - Page 53 Farmakes: The understanding is that that's not a zone requirement, you i could still can the whole project correct? Batzli: You could can it because you wouldn't rezone it. ' Krauss: Well that's right and that's a critical thing. A PUD is, I forget what they call it. Legislative action. I mean it's a rezoning. You don't have to, well you have a lot more latitude to turn it down. Farmakes: I think it's an important point when it's being brought forward because if that's what is frightening to the Council, that's their lever toll flush it down the toilet and say they don't like it. Batzli: Okay, that's a wrap. Steve? , Emmings: I remember some time ago, and this feels like it was a long time ago, when we used to see Jo Ann. Jo Ann once said we have to do the II shoreland zoning. Krauss: It's in process. Emmings: That's a long time it's been in process. I know she said we don't have to do it right away. Krauss: We have 2 years. ' Emmings: And I remember I thought, but if you've got it right there in your hand, why don't we do it? Krauss: Well because I'm arguing with the DNR. Emmings: About what? ' Krauss: About their model ordinance. ' Batzli: Yeah but didn't we just see something on our last packet as an informational thing? Krauss: In fact the swamp committee asked that we put it on their agenda. I I don't see why we couldn't do the same for you. What we've done is we taken what we have and taken what they would like us to do and we've laid ' out, we agreed that this makes sense. We don't think this makes sense. Aanenson: Or how we've already addressed it on our ordinance. Emmings: We certainty have an opportunity. We can make, our standards can be more strict than their's. Are you talking about? Krauss: Yeah. Some of the things they do like, a shoreland district is anyplace within 1,000 feet of a water body. Emmings: That's every place in Chanhassen. 11 1 Planning Commission Meeting May 20, 1992 - Page 54 Krauss: Within 1,000 feet of a water body, you have to have larger lot sizes. 20,000 square feet. You have to, there's all sorts of other things that it trips and I've long maintained that that's ridiculous. I mean are you telling me that everything within 4 block, 5 blocks of Lake Harriet is in a shoreland district and should be 20,000 square feet. That's what the law says. It's a stupid. It's made for every lake in Minnesota and up to 14,000 we have, maybe it works for most of them but it doesn't work very well in the metro area. Emmings: There's no distinction between what's within municipal limits and what's not? Krauss: Not a bit. ' Emmings: That doesn't seem reasonable. Krauss: And there's no distinction between what's in the metro area. Emmings: What's sewered and what's not. ' Krauss: Well they do have a.sewered and non- sewered. Aanenson: And it's classification of a lake. Krauss: But why don't we throw it in your packet because we have it written up. We can show you where we're at. Emmings: I just happened to think of it. Emmings moved, Ahrens seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m..1 Submitted by Paul Krauss Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim I II PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MINUTES 5/14'/92 r 11 COMMISSION, i I Dave Dummer, Don Chmirel, Dave Johnson, Bill Bernhjelm, Eldon Berkland, Craig Blechta• II Councilmember Richard Wing Councilmember Ursula Dimler IF Councilmember Tom Workman Public Safety Director Scott Harr Sheriff AI Wallin Sgt. Julie Boden li ABSENT: 11 Brian Beniek Chairperson Dave Dummer• opened the meeting at 6:00 PM. Dave i Johnson motioned, Bill Bernhjelm,seconded, to approve the 4./16/92• m- inutes as written. All voted in favor and the motioned passed'. :1 I 'SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT II Sheriff Wallin. commented on the article printed in the May 7, 1992, Villager about the Southwest Metro Drug Task Force. Wallin stated •I that the article misstated that the Carver County Sheriff'•s Department and the Chanhassen Public Safety Department in their roles played in the development and implementation of the `Task Force. 1 Sgt. Boden reported that statistics on thefts and vandalisms are ,up. Boden advised that they have had new squads delivered'. I FIRE DEPARTMENT ' II Councilman Wing reported to the Commission that fire calls appear down. Wing also stated that the Fire Department is fully staffed I and training plans for the Department are proceeding well. I Councilman Wing commented on the increased and positive role that Director Harr is playing with the Fire Department. 1 I II 1 Public Safety Commission Minutes It 1 Page 2 PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT' It +Director Harr advised the - Commission that the Council passed the Amendments for Chapter 7 and T9. of the Chanhassen Building Code, as 1 well as the Commission membership, and the summaries have been submitted' for print in the Villager.. Discussion was had on the warning system. review. Director Harr reported that the first meeting of the subcommittee took .place to discuss. the alternative warning systems available to Chanhassen. in attendance was Carver County Emergency Management Director Gregg 11 Davies and State Emergency Management Director Jim Franklin. Discussion was had regarding, these alternatives. A study time -line I will be submitted at the July Commission meeting. I Director Harr offered his congratulations to Brian Beniek for being. appointed Fire Captain of the Chanhassen Fire Department. 1 Director Harr advised the Commission that there are many agencies participating in this year's.Public Safety Open House scheduled for it June 11, from 6 to. 8. PM. Several events have been scheduled for spectators to• take part in. Discussion was had' on the memo from Planning Director Pau•]. Krauss t�t a regarding sexually oriented' businesses. Bill Bernhjelm motioned, 11, Craig Blechta seconded, to table the proposed ordinance• amendment dealing with sexually- oriented businesses for future review at the IF next Public Safety Commission meeting to be held' in July, so. that City Planner Paul+Krauss and the City Attorney could be invited+ to entertain questions.. All voted. in favor and' the motion passed. II i Dave Dummer motioned, Bill Bernhjelm seconded to adjourn the 1 meeting at 7:00 PM., so that the public hearing on alcohol issues could commence. 1 �1 11 �1