1i. Minutes II CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 13, 1991
Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.. The meeting was opened
with the Pledge to the Flag.
f MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Mason, Councilman Workman, Councilman
Wing and Councilwoman Dimler
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Todd Gerhardt, Charles Folch, Paul
Krauss, Sharmin Al -Jaff, Scott Harr, Todd Hoffman, Kate Aanenson, Harold Brose
and Jerry Schlenk
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Workman seconded to
approve the agenda as amended by Councilman Wing to include the TH 5 Corridor
' Study under Council Presentations. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS:
' Mayor Chmiel: We have a couple of.public announcements. I'd like to recognize
the Scouts that are here from Pack 330. That is the Cobra Den. It's consisting
I believe of 5th graders from an assortment of schools or just one. Two? Very
' good. And we have our leaders here, Pat Albrecht and Mike Parisien. It's just
almost as difficult as trying to say Chmiel. But they're here this evening to
earn a citizenship badge and observe government in action and they chose to come
to the Council meeting today and we welcome you here and thank you for coming.
' Good show.
Councilman Workman: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes Tom.
' Councilman Workman: You can take this anyway you want but I myself is a
product, is? Was a product of the 330 Pack when I was down at Chaska and had my
pack at that time come to the Council meeting and seen some of the sinister
looking characters in the room here tonight, I wonder if things would have
' turned out for me the way they have.
Mayor Chmiel: Well I think probably most of us were Boy Scouts at one time, at
' least I was 100 years ago.
Councilwoman Dimler: I was too.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. With that I would like to provide the Maple Leaf Award
which I'm going to present to Curt Robinson. Curt would you come forward
please? I must say that our Maple Leaf awards seem to be getting larger and
' heavier. Only because of the people who have really given of themselves to the
City. At this time I'd like to present you with the Maple Leaf Award. Presented
to Curt G. Robinson, Park and Recreation Commission member 1986 thru 1991.
Giving 6 years of his service and time and devotion to make sure that
Chanhassen's a little better . place to live and we really appreciate that. This
is given to you in recognition 'of outstanding volunteer service for the
1
•
City Council Meeting - January 13, 1992
community. Chanhassen City Council indicates their leasure of presenting this
P P t 9
plaque to you and saying thank you very much and appreciate having you here.
Curt Robinson: Thank you. 1
Mayor Chmiel: By the way we'll have another name put on that plaque.
Councilman Workman: Forget the Mayor did they?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Are there any other public announcements? If seeing none
we'll move right along.
1 ORGANIZATIONAL ITEMS:
Don Ashworth: How would the Council wish to proceed? Do you want me to present
each individually? Discuss them and then you take them as a group or do you
want to act after each one?
Mayor Chmiel: I think what we should do is go through each one and then act on
each one accordingly as we go through them.
A. RULES OF PROCEDURE.
Don Ashworth: The first item under your organizational items is Rules of
Procedure. That's for how the City Council will operate, conduct it's business
I during the course of 1992. The Rules of Procedure recommended for 1992 are
exactly the same as you operated under in 1991. One change is to the meeting
schedule of the Council. Included in your report is recommendation from staff
where there's been conflicts with holidays, etc.. Hopefully the Council will
find that in order or change it accordingly.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Can I have a motion to accept the Rules of Procedure.
1 Resolution 192 -01: Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dialer seconded to
'accept the Rules of Procedure for 1992 as presented. All voted in favor and the
1 motion carried unanimously.
Don Ashworth: Question. Did that include then the calendar?
1 Mayor Chmiel: It did include, yes.
B. OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER.
II Don Ashworth: The official newspaper. We've had two requests to be considered
as the official newspaper. The Sailor as well as the Villager. The City
Attorney has taken the position that to be designated as the official newspaper
for the City which includes all of our legal notices, general business of the
City, a newspaper that resides within that community has to be chosen over a
newspaper not located within that community. Accordingly the Council really has
1 no choice but to name the Villager. Staff is recommending the Villager be
named.
1
1 2
1
City Council Meeting - January 13, 1992
Councilman Workman moved, Councilman' Mason seconded to chose the Villager as the 11 Official Newspaper for the City of Chanhassen. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously.
C. OFFICIAL DEPOSITORY. 1
•
Don Ashworth: The official despository is being recommended as Chanhassen State
Bank. That is where all of the daily receipts, expenditures of the City are
carried out. It should be noted that the City does go through a bidding process
in regards to all of our investment activities. You will be bringing back a
separate resolution showing those firms with which we do carry out competitive
bidding for our investments. But general banking we're recommending Chanhassen
State Bank. That remains the same as in previous years.
•
Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to appoint Chanhassen
State Bank as the Official Depository of the City of Chanhassen for 1992. All
voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Chmiel: Kevin, do you wish to say anything? 1
_Kevin:. Not unless anyone has any specific questions. We've had a good
relationship with the City and expect it to continue. 1
Mayor Chmiel: What's the rate of interest now?
Kevin: What time is it? 1
D. CITY ATTORNEY.
Don Ashworth: The City Attorney is the next item on your organizational items.
Staff is recommending continuation with Campbell, Knutson, Scott and Fuchs as
City Attorney. ,
Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to reappoint the firm of
Campbell, Knutson, Scott and Fuchs as the City Attorney for 1992. All voted in
favor and the motion carried unanimously.
E. BOND CONSULTANT.
Don Ashworth: Bond consultant and the City Auditors, we did go through a
bidding process approximately 2 years ago for services in both of those areas.
I believe that it was understood that we would stay with both of those two firms
for a 3 year period. I see this as the end of that 3 year period and
accordingly we're recommending that Springsted be selected as the Bond
Consultant for 1992.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to reappoint the firm of
Springsted as the Bond Consultant for 1992. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously. 1
•
r -
3
•
1
City Council Meeting - January 13, 1992
F. ACTING MAYOR.
Don Ashworth: Acting Mayor is again a position to act as Mayor pro tem in his
absence. That is a selection, it's solely Council decision. A 3/4 majority
vote is necessary. Staff is not a part of that process.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I would ask for a motion if anyone so chooses.
Councilwoman Dialer moved, Councilman Wing seconded to choose Councilman Mike
Mason as Acting Mayor for 1992. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously.
G. WEED INSPECTOR.
Don Ashworth: Under State Law, City Council must act to appoint a weed
inspector. The Mayor is officially the Weed Inspector for the city. Staff
position is typically taking care of the day to day activities associated with
' identification of noxious weeds and notification of owners to remove those. Bob
Zydowsky within the community service area has expressed an interest in carrying
out this function for us for 1992 and staff is so recommending that the Mayor be
selected as the Weed Inspector with Bob Zydowsky being appointed as Deputy.
' Councilwoman Dimier: So moved.
Councilman Workman: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there any discussion?
Councilman Wing: I really like the ring of this. It's classy. Nothing else.
Mayor Chmiel: Tom.
1 Councilman Workman: I guess I read through the memo. It sounds like we're
going to try and beef this up a little bit but we haven't been too effective.
l Maybe it's because the Weed Inspector General and maybe Bob will shake it up but
you see a clear violation and there's little that we're able to do and that's
kind of aggravating.
' Mayor Chmiel: There's a hard distinction between some regular weeds that are
weeds and those that are noxious weeds. When you get prairie grasses mixed in
with it and some people are growing prairie grass as a lawn, it becomes a
' problem.
Councilman Workman: Let me ask this question of you, the professional in this
area. I drive by a lawn and I see that clearly the residents must have a Great
Dane or something because the spots in the yard are rather large but it's in a
drought time of year and the lawn really all would be very dried out except in
those spots where it's been fertilized by the pet. And the grass there is this
tall and you've got these sprouts all over the yard.
Mayor Chmiel: It's a lot of nitrogen.
Councilman Workman: I mean is that a weed? Is that a nuisance problem?
1 4
•
1
City Council Meeting - January 13, 1992 1
Mayor Chmiel: No.
Councilman Wing: Kentucky Bluegrass has never been considered a weed.
Councilman Workman: But I mean clearly don't we have a rule that grass has to
be cut to a level of at least 6 inches?
Mayor Chmiel: No we don't but it has to get to a certain point where we do go
out and contact the property owner and ask them to mow their lawn. If they
don't, after a period of time the City can go back and then mow it for them and
charge them directly.
Councilman Workman: But we don't have a set height?
Mayor Chmiel: No. 1
Councilman Workman: It doesn't sound enforceable.
Mayor Chmiel: Well depending upon what you term as weeds. 1
Councilman Workman: No it's not weeds. It's grass and it's this tall.
Mayor Chmiel: I know the one you're.probably referring to. We've had to do
some things with that from time to time.
Councilman Workman: But we don't have anything that says they have to cut it? ,
Mayor Chmiel: Not necessarily. Roger, do you have something?
Roger Knutson: Some cities have ordinances on the subject if you want to get
into that. As far as to the best of my recollection, we have no such ordinance
right now. 1
Mayor Chmiel: No we don't. My former weed.inspector, what process is needed to
go through? 1
Scott Harr: Councilman Workman shamed me into admitting that I had to turn it
over to Bob. We're working with Roger's office right now drafting a new
ordinance to address that because it has been difficult. Believe it or not,
it's a hot topic...
Councilman Workman: How about before mowing season? 1
Mayor Chmiel: Do we have a motion on that?
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. ,
Councilwoman Dialer moved, Councilman Workman seconded to appoint Mayor Chmiel
as the Weed Inspector and Bob Zydowsky as Deputy Weed Inspector for the City. '
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
t
B
1
City Council Meeting - January 13, 1992
• H. FIRE CHIEF.
Don Ashworth: The Fire Chief position is one governing the fire scene. Their
specific duty's prescribed under State Statute as to the duties again of the
Fire Chief controlling a fire scene. Traditionally the City has looked to the
Fire Department itself to make recommendations back to the City as to who should
serve in that capacity. The Fire Department has recently gone through an
election process through which they are recommending that Jim McMahon or Jim
i McMahon was selected by that group of firemen to be the Fire Chief for 1992 and
1993. I should note that that's a two year appointment under City ordinances.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to appoint Jim McMahon as
Fire Chief for the City of Chanhassen for 1992 -93. All voted in favor except
Councilman Wing who abstained and the motion carried.
I. HEALTH OFFICER.
Don Ashworth: The Health Officer position is also set out in State Statute as a
I required position that a city must select. Health Officer position is typically
a physician within the community who will serve on a voluntary basis during the
course of year if any type of health issue comes up. Let's say swimmer's itch
' at the lake is prevalent, the health officer would be asked for his opinion in
cases like that. He also acts as the individual carrying out physicals and
other activities for the City. Dr. McCollum has shown a willingness or stated a
willingness to serve in this capacity for 1992. He has served in that capacity
II for the past 3 to 4 years. Staff is recommending that Dr. McCollum be asked
Health Officer.
I Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to appoint Dr. McCollum as
•
Health Officer for 1992. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Dr. McCollum for the offer. The pay is so great.
$1.00 a year. Appreciate it very much.
II J. CITY AUDITORS.
Don Ashworth: Cit Auditors, you did go through that bidding process
I approximately 2 years ago. That was for a 3 year contract. This is the final
year of that contract. Deloitte in fact has already started that process
•
because it involves certain work before the end of the year. Deloitte
and Touche is recommended as the auditors for 1992.
II Councilwoman Disler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to appoint Deloitte and
Touche as the City Auditors for 1992. All voted in favor and the motion
II carried unanimously.
K. CITY COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS TO THE YOUTH COMMISSION.
II Don Ashworth: Appointment to the Youth Commission, you have a letter from
Stephanie Young asking the City to set both an adult as well as a student
representative to the Youth Commission. I had not seen that letter that was
I dated I believe like in October from this past year. There was an article in
1
City Council Meeting - January 13, 1992
the Villager from approximately a week ago. As a result of that article we did
get three call in recommendations for representatives. Staff is wondering 1
whether or not you would like to select from those names. If you have other
names you might wish to consider or would you like to see staff advertise this.
I do not believe that there has an official city advertisement asking for
representation on this commission.
Mayor Chmiel: I see that we do have one Heidi Halverson for the student •
representative and we did not advertise in the paper? 1
Don Ashworth: That's correct. There was an article in the Villager talking
about what some of the other communities have done and at the current time
Chanhassen is currently seeking representatives and I think that it was a result
of that Chanhassen seeking representatives that we the call in's.
Mayor Chmiel: Now we deviate from our past practices in putting an ad in to the 1
newspaper. The article in the newspaper could be as such that that would be
acceptable as well but I'll leave that for Council discretion. Do you feel it's
necessary that we should re- advertise or I should say, advertise that like we
have in the past for all of these?
Councilwoman Dimler: Do you want to interview these people like we do everybody
else?
Mayor Chmiel: I would think it may be well accepted to do that as well.
Councilwoman Dimler: I would move that we advertise and make the appointment in
February after we interview the applicants.
Mayor Chmiel: If we were to get the ad in next week's paper, that should give
us between the 2 weeks and we should be ready with it by the first of February.
So is there a motion to table?
Councilman Workman: So moved. Did you make the motion?
Councilwoman Dimler: I made the motion to advertise it and appoint in February 1
after we've interviewed the applicants.
Councilman Workman: Second. 1
Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion?
Don Ashworth: The only question I had was, if it does get in this next week, 1
the packet has to go out mid -week, there really would only be 3 -4 day period. I
was thinking if we were to have the item back for the 23rd. It may have to
appear on the first Council meeting in February. Was that your thoughts? 1
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes.
Mayor Chmiel: Let me ask a question, being we have the editor here. Is there a 1
possibility of getting that advertisement in the paper for this Thursday's?
Thank you. 1
•
1
1
City Council Meeting - January 13, 1992
Councilwoman Dialer moved, Councilman Workman seconded to table the appointment
to the Youth Commission until the first meeting in February after the Council's
had a chance to advertise and interview candidates. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously.
1 Mayor Chmiel: One other question I might have. How many nominations do we need
for an adult representative? Is it 1 or 2?
1 Don Ashworth: One. One each. One student and one adult.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilwoman Dialer moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve
' the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's
recommendations:
1 c. Zoning Ordinance Amendment Concerning Development Contracts for Site Plan
Approvals, Final Reading.
d. Approve Readvertisement for Bids, Lake Ann Park Shelter.
11 e. Approve Position Classification and Pay Compensation Plan.
' g. Resolution 192 -02: Amend Feasibility Study for Sanitary Sewer and Watermain
Improvements in the Upper Bluff Creek District, Project 91 -17.
i. Approval of Accounts.
' j. City Council Minutes dated December 9, 1991
Planning Commission Minutes dated December 4, 1991 1
Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated December 10, 1991 -
Senior Commission Minutes dated December 13, 1991
' m. Resolution 192 -03: Approve Resolution Requesting MnDot to Amend 1992 -97
Fiscal Year Highway Improvement Project to Include the Portion of TH 212
between Lyman Boulevard in Chanhassen and TH 41 in Chaska.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
A. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CONCERNING MOORING OF WATERCRAFT, FINAL READING.
1 Councilman Wing: 92(a), that's the new one right Roger?
Roger Knutson: That's correct.
II
Councilman Wing: This addresses dock setback zone and my only comment on this
was that I think it's a good ordinance and I think it's going to go hand in hand
I with what the Planning Commission is working on with the recreation beachlots.
I think it's going to help make enforcement a lot easier of just what they're
attempting to do. My only concern for staff is that with passage of this that
' it be correlated with passage of the recreational beachlot ordinance. However
that turns out so people are clearly aware of this ordinance and.it's intent.
Although it's already in here, perhaps in a couple cases the violations I've
seen are in violation of the existing ordinance. This clarifies the existing
1 8
11 _
City Council Meeting - January 13, 1992
ordinance and I guess my whole point here for Paul and his staff is
communication of this ordinance to the people it's going to affect. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Those that are existing with problems is what you're saying?
Councilman Wing: No. Anybody that it may affect. Any recreational, actually 11
it could affect anybody on the lake including a private owner but it's more
likely to affect a crowded recreational beachiot situation. I just think it's
important that they be aware of this is an updated, improved and is going to be
enforced so they can make their spring plans accordingly. That's the only
comment I had. Just the issue of communication to the public with this
ordinance. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Very good. Would you like to make that a motion to accept item
(a)? 1
Councilman Wing: I make a motion for approval of 2(a).
Councilman Mason: Second. 1
Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the final reading of
Zoning Ordinance Amendment concerning mooring of watercraft. All voted in
favor and the motion carried unanimously.
H. REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION TO WRITE SPECIFICATIONS AND RECEIVE BIDS FOR THE
PURCHASE OF PUBLIC WORKS AND PUBLIC SAFETY VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess I just have a couple things that I would like to see or
maybe you can answer on this. I'd like to get a little more background 1
information on each of these respective items like maybe how old they are. What
mileage we might have on those vehicles and take it from there because I'm sure
that that's something that we should look at and be aware of. So maybe if you
have Harold, do you have any background information with you that you can just
hit each one of those.
Harold Brose: Dump truck replacement, that's a 1976. There's probably 1
approximately 80,000 miles on that truck. The street sweeper is a 1986. We've
got 6 years we did use that one. Flail mower's approximately 8 years old. The
roll packer trailer, that is something we were going to purchase back when we
got this pack back in 1986 but we never did. The front end loader forks. As
manual statement here, what we're going to use it for on a 936 loader. We never
had seen anything like this so it's something that we can use, well as they got
on here. Culverts, trees, unloading pallets. In the parks, playground
equipment. Things like that. The weed sprayer, that's again a new item. The
mid -size 4 wheel drive pickup to replace 701. That's a 1986 with about 90,000
miles on it and we transfer that into the garage. The one I'm using now is a
1978 Fairmont with 140,000 miles so that one's over the hill. And the mid -size
4 wheel drive pickup to replace 602, that's '86 Lynx. There's got to be about
80,000 miles in there and we put two different engines in that car so that one's
definitely getting on the borderline. Anything in particular?
Mayor Chmiel: No, I think that answers my perspective questions. Only because
it doesn't really spell it out and Council should be aware as to what year's
9 1
1
City Council Meeting - January 13, 1992
1 these are and the amount of miles that are basically on them. And the amount of
redoing of motors within vehicles that you've done.
Councilwoman Dimler: I do have a question Harold. With item 1, 80,000 miles on
a dump truck. What do you intend to do with that?
i Harold Brose: This truck, Jerry and I talked over too. We really actually need
to keep this old truck. As many more streets, cul -de -sacs we've had, to keep it
as a backup and a spare plow truck. When we break down in these storms, we can
' take that one out and go. Trade in value is probably going to be about
$4,000.00 so it would be, we can put the water tank on it in the summertime for
watering trees so there'd still be some use of that truck so we actually
1 wouldn't probably get rid of that truck yet. I'd like to but.
Councilwoman Dimler: So you're keeping it on line? Okay.
Mayor Chmiel: And I realize with the storms that we've had, we do have
breakdowns and those needs are there for a backup. When they aren't there,
probably like Council's phone as well as my own, ringing off the hook. But
that's one thing I'd like to. That's not the right place at this time but it is
talking about these vehicles. I think the crews have done an exceptional job
these last two storms that we've had. Even though I've received many phone
calls and if it is a problem for some people but I think exceptionally things
were done rather well. I'd like you to pass it on to our people who are plowing
the streets. Any other discussion on this? If not, I'll make the motion. Is
there a second?
Councilwoman Dimler: Second.
' Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilwoman Dialer seconded to approve the request for
authorization to write specifications and receive bids for the purchase of
public works and public safety vehicles and equipment. All voted in favor and
' the motion carried unanimously.
K. HAZELTINE/BAVARIA WATERSHED DISTRICT. DECLINE MEMBERSHIP.
' Councilwoman Dimler: Item 2(k) is the Hazeltine /Barvaria Watershed District.
It's been recommended that we decline our membership since we have such a small
area of land in there. However, I did have a few questions and I thought maybe
it was worth bringing up. It says right now that there's no residences there
and no development but I'm wondering if in the future there will be and if we
decline our membership now and Chaska will appoint an additional member, is
there in the future that we may want to have members and can we still have one
on there. Also, I see in the back letter here that Bonestroo is a consulting
fi and has done some watershed management plans for the District. I'm
wondering if Chanhassen is paying any part of that and if we are, then we should
have representation.
Don Ashworth: If I can remember the questions. The property in question, there
' are no structures. There is no one living there currently. The property is
guide zoned as industrial. That means that it will develop in the future. It
is within the expanding MUSA area so it's logical that both parcels could or
would develop within the next 5 to 10 year period. That means that there would
10
1
City Council Meeting - January 13, 1992
be structures on that property and it would be then within that Barvaria
district. Once we decline membership, it is very doubtful that we would ever
have the right to select someone to that district. It does not mean though that
Chaska could not consider an owner in Chanhassen as being selected for that but
at least this group, Chanhassen City Council having a legal right to put a
person there no, you would not have that.• Costs to date. I am unaware of any
costs that have been paid by the City. Typically a Watershed District under
State Law has the ability to levy and collect taxes up to a certain amount to
pay the expenses. My guess is that there has been a minor levy that has been
created in the past to pay for the study work that has been completed. The cost
of that has not been paid by you or I but a portion of that cost was paid by the
22 acres that are in Chanhassen. So there's 8,000 acres in total. That 8,000
would have each contributed some dollars to pay for that study. Whether it be
$30.00 per acre or something like that.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. I guess I just wanted to bring that up and see what
the other Councilmembers thought too. Whether if this is an opportunity lost,
whether we really do want to decline.
Mayor Chmiel: I would say that if this is not costing us per se an enormous
amount of dollars, or a considerable amount of dollars, I think that probably we
should still be a member of that. But if in the event that there are costs that
should be associated with this, that would not be beneficial for us because of
the total 8,000 acres that we're looking for representation of property in
Chanhassen is about .03 or 1% as you've indicated of the total land area. I'm
not sure that then would be worthwhile so I would make a suggestion that this be
looked into by the City Manager and deemed acceptable, then we should then
either have one membership on this or decline that because of the additional
costs that could be. ,
Councilwoman Dimler: You're thinking it's going to cost us to have a member on
there?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. If he's saying that each watershed district has the ability
to tax the city that they're in.
Councilwoman Dimler: Can we get Roger's opinion?
Don Ashworth: I was going to say Roger just leaned over and showed me a note
saying that there are different types of watershed districts. Go ahead.
Roger Knutson: There are traditional watershed districts that have been around
since the turn of the century and the watershed management organizations, new
Statute is about 10 years old now. New watershed management organizations do
not have the powers of the past. ...organizations. You have the right to put a
member on now. You have the right to put a member on later. L
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. So we're not giving anything up if we don't put one
on now? 1
Roger Knutson: Unless there's something very unusual in that Joint Powers.
Agreement. I have not seen it but I've written 8 other districts. You're able
to put one on later unless someone really...
11 1
1
City Council Meeting - January 13, 1992
Councilwoman Dimler: Shall we table it and check it out?
I Mayor Chmiel: That was my suggestion.
Don Ashworth: Yeah, I would prefer that.
II Councilwoman Dimler: I move to table then. ' .
II Councilman Workman: Second.
Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to table declining
membership on the Hazeltine/Barvaria Watershed District. All voted in favor
II and the motion carried unanimously.
VISITOR PRESETNATIONS:
II INTRODUCTION OF JUDY COLBY, CHANHASSEN SENIOR CENTER PROGRAM COORDINATOR.
II Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, City Council, I'd like to introduce Judy Colby to you
this evening. Judy is the person that we hired to work with the, excuse me.
Judy was hired through Senior Community Services to work for the City on a part
time basis, 12 hours per week on organizing the programs for the Chanhassen
:' Senior Center. We are paying Judy's salary out of Block Grant allocation and we
really felt that we needed to have a good relationship with Senior Community
Services who's got the expertise in getting these programs up and running and in
I getting the senior community and the volunteer community pulled together on
these things and we feel quite fortunate to have Judy with us. There was a
lengthy interview process that involves city staff and the Senior Commission as
I well as Senior Community Services and out of that Judy was the selected
candidate. She is a resident of the community and is very excited to work with
our seniors. Already in a short period of time has established a real good
working relationship with them. I think you'll be seeing her a lot in the
1 future. She's really going to be the person that we're going to point a lot of
senior oriented questions to. If people call up City Hall with questions for
senior programs, opportunities for referrals, Judy's the person we're going to
I point them in the direction of. So with that I'd like to introduce her to you
so that you can become familiar with her and use her as a resource and I'm sure
you'll be seeing a lot more of her in the future.
I Judy Colby: Good evening. I can't help but sit there and wonder why the room
isn't jammed packed since I'm here because if you recall the last time I was in
front of you, it was a couple years ago and we were asking for a variance. My
II husband and I and it was jammed packed. Now I know there were a few .other items
but maybe Eckankar is more important than the weed inspector, I don't know but
it just seems so strange that no one's here. I'm really excited to be here.
II This has been a dream of mine since I was in grade school and all of a sudden to
be given the opportunity to start at such an embryonic stage with Chanhassen and
build this and the Senior Commission is such a great group of people who are
really dynamite as far as their plans. I've had an opportunity in the past
I couple weeks to do a bit of touring around some of the other centers and the one
that sticks out in my mind most is Mound because they have developed such a
strong relationship with their city and with their city businesses. The repoire
II and the reciprosity between the center and the city is'just remarkable so I'm
i 12
II
City Council Meeting - January 13, 1992
•
hoping and by the sounds of it, as quickly as this Council moved to set this all
about, I expected when I looked at some of the back notes, expected this to be
on your agendas for years and here it's been a matter of a few months and you've
already got architect's plans going and worked with the Senior Community
Services. I was on the job about 15 minutes and the architect called and said
well what plans are you going to run? I kind of, can I just have a couple days
so I'm really looking forward to it and I hope any suggestions or thoughts that
you might have on how we can work with the city, you'll give me a call because I
know the seniors are very appreciative of this space that we're being given and
like I say, we really want to start with a reciprocal agreement.
Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you. Welcome. ,
Judy Colby: Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else before I move ahead. Anyone else for 1
visitor presentations?
PUBLIC HEARING: LAKE RILEY WOODS SECOND AND THIRD ADDITIONS: ,
A. VACATION OF UTILITY EASEMENTS AND RIGHT -OF -WAY EASEMENTS. LAKE RILEY WOODS
SECOND ADDITION. • '
B. FINAL PLAT APPROVAL. LAKE RILEY WOODS THIRD ADDITION.
C. APPROVE DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT FOR LAKE RILEY WOODS THIRD ADDITION, PROJECT ,
92 -1.
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, very briefly. This goes back to an item that occurred '
I think almost 2 years ago now wherein we had the Lake Riley Woods Third
Addition plat. The street was put in in the wrong spot. It was 60 feet off and
the homeowner that was concerned about the resulting lot. It's been, I don't
know if it's been in litigation but it's been in discussion for quite a while to
resolve this. The parties have come to resolution with this and you approved
the preliminary plat to correct this I believe in October. This is the final ,
plat and associated agreements that would basically clean this up. The
easements that you're vacating are in the existing standard drainage and utility
the erroneous street easement right -of -way. You'll be getting corrected
easements and hopefully this will put this item to bed once and for all. It's
really a fairly straight forward request at this point. •
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thanks Paul. Just one question that I had on this. I
don't recall whether or not the drawings that we had received had PE's signature
on that?
Paul Krauss: I am not honestly certain Mr. Mayor. I don't have the file with 1
me.
Mayor Chmiel: Well that's so we don't have the problems that we had before. I'd
like to see that done with those to make sure that's included.
Paul Krauss: Sure. Fortunately we actually did have the PE's signature on the
one that was wrong.
13 '
1
City Council Meeting - January 13, 1992
II Mayor Chmiel: I know. At least we can hold him responsible. Anyone else? Any
other questions? Why don't we take each one of these individually as item 3(a).
II i
Councilman Workman: Do we need to close the public hearing on that or not until
the end? I
II Mayor Chmiel: No. Close the public hearing. Oh no, you're right. This is a
public hearing. If anyone has anything to say. It's been so long since we've
been here, it's hard to get back into the swing of things. You're right. Any
I other one wishing to add to this? If not, can I have a motion to close the
public hearing?
I Councilman Workma moved, Councilman Ma seconded to s
cloe te plic h
All voted in favor and the motion carried . The public hearing wa
s closed .
I Mayor Chmiel: Now we'll take each one individually. Item 3(a).
Councilman Workman: I would move vacation of utility easements and right -of -way
easements, Lake Riley Woods Second Addition.
I Councilman Wing: I'il second that.
II Mayor Chmiel: With recommendations?
Councilman Workman: Yes.
II Resolution #92 -04: Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Wing seconded to
approve Vacation Request #91 -2 vacating all drainage and utility easements and
Pine View Court as platted within Block 1 of Lake Riley Woods 2nd Addition with
II the following condition:
i
1. A ten foot drainage and utility easement be provided along the north and
I west lot lines of Block 1, Lake Riley Woods, 3rd Addition.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
II Mayor Chmiel: Item (b), final plat approval, Lake Riley Woods 3rd Addition.
Councilman Workman: So moved.
II Mayor Chmiel: Second.
II Councilman Workman moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to approve final plat for Lake
Riley Woods 3rd Addition with the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall enter into a new development contract.
I 2. No direct access for Lot 3, Biock 1 shall be permitted to TM 101.
I 3. No direct access for Lots 1 and 2, Biock 1 shall be permitted to CR 14.
4. All approved septic treatment system sites shall be staked to preserve them
II prior to any site grading.
4
14
i
II
City Council Meeting - January 13, 1992
5. The final wear course shall consist of 1 1/2 inches of 2341 plant mixed
bituminous wearing course with 6 foot wide, 100% crushed gravel shoulders. 1
6. Construction plans shall be retitled Lake Riley Woods 3rd Addition.
7. All construction shall be in accordance with the city's latest edition of
Standards, Specifications and Details for Rural Construction.
8. The final plat shall be amended to include a 10 foot wide drainage and ,
utility easement along the north and west lot lines of Block 1, Lake Riley
• Woods 3rd Addition.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Item (c), approve development contract for Lake Riley Woods 3rd
Addition, Project 92 -1.
Councilman Workman: So moved.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: With staff recommendations? Okay, any other discussion?
Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the
development contract for Lake Riley Woods 3rd Addition and grant a general
release of the Lake Riley Woods 2nd Addition development contract over Block 1.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
AWARD OF BIDS: REJECT BIDS FOR MARKET SQUARE STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
NO. 90 -13.
Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. .If you recall back in August
that the Council took action to award this project contingent on a 90 day time
period to receive a development contract and the necessary securities for the
Market Square development. Since that time this 90 day period has expired and
we still do not have as of yet a development contract or necessary securities
for the underlying project. Schafer Contracting was contacted to see if they
would be willing to extend their bid prices for 1992. However, they declined
due to the uncertainties in coordinating this project with their work on TH 5.
Therefore it would be appropriate for the Council to take action to formally
reject all bids received for the Market Square storm sewer extension project No.
90 -13 which were received and opened on Tuesday, August 13, 1991.
Councilman Workman: So moved.
Councilman Wing: Second. - 1
Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Discussion. I just have one thing
on that. We've indicated what the other bids were. Should we exclude those
people back again from bidding?
Charles Folch: Unless there's some specific reason to eliminate some potential
contractors, you probably would want to see them back again just to keep a good 1
15 1
•
1
City Council Meeting - January 13, 1992
population of bidders and keep it as competitive as possible.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, that was my question.
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor? Why would you want to exclude them? What would be l
' the reasoning on that?
Mayor Chmiel: Well being that they know what their bids were and they know what
the low bid was and everybody can come back in.
Councilman Wing: Point well taken.
Councilman Workman: Can we do that? We can't exclude somebody can we?
Mayor Chmiel: I don't know. That was the question when I asked that.
Roger Knutson: There'd be no basis for letting them rebid. This information is
now public knowledge and everybody knows what everyone else has put on the table
' anyway.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah but I'm sure they know what the bids were and they know what
everyone else's bids were. They know what the lowest bid was as well.
' Roger Knutson: And hopefully they'll want to beat the low bid the second time
around.
Mayor Chmiel: I like that thinking Roger. A motion and a second. Any other
discussion?
' Resolution 092 -05: Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Wing seconded to reject
all bids for the Market Square Storm Sewer Extension Project No. 90 -13 which
were received and opened on Tuesday, August 13, 1991. All voted in favor and
' the motion carried unanimously.
PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PUD APPROVAL, CHANHASSEN BUSINESS CENTER, 93.7 ACRES SOUTH
' OF THE CHICAGO RAILROAD AND WEST OF AUDUBON ROAD, RYAN CONSTRUCTION.
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, Kate will be giving the staff report on that but if
I could add a correction to, the schedule is a little bit erroneous. It's not
1 the final plat. It's a preliminary plat approval.
Mayor Chmiel: I'm glad you brought that up because I was going to question that
' as well.
Kate Aanenson: The staff has been working closely with the applicant over a
series of a couple months. This is the first project request inside the new
' MUSA line. This is a large development, 94 acres including 12 buildable lots.
It will be built in two phases over a number of years. The site plan presented
tonight is consistent with the conceptual plan that you approved in September.
' Staff feels that this proposal is well designed and the applicant has worked to
meet the standards requested by the staff. Staff feels that the PUD zoning is
appropriate. That gives a comprehensive approach development including
compatible architecture and signage, consistent street lighting, cohesive
16
11
City Council Meeting - January 13, 1992
landscaping, buffering and screening and more effective storm management. The
City will have one large pond built to NURP standards instead of a series of
several ponds requiring more maiitenance. On December 4, 1991 the Planning
Commission recommended approval of the preliminary plat and the preliminary and
final development plan as well as approval of the Environmental Assessment
Worksheet, the EAW. At that December 4th meeting the Planning Commission
recommended that the recreation trail system have an internal loop and they
requested that the site plan be amended to show the north side of Lake Drive
West designed to accommodate this recreational trail. The Planning Commission
also recommended that the sewer connections in Phase 1, north of Lake Susan
Hilts be granted on a temporary basis, if feasible. Switch back to the other
trunk line to the south. In addition the Commission wanted a time limit on the
temporary retention pond located on Lot 6 in Phase 1 be given a time limit. The
staff is recommending that this be a 3 year time limit. The EAW was published
in the EQB Monitor on January 6th and as you know no governmental decision to
approve a project can be made until a negative declaration has been made. 50
the comment period expires on February 5th. At that time the applicant will be
back before you to request the final plat approval. In addition approval to the
EAW and approval of the developers contract and PUD agreement. So staff
recommends approval of the preliminary plat and final development plan subject
to the conditions. And there's just two minor corrections I'd like to review
with you in the staff report. On page 25. On number 7, the last sentence
there. The .sanitary sewer lines of Phase 1 shall be switched. We want that to
say, if feasible to flow into the trunk sanitary sewer systems proposed in Phase
II.
Mayor Chmiel: What item was that again?
Kate Aanenson: Number 7 on page 25. Then the second change, again a minor
change would be on page 28, number 9. It'd be the first sentence. The entrance
drive to Lot 1 be moved to the north approximately, in reviewing with the
applicant, we felt like 300 to 500 feet so that should be changed to 300 to 500
feet. So that would be the changes. Otherwise the staff is recommending
approval based on those conditions and I'd be happy to answer any specific
questions.
Councilman Workman: Can you repeat what you're saying about that number 9? 1
Kate Aanenson: Which one was number 9? Okay, what we were looking at there is
we were going to tie up the stub driveway to the west and looking at that, what
we're looking at is we may block that. There might be a sight at that
intersection anyways and there may be channelization which would block that
entrance anyway so it wouldn't be a free left. Right now we feel, the staff
didn't really want that curb cut to begin with but we felt like in the traffic
report, most of those turn movements will be going to the north anyway so there
will probably be limited, conflicting traffic movements. But if the signal does
go in at that location which is very likely, the channelization would restrict
that so they'd have to come back to the light anyways and hang a U'y and go back
up north. So we felt it could be mitigated, the conflicting turn movements.
Mayor Chmiel: Everyone understands?
Councilwoman Dimler: Not really. 1
17 1
1
City Council Meeting - January 13, 1992
Kate Aanenson: I guess the 300 to 500 feet was also in looking at that, we
wanted that pushed up further, maybe 500 feet and they had concerns because it
put the driveway in the middle of their site. So if a truck came into their
project, it would have to go through the parking lot and they felt if they kept
it closer to the southern property line, it wouldn't conflict with all their
11 parking traffic. So we're giving them some flexibility and depending on how
site lays out.
Mayor Chmiel: Does anyone have any other questions?
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. I guess I would like to discuss the traffic light
because you brought it up too on TH 5.
Kate Aanenson: On TH 5 and Audubon.
' Councilwoman Dimler: And I was reading and I couldn't really determine whether
they ask that we pay, the City pay for part of that?
' Kate Aanenson: No, they request that we petition MnDot as soon as it warrants
that we get the light. We are making a requirement that they pay a portion
based on a portion that they generate. They pay a portion of that light.
1 Councilwoman Dimler: But is the City required to pay some too then?
Mayor Chmiel: There will be some dollars involved in it from the City as well.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, but this is their request solely.
Paul Krauss: No. No. Basically we asked them to do a traffic study so that we
could get the big picture there. They're but one contributor to traffic on
Audubon Road. In fact we think the traffic on Audubon Road would warrant
signals in the next probably 3, 4, 5 years even if they never built.. I mean if
' other sites develop there. The McGlynn site continues to expand. The Amcon
piece. The Rod Grams property plus the existing properties that area already
going through there. This is going to accelerate the need for a traffic signal.
' So given the fact that we're pretty confident that one's going to be required in
the next 3 years or so, what we'd like to do is set up a program where we're the
public agency. We're the ones who have to deal with MnDot and request this but
that we start putting together a kitty to contribute to the cost and I think
' MnDot, and Charles can explain it. MnDot has a cost sharing formula for these
signals and I'm not really sure how it breaks out but you wanted to get into
that?
Charles Folch: Yeah, there isn't a written policy if you will that's standard
for all their signal systems but the City would be expected to pick up what is
considered a local share for that intersection. So we'd like to make sure that
we've covered on our costs too.
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I'm looking at the opening of TH 212, Lyman Blvd.,
is it conceiveable that a lot of the traffic will head south and go out on
TH 212 and a traffic light may not be warranted there?
1
1 18
1
City Council Meeting - January 13, 1992
Paul Krauss: No. We did ask specifically their traffic engineer to give two
scenarios. One pre -212, the other post. TH 5 is going to warrant a signal
either way. Yeah, there will be some diversion of traffic to the south in the
future but you're still going to have pretty high volumes.
Kate Aanenson: I think the traffic report said about 20% will shift to the
south.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, so you're telling me that maybe even Galpin Blvd.
will require one so you're really cutting the flow of traffic on TH 5.
Mayor Chmiel: It's pretty much like going through Eden Prairie, yeah. But the
question I had and what Ursula said and I'm piggy backing on that. With TH 5
reconstruction that will take place, that light would not go in until the second
segment of that highway is completed?
Paul Krauss: Normally I think that would be the case. That's not going to be
until the second phase of TH 5. However, it may warrant a signal, a temporary
signal before that's done. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Because costs of a signal runs roughly $100,000.00 plus for a
signal. And relocation costs at that time I don't feel, well there's a safety
factor involved there. I think what you're looking at is left hand turns to
necessitate that signal or is it because of the flow of traffic coming through
there to have the access coming out from that street and going possibly east on
TH 5?
Paul Krauss: Well coming north on Audubon, east on TH 5 is, that's the easiest
movement to make coming out of there. But as traffic builds on TH 5, which it's
doing, I think you can see it yourself when you go out there. You're waiting
longer and longer period of time to find a gap. That's complicated a lot worst
trying to make a left turn across that.
•
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. I'm just wondering if that light should go in at the time
you're saying or should we wait until that is the highway is necessitated
because to relocate those lights, that becomes a little costly as well. 1
Charles Folch: Excuse me Paul. We could probably, from the report it appears
that at least a temporary signal would be warranted by 1993 pending this
development here. A temporary signal system could probably be installed for
anywhere between $35,000.00 to $40,000.00 on the wood poles and such. The TH 5
improvement project between CR 17 TH 41 is likely not to occur until 1996.
To begin construction. There's a remote possibility of 1994 but there's likely
will be a need those 3 years between 1993 and 1996.
Mayor Chmiel: But you're still going to have to tie in the circuits between the
others. Your cost is still there and putting those up on the structures, I
don't think it will still be much more than $35,000.00 that you're saying
I believe. Because you're going to have to tie it in completely.
Charles Folch: Actually the temporary system will probably be totally scrubbed
and we start with a whole new system.
1
19 1
1
City Council Meeting - January 13, 1992
Paul Krauss: I think keep in mind, this is not warranted today. We're not sure
when it will be warranted but we're trying to be prepared. We're trying to look
ahead. I think you have to understand too that this is not the only thing
that's going to be happening on Audubon Road. We're talking to a developer on
the Rod Gram's property who's looking at 70 or 80 single family lots there.
11 Those would all use the same street. We have the Redmond parcel that wasn't
developed 2 years ago. There are parties now looking at that. If that happens.
We have the individual who has the exception to the Redmond piece who I
understand that property is on the market. We have the Amcon piece which was in
the MUSA line could develop at any time. We have the McGlynn's piece on the
corner and this is all exclusive of anything else that could happen in the
existing industrial park so a lot's bound to be happening here in the next few
years.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, and I can see a positive aspect to that as well. Putting
in a light on a temporary basis for the access to Lake Ann Park as well with
kids. That would be a safety part of it too. So it could have some. Richard.
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, Council, staff. There's something really wrong .
here that probably goes back many years. I personally am finding TH 5 to
becoming impassable. We're coming in with this delightful multi - million dollar
4 lane road to nowhere. It's stopping at Dakota and it's stopping, well let's
back up. There's a stop sign at the city border coming in and then with Dakota
and TH 101 and Market Blvd.. They're a block a piece. I wouldn't come through
Chanhassen on a bet and I live here. So the reason for my smart aleck comment
11 perhaps is what's gone wrong that we haven't put limited access onto this road.
Obviously we're growing. Obviously traffic's getting heavy and we've got a real
hazard created here but why in this planning weren't we putting in service roads
then to direct the traffic to major intersections and keep this traffic
flowing? This is really a travesty I believe. Maybe it's too late to even
bring it up. Maybe it's just irrelevant at this point but if it was up to me,
we'd stop this whole thing and start eliminating these intersections.. Stop
I sigrisand access. Certainly Lake Ann desparately needs a stop sign. That is
one treacherous intersection and Audubon Road. I'm tired of waiting to get out
onto TH 5 but Greenbriar and TH 7 where I live, when I go to a fire call, the
I obscenities that come out of my mouth waiting for that traffic knowing I'm going
to miss this truck. Traffic is really an impossible situation but there's
another case where we need a service road to direct all those neighborhoods to
specific intersections. I know we're really off the subject now but stop signs
and traffic flow in Chanhassen Mr. Mayor, Charles, Paul, what are we doing?
This isn't right? This isn't in the best interest of the future.
' Mayor Chmiel: I understand really what you're saying not smart alecky because
you pilot that 747 and there aren't any stop signs up there but.
' Councilman Wing: Amen. Unfortunately there is. There's a lot of us but I
don't have a solution here and I don't mean to, does this need to be addressed
or is it too late?
II Paul Krauss: Well, if I could briefly go into it. A couple things. You're
dealing with a series of temporary signals along TH 5 that aren't sequenced at
all now so nothing is moving through in a fluid manner and I think there's
probably an intent to do that a little bit more as that occurs. We also do have
i 20
City Council Fleeting - January 13, 1992
a comprehensive frontage road system design that's being built as property
develops. In fact the Lake Ann park issue is one that would be resolved if the
extension of 78th Street, which we've got on the map, when that gets passed
through there, you'll be able to get into that park from anyplace from TH 41
.1 through downtown Chanhassen without ever having to go onto TH 5. So these
things are coming. 1
Mayor Chmiel: It's on the north side of the road.
Paul Krauss: Actually we've got one on both sides but there is one for the park 1
on the north.
Councilman Wing: Paul, it would appear to me that it's going to be quicker to
drive that service road through the area than it is to go on a 4 lane road.
Paul Krauss: Well, Councilman Wing. Long term TH 5 is, it's not the high
volume, limited access highway. That's 212 and that's pretty much by design.
Councilman Wing: We're adding a lot of stop signs. There's got to be an
alternative.
Mayor Chmiel: I think if you really sit back and remember going through Eden
Prairie. There was one stop sign on that stretch and there was one stop sign in
Chanhassen. Stop and go light I should say. Since then you have one right
after 494 and one at where Menard's is. The following one right where
McDonald's is. You have one right where McGlynn's is. You had one at the
railroad tracks. You have on on Eden Prairie Road where SuperAmerica is. So
all those things are a basic necessity because of control for having them coming
in and out. And it becomes a necessity and it becomes a problem but yet you
live with them because they do do that direction.
Councilwoman Dimler: But one of the things that was my concern is that I can
see it at a crossroad but this is a T intersection you know. And I can
understand it for the left hand turn but again is it going to be that much
traffic when some of the traffic will be going south in the future to warrant a
stop light? 1
Councilman Mason: That's true Ursula but I think what Paul just said about how
many homes might be going up in there?
Paul Krauss: Well on that one site alone there's another 70 or 80 homes.
Councilman Mason: You know I look at this development and think, this is a
•pretty big deal. Then I think what it will be like in the future.
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. But it's likely too that they'll be going south
on Lyman.
Paul Krauss: Well in fact there was an expectation by the Planning Commission
when they located this industrial site on the Comprehensive Plan, it was
intended that a lot of this traffic be lured south to 212 so not everybody goes
on TH 5 and we hope that that's going - to happen. This is going to be the
21 1
•
City Council Meeting - January 13, 1992
closest to 212 of any industrial area in the city. But 212's not going to be
open there until the late 1990's.
Charles Folch: And actually one of the critical factors that they look at in
evaluating the warrants is the peak hour volume. And the westbound TH 5, then
1 turning south onto Audubon is a critical movement that is one of the ones that
is going to, in the morning in the rush hour trying to cross in front of all the
eastbound traffic is one of the primary factors that is tripping the warrant.
1 Mayor Chmiel: One of the suggestions I'm going to make is that staff move and
live in town and have to drive through these things.
1 Councilman Wing: Do you need a second? Alright. I appreciate the opportunity
to make my comments.
1 Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, I just wanted to voice my concerns about that too.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Any other?
1 Councilman Wing: I was quite concerned about this development earlier today
until I had an opportunity to meet with Mr. Carlson. He promptly brought me to
I my knees, which is really my way of saying, I found Paul and his planning staff
had done a very thorough job and I felt a very comprehensive job and my concerns
were promptly alleviated and my questions answered very thoroughly so I think
that Paul and his staff have done an excellent job with this. I have no
II problems with it all. I would be ready to.
Mayor Chmiel: I have just a couple other things I'd like to touch on. Charles,
' we're looking at the potential of having to put in a sewage lift or lift
station. Is there any potential? Now is that lift being put in to bring it up
or is it, why is the particular reason that that sewage lift is being put there?
II Charles Folch: The feasibility study that we are having done basically, and
actually where it goes back to is the comprehensive study that was done for the
MUSA expansion area. Determine that location as being the low point for the
entire service area and basically what will happen is the flow from the
northwest portion of the service area will flow down to that low point including
a portion of this site and it will be pumped back up via forcemain_back up north
I along Audubon Road which will then tie into the gravity main along to the future
Lake Drive West extension. So this basically is the siting for this is to best
serve the needs of the entire service area.
1 Mayor Chmiel: I was looking for gravity flow more than anything else but what
you're saying.
II Charles Folch: It's not possible.
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, if I could add into that. This entire area was the
II area that was supposed to go into that mythical Bluff Creek interceptor. That's
where it naturally wants to go and that's the pipe that will never be built and
when we got the comp plan approved, we got approval from MWCC to intercept that
at Bluff Creek and back up. 1
•
1
1 22
1
City Council Meeting - January 13, 1992
Councilman Wing: So this will not be able to be gravity? It will have to be.
Mayor Chmiel: No. That's why I was asking. The other thing that I had was a
little bit of a problem and I'm probably jumping but the building materials and
design. Here you indicated on page 9 of your communication of December 4th,
item number 5. Metal siding will not be approved except as a support material
to one of the above materials or curtain wall on office components or as a trim.
Explain it to me a little bit more. Metal siding can get a little.
Paul Krauss: That's what we got away from. I think you will not have the
corregated or whatever it is metal siding, in lieu of the tip up panel. Where
you will have metal is if you have, well like PMT's new addition that has a
glass and steel curtain wall construction. Where basically it's just glass with
steel framing around the glass. That's acceptable to us. I mean you certainly
would have metal framework occasionally supporting parts of the building but it
won't be the clad material. And as far as the HVAC screens go, we found that
metal screens are very effective. You know we wanted to get away from the wood
slats that keep on blowing off. There's several materials you can use but metal
was one of them. It seems to weather quite well and is pretty durable. So
those are the only places where you would see it. But no, this prohibits the
metal building.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I realize that.. I just sometimes have a real hangup with 1
any kind of metal siding because of the maintenance, upkeep and the appearance
wise but hopefully that's not going to be a problem. Of course we'll get an
opportunity to review this when it's all pulled together.
Kate Aanenson: Each site will come in for site plan review.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. I guess that's about what I had on there.
Councilman Workman: I move, is it final plat approval? 1
Councilwoman Dimler: Preliminary.
Councilman Workman: I'm sorry. Preliminary plat and PUD approval for 1
Chanhassen Business Center for 93.7 acres south of the Chicago Railroad and west
of Audubon Road, Ryan Construction.
Councilwoman Dimler: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? 1
. Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve Preliminary
Plat for Chanhassen Business Center subject to the following conditions:
1. Provide the following easements and right -of -way:
- an additional 17 feet of right -of -way along the westerly side of Audubon
Road throughout the plat.
- a 20 foot wide drainage and utility easements over the proposed sewer
and water lines outside the road right -of -way.
23 1
1
City Council Meeting - January 13, 1992
- a 20 foot drainage and utility easement for the sanitary sewer proposed
' along the west side of Audubon Road lying south of the proposed main
entrance.
- standard front, side and rear lot drainage and utility easements.
'
-
trail and conservation easements over all buffer yards, Outlot A, and
sidewalk connection from Lake Drive west to city trail.
- drainage and utility easements over the Bluff Creek flood plain and all
retention basins.
' - Lake Drive West shall have a 60 foot right -of -way. The right -of -way
shall be 80 feet wide from the intersection of Audubon Road to the short
cul -de -sac north off of Lake Drive West. The radius on the curbs at all
street intersections Audubon Road shall be 30 feet.
2. The main entrance street shall be named Lake Drive West consistent with the
' future extension of Lake Drive West, east of Audubon Road.
3. The applicant shall provide the City Engineering Department with storm
' sewer calculations designed for a 10 year storm event and ponding
calculations to show that the ponds will retain a 100 year-storm event and
will discharge at the pre development runoff rate. Data shall be provided
on nutrient removal capacity of all ponds for review and approval by the
' City. A temporary retention pond for Phase I shall be created on Lot 6
until Phase II is developed.
4. The applicant shall petition the City for preparation of a feasibility
' report for the extension of a trunk sewer line to service Phase II and
interim service for Phase I of the site which will be refunded upon project
approval and authorization by the City Council.
I 5. If only Phase I of the site is graded, erosion control fence shall be
incorporated along the perimeter of the construction limits. Type I
' erosion control fence shall be installed and maintained along the entire
westerly perimeter of Phase I construction limits. Phase II construction
will require the perimeter of the construction limits shall be Type
' III erosion control. All areas disturbed during site grading shall be
immediately restored with seed and disc mulched, sod or wood-fiber blanket
within two weeks of site grading or before November 15, 1992 except in
areas where utilities and streets will be constructed yet that year. Areas
'
distrubed with a slope of 3:1 or greater must be restored with sod or
wood -fiber blanket. As a part of the erosion control measures, the
applicant shall be required to remove any materials (sediment) that enter
into Bluff Creek.
6. The water
main loop between Lots 8 and 9 shall be extended to within 10 feet
of the southerly property line and then proceed east and parallel to the
south property line back to Audubon Road.
7. The applicant shall provide the Engineering Department with the
calculations estimating the capacity of the sanitary sewer line through I
' 24
City Council Meeting - January 13, 1992 ,
•
Lake Susan Hills West development and the predicted flows each lot will
generate. The applicant will be required to demonstrate that each site
requested for development in Phase I can be accommodated without exceeding
sewer capacity of existing services. The sanitary sewer lines in Phase I
shall be switched, if feasible, to flow into the trunk sanitary sewer
system proposed for Phase II at the developers expense when service is
available.
8. The northerly, easterly and southerly slopes of the retention ponds shall 1
be reduced to a minimum of 4:1 for maintenance purposes.
9. As a condition of final plat approval, the applicant shall enter into a ,
development contract and provide the financial security to guarantee
construction of the improvements.
10. The developer shall construct the utility and street improvements in
accordance with the latest edition of the city's standard specifications and
shall prepare final plans and specifications and submit for city approval.
A 6 foot wide concrete sidewalk /trail shall be included along one side of
Lake Drive West (Phase I and Phase II). The developer shall acquire utility
construction permission /permits from the PCA and Minnesota Department of
Health. • '
11. The developer shall obtain all necessary permits from the Watershed
District, DNR and Army Corps of Engineers and comply with all conditions of
the permits. Drainage plans shall be revised as outlined in the approved
staff report and shall be resubmitted to City staff for approval. The
applicant shall obtain permission /permit from the railroad authority for all
grading activities within the railroad property.
12. The developer shall incorporate street lights into the street construction
plans. The street lights should be installed at 150 to 200 foot intervals. '
The street lights shall be designed consistent with existing lighting on
Audubon Road. A 250 -watt contemporary low-profile rectilinear - rectangular
style lighting fixture with pressure lamps mounted on a 25 foot high cortin
steel pole.
13. The entire tract of land development (lots 1 -12) shall be assessed for the
future trunk sewer system to be built for Phase II (Lots 6, 7, 8, 9 and 12).
14. The Developer shall be responsible for a percentage of the costs for
traffic signals at Audubon and TH 5 based on traffic counts attributed to
the development.
15. The applicant will be required to pay park dedication (52,500.00 /acre) and
trail fees (5833.00 /acre) in the development contract. No development shall
occur on Outlot A as it shall be preserved as open space.
16. The recreation trail shall be located along the north side of Lake Drive 1
West. The trail shall be a 6' wide concrete walk along Lake Drive West and
8' wide bituminous trail along the sewer easement and stubbing to the
Railroad underpass in Outlot A. The recreation trail shall also loop from
Outlot A along the southern property line up along Audubon Road and to tie
25 '
• City Council Meeting - January 13, 1992
into Lake Drive West. This trail (see exhibit for trail route) shall have
' bituminous surface and be 8' in width.
17. The developer shall be responsible for maintaining the storm sewer and
retention ponds until both phases of the development are "built out ".
1 All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dialer seconded to approve the
Preliminary and Final Development plan for the PUD Plan for Chanhassen Business
Center subject to the following conditions:
' 1. Final PUD plan approval be subject to the 30 day comment period after
public notice of publication of the EAW in the EQB Monitor and a finding by
the City Council that an Environmental Impact Statement is not required.
2. The development standards, as proposed by staff in the November 18, 1991
staff report, shall be incorporated into the PUD development guide for the
' Business Center.
3. Site plan approval from the city, as outlined in the City Zoning Code, will
' need to be obtained for each lot as development is proposed.
4. The permitted uses in this zone shall be limited to light industrial,
warehousing, and offices as defined in the PUD ordinance and in the
November 18, 1991 staff report. Truck transfer terminals shall be
prohibited from this project.
5. All parcels located along Audubon Road shall be designed to look like an
office building including such design elements as scale, height, and
material components for office buildings.
6. Building materials and designs shall be:
•
a. All materials shall be of high quality and durable. Masonry material
' shall be used. Color shall be introduced through colored block or
panels and not painted block.
' b. Brick may be used and must be approved to assure uniformity.
c. Block shall have a weathered face or be polished, fluted, or broken
face.
d. Concrete may be poured in place, tilt -up or pre -cast, and shall be
finished in stone, textured or coated.
e. Metal siding will not be approved except as support material to one of
the above materials or curtain wall on office components, or as trim,
' or as HVAC screen.
f. All accessory structures shall be designed to be compatible with the
primary structure.
' 26
City Council Meeting - January 13, 1992 1
g. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened by walls of compatible
appearing material. mood screen fences are prohibited. All exterior
process machinery, tanks, etc., are to be fully screened by compatible
materials.
h. Large unadorned walls shall be prohibited. All walls shall be given
added architectural interest through building design or appropriate
landscaping. 1
i. Space for recycling shall be provided in the interior of all principal
structures for all developments in the Business Center. 1
7. All freestanding signs be limited to monument signs. The sign shall not
exceed eighty (80) square feet in sign display area nor be greater than
eight (8) feet in height. 1
a. Each property shall be allowed one monument sign located near the
driveway into the private site.
b. All signs require a separate permit.
c. The signage will have consistency throughout the development. A common
theme will be introduced at the development's entrance monument and
will be used throughout.
d. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials and
heights.
e. The applicant shall provide staff with an acceptable sign package for 1
incorporation into the PUD agreement (with the development of Phase I).
B. The street lights should be designed consistent with the existing lighting 1
along Audubon Road.
a. A decorative, show box fixture (high pressure sodium vapor lamps) with
a square ornamental pole shall be used throughout the development area
for area lighting.
b. Lighting equipment similar to what is mounted in the public street 1
right -of -ways shall be used in the private areas.
c. All light fixtures shall be shielded. Light level should be no more 1
than 1/2 candle at the property line. Street lighting is excluded from
this requirement.
9. The extrance drive to Lot 1 be moved to the north approximately 300 to S00 1
feet north of Lake Drive West so that it aligns with the existing drive to
the east of the Stockdale property.
10. If traffic counts warrant, the city shall work with MnDot to request that a
traffic signal be installed at TH 5 and Audubon Road to coincide with the
completion of Phase I of construction. 1
E
27
•
1
City Council Meeting - January 13, 1992
11. Each lot shall submit a separate landscaping plan as a part of site plan
' review. In addition, all site landscaping and screening shall:
a. All open spaces and non - parking lot surfaces shall be landscaped,
rockscaped, or covered with plantings and /or lawn material.
b. Storage of material outdoors is prohibited unless it has been approved
under site plan review. All approved outdoor storage must be screened
with masonry fences and /or landscaping.
c. The master landscape plan for the C8C PUD shall be the design guide for
' all of the specific site landscape developments. Each lot must present
a landscape plan for approval with the site plan review process.
d. Undulating or angular berms 3' to 4' in height, south of Lake Drive
1 along Audubon Road shall be sodded at the conclusion of Phase I grading
and utility construction. The required buffer landscaping may be
installed incrementally, but it shall be required where it is deemed
' necessary to screen any proposed development.
e. Loading areas shall be screened from public right -of -ways. Wing wall
may be required where deemed appropriate.
' 12. The trail system shall loop, using the utility easement along to the storm
orm
water retention pond.
' 13. Temporary improvements in Phase I are limited to 3 years. At that point
final street, utility and drainage improvements must be installed. Surety
' shall be provided to ensure timely completion of these improvements.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
I H CONSIDER IGHLAND REQUEST PROJE FOR 8 8 -6 AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR MINNEWASHTA
, .
' Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor? It was Item number 6 that we had received a request
from the applicant that they were not feeling well. We suggested that they come
in 9:00 and we would try to put them on, Ellie Schwaba, put her onto the agenda
' as close to 9:00 so she was going to sleep or whatever. I don't know, is
anyhere representing? Are you representing her? Will she be here? So should
we go ahead with the item?
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Item number 6. Consider request for amendment to
conditions of approval for Minnewashta Highlands, Project 88 -6.
Councilwoman Dimler: I move approval of item number 6.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
' Councilman Wing: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: Discussion.
' 28
1-
City Council Meeting - January 13, 1992
Councilman Workman: Are the Borchardt's Jason s and Borchard# s and those people aware of
this? Is this going to change anything with the drainage? Nothing with the
drainage?
Charles Folch: No. Basically it's not affecting the drainage. What's
happening here is there is a pair of service, sewer and water services available
i to this lot from Minnewashta Parkway. If we hold them to the development
contract stipulations they won't be able to receive a CO on that property until
after the utilities are accepted in the cul -de -sac which won't occur until it's
paved this spring. It's kind of a time thing for them basically. From what I
understand from information from my staff, that the applicant has expressed that
there's a potential hardship here because monies generated from the lot sale
will basically be used to pay for the improvements that have been generated
through the construction. There really isn't any change to the grading. Any
storm sewer. Drainage. Things like that.
Councilman Workman: But we've got that squared away? Okay. That's all I want '
to know.
Councilman Wing: I have a question on the road. They're asking us to relieve a
hardship but I think their construction out there has inplaced a hardship on the
residents. The condition of that road is the worst I've ever seen Minnewashta
Parkway. I sure it had to do with the time of year, the early winter coming on ,
but that doesn't excuse the fact that the road is in as bad a condition as it is
where they put in the utilities and I think it's their responsibility to get
that repaired and whatever has to be done with it, graded, graveled or paved,
Charles I'd like to see you go out there as part of this agreement, that that
road be fixed effective immediately.
Charles Folch: I'll check into that. In fact I was out there this morning and
drove the entire road. I didn't really notice anything in particular. There's
quite a few potholes out there. I'll certainly take another look at
Councilman Wing: I'm talking about specifically in front of this piece of '
property. They tore it up and then there.'was kind of quick pave job right
during the snow storm and obviously they were under pressure. It doesn't excuse
the impassable condition of the road.
Charles Folch: We'll take a look at it.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Any other discussion?
Councilwoman Disler moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve amending item (k)
under Section 8 'Other Special Conditions' in the development contract for
Minnewashta Highlands as follows: "No occupancy certification will be issued
nor building utility connections allowed until such time as the utility portin
of the public improvements have been tested and accepted by the City except for
Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 as noted in 'd' above." All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously.
29
1
- --- - - - - -- — — -- - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - --
City Council Meeting - January 13, 1992
ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 12 OF THE CITY
CODE REGARDING PARK OF t10TQR VEHICLES
IN MUNICIPAL PARKING LOTS, FIRST READING.
' Mayor Chmiel: Would anyone like to make comments?
• i
Councilman Wing: Is there a way to by -pass a second reading? The only reason I
bring that up is this is sort of typical Scott Harr if you will. I think he's
put a lot of thought and effort into this. It's kind of the live and let live
atmosphere. I think it's very fair and justified and I think he's given
11 everybody a chance on this. It's so conservative I guess I'm not convinced it
needs a second reading.
' Mayor Chmiel: Well yeah. I guess just for normal procedures as we do, it
doesn't look like we're shoving something through, I'd just like to have it go
to second reading. But I agree with what's there.
' Councilman Workman: What are we, maybe give me a specific example. Are we
talking about maybe in front of Merlyn's? Parked cars that are for sale?
Scott Harr: That's a problem. Also the, plowing's a problem. We have some
overflow from some of the tenants adjacent to city lots and we've actually had a
number of occasions where vehicles have been abandoned or left for extended
periods. Weeks, months at a time. We just didn't have any way to deal with
those because the ordinance specifically speaks to street parking. So we need
to allow the maintenance people and the plows to get in there as well as to give
' the CSO's and deputies something by which to be able to remove these vehicles.
Two changes I need to ask you to put in. First of all, on Section 12 -50,
paragraph B. That should be 2:00 and 6:00 a.m. because the plows usually come
out at 3:00. In Section 12 -51, Section 2, we would have to add that this does
not include Chanhassen city vehicles.
Councilman Workman: A little bit of a double standard.
' Councilwoman Dimler: Right.
Mayor Chmiel: Can I have a motion?
Councilman Workman: So.
' Councilman Mason: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded.
Councilman Mason: I thought you were saying so moved.
Councilman Workman: 0kay, I'll move this. Restriction. What is the motion?
' Restriction of ordinance amendment Chapter 12 of City Code regarding parking of
motor vehicles in municipal parking lots. Could we for the next reading get a
copy of what all those are? I think I know what they all are but where they all
' are in status? Because I notice between the hotel and Merlyn's there's cars
that park for sale and some boats occasionally and I would consider that a
service. Others would consider that a nuisance, particularly when it snows but i
that's probably going to limit that.
30
•
City Council Meeting - January 13, 1992
Scott Harr: We have had a number of complaints about vehicles being parked
there with for sale signs. Where they used to put them was down on the corner. '
We had a sign and worked that heavily. A number of cities have ordinances
prohibiting the sale of vehicles on city streets or municipal lots. We've just
been dealing with them individually and calling and asking people to move it but
we don't have anything to keep that. I think this would help because I don't
think they'd bring it back and forth for daytime. I'll bring you a map of all
municipal lots.
Don Ashworth: In front of Brooks. The parking lot from there over to Riveria
is private but otherwise all lots downtown are all public. Everything else was
done municipally. The bank is the bank's. I mean all of the other lots
downtown.
Councilman Workman: Pauly's? '
Don Ashworth: Pauly's. In front of the Dinner Theatre. Merlyn's. By Kenny's.
Councilman Workman: When you say municipal lots, are you saying we own them? i
Don Ashworth: We carried out the construction of those lots and assessed the
costs back to those owners, yes. ,
Councilman Workman: So they're who's lots?
Don Ashworth: Ours. In almost all instances except for Paulys /Ponys /Pryzmus we '
at our sole discretion could actually turn them back. They have like Kennys,
they have in there a request option that they can ask that it be turned back but
it's still at our exclusive decision. '
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I just have a question on the $10.00 overnight
fee. Is that per night or can you for an extended period of time say okay, you
can park there for a week?
Mayor Chmiel: That's cheaper than a hotel.
Scott Harr: It's a one time...like we would charge for shooting permits, loud
speaker permits.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. Well I guess my concern is like, if somebody were
at Pauly's and they thought there were not in any shape to drive home, I'd
rather have the vehicle parked there overnight without a permit and then not
have them punished for that afterwards and have them get a ride home. How would
. we handle that?
Councilman Mason: That's a good question. '
Scott Harr: Yeah it is and that's why we've included the 4 hour waiting period
before a citation can be issued. '
Councilwoman Dimler: 4 hours from when though? •
•
1
31 '
•
1
Scott Harr: When the citation's issued. But we wouldn't be cruising those lots
' looking for citations. We're looking for abandoned vehicles. There was one as
of last week that was parked behind Pauly's for 3 weeks with 2 fiat tires. We
just don't have anything to do with that. We've have other abandoned vehicles
or people who are using the lots just to store vehicles. In one case we found
out they were gone for the winter... -
Councilman Mason: Did they put it up on blocks too?
1 Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, but you wouldn't be looking to pick on people who
are not driving home because they aren't in any condition to drive or anything
like that?
Councilman Wing: One thing I like about these particular ordinances, I think
there's a need to have that kind of control but one thing is,,Scott tends to
handle these things on a personal basis and that's the advantage we've got. So
I don't find...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, we have a motion on the floor with a second. Any other
discussion?
' Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to an ordinance amending
Chapter 12 of City Code Regarding Parking of Motor Vehicles in Municipal parking
lots as amended by the Public Safety Director. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously.
AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF SUPPLEMENT TO FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR WEST 78TH STREET
DETACHMENT PROJECT 87 -2.
1 Councilman Workman: So moved.
Councilwoman Oimler: Second.
1 . Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. The other question I guess I had,
we're in preparation of another feasibility study or a supplement amendment to
the original study. Why? -
Charles Folch: It's basically anytime that we've going to use special
' assessments to help fund a portion of the cost of the project we've governed by
the Statutes of the State 429 in which basically stipulates that if you do not
begin construction of the project within one year after the ordering of the
project, you have to reinitiate the process again.
Councilwoman Dimler: Basically we have no choice.
1 Charles Folch: Absolutely.
Resolution X92 -06: Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to
' authorize preparation of Supplement Report No. 2 to the Feasibility Study for
West 78th Street Detachment Project 87 -2. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously.
1
1 32
1
City Council Meeting - January 13, 1992
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
RESOLUTION COMMENDING JAY JOHNSON AND DEBRA KIND FOR THEIR SERVICE ON THE '
SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT COMMISSION, COUNCILWOMAN DIMLER.
Councilwoman Dimler: I just wanted to take the opportunity to commend both Jay
Johnson and Debra Kind for their volunteer commitment to the service on
Southwest Metro Transit Commission for the city of Chanhassen. They both are
very instrumental in improving our public transit service. I especially
appreciated Jay for his engineering background and his sound advice he gave in
those areas and Debra was invaluable with her input from a rider's viewpoint
because she rides the bus to work downtown daily and she really understands
the...of riders. Therefore, be it resolved that the City of Chanhassen
recognize both of them for their commitment to the Southwest Metro Transit
Commission and to the citizens of Chanhassen by adopting the two separate
resolutions that are before us tonight. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Very good.
Councilman Workman: I'll second that and also thank Ursula for her efforts '
there also and Mike's efforts which we will.
Councilwoman Dimler: Mike is going to do a super job. '
Resolution #92 -07: Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded
approving a resolution commending Jay Johnson for his service on the Southwest
Metro Transit Commission. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously.
Resolution t92 -08: Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded 1
' approving a resolution commending Debra Kind for her service on the Southwest
Metro Transit Commission. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously. '
Mayor Chmiel: Richard, TH 5 corridor.
Councilman Wing: Am I the only one? 1
Mayor Chmiel: You're the only one and if you hurry, we'll be done.
Councilman Wing: Then I would like to move that staff be instructed to remain
until 11:30. Mr. Mayor, Council, TH 5 is hot. It's developing rapidly and it's
development, my concern is going to get ahead of the city in it's current
attempt to prepare a corridor study. The parcels are being bought up. We
already have one proposal. What do you call it? Not a proposal but.
Councilman Wing: It's a concept. 1
Councilman Wing: Concept right in the middle of the corridor itself. Therefore
I would like to just have the item placed on the next agenda for discussion and
also the definition and the possibility of a moratorium being established. If
the City Attorney could look into that for the next meeting. We either have to
get really aggressive on this corridor study, give it up or get a moratorium and
33
1
1
- - - - - -- - - -- - -- - - -
City Council Meeting - January 13, 1992
make up our minds what we're going to do but I think we're going to lose the
' battle here if we don't move rather rapidly. So the request is simply that this
be on the next Council agenda for discussion.
Don Ashworth: I should note that Bill Moresch will be before the Planning
Commission. Did you make a decision?
Paul Krauss: February Sth.
Don Ashworth: On February Sth to go through basically the same items that he
had presented to the joint group. The members from the HRA, Council and
Planning Commission so if any of you are able to attend that, I think it was a
well worthwhile exercise the night we had done it with the other group. This is
really the next step in getting things rolling.
1 Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman workman seconded to adjourn the meeting.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:05
1
p.m..
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
1
1
1
1
1
•
1
1
1
1
1 34
•
1 •
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION E 1TE i%f. •
1 REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 15. 1992
11 Chairman Emmings called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m..
MEMBERS PRESENT: Ladd Conrad, Steve Emmings, Jeff Farmakes, Joan Ahrens
and Matt Ledvina
MEMBERS ABSENT: Tim Erhart and Brian Batzli
STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Jo Ann Olsen, Senior
Planner; and Kate Aanenson, Planner II
Emmings: We're going to save item number one until the end of the meeting.
Those are all basically organizational items and we'll get right onto the
public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING:
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT AND INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR SCREENED OUTSIDE
' STORAGE ON PROPERTY ZONED BF, FRINGE BUSINESS DISTRICT FOR PROGRESS VALLEY
STORAGE, LOCATED AT 1900 STOUGHTON AVENUE, GARY BROWN AND GARY DUNGEY.
JoAnn Olsen presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Emmings
called the public hearing to order.
II Emmings: Gary, do you have anything to add?
Gary Brown: No. That's fine. If we go with outside storage, you want it
screened? Is that correct? If we do not go with the outside storage, the
same with the truck rentals, do you still want the screening?
Olsen: We're just asking for the additional landscaping. There is no
I specific requirement for, as part of the conditional use permit for truck
and trailer rental, there's no specific requirement that it has to be
completely screened. We are asking for additional screening from the
residential for the truck and trailer rental and complete screening for any
other outdoor storage.
Gary Brown: Now, the only question I guess I would ask then is, are you
going to make the parking lot owner across the street here, the hardware
store, are you going to make him screen that all the way around?
II Emmings: We're not looking at that. We don't have to answer that. Here,
Gary I've got one question for you.
Gary Brown: Sure.
II Emmings: Last time you were here you mentioned to me that as far as the
truck and trailer rental goes, that you could live with a limit on the
1 number of trucks and trailers. 20 trucks, 4 trailers and no trucks over 26
feet or something like that.
Gary Brown: I've got no problem with that at all Steve.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 15, 1992 - Page 2
Emmings: Okay, that didn't get in here I guess I'll just throw it out
for consideration. If some people think there ought to be a limit and the II
other thing is if your business expanded and you wanted those limits
changed, we could look at it again. But anyway, okay. The reason I'm not
going to have the staff address the parking lot across the street. That's II
not your property and we're here tonight to talk about your property. I
think we all know there's something going on in that parking lot that's not
allowed by ordinance. That doesn't mean we should allow that to happen II someplace else. So that's the short answer to that and we're not going to
talk about it anymore.
Gary Brown: That's fine. 1
Emmings: Okay. Anything else?
Gary Brown: The only other thing I'd like to ask is, on number 3 here it 1
says that we shall have a letter of credit to be submitted to cover the
cost of material installation for a year. Does that mean you're going to
want to hold that letter for a year? Okay. And how much do you ask for
that?
Olsen: 110% of the cost. That's typical for what we do with any site '
improvement.
Gary Brown: Okay. I don't think I've got any problem with that. 1
Emmings: Okay. So as far as the conditions go on all three of these
items, it's okay with you? Is that right?
Gary Brown: Yeah...
Emmings: Alright. This is a public hearing. Is there anybody else here II
that wants to address any of these issues? Is there a motion to close the
public hearing?
Conrad moved, Ahrens seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in I
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Ahrens: In practical terms, does it really make that much of a difference II
if these, the screening requirement. If he's going to have 20 trucks.
What did we talk about? 20 trucks, 4 trailers.
Emmings: Maximum yeah.
Ahrens: If that's visible to the outside neighborhood and from the street,"
is that any different from having other kinds of storage visible from the
street really? Are we nitpicking here or is this a significant difference?
Olsen: We discussed the last time that the truck and trailer, those are
actually outdoor storage and how do we treat that. The way that we looked II
at it was that the ordinance specifically designates truck and trailer
rental as a conditional use permit and doesn't require that it has to be
completely screened. That other miscellaneous outside storage does and
that's just to be consistent with what we do throughout the other
1
i
Planning Commission Meeting
January 15, 1992 -- Page 3
districts. It's a difficult one yeah because...naturally screened.
Ahrens: We're just trying to fit this into our current ordinances?
Olsen: Trying to be consistent as best possible.
Ahrens: But in practical terms it really didn't make much of a difference.
11 I remember when we went through this last fall. I guess I don't have any,
I'm going to go along with the staff recommendation on this. I think that
the request is reasonable and the conditions are reasonable.
Emmings: Okay, Jeff.
Farmakes: I'm going to go along with staff on this. I think we've
discussed it enough.
Emmings: Do you want to get your feet wet?
Ledvina: Sure. I had a question as to the Phase III. It says here that
the outdoor storage will be removed when Phase III is completed. Is there
a time line for that?
Gary Brown: When we need to put Phase III in. I'm hoping in the next 2
years. We're just constructing our fifth building down there right now so
there's room for 3 more buildings. And if things keep going good, yeah...
next few years will build out.
' Ledvina: Okay. Otherwise it looks reasonable.
Emmings: Alright, Ladd.
Conrad: Everybody's so brief. That's just terrific. My intent at the
last meeting was to challenge staff and say what does outdoor truck rental
look like. And as I read my Minutes, I couldn't tell what I said. But I'm
11 still, truck rental and trailer rental is something that you have outdoors
and people pass it and it sort of stimulates that's where it is. I guess I
kind of thought we were going to look at that to decide if we had the right
parameters for truck and trailer rental in terms of our ordinance. And
based on what the staff report came back and said is, we don't have any
guidelines and therefore we're going to, we don't have any guidelines right
now. My point last time we talked about this was, should there be? Are we
trying to screen truck and trailer rental and I never thought it should be
personally but we didn't have a reaction from staff on those points and I
don't know if we all thought about it but my posture was that if there's a
place in Chanhassen for this kind of operation, it's down where Gary has
his operation. A specific question that I couldn't tell based from the
staff report, and JoAnn maybe you can tell me, you've got the truck and
trailer rental screened in the southwest corner and that is from a
neighborhood standpoint?
Olsen: From the residences.
Conrad: So I guess the question that I pose to the Commission is, that's
sort of a token type of thing and I don't know how much, that's not a
1
i
Planning Commission Meeting
January 15, 1992 -- Page 4
significant screening effort is it? What's your perception of what that
would take?
Olsen: To screen it? 1
Conrad: To screen it on the southwest corner. We're talking evergreens
over 6 feet and we're talking 10 evergreens or any idea JoAnn?
Olsen: There's some existing landscaping there now. We just wanted them
to add to it. It is going to take the evergreens. My intent I don't know
that we could possibly have it totally screened, even from the residential
side. The way it's located and the fact that it's in the middle of a largell
open site and the site has just the chainlinked fence at this time. So the
existing conditions really kind of limit how far we can go.
Conrad: So we screened it to a degree from the one or two neighbors. There
aren't many neighbors down there. Residences but still, and then one
happens to be one of the owners. 1
Gary Brown: I was going to say. The part that we're screening is where my
partner lives. 1
Conrad: He could sell his house.
Gary Brown: I guess now that we talked about this, it kind of refreshes my l
memory too. I would like to ask one thing. When we planted all the
evergreens the first time, we planted I don't know a dozen or 15 six
footers which we were able to save one out of all. We planted 50 or 60 -3 II
footers and we never lost one.
Emmings: What year? 1
Gary Brown: We put them in 1987.
Emmings: So that was the dry years, '87 and '88 that you had the problems?"
Gary Brown: Yeah, we replanted a couple of the 6 footers the following
year. We couldn't keep enough water for them because it's all sand down
there.
Emmings: Yeah. We talked about that last time you were here.
Gary Brown: Yeah. We'll do our best to make them grow but we could have a
little problem there making those 6 footers.
Ahrens: I think we should be more flexible.
Emmings: Yeah. 1
Gary Brown: 3 footers I know we can make grow.
Emmings: Well and this doesn't specify. It specifies that you have to
have a landscaping plan that's acceptable and I guess if you make that
point at the time you make your landscaping plan, I think people will be
11
I
Planning Commission Meeting
January 15, 1992 - Page 5
reasonable about that. If you had luck with that soil with 3 footers and
not 6 footers, it's kind of dumb to have you plant 6 footers. But anyway,
go ahead Ladd.
' Conrad: Is our posture in the city that if you have a truck rental or
trailer rental operation, that it should be screened? Is that what we're
going to do with a car lot? We'll screen the cars? When a new dealership
comes into town, same thing. They're selling cars. Primarily they're
going to be inside, if there is one coming in. I don't really know if
that's happening anymore. Same operation. I guess it's a little bit
dissimilar but is our posture to screen?
Emmings: Isn't it to screen to the extent necessary depending on the site?
Isn't that what we're doing here? That's what I thought.
Conrad: I think the policy to screen from the neighborhood is just
absolutely right on. Even though it's one of the owners, I think if we do
a little bit of screening, I think that makes a lot of sense. My question
is, right now in general, and it doesn't really pertain specifically.
Well, in general what's our philosophy on screening truck and trailer
rentals? The ordinance says screen them all the way around.
Emmings: No it doesn't.
' Olsen: That's outdoor.
Conrad: Well you classified this as outdoor storage though.
Emmings: No. No we're not.
Ahrens: No. That's what I don't understand.
Emmings: I think what we're saying here is this is more like a retail
service.
Conrad: Right. It should be.
Emmings: It's not like, even though you're storing big items, this is not
outdoor storage. It's a retail service and since it's a conditional use,
we're always going to have an opportunity to look at it and screen it to
the extent that's necessary depending on the site. That's the way I'm
looking at it. Now I don't know if that makes sense. It's a pretty fine
line between a truck as some kind of retail service.
l Conrad: But wouldn't you want to have an ordinance that would tell you how
to treat truck and trailer rental in terms of.
Earrnakes: How's it any different than a new car parking lot? New car lot.
Conrad: Jeff, yeah. I don't know.
Emmings: Here's the thing though. If we've got, if we know there's going
to be some screening associated with these when they come in as a
conditional use. Now we're back to our old'argument that we get into every
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 15, 1992 - Page 6
time. Some people want things very specific and itemized in the Statute
and some of us like them very vague so we can deal with the problem that
arises. I always tend to like the vague better. That's why I want a
principle. Principle is, if you're going to have this kind of retail
service and we're not going to call it outdoor storage and not make you
completely screen it, then I want to have the ability to tell you how much
you've got to screen it depending on the site.
Conrad: So you don't like standards associated with truck and trailer
rental?
Emmings: Yeah. 1
Conrad: There are no standards?
Emmings: The standard is, it's a conditional use and it's going to be
screened to some extent but the extent will depend on the site. That's the
way I like it. If you've got residential all around you, well you're
probably not going to be able to have it at all but if you did across the II
road or whatever, we might want to screen that completely, at least on 3
sides. But I think down where Gary is, it just doesn't matter that much. I
think it's a good idea to beef up the screening a little bit. Just on
general principles but I don't think you have to do anymore than that.
Conrad: I think the staff report for this particular application is '
acceptable.
Emmings: Are you afraid it's going to limit us in the future? ,
Conrad: It's just sort of wills nilly.
Emmings: Maybe it's site dependent. ,
Conrad: I don't know. Why? Retail stores are not, they have standards
for retail, commercial. Here's another application for a retail use. 1
Emmings: Where else can we have truck and trailer rental?
Olsen: I think it's just the BF. 1
Emmings: BF.
Paul Krauss: It also must be the BG. In fact Market Square, when they go
over, they're going to be bringing their rental but it's conditioned in the
PUD agreement that it be in a masonry enclosure behind the building. 1
Emmings: What?
Paul Krauss: The rental business. 1
Conrad: So we have no ordinance, no standards that might govern something
that's happening down the block?
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 15, 1992 - Page 7
Paul Krauss: If I could interject something. I think Comissioner Ladd has
a point. We have a number of conditional use permits that ideally when you
review a conditional use permit, you want to review it against some kind of
coherent standard and then when you flip the ordinance to refer to a
standard it's blank. And you just have the mom and apple pie stuff and the
general guidelines to go by. All the conditional use permits that we've,
we haven't done that many but the IUP's and CUP's that we've done over the
last couple of years have very specific standards attached to them. That
would be my preference in the future. Yes, we do exercise control in the
site plan too. We sure do.
Emmings: If you could write a standard for a truck and trailer rental
service dealing with screening, what would you say?
1 Conrad. Generally they could be very ugly and generally.
Emmings: Screen as appropriate depending on the site and can't we do that
now?
Conrad: I don't know.
Ahrens: Isn't that what it is now?
Conrad: Yeah.
Emmings: I'm comfortable with that but I don't think you are. But I don't
know how else you'd say it.
1 Ahrens: We either have to go with total screening.
Conrad: You could have different landscaping requirements. You can have
1 minimums. You know you're talking about minimums and maximums or how many
trucks that could be parked in one spot. I think there are some things
that might be different than we're used to. I guess what I'd like to do,
11 again I think what the staff has designed here Gary is probably appropriate
for your facility. I don't think it's detrimental to your operation
financially as I looked at it. I think it's probably some common sense
stuff so I think to get off the dying here, I think what I'd like to do or
I agree with the staff report but I would like to have the Planning
Commission spend a few seconds one night discussing whether we should take
a look at any kind of guidelines for truck and trailer rental later on.
' Emmings: Why don't we just do that.
I/ Krauss: Add it to the list?
Emmings: Yeah. I think we should. If it causes us to talk about it this
much, than it's worth talking about it and getting it settled.
Conrad: Everybody else was so brief, I had to.
1 Emmings: I don't have anything more to add. I would like, under the truck
and trailer rental thing, to put down a fourth condition. That there will
be no more than 20 trucks or 4 trailers and no trucks exceeding 26 feet as
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 15, 1992 - Page 8
a condition of that approval. Otherwise I don't have anything else.
Conrad: And you like that because why? Just because if the operation
expanded you'd like to take another look at it?
Emmings: Yeah. And we might want to do more screening then. If it's
going to be bigger. Size changes the character of things to me. This is
something kind of new to me and 1 feel more comfortable having some kind of"
a limit. I don't even know if it's a reasonable limit but it's not going
to cramp his style, it gives us some kind of a limit so it doesn't become
trucks from one end to the other. Alright, is there any more discussion on 1
this? If not, is there a motion?
Ahrens: I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of
Conditional Use Permit #87 -2 for the rental of trucks and trailers with the"
conditions listed in the staff report plus a condition number 4 limiting
the trucks to 20 and trailers to 4 and that no trucks be larger than 26
feet. Is that what you said Steve? 1
Emmings: Yeah. I'll second it. Is there any discussion on this one?
Conrad: Joan, you mentioned you didn't like the 6 foot high evergreens. 1
You're leaving that in?
Ahrens: Well it says a landscaping plan acceptable to the Planning
Commission. I assume that you're not going to hold him to the 6 feet?
Olsen: It's still in condition number 1 but we should...
Ahrens: Oh I see. Yeah, I'd go along with taking that out. Do you want
to just say a landscape screen with evergreens? Okay, anything else on
this? 1
Ahrens moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Conditional Use Permit #87 -2 for the rental of trucks and
trailers with the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall provide a landscaped screen with evergreens along
the fence line at the southwest corner of the site.
2. The storage of the trucks and trailers shall be confined to the area as
shown on the site plan and the area shall have a gravel surface. 1
3. The applicant shall provide a landscaping plan acceptable to the
Planning Commission and a letter of credit shall be submitted to cover
the cost of material installation and one year warranty.
4. There shall be no more than 20 trucks and 4 trailers and no trucks can
exceed 26 feet in length. 1
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Emmings: We'll go onto the Zoning Ordinance Amendment. Is there a motion?"
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 15, 1992 - Page 9
1 Ahrens: I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend the approval of
Zoning Ordinance Amendment #92 -1 to add Article XX, BF, Fringe Business
District, the following to Section 2(-775, Interim Uses as it reads in the
staff report.
Conrad: I'll second that.
Emmings: Okay. Also under that on Joan there's an amendment to Division
4. You're moving for everything that's in the staff report there under
that recommendation?
1 Ahrens: As Steve says.
Emmings: Well I'll second that.
Ahrens moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment #92 -1 to add Article XX, BF, Fringe
Business District, the following to Section 20 -775, Interim Uses:
(3) Screened outdoor storage.
11 Amend Division 4, Standards for Business, Office, Institutional and
Industrial Districts by adding the following:
1 Section 20 -294. Screened outdoor storage.
The following applies to screened outdoor storage:
1 (1) All outdoor storage must be completely screened with 100% opaque
fence or landscaped screen.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Emmings: One more item here and that's the Interim Use Permit for screened
outdoor storage. Is there a motion?
Conrad: I move the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Interim
1 Use Permit #92 -1 to permit outdoor storage with the conditions as listed on
the staff report.
Emmings: I'll second it. Any discussion?
11 Conrad moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Interim Use Permit #92 -1 to permit outdoor storage with the
1 following conditions:
•
1. The outdoor storage shall be completely screened by a 100% opaque fence
or landscaped screen.
2. The area for screened outdoor storage shall be improved with a gravel
surface.
' 3. The outdoor storage will be removed from the site upon completion of
phase 3 of the mini - storage facility.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 15, 1992 - Page 10 1
4. The applicant shall provide a landscaping plan acceptable to the ,
Planning Commission and a letter of credit shall be submitted to cover
the cost of material installation and one year warranty.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Emmings: This goes to City Council on February 10th. 1
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CONCERNING NON- CONFORMING RECREATIONAL BEACHLOTS
AND TO RECEIVE A NON - CONFORMING USE PERMIT.
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item.
Emmings: This is not a public hearing or was there a public hearing on
this before?
Aanenson: You had the public hearing and the hearing was closed. Just the ll
ordinance itself, the passage was tabled.
Emmings: Alright and now though you're recommending this alternative
ordinance and was there ever a public, is this the first time this has come ll
before us? I missed the last meeting.
Krauss: No it was published and had a public hearing that you opened in II
December I think it was.
Aanenson: December 4th, yes,
Krauss: The alternative is a modification of the original. The public
notice would be no different. We also did take great pains to notify
everybody. We sent copies of both ordinances to all homeowners
associations.
Emmings: Okay. So the only difference between the one that you're II recommending now and the one that was on the table before is using 1991 as
a baseline instead of 1982?
Aanenson: Correct. �
Emmings: That shouldn't hurt anybody. That will make them happier than
anything 1 assume. 1
Krauss: We should also add Commissioner Emmings that we did make a lot of
modifications to the ordinance itself based upon comments we received but II
that's in either alternative.
Emmings: Okay. I was wondering if there were any, do you feel that you
have to do the same thing for each beachlot? They're all going to have to II
have a baseline of the same year?
Krauss: Yeah, I think equity demands that you do. '
Ahrens: What were you thinking?
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 15, 1992 - Page 11
Emmings: I just wondered if there were any beachlots for which you felt
you had good information, whether it was from 1982, 1985 or 1988, why
wouldn't we use that information?
Olsen: We discussed doing that because there are a couple of cases where
we do have the documentation but again Roger was saying it is difficult to
treat them differently. He just felt it would be difficult to do...choice
' do you have? That was one of the things that we discussed of being able to
do.
Emmings: Okay. So it's just kind of out of some sense of fairness.
Aanenson: Yeah, equity.
Emmings: Is there anybody that has any comments on this? Is there any
discussion on this?
' Conrad: I do. Because I don't know what we're, as we changed that date,
on the surface it seems something that we have a better grasp of so
'I understand staff's comments. Yet on the other hand, I don't know what
that does. If I'm voting to allow a use that I think is real inappropriate
then I'd feel real uncomfortable doing that. If on one particular day we
surveyed a beachlot that had 8 boats on it and it was appropriate for 4 or
whatever and beachlots that had come under the ordinance and met those
standards over the last 10 years, or whatever the number is. I have a hard
time grandfathering ;n something that wasn't appropriate for that lot so on
one hand I like the idea of having something more substantial to document
it. On the other hand, I don't know what we're doing. So before I could
vote for this, I would have to know what I'm sanctioning.
Olsen: Well yeah. We got that documentation...the expansion of the
' beachlot...
Emmings: It's sort of my impression that the situation is what we're,
we're getting a handle on it as soon as we can but what I hear them saying
is we can't go back. If there was a level of use that would be
inappropriate under the Statute today, and that level of use was there in
' 1982, there'd be nothing we could do about it. Is that right?
Aanenson: Yes.
' Emmings: But I think what Ladd is saying, if the level of use would even
be appropriate under the Statutue in 1982 but since then has grown to a
level that's inappropriate, it doesn't seem fair to those that have come
under the Statute and complied to allow this one to come in that now has
built itself up to a level that isn't appropriate. That's why I was
asking, that was part of the reason I asked questions in the beginning. If
there was data that showed, if we had good data for a level that was there
' in 1986, I'm just picking a number out of the air. I don't see why we
couldn't use it because the principle again is getting your hands around it
as early in time as you can.
f Ahrens: I agree. Why do we have data on some and not on others?
•
1
•!
Planning Commission Meeting
January 15, 1992 - Page 12 1
Aanenson: Have what?
Ahrens: Why is the data incomplete from 1982?
Aanenson: It's not that it's incomplete. It's just that it was field's 1
checked on that one specific day and we can't guarantee that all the boats
were in the slips the day that someone went out and field checked it So
the process is they come in and say this is what we say and the staff says
this is what we have inventoried and then we listen to who's information 13
better on each one.
Emmings: Why doesn't that same argument apply to 1991? 11
Aanenson: Because we're assuming that almost all of these have increased
at least a little bit so we're giving them the benefit of the doubt.
Allowing them to maybe slightly increase and therefore there should be less
argument.
Emmings: But you sat down with all of them. ,
Aanenson: We've met with each of the homeowners associations and passed 11 out the information as to what we had in 1982, 1986 and 1991.
Emmings: Do they agree with the numbers? They all agree with the numbers
you have for 1991. •
Olsen: What they were going to do is send us back that form with what
they...what is out there. So it'd be kind of...the data but also from what'll
they documented they had... So it still is kind of.
Aanenson: To answer your question, no they haven't commented on that. We
haven't heard whether or not they agree with that information.
Emmings: Do they have, when will that?
Aanenson: That's the process of meeting with each individual association.
Emmings: And presumable will we get to the heart of that through the
application process?
Aanenson: Right. After we adopt the ordinance. Amended the ordinance.
Olsen: And there's only one beachlot that we do have good information on II
and...
Emmings: That's on Trolls Glen. i
Olsen: Yes. And all the other ones, no. It's just one...
Emmings: Let's take depositions of all of them.
Olsen: But that's the only one we have good information on. The rest
are...
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 15, 1992 -- Page 13
Conrad: Well I'd like to see, before I could vote on this, I guess I'd
like to see what the non - conforming lots would be allowed to have.
Emmings: On each one?
Conrad: On each one.
' Emmings: But what is it, you want to see the number of boats?
Conrad: Whatever it would be that they would be, that would be going over
our beachlot ordinance requirements. I need to know what that is. In
other words, if the beachlot ordinance under today's, rules it says you can
have 4 boats docked in a day and they're coming in at 12, I would feel real
uncomfortable that I could allow that. Because of 1991 data. I don't
11 think I could go along with that.
Emmings: And what would be the alternative?
' Conrad: The alternative is as we've discussed it in the past. Here's what
we believe. Here's what's grandfathered in as of 1982. You have to prove
to us that it was really something different and it was up to them to
11 prove. If they can't prove it, then it would be our best records.
Emmings: Do you have the overhead projector down here so we can all look
at that at once?
Olsen: We can make transparencies.
' Aanenson: I could make copies really quick.
Olsen: Another concern we've got is requiring them to prove what was
there. I think the burden comes down to us to prove it. We're just
admitting that we really don't have the documentation to really have a good
case.
1 Conrad: So for something to be grandfathered in is our proof?
' Krauss: We're the enforcing agency. If we issue citations. If we took
them to Court, we'd have to make the case. Now we're not unwilling to try.
Our data may be as good as anybody else's. Maybe it's not.
' Conrad: See I don't know what we're talking. I really don't know. At
this point in time I don't have a clue if we have a problem out there. We
have a problem on a couple beachlots probably and most of them are being
11 handled quite well but on those couple, I just don't have a clue what we're
saying here.
"rauss: The fundamental data we have here is 9 years old and it was based
upon a one time survey that was never opened to scrutiny. It was just done
and put into the files is my understanding.
Conrad: For the 2 or 3 beachlots that we have a problem with, I don't
really have a problem bringing them in. I don't know. Maybe we do have a
problem proving something. I've sat through some cases on Lotus Lake where
.
Planning Commission Meeting
January 15, 1992 - Page 14
people were proving they had docks and they had, but in that case the II burden of proof was always on them. I didn't recall the City proving that
it wasn't there so I guess I'm amiss in not understanding how something
gets grandfathered in. But you know Steve, I don't know how you want to
handle this. My preference would be to have staff point out, we could do I
it now or we could table the thing and go through it after we took a look
at the specifics and they're right here. But I hesitate to go through
something while the meeting's open that we haven't looked at before.
Emmings: Let me ask this. In 1982 somebody did a survey and in 1991 there
was a survey done.
Olsen: And in 1986.
Emmings: '86? What was done on that occasion? 1
Olsen: Same thing...
Emmings: And is the problem with the 1982 and 1986 data, is that the same?"
You're not willing to rely on it. What makes it different than the 1991
data? I know you now have videotapes but apart from that, what makes that in
information any more suspect than what you've got?
Olsen: Again I don't think we're just, I think we're saying that that data
is the same. That we were going to be as part of the application...what is
listed in 1991. So it wasn't necessary... What we've got from 1991 but
we're still going to work with them to come up with a compromise and agree.
If they say that they've got 14 boats out there now and we saw 13 or
whatever, we'll...the 14.
Krauss: But we will be able to, and we'll probably ask them to provide us
written verification from everybody that was out there. This is not 9 or II
10 years ago, This is today and these people who have had docks there and
boats there are presumably available and are going to be able to
demonstrate somehow that those are the ones that we saw out there. 1
Emmings: Can you tell me off -hand, what's the greatest number of boats
that any one of these non - conforming?
Aanenson: It's like 16 at one of the Minnewashta.
Emmings: Is that the Minnewashta Heights? ,
Aanenson: Yeah.
Emmings: I've lived next to that one since 1983 and I know it's grown.
3 houses away from it and it's obviously grown but I have no idea how much.
Olsen: That's one that's 3 times as big. 1
Ahrens: And we're going to say that's okay? I mean is that what we're
being asked to do? If they had 16 boats in 1991?
Planning Commission Meeting
January 15, 1992 - Page 15
Olsen: That's a case where they agree that they've expanded so...pull them
back to what they were.
Ahrens: Which is?
Aanenson: Six. Six dock slips.
Conrad: Well there are 2 or 3 in here that I just don't see acceptable. I
just have a terrific difficulty in accepting that until I've heard what's
going on, compared it to the land that it was being done on. I know a
couple of the cases and it just doesn't seem like appropriate use of the
11 land.
Emmings: Minnewashta Heights is the example of that Ladd. I don't know
' how wide the lot is but I think it's 25 feet of lakeshore. But I don't
know that. I could be wrong.
' Aanenson: It's 50.
Emmings: Oh is it 50? With 14 boats in front of it so I don't know.
I Ahrens: But they're saying that's unacceptable. That they have to go back
to the original 6 that they agreed on.
Emmings: The other thing we could do here I suppose is, if people are
interested in the alternative ordinance that uses 1982 as the baseline,
then we have, we go through the application process and do the negotiating
on the number of boats that will be there and if we've got good information
on some of them, we can stick to it and if we don't, maybe we have to
compromise. The question of whether you want to start with the 1991 data
or start with the 1982 data, is that a fair way to look at it?
' Krauss: That's basically it. But you almost need to make that decision
before we can bring anybody in here. We're asking people to apply for a
permit that doesn't exist until you process the ordinance.
Emmings: Right but there are two ordinances here in my packet. One uses
1991 and one uses 1982 and that's what we're talking about.
' Krauss: One thing we should also add, and it might complicate things too
much, is that the Council approved an ordinance that came through the
' Planning Commission last fall for water surface use. Councilman Wing
advocated, there was always a dock setback area. That now applies to
moored boats as well so if you have an exceedingly narrow beachiot, the
I extended property lines of that beachiot out into the water, there can't be
any dock or boat moored within that 10 foot setback on either. side of the
property line. Now somebody's really pushing it if they're in front of
somebody else's property with a dock or overhang that area. That's another
' problem that they'll have to face. And that isn't related directly to this
ordinance at all. That's a separately enforceable standard.
Emmings: And there's also limits on the length of the dock. But is there
a limit on the length of a dock on a beachiot? Sure. Sure there is isn't
there? Wouldn't the dock ordinance apply to a beachiot as well as any
.
Planning Commission Meeting
January 15, 1992 - Page 16 '
other property on the lake? Out to 4 feet. A certain number of feet in
length or out to 4 feet, whatever is necessary. Okay. So those, on narrow"
ones, the side yard setbacks as it were or the dock ordinance is going to
limit them to some extent. Okay, you've still got the floor believe it or
not.
Conrad: I don't want it anymore. Just the last comment. There aren't
that many problems here. There are only a couple. ,
Emmings: Yeah, right. Matt.
Ledvina: Nothing. 1
Emmings: Okay, Jeff.
Farmakes: No comments.
Emmings: Joan.
Ahrens: Well to tell you the truth, I'm kind of confused as to whether
there's a problem or not. I mean I really don't have any idea. Ladd seems '
to think there's a problem. I don't know what that's based on. I don't
know how inaccurate the information is from 1982. To tell you the truth, I
wouldn't have a problem going back to the 1982 standard if anybody feels
more strongly about that. Feels more comfortable about that. I guess I'm
vacilating this issue because I don't know if there's a problem or not. I II
don't know.
Farmakes: Isn't there some question as to how reliable your 1982 '
information is? I mean that's just what you said. Somebody filled out a
card and put it in a drawer somewhere. Nobody knows who and the City's
willing to back that up. 1
Ahrens: But I don't know if that's for 2 of the beachlots or 3...
Farmakes: Or is that just the problem lots?
Olsen: It's all the same for all the surveys were the same for...whatever
happened to be out at that time we marked down. Boats that were being
moored there...so it's the same for each. All three different surveys.
Ahrens: The information is the same for all three? 1
Aanenson: I think she's saying the margin of error is probably the same.
Because you did a one day check and the boats may or may not have been
moored at the dock.
Ahrens: So you're saying the 1992 information is probably as inaccurate as '
the 1982? •
Aanenson: Except that the time lapse isn't so great so there might be more
personal recordation. Like Paul's saying you can verify who had their boat
in last summer and get them to give us a written letter or whatever. People
may not have moved and that sort of thing.
Planning Commission Meeting
January 15, 1992 - Page 17
Emmings: But you've also got a video tape and the video tape is going to
show somebody's gone with their boat during the time the person's there,
you're going to see an empty slip. Or something like that Or a space
anyway where a boat would go. But I think that's probably a little better
11 information.
Farmakes: It's based on a slip correct? Not the fact that there happens
to be a boat parked in it.
Aanenson: No, it's just how many boats are there is what we counted. We
measured the docks. It's hard to tell how people are tying up their
' boats. The fishing boats, people just tie them up on the side of the
docks. People have slips if it's a motor boat. And then there's canoe
racks and sailboats and all that sort of thing too. It's hard to tell
' whether or not there's actually a sailboat that's being.
Emmings: It looks to me like we have two ways to go on this. Or three
maybe. I'd be inclined to say, if we've got data from 1982, and if that's
' when the grandfathering takes place, I don't know why we'd ignore it.
I realize that bothers people that's come to town since and have a boat.
But still just from looking at the problem and that seems, and then as
11 we're looking at each one separately under the application process, if we
feel that our information isn't good, we may have to compromise and go with
the 1986 data or even the 1991 data. But I don't know why we wouldn't
' start with the 1982 data. Ignoring what we have doesn't seem to accomplish
much to me. But one thing we could do here was to distribute the
information that we have. Show us what information we have for 1982, 1986
and 1991. Now is that what's here?
Aanenson: Yes.
' Emmings: If anybody thinks that will change the way they're thinking about
this, we could table this and look at that data for the next meeting and
look at it then. My personal preference would be to take some action on
' this. This is one of those decisions that has a lot of political kind of
overtones to it and may be better handled at the City Council on that
decision but we can tell them what we think about it. The City Council,
I can imagine there will be some people who for sure will want to have it
' at the 1991 levels because they're higher. But I don't know. Let me just
ask, is there a motion?
' Conrad: I would make one Steve. The only motion I would make is that we
use 1982 data to establish the criteria for grandfathering. Other than
that, I'm trying to figure out which.
11 Emmings: That would be the second one of the two?
Conrad: Yeah, that would be my motion. That the ordinance be updated for
' non - conforming beachlots per the second example we have in our kit.
Emmings: Okay, I'm going to second the motion and I guess the way I would
' see this working. The second is with the understanding and I don't know if
you see this the same way. That we'd start with the 1982 baseline and if
we felt that, as each one of these comes. Each one of these is going to
•
Planning Commission Meeting
January 15, 1992 - Page 18 1
come before us, is that right? With the application and at that time we
can negotiate anything that we want to based on how sound we feel our
information is. Is that right?
Krauss: That's true. Just as a point of order. You technically held the II
public hearing on this in December but, and the ordinance is somewhat
different but 1 know there are a number of people who came tonight probably
wanting to comment on this. They haven't been able to yet. 1
Emmings: Well, it's not a public hearing. Do you think it'd be
appropriate?
Krauss: I would think from a more technical. Yeah, technically I think
you've continued the public hearing.
Emmings: Oh did we?
Ahrens: I don't think so.
Krauss: You closed it fully?
Ahrens: Yeah. '
Conrad: You might want to take a few brief comments...
Emmings: Let's do this. I'll open it up for public comment. I think it's
a good thing to do. If people would just state their position. I think
you can see what the issue is and why don't you give us, come up here and
give us your name and your address. If you're a member of a beachlot, I'd
like to know which one. Tell us that and then let us know what you think.
Does anybody want to do that?
Peter Warhol: My name is Peter Warhol and I live in Pleasant Acres. I
guess my question is, some of these docks that are out, new properties or
new developments weren't here in 1982. Does that mean they don't,get
anything? And as far as we are, we expanded and we'd like to go with the II
1991.
Emmings: Sure. Now when you say there are docks that weren't there in ,
1982.
Peter Warhol: Like Stratford Ridge you know. There wasn't any houses
there in 1982 and there wasn't any docks and now there's about .4 or 5 boats
on the dock there. I'm just wondering what happens to those people.
Emmings: Okay, let's just talk about that one. Stratford Ridge, do they II
have a beachlot?
Aanenson: Yeah. '
Emmings: And they came in under the new ordinance.
Olsen: They got a conditional use permit... They're not grandfathered
they've got a permit.
Planning Commission Meeting
January 15, 1992 -- Page 19
Peter Warhol: And we've got 150 feet of lakeshore and we have like 16 I
think, boats there.
Emmings: And under the present ordinance, you'd have to have 200 feet of
' lakeshore and you'd get one dock and 3 boats.
Peter Warhol: I mean we were grandfathered in. I don't know what the
' grandfathering was back in 1982 or 1986. I didn't live here then but I do
have a boat down there. I'd be anxious to know what's going to happen. I
mean it's a pontoon boat and it's not one that I, that you take in and out
each time. So if it isn't tied up on the dock, then it's probably not, I'm
' not going to have it. There's a couple others that probably won't have one
either. It's too big to monkey with. But I mean that's my comment.
Emmings: Thank you. Anybody else? Yes sir.
John Merz: My name is John Merz and I live at 3900 Cedar Lane. I am a
member of the Trolls Glen Homeowners Association. I also own property
11
adjacent to my house which is on Hawthorne Circle so I have the unique
position of being able to address this issue from both a riparian and a
non - riparian position. I strongly urge, and I won't go into the lengthy...
' that I wanted to but I strongly urge the adherence to the 1982 baseline.
I'm a member of the Homeowners Association and as such I have the same
rights as all the members of the Association. It would be an injustice in
this case to deviate from the 1982 baseline. It's clearly documented by a
lengthy court process which we endured last year and the 1982 baseline
would say that we have one dock and 2 boats at that time. I happened to be
present when the 1981 survey. It was done in 1981 by Scott Martin. I
' happened to be there when Scott did that survey. When that survey was done
on Trolls Glen there were no boats and no docks. I happened to own a boat
at the time I moved into Trolls Glen and I chose not to put one there and
shortly thereafter my neighbor, Dr. Tester and I purchased the property on
Hawthorne Circle. So from one perspective I would look at it in saying
that yes, I would love to have boat rights at Trolls Glen Association. I
personally don't think that that'd be the case. It's far from being
conforming. It's only 65 feet wide. It's got tapered property lines which
come out at a point of 200 feet from the departure of the high water mark.
There's no property left because they tapered in and this particular case
' if we went to the 1991 baseline, would be an injustice from the standpoint .
of safety of use of this piece of property. Environmentally it's not only
am I concerning with Lake Minnewashta but I was here in these chambers when
' the ordinance was passed on the park and believe that was a long and
arduous discussion heated from both the lakeowners and non - lakeowners. The
people involved with the park as to the water useage. Quite truthfully on
Lake Minnewashta we have a 650 acre lake which under the DNR guidelines
calls for 1 non-riparian boatslip for every 20 acres of water. Simple
mathematics tells you that's down to 32 I believe and in the park presently
we originally under the park ordinance, conditional use permit it was
' issued for 10 boats on the upper parking lot and 25 in the new lot. Since
that time it's my understanding that that's been increased to 50. For the
lakeowners on Lake Minnewashta, and I wish I could address this for not
' just Lake Minnewashta. I wish I could address it for all lakes because
it's environmentally a very important concern to all of us. I'm certain
that the condition on most of the other lakes in the city of Chanhassen is
Planning Commission Meeting
January 15, 1992 - Page 20 1
similar to the Minnewashta case. The growth since 1982 has been
significant. We've all seen it. We can all turn our heads and hide from
it but the intent of those long and lengthy debates in these fair chambers
were that we'd stop it in 1982 and it's grown beyond it's bounds. It's not
just for the John Merz' or the people of this generation but we as a
planning committee and body have to look out beyond our own personal needs II
and say hey, this is for we have a beautiful little lake in Lake
Minnewashta and I wish I could address the rest of them in Chanhassen but
it's a jewel. It's a jewel in Minnesota. It's a jewel in the whole world.
To go beyond what it's technical limits and capacity of holding boats but
expanding these beachlots and abandoning what people in 1982 fought long
and hard for, to my position would be a terrible injustice and I'll cut my II
comments short at that. Thank you very much for your time.
Ann Cathcart: I'm Ann Cathcart. I'm the president of Trolls Glen. Live II
at 3895 Lone Cedar. We bought the lot in 1985. Built in 1986. Moved in
in 1987. We bought the lot because we knew expressly that we could dock a
boat. There was a dock there. There were 2 boats there. There was room '
for more boats. It was a quirk of fate that the people who owned the lot
before we bought it didn't have a boat there. I think they lived in
Tennesee or they lived somewhere else or they had their boat on another
lake or something. So I look at it that way. Just fate that there wasn't II
a boat, 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 boats there in 1982 because all the lots
weren't built even though it stated specifically in our Covenants that we
had rights to more boats. It's part of our deed. It goes along with our I
property values. Mortgage companies know this value. So it's expressly
indicated in our mortgages and our values and in our deed that we have the
right to moor. I know for a fact that we couldn't moor a 50 foot yatch. We '
can't have six 30 foot boats. Speed boats. We can't have 10 boats.
There's not roorn. We have what, 69 feet of lakeshore so there is
specifically only a certainly amount of room. We as an association have
goverened ourselves I think very well over the past, well since I've lived II
there anyway. We've kept up the beach. We haven't had accidents. We've
used our boats prudently. There are small children so safety is a great
concern. I think the 1991 ruling I feel is more equitable basically
because the lake has grown in population. It is now fairly stable,
especially with the recession going on. There isn't a lot of building.
The planning is done. We know what's going to be there. What's going to
be for sale as farmland on the western side of Minnewashta Parkway has been"
up for sale. We know what kind of beach is going to come up there. If it
would be conforming or non - conforming. This is a specific non - conforming
beach and it was sanctioned by the City in 1977. The covenants were and itil
was subdivided to the point where there were 12 association members. 5 are
on the lake and 7 are not. It said specifically that we do have a right to
moor our boat and that is our goal. Thank you.
Emmings: Okay, thank you.
Bernie Schneider: I'm Bernie Schneider. I live at 7501 West 77th Street II
in the Trolls Glen Addition. It has always been my understanding that when
the city of Chanhassen approved the Trolls Glen subdivision in 1975, they
also approved the Declarations of 'Covenants and Conditions. And with that
we were granted boating rights. Mooring rights. So whether we are
grandfathered in or not, this is a right under the Abstract. That's what I
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 15, 1992 - Page 21
believe should be considered. It's admirable that John Merz is concerned
about the ecology but he also has 3 boats on his dock and I think if any
boats should be removed then possibly he should start thinking about
cleaning up his own act. We have a letter here to the Planning Commission
' stating our position and I will leave that with you so you can take this
into consideration at the time we apply for the permit. But again we have
7 people that have need for a lake access and mooring rights. Not all of
them want it but at the same time, it's still their right to moor the boats
there. I have one question also on the hearing that states that property
owners on the lake be notified in writing of proposed hearing on the
ordinance.
' Emmings: Bernie, tell me what page you're looking at? What are you
looking at?
Bernie Schneider: I'm looking at.
' Emmings: Hold it up so we can identify what you're looking at.
Bernie Schneider: I don't have it with me but on the notice of the
ordinance here it's stated that notice shall be mailed to all property
' owners on the lake and this was a considerable expense. As I understand
it, there's over 2,000 property owners and if everybody has to be notified
of a Trolls Glen hearing, the expense is going to be in excess of what,
' $400.00? $500.00?
Emmings: Who does that notice? Is it required of the applicant? And is
it notice to everybody on the lake?
Krauss: Well, what we normally do is we require the applicant to give us a
list of names and addresses and we send them out. But there's only 5,000
properties in the entire city. We're not talking anywhere near that kind
of number.
Bernie Schneider: Well I don't know. It says property owners on the lake
so I have no idea.
Krauss: On that specific lake.
' Bernie Schneider: Yeah. A figure was tossed out that it was 2,000. Over
2,000.
Emmings: Paul's point is that if there are 5,000 lots in the city, 2,000
of them are not on Lake Minnewashta. It's probably a substantial smaller
I number. I'm sure it is.
Bernie Schneider: I should also mention that in 1981 the Trolls Glen
Association passed a resolution authorizing 4 boats to be moored at the
dock. The Association dock. This resolution was passed and so prior to
your City ordinance, one year prior to the ordinance we already had
authorized the 4 boats. If additional boats would be required in the
future we would make provision for that but this is on record prior to the
1982 ordinance or the amendment now. So I will leave this with the.
Planning Commission Meeting
January 15, 1992 - Page 22 '
Emmings: Sure, just give it to staff. Thank you Bernie. Anybody else?
Ivan Underdahl: Ivan Underdahl, 7502 West 77th Street. I've had a cold
and have somewhat of a voice problem but I do wish to add a little
something. One is I think when John Merz was up here stating that he has II
rights within the Trolls Glen Association the same as the other members,
that is technically not correct because at the moment he doesn't have any
rights. He doesn't have any voting rights. He doesn't have any right to
the outlot at all because of not having paid assessments that were assessed
quite some time ago. He was the one who initiated the lawsuit and we
encountered a lot of expense in fighting that lawsuit and succeeded in
having it thrown out. So when he speaks of having those rights, he doesn't!'
have them. I have lived at 7502 since 1977. The lake outlot wasn't really
prepared for use until some years later. It was just kind of wild.
Eventually it was cleared and I think from the time we put a dock there in I
1981 and put boats alongside, I don't think anyone has spent any more time
in keeping up that outlot than I have. We did have this rule established
in 1981 and that's part of the Declaration of Covenants that was accepted
and we were to regulate our own outlot so that becomes a part of our
governing documents and to comply with that this past summer there were 5
people who had boats and would have wished to have them at the dock. I
kept my boat in storage all last summer so we would abide by our own
regulations. And I feel I probably have as much entitlement to a boat at
that dock as anybody. However I relinquished by position for the other 4
people who chose to have their boats there. I personally don't feel either '
that the 1982 is a fair and equitable allotment for our association because
again as Ann stated too, not all of the lots were built upon. It was
everyone's understanding when they did build that they would have the right"
to have a boat there and that was definitely my purpose in purchasing that
lot in the first place and I'm sure it was with most of the rest of them. I
think we would be unfairly penalized if we were to be restricted to the
1982 allocation that was there at that time. Thank you. '
Emmings: Thank you.
Terry Johnson: My name is Terry Johnson and I'm also part of the Trolls '
Glen Association. I live at 3898 Lone Cedar. I would agree that the 1982
should be the baseline. At our association we have good documentation to '
show that there were 2 boats at the time. I guess my point would be that
it was non - conforming at the time for what the city thought was safe and to
expand upon that to the 4 or 5 or 6 or 12 boats that the association or
some of the members of the association would like to me would be very
unfair and unsafe. To me that is the main issue is the safety of it. It's
a 60 some foot lot and when you start adding 3, 4, 5 boats there and
they've got water skiers coming in there and of course there's a lot more
boats in there on Saturdays and Sundays, weekends and people are wanting to 11
drop off their skiers on that 60 some foot lot, it's a very, very unsafe
situation. I border the lot on one side and there have been numerous
situations pertaining to me and my wife and my children and I know of other
situations with other neighbors where it's been very unsafe and very
hazardous. Some of them have dealt with some of the individuals that have
just talked to you that managed to ignore to tell you about that. But
I understand that they want more boats there. I understand that every
association is going to want to have more boats there. Mainly even if
1
Planning Commission Meeting
1 January 15, 1992 - Page 23
they're not using the boats, if they go to sell their homes it increases
their value. Some people have said it's worth $40,000.00 or $50,000.00 to
the value of their home. I understand that and hate to be the one to try
to deprive them of that and I know it's a tough question that you're having
to deal with. But two of the individuals that have been up here already
have stated that they plan on leaving. Moving their homes as soon as this
ordinance is passed. It's telling me that they don't want this
non - conforming issue expanded for their own use. It's for the sale to
increase the value of their home. And I guess because of that and the fact
that it is non - conforming, it seems unfair to the rest of the property
owners on the lake. Thank you.
Emmings: Thank you.
David Tester: I'd just like to speak to the issue.
Emmings: And what's your name?
David Tester: David Tester. I'm in the Trolls Glen Association and I've
been there since 1976. I moved in in 1977 and I was a joint owner in that
lot with John but we had an uncomfortable situation in the neighborhood.
There's been a lot of acrimony because of the lot but really actually the
beachiot doesn't get used an awful lot. I don't think I saw water skiers
down there maybe once or twice last year on the beachiot. It's not a high
traffic area. The people who use it are considerate of the people around.
I think it's not that we're trying to increase the value. We're trying to
maintain what we have. I mean we feel like something's being taken away if
we're not given this because it's really something that's subtracting. It's
not that we're trying to maintain this. I know before Terry moved in,
Terry moved in in 1985 but in Terry's present house Chuck Crompton was a
member of the association. He was secretary of the association before he
I • moved to Indiana and there wasn't a lot of problems there but I think
recently since there's been the last lots have been built on, that's maybe
created the feeling that where's it going to stop and these people are
maybe expecting more boats but we tried to govern it. I think the most
boats that have been there have been 4. And if I understood your saying
before that Minnewashta Heights has 50 feet and they've got 8 or 6 slips.
Well we've got 70 foot of frontage or 69.5 foot of frontage and it's always
been, it hasn't been overused. I mean there's not a lot of activity down
there. I just guess I would think it would be sad if we had this taken
away from us because it's something that's on our title and our abstract
and it's not something we want given to us. We just don't want it taken
away because we feel that we were in the right.
Emmings: That's obviously the issue. Going back to 1982 levels is going
to feel like the City is taking something away from people that they
presently have. But if you turn that around and look through it from the
other end, when something is grandfathered in it's grandfathered in at the
level of use at the time of the grandfathering. So to the extent that
there's been expansion of the use over the level at the time of the
grandfathering, you're taking something in a sense that you didn't have a
right to. So like I say, you look in one end and something's being taken
away. You look in the other end and you're taking something you weren't
entitled to and that's, for that reason it's a very, very difficult issue.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 15, 1992 - Page 26 I
know if they'd have additional things to say. Maybe we're all kind of
talked out on this issue. I don't know.
Ahrens: The PUD, I think so.
Emmings: But Brian and Tim have been particularly interested in this item
and I don't know what to do. What do you want to do?
Conrad: I wouldn't mind talking a little bit about it and then tabling it. I
Emmings: Okay. ti
Ahrens: I'd rather talk about it now or table it and talk about it later.
I mean we've talked about this a lot.
Emmings: And have we gotten anywhere? I go round and round.
Ahrens: I mean I can talk about this forever tonight and then talk about
it again another night because there are a lot of issues involved...
Conrad: I just have a real quick question basically and it will last
longer. Jeff, you go ahead. I've talked more.
Farmakes: What basis are we using from the 9,000 to the 10,000? What is
the basis that you picked that figure?
Krauss: It's highly scientific.
Farmakes: This isn't like 3 trees is it? Because it's more than 2?
Emmings: Because he feels resistence at 9,000, ,
Farmakes: Is there a financial or glass ceiling or whatever with the
developer? I need a 60 x 40 base pad and I need this much square footage.
Krauss: To be perfectly honest, Kate and I saw a concept that had been
prepared by somebody who's thinking of proposing what is it a 160 lot
subdivision over off of Galpin near Lyman and the premise behind that was,
it's in the Volk. Yeah, the Volk Farm where the Cellular telephone tower
is. And in the open areas he wanted to build a parkway with a number of
cul -de -sacs and in those areas where it's just open field he figured that
he would put in the lowered priced home on the smaller lots and those he
proposed at 10,000 square feet and when he got up into the forested hills
near Timberwood he came up with 15,000 to 25,000. Well 25,000 to 30,000
square foot lots which fit in quite well with the terrain and the desire to I
protect those trees. Because if you plowed in your normal 15,000 square
foot lots on a suburban type pattern, you're going to plow down most of
those trees. I thought the trade off made some sense. It seemed to be
from a topological tree preservation standpoint it seemed to be an ideal
candidate to do and that one used 10,000 square foot minimum lots. And the
average lot size was in excess of,15,000. It seemed to be a reasonable
plan and I said well, I've tried this 3 times before the Planning
Commission. I'll try another time. Now your comments about Commissioner
Batzli and Erhart are accurate. They have been somewhat the leading
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 15, 1992 - Page 27
'
proponents or opponents of this. I've had some conversations since with
the Mayor and Councilman Wing. I think that they're somewhat, well they
can speak for themselves but they've indicated to me that they're not in
favor of the decreasing lot sizes. We're getting to the point where some
guidance would be nice. We're getting asked the questions a whole lot. If
it's 15,000, it's 15,000. If you have flexibility, we do.
' Farmakes: I still have just one question with the basis of understanding
this. If you don't give up some lot size, what is the advantage to the
developer doing this?
' Krauss: Well there isn't much. If you don't give up lot sizes you have
what I think is a highly unusual situation which was the Lake Lucy Road/
Lundgren proposal where it made sense to do it as a PUD because
conventionally configured lots didn't fit because of all the wetlands.
That conventionally configured streets didn't fit because of the wetlands
and the PUD gave us the flexibility to do that. But that average lot size,
granted between useable and non - useable, I think it was 30,000 square feet
was the lot size and 18,000 to 20,000 square feet was the useable site.
Those are pretty unusual cases. Is that ever likely to happen again, I
don't know. Maybe.
Farmakes: Well I, in that particular development, I guess I thought it was
a nice development except for a couple of lots and those were the smaller
ones. I still, if you were looking at 10,000 or 12,000 square feet, I mean
again it seems an arbitrary number. I haven't seen the development that
you're talking about and I'm having trouble understanding if you had an
attached garage with a pad that size, you'd be looking at about a 40 x 40
house and attached garage wouldn't you?
Krauss: We tried to define that a little bit more here.
Farmakes: A 60 x 40 building pad is, if you put an attached garage to it,
that doesn't leave you much left for the house.
' Krauss: Well yeah, if you have a 60 x 40 pad. Each house in Chanhassen is
required, well most houses in Chanhassen are required to have a 2 car
' garage.
Farmakes: 20 feet for that and subtract that from.
Aanenson: What we'd suggest is that you come in with some specific models
but a lot of homes have the punch out garage with the floor space behind.
Krauss: What we tried to come up with was a reasonably sized home pad plus
a reasonably sized deck plus a reasonably sized unencumbered back yard.
You can't play baseball in it but.
' Ahrens: I think we know that they can do it. I mean they did in Near
Mountain and then we know that they can have decks on houses and we know
that they can have the right sized garage. I don't think that's really an
issue. I think the issue is just what we want.
Planning Commission Meeting
January 15, 1992 - Page 28
1
Farmakes: What I was getting to after that would have been what percentage'
difference do you see with a house like that next to a house on a 35,000
square foot lot? Percentage wise and pricing.
Krauss`. See I don't think pricing is, well I wouldn't sell this to you, in '
the past the City's gotten burned and you got burned in the Pheasant Hills
and Foxpath and a couple of others where these things were sold on the
premise. The builder came to you and he said, let me put these things on
9,000 or 10,000 square foot lots and I'll give you cheaper homes. I don't
know if they intentially lied but they weren't cheaper homes. The homes
got bigger as the market allowed it to get bigger and the City had no I
protections in there to make sure that the homes could fit and that decks
could fit and that people had reasonable back yards. It's a pretty tough
situation. I think some of you have gotten calls from Willard on the Board
of Adjustments and it's because he's seen almost monthly he sees the
results of those PUD's. I think you can do it without it.. Now what are
the reasons people buy a somewhat smaller sized lot. There's lots of them.
Yeah, maybe they are a little less expensive. Maybe the lot price is
$25,000.00 or $30,000.00 instead of $40,000.00 or $50,000.00. I can't
guarantee it but it's reasonable to think it might be. I know in the case
of the developer we talked to, he clearly intends to make his big ticket
purchases on the nicer lots up on the hill, which makes sense. It lays out'
well. You also have people that don't want lots that are that big. Most
people move out to this area because they have an imagine of what they want
but not everybody wants to mow a third or a half an acre or whatever every
Saturday. They want something a little smaller. Not everybody has 3 kids.
I mean there's a lot of reasons people do a lot of things and we've heard
some people coming to us at Board meetings like you should have protected
me from myself. You should never have let me buy this lot. Well, I have a
little bit of a tough time with that. You buy what you buy because that's
what you think you want. But having said all that, I mean I think the
flexibility from the design standpoint, the ability to save trees. The
ability to work around water features. The ability to lay in streets
nicely. The ability to have some variety is a real big benefit. Can we
develop without that? Sure. You have in the past. You will in the
future. And we're not here to you know, I think there's a valid case to
be made for using PUD's but if there's not a comfort level with it, then
let's move on and work with it the way we have it.
Emmings: And that's the problem. The way I feel like, I'd like to look at
everything as a PUD and none of them as a straight subdivision really
because you feel like you have some flexibility. I don't know if you
really do wind up with any but you feel like you might and at least the
potential is there. That's why in a way I'd just like to say we've got net
density, or densities we want to see depending on the zoning of the
property. Design whatever you want. Just give them a density and say
here, you design whatever you want.
Conrad: That was my question. Why didn't we go with a gross density
versus?
Emmings: If you want to maximize creativity and give them incentive to do
things, the trouble is Ladd I think, and maybe I'm wrong. You can probably
answer this better than I but I'm afraid if that developer does get
1
Planning Commission Meeting
1 January 15, 1992 - Page 29
' creative and has some 9,000 foot lots, he's going to wind up bringing that
in and it's not going to get approved because there are some people who
just plain don't like small lots. Even though it preserves a lot of open
space. I don't know that but I think I've had some people call me this
week who said just. that. I think Brian has argued that, whether he meant
it or not. Whether he was being a Devil's advocate or really meant it.
Conrad: Well Brian is the advocate of protect me from myself.
Emmings: Well a little bit but he doesn't want a little lot, and I think
there are a lot of people who feel that way. And I wouldn't want to dangle
' that out in front of a developer. But if we want PtJD's, we've got to offer
them something. We've got to make it attractive to them and I think the
way we do that is by saying you've got a density figure to work against.
We're going to be watching you to see that you preserve things we like and
that you don't destroy the natural topography and everything else. Do your
best and bring it back and take a look.
Krauss: You could work it that way. I'd still stick in the provisions
though where we mandate that the developer has to demonstrate to your
satisfaction or the Council's satisfaction that every lot that's created,
' bar none, can accommodate a reasonably sized home, deck and a back yard.
When you're talking about some creative developers, I don't know that
that's the right adjective for...
Emmings: Well wait. What if a guy wants to do zero lot line stuff?
Krauss: Oh well, I think that's a different. This is an animal of a
different color. We cover that in here. Zero lot line homes are certainly
a valid housing concept. They're in demand in a lot of areas.
Emmings: Or what if you want to do a retirement thing where you have maybe
3 or 4 units that are hooked together on a cul -de -sac with a whole bunch of
open space around it. How do we encourage people to do some things like
' that?
Krauss: Well, you can encourage that and the ordinance does provide for
those to go in areas guided for medium density housing. Most communities
' have trouble chewing on that kind of a concept. Being allowed to go
anywhere in a single family neighborhood. Even though I fully agree with
you that the density cap is the same, that number of units isn't going to
increase over the normal style. It looks like a different style of
development and a lot of people object to having that next to their single
family home. So most of the time you find that those zero lot line
developments are segregated somehow. Oftentimes they're in a higher
density area. That's the way it's done in most the communities I know.
Ahrens: I think we should look at creative development. I like PUD's and
' I think there's all sorts of advantages for cities to look at that but the
only, you know I look at the Lundgren development over in Near Mountain and
if you drive behind it in Pleasant View, it looks okay. The houses that
' sit on the little lots. But if you drive inside of it to the front of
those houses, it's crowded in there. You just get a feeling of being
crowded in there because the houses aren't small. The houses are nice
Planning Commission Meeting
January 15, 1992 - Page 30 1
sized and you get on this little curved street and all of a sudden it's
crowded. And there's barely room for cars to park between. If you have, II
I mean in suburbia everybody's has lots of cars right? Especially when you
have teenagers. There's no room to park even between the houses let alone
on the street. It's really small. It's really tight in there and I think II
we have to think about not only will a house fit on a lot. Well sure. You
can get a house to fit on a lot and some people don't want to have to mow
the lawns and stuff but how does it look and how is it going to look 20
years from now when we have a lot of big houses on little lots? I don't
know. I don't know if aesthetically that's going to be too great and if
it's going to be useable for people who have more than two cars and they
can fit them nicely into their driveway. I mean it is crowded in there. I '
don't know if you've ever driven in there but it is. And the houses look
nice now because they're brand new houses. I mean it looks okay now. I
don't know. I don't know how it's going to be. I think I've changed my I
position on, the small lot size. I didn't think it was a bad idea at first
but the more I look at those lots in Lundgren, I'm not sure that it's the
best kind of setup for Chanhassen. I don't think it's so great if you have ll
a bunch of houses developed in just a little area and then you have a nice
park 3 blocks away. Is that a better development than having all 15,000
square foot lots?
Emmings: What are you saying? That you think there should be a minimum
lot size then?
Ahrens: I do.
Emmings: And what is your figure?
Ahrens: I think it should be 15,000.
Emmings: Okay. Now if we did that, if we said we want a minimum 15,000
square foot lot size, would there be any incentive except for the odd piece
of property like Lundgren ran into over here. Would there be any incentive
for a developer to us a PUD? Basically he's working in the subdivision
ordinance.
Krauss: A PUD is a rezoning. Cities have a lot of leeway as to what kind
of conditions they apply on a rezoning action. Developers are business
people. They're not going to plat. If the developer brings you a plat
without any variances, you're obligated to approve it. No if's, and's or
but's. You can add some reasonable conditions but you can't be arbitrary
or be creative or whatever words you want to use. The PUD opens the door
to the city saying I want more parkland and I want you not to build where
these hills are. I'd like you not to build where these trees are.
Whatever.
Ahrens: You can't say that if a developer comes in and you say, you're
required at 15,000 square foot lots we can't say you can't build on that
crest of that hill and you can't, you have to have so much parkland. We do
that now.
Krauss: Yeah, but the suburban development pattern is an improvement over 1
the grid system that you see in Minneapolis. Not much. I mean it's 1920's
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 15, 1992 - Page 31
I technology versus 1940's technology. You know curvalinear streets help and
you like to think that when you have a 15,000 square foot lot or better
you're able to save a few trees that you don't have to tear down when the
house gets built but basically it's a very land intensive and often abusive
way to develop.
Emmings: This underlines, Brian said facetiously I think. Maybe not.
' Raise your minimum lot size in the subdivision ordinance to a half acre and
then we'll have all PUD's that we can do what we want to. That's not a bad
idea maybe. This is like quitting smoking. You do like 100 times.
Conrad: There's a good article in the planning, whatever the planning
magazine is that we get on this same thing. I don't know if anybody read
it. I guess the forecast is going to, people wanting big lots in the past
and the forecast going to smaller lots and how creative PUD's can be
handled.
11 Emmings: How small is small?
Conrad: I don't know if they really said a number. Yeah, I don't know.
But it was really appropriate in light of this thing. I've vacilated
' because I've always been a large lot proponent but on the other hand, over
the years I've seen less and less advantages to the large lots. If you can
preserve some of the other stuff you get around but we've never been able
' to figure out how to preserve this other stuff. You open up some land,
what are you going to do with it?
Farmakes: Demographics are changing and the market. We're all getting
older.
Emmings: Not all of us:
Farmakes: Well I'm not but you guys are.
Ahrens: But is 15,000 square feet really that big of a lot? I mean we're
not talking about
Krauss: It's a highly personal choice. I mean you know what you bought
and you know why you moved here and it was a personal decision for you and
your family to decide. I can tell you that from the metro area standpoint,
we've got one of the largest lot sizes in the metro area. Now Minnetonka,
' one of our neighbors, has the largest one but there's not a home built in
Minnetonka today for under $350,000.00.
1 Emmings: But the reason 15,000 is significant only because that's in the
subdivision ordinance. I mean that's why you can move the numbers around
but they are arbitrary and 15,000 has significance only because that's the
number in the subdivision ordinance.
I Ahrens: Right but everyone talks about 15,000 as a large lot.
Emmings: No, it's only significant because it's in the subdivision
ordinance. I think that's the only significance of it. Big and small,
that's all relative.
Planning Commission Meeting
January 15, 1992 - Page 32
Farmakes: What about 12? I mean I'm still getting back to my original
question when you picked 10 because you saw a development you'd like.
Would 15? 12? Is there a commercial level where it no longer makes sense
for a developer?
Krauss: I don't know. Maybe in fact there is. If they do their proformas il
and they find out. Any decrease in lot size theoretically allows them to
save on linear street frontage. To save on linear utilities and to 11 theoretically, if you allow them to and we didn't plan on it but if you
wanted to get more lots in, then they make more money. That's the way the
developers all see it and we've had people come in the door saying you're 11
not going to let me cram 10,000 square foot lots on this cornfield with no
amenities. Chaska would let me do it. We've told them to leave because we
weren't interested in that kind of development. The only context we saw
was getting the higher quality. I don't know what the break point is I
though. The presumption that we've had is that the developer may in fact
get some additional lots out of it, especially when you're at the lower end
but everytime we've considered the lower lot sizes it's been with added
conditions like more open space and we're going to protect more of the
trees and we're going to do this and that. So it's always been a trade
off. Developers also don't like to have all their eggs in one basket. You .
don't like to have only 15,000 square foot lots to sell. You like to have
a variety of home sites.
Emmings: The market may change during. That makes sense. I don't see how
we can, it seems to me we've got to offer them something and if it isn't
lot size, I don't know what it is. Otherwise 1 think we're wasting our
time. On the other hand, I don't like 10,000 square foot lots.
Farmakes: You don't have to accept it in the development proposal though
right? If you don't like the way it works out in the percentage, then this
is a guide correct? '
Krauss: Well, under the PUD you have a great deal of latitude. It just
occurred to me too when you're talking 12,000 square foot, the ordinance up ,
until the time we start tinkering with it allowed PUD's on 12,000 average
lot size?
Emmings: No, wasn't it minimum? 1
Olsen: 13,500,
Emmings: Wasn't that a minimum and they still had to maintain over 15 or II
over average?
Olsen: I think it was like 13,500. 1
Krauss: And did anybody, did we determine that nobody used that? Or does
that predate Lake Susan Hills? The PUD's that you had in town predated the l
imposition of that 13,500 average. I think they did in the later phases
but they predated...
Emmings: Lake Susan Hills was never a PUD. You'll never convince anybody II
who was up here at the time that that was a PUD.
i
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 15, 1992 - Page 33
' Olsen: And you didn't pass it.
Emmings: Planning Commission didn't. City Council did.
1 Conrad: Well it's sure sounding that there's lots of folks that say we
don't like the small lots. We've got two people missing that we know
that's their posture. Joan for sure. Jeff you're sort of bordering.
Farmakes: I think it's a dilemma for me because I think it's a very smart
idea to do this. However, the problem is that if you don't offer them
something to do it, why would they do it? It makes no sense.
Conrad: That was the point of looking at the PUD ordinance. Nobody was
doing it under the past ordinance. It was motivating nobody.
1 Farmakes: It could be very mutually beneficial though with certain types
of properties. And if you don't give them that smaller lot size, again
' they're not going to do it.
Conrad: See I persuaded myself to go along with the 15,000 foot on average
and the 10,000 minimum because the 15 protected what we've been running
1 with and we've been going a pretty good job no matter what. Sometimes
there hasn't been a terrific amount of creativity but overall I think it's
really not bad what's been going up. So the 15 in my mind was to maintain
what we had. And the 10, I think you can still do things in the future at
10,000. It's cramped. It doesn't meet my style. I wouldn't like it but I
think some people would and if that's what they would like and if I
preserve what I'm trying to and that is the openness of Chanhassen, then
I'm not going to get in their way of a small lot. What I was concerned
. with before, the way the ordinance is written, is we simply downsized the
lots and 1 felt that sooner or later becomes a standard. But now that we
' have a 15,000 square foot average, that still may not be motivational
enough to the developer. I don't know but it may appease me. That was
when my question came in, why don't we play with overall density versus a
1 specific because the overall density has been quite nice? And I don't care
how somebody bundles it together.
Farmakes: Have you gotten a response from any of these developers talking
about the 10,000 square feet?
Krauss: We haven't really waved it around.
1 Ahrens: Having an average lot size, that means that you could have like 6
huge lots and a whole bunch of little tiny ones right and still meet the?
Krauss: If by little tiny you mean 10,000, yes.
Conrad: But you could solve that problem Joan in the intent statement.
' The intent statement could say that Chanhassen is looking to maintain such
and such a character but would compromise to smaller lots. So what you're
doing is telling a developer you're not looking to have 3/4 of the
1 development and 10,000 square foot lot sizes balanced by 380,000 square
foot. lots. You could communicate what you're looking for upfront in an
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 15, 1992 - Page 34 1
•
attempt but signal the fact that we could go down in lot sizes to
accommodate.
Farmakes: Aren't you telling them that though with the average lot size.
You've got to be able to figure out how many units to put on that thing.
Doesn't that determine a percentage like this?
Conrad: I'm not sure. It probably does, yeah. 1
(There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.)
Emmings: ...all these 10,000 square foot lots in one area leaving.
Conrad: But you wouldn't have a problem dealing with that if it came to
you because if the intent statement is there, we know what we're looking II for and we all have this grandiose, cluster this over here. Open up this
space over here. We just don't know how to get there so what I want to
make sure is that we're communicating to the developer so he or she has a
concept of where we're going and we're not leading them in the wrong
direction. They come in and say oh, that's not what we're looking for at
all.
Ahrens: But then we have some people saying, well I kind of like that and
I kind of like this but that's not really my idea of what it should look
like. I mean you know it's so subjective that way because a developer's
standing there saying well, we still have a 15,000 square foot average lot II
size.
Emmings: But I think Joan, if you'd want to take the subjective element 1
out, you put it on a grid and you squash the creativity. If you want to
maximize creativity but you want to encourage some clustering and leaving
larger tracts of open space, I think you're always going to have the
subjective element to deal with. And I think good developers are going to II
do it right and you're going to know it when you see it.
Ahrens: True but we're not always going to get good developers. We're ,
going to get anybody who has the money to come in and develop the land.
Emmings: But on a PUD. '
Krauss: You have a lot of latitude to object. Also two other things.
First of all the intent statement, the way it's worded right now and this I
is language I think we got from you Ladd last time it came up. The intent
statement says that the applicant must demonstrate that there are a mix of
lot sizes consistent with local terrain conditions, preservation of natural"
features and open space and that lot sizes are consistent with average
building footprints that will concurrently be approved with the PUD. Jo
Ann also points out that you can put a ceiling on what will be counted.
The size of the lot that will be counted towards the average. You can say II
nothing over 20,000 or 25,000 square feet will be counteyi towards your
average lot size. There's no basis in making a one acre lot.
Farmakes: Is that buildable square footage?
MEM
•
Planning Commission Meeting
January 15, 1992 - Page 35
Krauss: Well we've got stuff in here about that. Now maybe the way, you
know.
Farmakes: But we got into a little bit of the argument with Lundgren on
the issues of the one up on Lake Lucy Road. He had the plot marks going
' out to the middle of the wetland.
Krauss: Yeah. Your buildable square footage concern's a valid one but
it's not just valid in PUD's. I think we should address that for every lot
in the city. Subdivisions, PUD's or otherwise.
Farmakes: I agree. I agree because it's really deceptive. I mean it may
' or may not be the intent but when they're coming up and when they did those
graphs and so on, as I said you were looking at lot lines that go down to
the middle of something that no matter if they build it on a PUD or normal
' development, that they could not build on. And it seemed to me like they
were trying to sell that in figuring out what the lot sizes really were.
Which they weren't.
' Emmings: Well they were using that two ways. On the one hand they're
saying we're preserving all this open space and on the other hand they're
saying this lot has this many square feet and they're counting some of that
' open space and it just seems real contradictory to me.
Krauss: We made Lundgren though break out, the table got quite exacting. I
' mean it said this is a 30,000 square foot lot. 20,000 of it's outside the
wetland. We figured the average both ways in fact.
Emmings: Yeah. I know you did on that one. And maybe it's okay as long
as that puts everything right up front so there's no deception there.
Farmakes: On the one table I figured out, besides the wetland there's the
setback back from the wetland plus.
Krauss: But that's useable back yard area.
' Farmakes: Right. That's what I'm saying. But it's useable, how much
useable square footage that lot was really.going to be and I figured, just
guesstimating that the one was under 10,000 feet.
' Krauss: But that's for the building footprint. But for your kids running
around playing frisbee or whatever. Bar- be -que pit or whatever you want to
' do, that's all high dry ground.
Farmakes: Still, anything outside of that you're going to need a variance
for it right?
' Krauss: To build a structure.
Farmakes: Yeah, air conditioning unit, whatever.
Conrad: That's too bad Brian and Tim weren't here because we'll probably
repeat this same conversation.
Planning Commission Meeting 1
January 15, 1992 - Page 36
Emmings: We've done it 12 or 15 times haven't we?
Conrad: I know.
Ahrens: Are we finished on this?
Conrad: This is going to be close. We do have to wait for them to come ,
back.
Farmakes: This is still, the latitude that you're saying to reject this or '
reject these plans, do you feel from a practicality standpoint that we can
basically reject just about anything?
Krauss: Unfortunately Roger was going to be here tonight. He's stuck in II
his driveway. He could answer that question more directly than I, but yes.
You've got a great deal of latitude.
Emmings: We're supposed to listen to a guy who gets stuck in his driveway?
Krauss: With a Volvo. ,
Farmakes: If you do get a developer with a lot of integrity and really
does meet the intent of what that's going to be, he can do something really'
nice with that and it could be very beneficial to the community. But the
thing that makes everybody nervous is how small these lots come in. If
small lots and a developer with little or no integrity is, like you said,
you're going to build one 35,000 square foot lot and the rest are all going,
to be 10,000.
Krauss: You've got a great deal of latitude on rezoning actions that you
don't have on a subdivision approval.
Emmings: Okay. That's important insurance. That makes me comfortable.
Does anybody else want to beat this dead horse?
Conrad: We should do it.
Emmings: We should do what?
Conrad: Table it.
Emmings: 1 like that. What a decisive person. Alright. Do we need a
motion to table it?
Krauss: No. I'm used to it.
Ahrens: Should we save these so you don't have to reprint all of these
again?
Krauss: No, I'll have to reprint anyway.
Mayor Chmiel: ...Robert's Rules of Order.
Emmings: We don't follow Robert's Rules of Order here. i
Planning Commission Meeting
January 15, 1992 - Page 37
Conrad: It's Emmings' Rules of Order.
Emmings: We permanently suspended our rules when I became Chairman.
Krauss: It's probably going to be a month before we bring it back on.
' That's because our next meeting we have one action item. 90% of the
meeting's going to be devoted to the TH 5 corridor. I've got Bill Moresch
who Steve knows from the University coming over with his folks to give you
' a presentation on what that task force...that we're looking at in terms of
broad concepts for TH 5. I think this is going to become basically the
Planning Commission's baby from here on out. We need to make some
decisions on how to structure the program. Spt some goals for it and get
going on it so that will be our next meeting. The meeting after that looks
like a very heavy agenda. We've got Rosemount is cd'ming in for a large
expansion. We have potentially a PUD, an industrial one. The one in front
' of Timberwood. The office park. It's looking like that's coming in.
That's going to be a very complex proposal. Well, that will be next week
so we've got a few things cooking so we'll get this back on as soon as we
1 can.
Farmakes: I was just wondering if you had heard how Grand Met was being
met by McGlynn is basically the operation in Chanhassen here. How that was
111 going to affect their operation.
Krauss: I'm not sure. We really need to contact them because they're most
' curious about it. They're not going to vacate the facilities. I
understood the article is they bought the facility because it's the most
efficient baking operation in the country. But McGlynn's also has 35 acres
' that's been on the market and I'm not sure if that stayed within the
McGlynn family or if Grand Met owns it and if they're going to be more
disposed to sell it now. -It's a very important corner visually from TH 5
standpoint.
1 Emmings: As far as this goes, we could maybe approach it this way. That
folks should just come in. Next time this is on the agenda, just let
' people state what their positions are on it in 2 minutes or less and then
have a motion and pass or don't pass something. But we've talked about it
enough. So put it on and then we'll just make sure, we'll sit here with an
alarm clock.
' Farmakes: Egg timer.
' Emmings: An egg timer. That's in Robert's Rules of Order isn't it, an egg
timer? Alright.
' APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated
December 4, 1991 were noted by the Chairman as presented.
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE.
1 Emmings: We've got a report from the director that says there's nothing to
report. Except he wants to talk about goals. Then there's this, what's
' the map Paul? I mean I recognize it as Chanhassen but what are you showing
us?
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 15, 1992 - Page 38
1 r
Krauss: I was trying to scare you actually.
Emmings: Have those properties disappeared? '
Krauss: No. What I wanted to do, for the entire time we've been doing the
Comprehensive Plan, since then I've been telling you that you're going to '
get confronted with a whole lot of stuff in the very near future... The
properties that I outlined in black are those which people have been
talking to us about developing. Either we've seen a development proposal II
or we've approved one or we've started talking to people in-house or they
petitioned the City Council for an extension of utilities. Now that's not
to say everything is going to happen in 1992 but it's looking like a good
bit of it may.
Ahrens: Where is that map?
Krauss: It's attached on the back page of the Report from the Director.
Emmings: It's a lot of important property. What do you want to do on
this?
Krauss: I guess I felt rather good writing this thing. I was able to
spout off a paragraph about all the stuff we've accomplished in the last
couple years and it's been quite a bit. I seriously do believe that you've
got to be proud of yourselves because we've used the last couple years,
which have been slower in terms of new development, to the city's best I
advantage. I mean this is not the community it was in terms of planning.
It's not the community it was in terms of the goals that the Planning
Commission, the Council and the HRA had for the city anymore.- The
expectations are raised and our ability to regulate developments -is greatly'
improved. But as the last page indicates, it's coming. It's going to be
taking a lot more of your time to work with that kind of stuff over the
next year. In terms of goals for the year, we do have our ongoing issues
list. If that suffices as what you'd like us to be doing for the coming
year, I'm just asking you to re- examine that. That's fine. We'll try to
work on these. '
Emmings: What we've done in the past I know is put together a list and
then send it to the City Council for their reaction to see if there are
things they'd like added to the list or whatever. I don't see why we can't
do that with our ongoing issues list. If anybody else has any issues, we
can add it to there. Send it up to them saying here's our ongoing work
list. If there are things that should be moved up in priority, let us
know. What do you think Ladd?
Conrad: That's fine. I don't have anything. I think we're working on the'
right stuff. And it's listed.
Emmings: Is that alright?
Krauss: Yep.
Ledvina: Does the order represent' a priority?
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 15, 1992 - Page 39
Emmings: No. Except maybe, well up here. Those Comprehensive Plan
issues, at least number one is a high priority item and some of the rest of
those are done. I don't know why they don't get off there. I hate seeing
things on a list that are already done.
' Krauss: We knock them off every month or two.
DISCUSSION OF SIGN ORDINANCE ISSUES.
Emmings: Next thing I've got here is an issue paper on the sign ordinance.
Aanenson: I was just going to make a couple comments to that. We were
' supposed to start meeting in November. Unfortunately we didn't get this to
you until this agenda. What I've done is just outline some of the major
issues that we'll be looking at Ohen the committee gets together. I know
' Jeff's on that committee. Some of the major issues that we're going to be
looking at is what's currently in place. There's no, as far as the
acreage, the size of the parcel. No compatibility with the size of the
sign. That's a big issue and that needs to be addressed. Also for like a
plan center or multi - tenant building, there's no regulation as far as
compatibility of the signs. Whether they all go to chain letters or if
they go with box style so it's kind of a compatibility. And they come in
' with a sign package. We "re looking at them now when we do a PUD like we
did with Ryan on that industrial park. That they come in with a sign
package. You have to have it uniform so when you come into a plan center
or industrial park you know that they all belong in the same area. The
other thing we'll be looking at is some of the new technology. Canopies,
neon lighting, windows and that sort of thing. And then also just our own
' administrative policy. The way that we've been reviewing signs in house.
So this is for you just to review some of the issues we'll be looking at if
you have some comments. Some areas of concern that you wanted the
committee to be looking at. I'd like people's comments.
Emmings: It looks like you've done a lot of work. ...a very cursory
reading I'll admit. I didn't study it in detail but it looks like you've
' done a lot of work thinking about this and it looks like these are, this
like lot sizes will just go round and round about. I just wish you good
luck. It's tough. I'm glad Jeff's on the committee and not me.
Conrad: Are there any problems with temporary signs in Chanhassen? I
haven't heard many.
' Aanenson: I don't know if we've had too many. What we're looking at is
trying to limit those t3 like Grand Openings because they do serve a
function. Special event kind of things.
1 Krauss: The way that it's handled now it's tough to administer and it
becomes quasi-permanent. If my memory serves, each tenant in a
multi - tenant building is entitled to it for a certain period of weeks every
year.
Aanenson: 3 weeks I believe.
Planning Commission Meeting 1
January 15, 1992 - Page 40
Krauss: So Joe gets it these 2 weeks. Mel gets it those 2 weeks. The 11
flower shop gets it and Ahn -Le gets it and then let's go back through the
list again and its there all year you know. That's not the idea. They're!'
ugly and sometimes you've got to get after them because they pull it out
onto a sidewalk and that kind of stuff. Then you've got temporary signs
hung on the rental trucks in front of Merlyn's.
Farmakes: You have the inflatable signs that are sometimes multi stories
tall.
Aanenson: That goes back to the center concept. I think what we'd like toll
go with more of a plan center.
Ahrens: ...What did I tell you? First we talked about having the big ear II
on the building and now it's the vein on the building. I knew it would be
all downhill.
Farmakes: One of the things I'd like to discuss when we get into this is
not only the signs themselves but how many. How many is necessary.
Aanenson: Yeah, I talked a little bit about that too.
Farmakes: If you get signs for each story, you've got 40 stories, you've I
got a lot of...with plexiglass sitting around. The question is how many
sight rates do you really need and how many sight lines do you really have
to look for to be a competent business presentation to identify a store.
Krauss: I think we've also been talking a lot about a downtown image.
Does the downtown have a special sign criteria? Another question that
we've come up with is, do we all agree with Brad Johnson that an office
building is so many retail tenants waiting to be seen.
Ahrens: No. '
Farmakes: It depends on where the market is at the time. How they want to
sell it.
Ahrens: Speaking of Brad Johnson, when's the ground breaking for the?
Krauss: You know, it's getting awfully close. '
Ahrens: I find that hard to believe.
Krauss: We all have but the bank, they're supposed to have started closing'
procedures today. On the loan which means they could break ground in
several weeks. Except I have to finish writing the sign covenants. It's
on my desk. '
Conrad: What's the concern with a sign communicating to TH 5 traffic the
next turn is downtown Chanhassen? We have the Chamber of Commerce sign out'
there with all their little listings Which is pretty bad. But do we have a
Chanhassen sign and is that governed by our sign ordinance?
1 Planning Commission Meeting
January 15, 1992 - Page 41
Krauss: Well the HRA has an ongoing program that next summer you'll see
it. In conjunction with TH 5 improvements, all the major entrances into
the community are going to be landscaped, monumented and signed and it's
going to say Chanhassen. It's not going to say, Joe's Mighty Fine
Snowblowers you know. The importance here is that you're coming into
1 Chanhassen's downtown and you should know you're arriving and you should
know where to go.
Farmakes: They touched on that on the TH 5 proposal a little bit didn't
they?
Krauss: Right. Barry Warner from Barton- Aschman was the fellow who
1 designed the work and the features, common elements. Silhouettes of the
towers. The same kind of stone work that you see in other parts of town
that they sometimes where there's room they have landscape amenities with
benches where you can sit. I think one has a fountain. It's going to be
quite nice.
Conrad: Jeff, monument signs are neat if we do them right. We don't have
' anything in town, we don't have anything that looks good saying here's
Chanhassen so maybe this is solving the problem. My concern was that our
ordinance allows it. It did save a little bit of stuff we've got to
prevent but it's like Lundgren coming in and their comment is real valid.
make a statement with a sign. They like to cluster their stuff and make
things look big and impressive and there is something to that philosophy.
' If you don't do it with signage, especially with the Chamber of Commerce
sign, that's not helping Chanhassen and it's not helping the businesses
either. That's a waste of their money.
Farmakes: I think it touches on a really important point. One as I said
before, there's a difference between identification and advertising. I
don't know if we've really discussed that maybe with some of the business
people here in town because there's differences of opinions there as to
where your best buck lies. And as to where you're going to get your most
effective use, Same thing with these boats. You're going to be hitting
there what's in their interest as best as they can. That's understandable.
I would too. You're going to want to advertise, if you're competing in the
market you're going to want to advertise anyway you can. Just what is
reasonable and have a goal in mind rather than just plaster up as many
signs as you can get.
Conrad: Well the point on TH 5 is to have a foot high sign for traffic
going 50 mph. And they're charging the members for that? What we want to
do is say, Here's Chanhassen. Come on in.
Krauss: You may well want to prohibit, I don't know...pylon signs on TH 5.
Every property owner is going to make an argument as to why they need a 25
foot high pylon sign that says whatever and it's going to be bigger or
placed so the next one down doesn't cover it up and you wind up with one of
' those University Avenue types of vistas. That's everything we don't want
to have happen here. When I look at the sites that you have in downtown
Chanhassen from the time that you hit the garden center going through past
' Holiday and everything that's going to happen in that area. Around past a
new shopping center now out to Burdick's where Burdick has 12 lots there.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 15, 1992 - Page 42
1
Every one of those develops and every one wants their own pylon sign
bordering on Th 5. That's a real visual impact.
Ahrens: Speaking of visual impacts. Is the landscaping done on the Rapid
Oil Change building? Is that what it's called?
Olsen: Valvoline?
Krauss: Valvoline, yeah. '
Ahrens: It is done? You know I was just laughing to myself as I was
driving by the other day. We spent so much time on the landscaping plan
for that building. I don't know if you've noticed it but it sits way up on
a hill and the plantings all look like they're 2 1/2 inches high. It looks
like it's going to be 50 years. It looks ridiculous. I mean it really
does. It looks like, we thought this was going to be some great
landscaping design that we worked so hard on.
Emmings: The City Council beefed up the landscaping.
Farmakes: If you go back to the Minutes, his response to questions about
hanging banners, that they wouldn't be putting any up. They've been opened
now for a while. Those banners have been up. They'll be there for a year.'
Krauss: There shouldn't be any.
Farmakes: I think that's a mode-of operation for them because they use it II
in their other franchises. They open up those bays and in there is sitting
those big hanging banners. Same effect.
Ahrens: ...the Valvoline shop on the hill. It's like.
Krauss: What made that site look a lot tougher too, or it really changed II
the perspective is when they sliced into the hill for the new lanes for the
highway. Also their grading plan turned out to be in error. They put the
building in where it was supposed to be and then they found they had to
build a retaining wall against the west side. A stone retaining wall there"
and that wasn't on the original plans. I think the building turned out to
be 3 feet higher or something like that than it was supposed to be.
Ahrens: Well it's bad anyway right at the entrance of Chanhassen. It
looks really tacky.
Conrad: Yeah, it's not a pretty picture. But we allowed them, we did it. 1
Ahrens: Yeah we did it.
Farmakes: Visually that may change or soften up a bit when that
development comes in farther down. I think the natural area it seems to
enter Chanhassen will be there. 1
Krauss: Well the Red -E -Mix and Taco, are coming down this spring and
there's going to be a lot of open space and plazas as you approach that.
There's also a very good chance that we'll be able to get some improvements"
1
1 Planning Commission Meeting
January 15, 1992 - Page 43
hopefully to the facade, certainly to the landscaping on the Hanus building
which really dominants the thing. And the building behind that. Then on
11 the corner by Amoco /Holiday there is one of those entrance features.
Ahrens: It's going to be a plaza where the Taco Shop is?
1 Krauss: There's a lot of open space there where, actually where Taco is
it's going to be a road.
Ahrens: Yeah, that's what I thought.
Krauss: But just beyond that, the road kind of hooks and turns this way
and there's a big open space. It will be a big open, publically owned area
for landscaping. In fact there's several of them around that intersection.
' Ahrens: Okay. I don't have anything else to say.
Conrad: We can move the old City Hall down there.
Emmings: Turn it crooked. I should talk. I can't talk about that thing
because I turned my house crooked on my lot. Sort of like they did to that
thing. Okay. The last thing we've got here is organizational items.
ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR FOR 1992.
Emmings: I'm a little disturbed about this. Again without Tim and Brian
being here because in my mind there's a logical new Chairman and Vice
Chairman between the two of them. So I don't know what to do.
' Conrad: Steve, we've all fetl comfortable with your leadership so I'm
going to, no I'm not.
Emmings: I'll gavel you down. Directly to your forehead.
Conrad: Publically I think you've just done an outstanding job over the
last year.
Ahrens: I think you did a really good job too.
' Conrad: For the 3 people who are watching, I'd like to applaud Mr.
Emmings.
' Emmings: And I'd like to sing a song.
Conrad: But no, just a fine job and would be comfortable if you led the
Commission another year. However as we've talked, I think it's always a
good opportunity for other people to lead.
Emmings: I would like that to happen.
Conrad: But I say that and then the 2 people who are probably the ones
that might be next who I still feel are competent in leading the Commission
are not here so I guess the debate is, shall we do something without them
or defer? We more than likely could take it up as a first item on the
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 1S, 1992 -- Page 44
1
agenda at the next meeting if those two are here and solve it at that time.
Emmings: Is that agreeable with everybody? 1
Ahrens: That's fine.
Emmings: The way I'm thinking about this is, I think it ought to be passed
on. I think it's something that's worthwhile doing after you've been here
a while. I think everybody ought to do it and I would sort of like to
advocate a system of you kndw Tim is Vice Chair. He's been Vice Chair for II
2 years. If he does have some time constraints and maybe doesn't want to
be Chair for that reason but that aside, if he does, I would just assume
see Tim be Chair and maybe Brian be Vice Chair.and the next year have Brian'
be Chair. I don't know if we want to go to that system. I lot of
organizations do it that way. We can do whatever we want.
Conrad: There's some real logic to what you're saying. On the other hand,'
if I guess we don't feel the commitment by those other two members to be
here Steve, I would sure hope that you would consider taking the Chairman.
Emmings: Or you.
Conrad: No. I've had my time. But I think you would, I'm very
comfortable with you leading us so I guess they're not shoe in's right now.
They kind of have to sell me that they can do the job. They're going to be
here. And if they can't, then I'd like to think that you could still
manage the group.
Emmings: Okay, we'll take it up next time when we come.
Conrad moved, Emmings seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor
and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m..
Submitted by Paul Krauss 1
Planning Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MEETING
1 1/9/91
PRESENT: Craig Blechta, Brian Beniek, Bill Bernhjelm, Dave Dummer,
Dave Johnson, Don Chmiel
STAFF: Scott Harr, Steve A. Kirchman, Bob Zydowsky
Sgt. Dave Erbel, CCSO
The meeting was called to order at 7 p.m.
1 Brian Beniek motioned, Dave Johnson seconded, to approve the
11/14/91 minutes as written. All voted in favor and the motion
passed.
Brian' motioned, Bill Bernhjelm seconded, to appoint Dave Dummer
1992 Public Safety Commission Chairperson. Dave Dummer motioned,
Bill Bernhjelm seconded, to appoint Brian Beniek Alternate
Chairperson. All voted in favor and the motions passed.
1 FIRE DEPARTMENT
' Jim McMahon was elected Fire Chief and Richard Wing 2nd Assistant
Chief. The City Council will formally make the appointments at the
1/13/92 Council meeting.
The bids have been sent out for the heavy duty rescue truck. Bids
will be opened on 1/15, with City Council approval following.
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
' Sgt. Erbel commended the Chanhassen Fire Department's cooperation
with the Sheriff's Department at recent fire /medical /rescue calls.
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Steve A. Kirchman discussed the inspection /revenue /permit reports.
' 1991 was low in revenue, 10% less in inspections, and equal in
number of permits compared to 1990.
1 PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT
CSO Zydowsky displayed the stationary radar unit funded through
donations by the Chanhassen American Legion.
Steve Kirchman discussed the proposed building code changes, (see
November packet, pg. 16 -23). Craig Blechta motioned, Brian Beniek
1
1
PSC 1
1/9/92
Page 2
. 1
seconded, to endorse these proposed building code changes, Section
19 of the City Code, and have them presented to the City Council
for an ordinance amendment. All voted in favor and the motion
passed.
Scott Harr reviewed the speed limit issue on West 78th Street. He
recommended that adequate signage be erected along the west end and 1
monitor speeds for 4 months. Bill Bernhjelm mentioned the need for
a longer monitoring period - at least through the summer months.
The 1992 Commission goals and objectives were discussed in 1
conjunction with the 1992 schedule of Commission meetings. The
Sheriff's Department, Eckankar and Paisley Park Studios will be
available for future meetings. Also, Steve Kirchman will set up an
inspection tour of a building under construction for the
Commissioners during the summer months.
Dave Dummer will have an Emergency' Operations Center plan and
exercise session at the February meeting.
Brian Beniek suggested that Craig Blechta draft a letter of
commendation to the city maintenance crews, community service
officers and the Sheriff's Department for a job well done during
the recent blizzards.
Mayor Chmiel motioned, Dave Dummer seconded, to adjourn the meeting
at 8:25 p.m. All voted in favor and the motion passed. 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1