2g. Minutes I/ CITY COUNCIL MEETING
REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 14, 1991
Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.. The meeting was opened
with the Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Workman, Councilman Wing,
Councilwoman Dimler and Councilman Mason
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Paul Krauss, Todd Gerhardt, Charles Folch, Jo Ann
Olsen, Todd Hoffman and Roger Knutson
1 Mayor Chmiel: I know it's not part of our agenda but with the intenseness that
we have in the East, I'd just like to take a quick minute for each of us to
reach a conclusion within our own minds and hopeful that President Bush and
Saddam Hussein reach a successful agreement.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to
approve the agenda with the following addition under Council Presentation.
' Mayor Chmiel wanted to discuss Hwy 5 rights of entry. Councilwoman Dimler
wanted to appoint two Councilmembers to the Employees Advisory Board after item
9(a). All voted in favor and the motion carried.
I/ PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: ACCEPT DONATION OF $500.00 FROM THE CHANHASSEN LIONS
CLUB, PROFITS FROM OKTOBERFEST CELEBRATION.
John Daniels: Thank you Mayor. I'm John Daniels, President of the Chanhassen
Lion's Club. I live at 7478 Saratoga Drive in Chanhassen. It gives me very
great pleasure to donate some money to the City of Chanhassen, the Park and Rec
I/ Department, to help incur expenses for Oktoberfest and we want to wish you,
hopefully this money will be used to expense future association that the Lion's
will have with the city of Chanhassen in future Oktoberfests. So with that in
mind, Todd Hoffman, I'd like to present to you a check for *500.00 from the
1 Lion's Club of Chanhassen to be used. Thank you very much. Those are always
good news when the City does get money in donations. And as a city that's
grown, we want to participate in any other type of fund raising events. That is
the purpose of Lionism and keep us in mind and forever we want to work with you.
Thank you very much.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you John on behalf of the City.
ORGANIZATIONAL ITEMS:
' Don Ashworth: It's really a question back to the Mayor, if I may, in terms of
would you like to act on each of these separately so I go through a brief report
on each one or do you wish to take them as a group?
Mayor Chmiel: I think if we were to just hit each individual one. I'm sure
that Council has completely reviewed the document as I have and we can go from
there.
1 1
1
City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991
Don Ashworth: Rules of Procedures, these are the procedures under which the
City Council operates each year. Staff is really unaware of any changes that
may be necessary from this past year. The City Council has already established
a meeting schedule for this next year so that function is taken care of.
Official Newspaper. Although we did receive a request from the Excelsior paper,
they do not -have an office in Chanhassen as required by State law. Accordingly
we're recommending the Villager. Official Depository. We continue to maintain
a good working relationship with Chanhassen State Bank. We would again
recommend that firm. The City Attorney. Campbell, Knutson, Scott, Fuchs is
11 recommended. Bond Consultant. We went through an extensive process this past
year. We feel Springsted has done a good job for the city and would continue to
recommend that firm. Acting Mayor is a designation that the City Council needs
to consider. Staff does not typically make any form of recommendation.
Mayor Chmiel: Right, and I'll take that one right now. As Acting Mayor, in the
absence of my presence, we need someone to carry on the meetings. I'm going to
' make a motion that Tom Workman be appointed as the Acting Mayor.
Councilwoman Dimler: Second.
' Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilwoman Disler seconded to appoint Tom Workman as
Acting Mayor for 1991. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
' Don Ashworth: Under Weed Inspector, State law requires that the Mayor actually
be the Weed Inspector. We would recommend that the Public Safety Director be
appointed as the Deput -y Weed Inspector. Fire Chief. Procedures in the previous
year has been that that is a two year appointment. Dale Gregory is starting the
second year of that position. The firemen did vote this past year to select
Dale as Fire Chief and we would concur with their recommendation. Health
Officer. Dr. McCollum has continued to serve and would serve again this next
year. The position pays $1.00 per year. City Auditor, similar to the Bond
Consultants, the City did go through an extensive effort in looking at Auditor
selection. As a part of that we entered into a 3 year contract. We're in the
second year of that contract and we're again recommending Deloitte - Touche.
Appointment to Board of Adjustments and Appeals is again back to the City
Council.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Being that we have had several members on this, it is due
time that Councilman Tom Workman take the position on the Board of Adjustment
and Appeals and I will serve as a sub. With that I would like to -have a motion.
Councilwoman Dimler: I move Tom Workman as our appointee to the Board of
Adjustment and Appeals.
1 Mayor Chmiel: Seconded?
Councilman Wing: Second.
Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Wing seconded to appoint Councilman Tom
Workman to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously.
2
City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991
Mayor Chmiel: Congratulations Tom. Tom couldn't wait for that one. Being we
have all these organizational items before us, I would also like a motion on
each of these items a thru k.
Councilwoman Dimler: I move items a thru k on Organizational items 1.
Councilman Workman: Second.
Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the 1
Organizational Items as follows:
a. Resolution *91 -1: Rules of Procedure as presented.
b. Official Newspaper: The Villager
c. Official__Depository: Chanhassen Bank
d. City_,Attorney_: Campbell, Knutson, Scott and Fuchs
e. Bond Consultant: Springsted
f. Act ing__May__or: Councilman Tom Workman
g. Weed__In pector: Mayor Don Chmiel with the Public Safety Director as Deputy
Weed Inspector.
h. Fire Chief: Dale Gregory
i. Healt_h_Officer: Dr. McCollum
j. City_Auditors: Deloitte & Touche
k. Board__of Adjustment and_„_Appeals: Councilman Tom Workman
All voted'in favor and the motion carried unanimously. 1
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to
'Drove the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's
,ecommendations:
c. Resolution *91 -2: Accept Utilities in Walter Paulson Subdivision, Project
90 -21. ,
d. Resolution *91 -3: Approve Contract Amendment No. 1 for Audubon Road South,
Project 89 -18.
e. Resolution *91 -4: Approve Contract Amendment No. 3 for Country Hospitality
Y P ty
Suites Hotel, Project 89 -25.
f. Resolution *91 -5: Accept Utilities in Lake Susan Hills West 2nd Addition,
Project 89 -19.
h. Resolution *91 -6: Accept Storm Sewer Improvements for PMT Addition, File ,
90 -13 LUR.
k. Review Specifications for Public Works Vehicles and Equipment. 1
1. Approval of 1991 Joint Powers Agreement Prosecution Contract, Caver County.
m. Approval of Accounts.
n. City Council Minutes dated December 10, 1990
Planning Commission Minutes dated December 12, 1990
3
City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991
Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated December 11, 1990
Public Safety Commission Minutes dated December 12, 1990
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
A. APPROVE 1991 PARK ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
Councilman Workman: Since Todd was here and this is probably all Todd maybe
has. As I was going through here, again it appears as though we've got more
things to do than money for parks and for acquiring things and I'm a little
disheartened that we're not going to be able to get to say the Chanhassen Hills
development done for a couple years or whatever and boy it sure seems like we
move at a snail's pace. That has nothing to do with our staff's performance as
much as it does, we don't have the dollars to do a lot of things.
Todd Hoffman: Initially, you're speaking to Chan Hills and possibly lake Susan
Hills West and the new parkland which is currently coming on line? What the
Commission's viewpoint, as those neighborhoods begin to develop and you start
seeing housing develop around a neighborhood park, that we get in with an
initial phase. Develop a play area. Get the area graded and seeded. That type
of thing and start with an initial development. Then since we do have some of
11 those new parks coming on line, they really have to sit a year then with no
available funding so we can start those other parks... Get those park
development projects going. Get those areas graded, seeded, etc. and then jump
back to the other park the year after. So we're really on a every other year
basis with funding for new parks currently.
Councilman Workman: Any idea where we can come up with some more money besides
raising fees, etc.?
Todd Hoffman: Really we're bound by the dollars which are coming in for park
development and trail fees. We have a fairly aggressive yet obtainable and
fiscally responsible budget of $175,000.00 this year. I feel if we continue
that to a 2 to 3 year basis, you should be able to see some good development in
these neighborhood parks. These new parks which are coming on line. Then at
the same time we'll have to jump back to the older neighborhood parks which are
somewhat outdated and start filling in the gaps there as well.
11 Councilman Workman: Other than that we're going to basically continue on a
program of Peter paying Paul and back and forth and the new neighborhoods are
paying for the parks for the old neighborhoods sort of?
Todd Hoffman: That type of thing, yeah. If we ever do run into that dead end
situation where we would be out of funds in the park acquisition and development
budget, then we would have to look to a referendum...complete neighborhood or
community parks.
Councilman Workman: You said referendum, I didn't. Quickly then Todd,
Chanhassen Pond Park. Correction of erosion problems. $3,000.00 in 1991.
$2,000 in 1992. Is that going to be an ongoing thing? Is that around the trail
or what is it?
4
i
City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991
Todd Hoffman: It would be on the south end of the trail. The south end of the
park just as the trail comes around and goes into the wooded section. There's
some erosion problems there. Originally it was budgeted at $5,000.00 in 1991.
We feel we can correct the problem with the $3,000.00 which are available but if
it does fall over and we need to do some additional corrections in 1992, then
that $2,000.00 would be used.
Councilman Workman: Is it interferring with the trail?
Todd Hoffman: It does interfere with the trail but also it causes sedimentation
into the pond itself and it's just a problem that should not exist in a natural
area inside a park. 1
Councilman Workman: Okay. And then I was a little bit confused by, and this is
just showing my lacking of time today. I could have talked to you earlier but
it's not bad to get this stuff in the public record. The 5 year capital
improvement program, 1991 land acquisition west of Lake Minnewashta, $100,000.00
in 1990. $100,000.00 in 1992.
Todd Hoffman: That $100,000.00 is a reserve. If it's shown in 1992, it's just
showing that it will exist in 1992 as well. It's not $100,000.00 in 1991 and
1992. It's a reserve there. There is a park deficient area west of Lake
Minnewashta that if land does become available which we need to purchase, we
need to have some funds available...
Councilman Workman: What about the $100,000.00 for 1990 then? 1
Todd Hoffman: 1990?
Councilman Workman: Yeah. 11
Todd Hoffman: It was there in 1990 as well. It's just a reserve which keeps
moving forward.
Councilman Workman: But we didn't do anything?
Todd Hoffman: No we did not.
Councilman Workman: Okay. I bet you they're excited about that out there. And
then the last thing I had is our Governor has recently, or ex- Governor has left
office. I brought this up to a couple of Park and Rec people. Can we get some
botchy ball courts somewhere? We have a lot of people with botchy balls and
they're going around their yards, wrecking their yards. I thought that might be
something rather inexpensive that might entertain.
Mayor Chmiel: Are those second hand sets? 1
Councilman Workman: No.
Mayor Chmiel: Being that the Governor's gone, I thought those might. 1
Councilman Workman: Maybe we can talk about that.
5
11
i
City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991
Todd Hoffman: Certainly we can.
I/ Councilman Workman: It seems like it'd be pretty cheap to do and don't we have 1
some Eagle Scouts that need something?
Mayor Chmiel: I have one particular question that I should have talked to you
about before but on page 5, South Lotus Lake Park. Under 1991 you show
$1,000.00 for a total of $11,000.00. I'm not sure where that additional
$10,000.00 would go. Under totlot or tennis courts?
Todd Hoffman: That $10,000.00 was written in under totlot. I apologize for
that. I missed your copy there.
Councilwoman Dimier: I wasn't going to pull this but as long as we have it
pulled. I'm kind of curious about the Bandimere Youth Park and you've got
$310,000.00 for 1992 and beyond. How are you projecting that money to come in?
Todd Hoffman: Those projections for 1992 and beyond just show, as the
' Commission works through it's budget, it discusses what potentially should be
being developed in the future. It would take approximately $300,000.00 to
complete the development of the athletic facilities for the youth age at
11 Bandimere Park. Whether that becomes, whether we take that and start banking
$50,000.00 - $100,000.00 a year out of the general park acquisition and
development fund or if at some point in time we go to another referendum process
to develop that parkland. It's just showing that there is going to be a large
sum of money necessary to complete that parkland. We have the land itself but
the development is yet to come so the revenue source for that is still up in the
air.
1 Councilwoman Dimier: Okay, but you're not projecting to spend it all in 1992?
' Todd Hoffman: No. It's just there to show that it will eventually happen.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, thank you.
Councilman Wing: Todd, do additions to or improvements to trails show in this
packet or would that be a separate item? Separate budget?
Todd Hoffman: Basically as trail segments become available, or if we need to
incur some costs to complete some trail segments which the opportunity becomes
available during the year, they'll be pulled out of the park acquisition fund
' balance and approved at that time by the Park Commission and then by the City
Council as a separate item.
Councilman Workman: I'd move approval.
1 Councilman Wing: Second.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve 1991 Park
Acquisition and Development Capital Improvement Program. All voted in favor and
the motion carried.
1
6
City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991 1
B. AMEND CONDITION OF SUBDIVISION APPROVAL, 9350 GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD,
PETERSON /BLANSKI SUBDIVISION.
Councilwoman Dimler: I pulled item 2(b). It has to do with amending of a
condition of a subdivision that we approved some time ago on Great Plains
Boulevard. I would like to have an explanation. This one seems real
complicated and I thought maybe Jo Ann or Paul would explain it to us.
Jo Ann Olsen: This was a metes and bounds subdivision that the City Council 1
approved. It's on TH 101 just south of the Northwest Nursery. It created two
parcels and the two people involved in it are Mr. Peterson who owned the
property and subdivided it and Mr. Blanski bought a parcel from Mr. Peterson. A
condition of approval is that they had to combine driveways so they couldn't
each have their own separate driveway. That's just pretty much a policy on
TH 101 because of the sight distance and curves and sometimes it's really
dangerous. So they did have provide, they did share the driveway and we were
called by one of the residents informed that a second driveway was being created
by Mr. Blanski. This just shows Mr. Blanski's property for his driveway. Now
we've got two driveways. Staff did contact Mr. Blanski and put a stop work
order on his property...condition of subdivision approval and that the
driveway...this was in violation. When Mr. Blanski came into the office he
stated that Mr. Peterson had stopped his access crossing Mr. Peterson's
property. Had closed off his access and not allowing him to cross his property.
There wasn't an agreement that was recorded with the County...I know their
option was to create his own driveway. So we did allow him to complete it.
He's really done it mostly over the weekends and we allowed him to blacktop it
with the condition that it would be brought before the Council and that if you
chose not to revoke or remove that condition, that he would have to remove that
driveway and continue to share it across Mr. Peterson's property. In talking
with both parties, there's different stories on what the situation is. After- -
the city reviewed it, I guess we felt pretty strongly that Mr. Peterson is still
responsible for upholding the condition of that approval and that he must still ,
provide the easement across his property and to allow for that shared driveway.
So with that we were recommending that the condition be reaffirmed and that it
still be a condition of approval. ...Mr. Peterson and Mr. Blanski happen to
show their own documents saying that there was an easement, there wasn't an
easement. Mr. Blanski is here tonight and I'm sure he'd like to give his side
of the story.
Councilwoman Dimler: Are you saying that Mr. Blanski has to remove his
driveway? Is that what we're affirming?
Jo Ann Olsen: If you chose to say that the condition stays in place, yes.
Don Ashworth: Or at least a portion of it. 1
Mayor Chmiel: I viewed that on Sunday. 1 drove it and the driveway where it's
located, I guess I really don't have too many concerns. In fact I find where
it's probably a safer approach going in and out as opposed to using that
existing drive because of that high clump of dirt with the utility pole right
there. It creates a problem or a given problem that I can see in the cars
coming from north going south on TH 101. If you can call that north or south
but I'm using directional as such. As far as going out from that particular
7
City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991
1
driveway coming from the south going north with the turn, there's sufficient
amount of lead time for a vehicle to get out, even on a slippery day as I found
out. Because there was a car just coming around at that particular time but
there was still enough time to get through there because of the slower speeds
that they have to have as they make those turns. As you all know, whoever
designed TH 101 was either out at a party the previous night or whatever
because I'm sure he didn't see quite straight as he should have. But I just
wanted to interject what I had seen.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, so you think that the two driveways are no safety
hazard on TH 101? It's okay to leave them the way they are?
Mayor Chmiel: As I look at it, I don't see that as a given problem.
Councilman Workman: How about in as it affects the previous agreement?
Conditions?
Mayor Chmiel: Well the previous agreement condition basically is something that
should be, I feel, worked out between the two parties and the City should not
really be involved in that particular discussion. That's a legal, I think a
legal question isn't it Roger more than anything else?
11 Roger Knutson: There's certainly a lot of legal issues involved with it, yes.
Councilman Wing: What's the issue of the wetland being filled? To me it looked
like the wetland had been partially filled. Is that true?
Jo Ann Olsen: Well we had reports that yes, it has been partially filled and so
we're trying to investigate what exactly was there to begin with and we'll be
looking into that.
Dave Blanski: I can address that if I may.
1 Mayor Chmiel: Sure. Why don't you come forward to the podium and please state
your name and your address.
Dave Blanski: Sure. My name is Dave Blanski. I live at 9350 Great Plains
Blvd. and in regards to the wetland issue, I had an engineer do a preliminary
survey before I built the driveway. I don't have copies but I have the original
work here and you can see from the cross sections that I did not fill the swamp.
The other issue about the wetland is, without being facetious, it's a wetland as
much as you're hockey rink is a wetland because I have an inch and a half PVC
pipe feeding that both summer and winter to keep it wet. If I turn the water
off, it's dry and I can mow it. So if I wasn't putting water in there so the
ducks had a place to swim, it would be dry. So I think the wetland issue may be
moot, I don't know. I would like to say that when I purchased that property
from Mr. Peterson, as God is my witness, there was never a discussion about
having to share a driveway. I never received any communication from the City
that we had to share a driveway. There is nothing in my Title. I've got a copy
' from the Title Company that spelled out any easement. I got a letter from Mr.
Peterson, I've got a copy of it here, where he gave me a month beginning
September 24th to vacate his property. Well as you know, the construction
season is about at an end September and October and I didn't have much time. I
8
11
1
City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991 1
went to my attorney. We did have a very limited easement. When we got the
original access agreement for TH 101, and I can read you the entire thing. Bob
wrote it. Robert Peterson and David Blanski do hereby affirm that they have
granted each other easement to the portions of their properties commonly
referred to as the driveway entrance. This was written to satisfy the State.
They wouldn't let us have a joint driveway unless we had some sort of agreement
that we were going to share the portion that the State had an easement on.
Otherwise there were no easements. There was no discussions. At that time we
worked together. We were good friends. I honestly don't know who suggested the
common driveway but at the time it seemed like a good thing to do. I've got
$2,000.00 of my money in it and Bob's driving on it. I felt I had no recourse
after talking to my attorney. He said this easement agreement is not legal
because it wasn't signed by the wives who also have an interest in the property.
He said if we go to District Court, you'll spend $5,000.00 and it will be winter
and you'll be parking out on TH 101. I'd advise you to put a driveway in and
just let life go on. So now I've got $5.,000.00 in my new driveway. Before I
commenced work on October 12th I visited the City and talked to Vicky who I
understand is in Planning. Explained to her that I had a problem with a
neighbor and that he was going to put a fence up for one thing and I got a copy
of the fence ordinance from her. Talked about putting in the driveway. Asked
if any permits were required. I said no setbacks, no nothing. Even as she
walked away I asked her, are you sure because this is a problem. I want to do
it right. She assured me I didn't need anything. I got MnDot's number from her
and got an access permit from the State of Minnesota and proceeded to put the
driveway in. About two days before, I worked nights and weekends, put the thing
in after I got the permit on the 14th of November. Had it ready for paving and
then on the 19th in the morning the stop work order was up. Met Jo Ann in the
afternoon. Discussed the situation. This was the first time I was ever made
aware of that Peterson was supposed to, that we were supposed to share a
driveway. At this time I still had mostly sweat equity in the thing. I'd been
hauling the dirt at night and doing the laboring myself and I said to Jo Ann,
well this is great. We can force Peterson then and she said, no. We made a
mistake on your's. There was no paperwork filed. The City can't force him to
do anything. My wife is witness to that. She was there with me. I didn't feel
that I had, there was no choice. It was either park out on the highway or put 1
the pavement in. The asphalt plant was going to shut in two days so I paved it
and now I'm at your mercy. I tried to do everything right. That's all I can
say and I'll take any questions. 1
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I'm a little bit confused Mr. Blanski. How long
did you live there?
Dave Blanski: We purchased the property in February of 1986. Built in 1988 -87.
Moved in the spring of 1988 I think. Something like that.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, so you've been living there since the spring of '88?
And have you been sharing the driveway up until that point?
Dave Blanski: Until November of this year. 1
Councilwoman Dimler: So you were aware of the, I'm confused because you're
saying you weren't aware of the condition that we put on there that you shared a
driveway?
9
1
City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991
Dave Blanski: I learned of the condition and got a copy of the letter from the
City on the 19th of November of this year and that was the first time that I
knew anything about it.
Councilwoman Dimler: So
you were sharing the driveway but you had always
planned to do your own?
Dave Blanski: Not necessarily but the main, really the crux of the thing. Why
rather than fight it and take Bob to Court because the original driveway is a
terrible situation. There's no other way to describe it. It's very steep and
the sight lines are difficult. I took some pictures this afternoon. They didn't
come out very well and I'll be honest with you, I didn't measure the distances.
I scaled them off but you're welcome to look here. I've got at least twice the
sight distance now than I had before. There are 5 vehicles in our family.
That's at least 10 trips a day and everybody knows you run in and out. A
hundred times a week we're going in and out of there and we've all been almost
hit and it's much safer, I was willing to spend the money, be done with the
thing. I felt Peterson had already stolen $2,000.00 from me. Common sense
1 doesn't tell you to go back and share even the entrance to his property because
the next thing he'll cut that off. I didn't feel I had any alternative. Here's
the sight line.
Councilman Mason: I would have to say, I drove out there on Sunday also and
certainly your driveway appears to be a whole lot safer. Coming around that
corner I was a little amazed at how close it was.
' Councilwoman Dimler: It's right across from Bandimere. Okay, so does somebody
want to make a motion? It was recommended that the original conditions of
approval should remain but it sounds to me'like we're going to go in the
opposite direction. Is that what I'm hearing kind of the consensus?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I think from what I had seen with what's existing, I guess
the only concern I have are what our legal ramifications are, if any. I, guess
from what I see with the existing driveway it is, I have to agree, it is much
safer.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, I have no qualms with that but I would like to see
something done here to get it somehow registered or whatever it needs so that as
you go to, if either one of you sells your properties, that we don't run into
this again.
Dave Blanski: Well, if you approve it as it is now, you won't have a problem
because we're each on our own property.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. They were sharing it before.
Paul Krauss: If I can comment on that. Later on tonight there's a proposed fee
schedule for 1991. One of the items in there is a proposal that we talked about
on several occasions which would have the City Attorney be responsible for
filing plats and making sure that easements are properly recorded. I think here
you have an excellent example of what happens when we don't control the process.
10
11
1
City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991 1
Councilwoman Dimler: Absolutely. So does that take care of this situation and
all other situations?
Paul Krauss: Well it should make sure that this wouldn't happen again.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. This is one my major concerns too. That's right. That
should be.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. Then I would make a motion.
Councilman Mason: Can I ask a question here? 1
Mayor Chmiel: Sure, go ahead.
Councilman Mason: According to this letter that you got on the 19th, you had to
go back and get a complete grading permit and all that's been done right?
Dave Blanski: Yes. I did it the same day. I filled it out and gave Jo Ann the
money and she told me there's no problem. It's going to be fine.
Councilman Wing: Can I just comment? I also looked at this and I think the
spirit of this entire thing to begin with Paul was just to limit access to TH
101 and the more driveways on TH 101, the more dangerous it is. I agree. The
Peterson driveway doesn't have the line of sight that your's does but I'm sure
it's just my being naive and the junior member here that would say that it would 1
be ideal to resolve your problem with Mr. Peterson for the better of this
access. Everybody on TH 101 simply can't have their own driveway. That was the
point of this thing originally, even though I understand it didn't get filed.
It seems to me that the best and simpliest thing here, if we were to solve this
problem, would be simply to tie his into yours because yours is better now but
it sounds like that's not going to happen.
Dave Blanski: I don't have any problem with that. I honestly don't. When we r
put the driveway in, that's initially what I suggested but in my heart I really
believe that Bob had this alterior motive all along because he didn't want any
part of that. I don't know that. I shouldn't even say it but he just got his
driveway paid for is what it amounted to.
Councilman Wing: I just wanted to put it on the record, having looked at it, 11
that I'm opposed to the two driveways. I think that's wrong. I think that goes
against what the intent was originally and certainly your driveway is an
improvement and if there was going to be a solution, I would hope to tie
Peterson's into yours but that's not a recommendation. It's just my thoughts on
it.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. And I agree that that was the original intent and 1
I do still want to uphold that so other people don't come and put driveways on
TH 101 saying that we did it for Mr. Blanski. However, in order to get you out
of your condition, I would then move that we amend the condition of the
subdivision approval and allow you to have your own driveway.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? 1
11 1
1
City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991
Councilman Workman: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded.
Councilman Workman: Can I say something? This is one of those welcome to town
kind of things and I can see it in your face and I can hear it your wife's voice
earlier on the phone that this is one of those things that is just about as
irritating as they get for the city. I don't know what caused the discord
amongst neighbors out there and I probably don't want to know.
Dave Blanski: I don't know either. My daughter who's an engineer was on one of
Bob's projects and...
Councilman Workman: Lots of things happen when the temperature stays at 30
below for a while. I don't know but I don't think, I hate to hear you say
you're at our mercy because I don't think we're kings and queens up here because
I hate to have citizens in that position and I know it's just bothering you to
be in that position. I hope you don't feel that way. I don't think we have any
recourse. I think we're at your mercy, or whoever else's mercy out there.
Legally I don't think we have recourse. I would hate to be at the mercy of a
neighbor that wanted to shut me off but I just want to make the point. I hope
' you don't feel, I know you feel uncomfortable and maybe we naturally do that to
people but I hate to have somebody feel that way that have lived here that long
so.
Dave Blanski: I appreciate your comment. I'm scared to death is what I am.
I'm not uncomfortable, I'm scared to death.
Councilman Workman: Well we are too.
Mayor Chmiel: Except you can't see our knees shaking.
Councilman Workman: No, I think this is one of those situations that we've seen
over and over and we will continue to see over and over. Where there's a little
1 gap here and there and I think this Council has done a good job in trying to
recognize a situation where we're, how would you say it in the army, but out of
luck.
1 Councilwoman Di -mler: Do you agree with the motion?
Councilman Workman: Yes.
Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to amend the condition of
approval for the Peterson /Blanski Subdivision and allow Mr. Blanski to have his
1 own driveway onto TH 101. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously.
Councilman Wing: Can I ask one quick question of Paul?
Mayor Chmiel: Sure.
Councilman Wing: Paul, every one of these that seems to come up, including
other items tonight, discuss wetlands. I think we've got two other ones coming
1
11 2
1
City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991 1
up tonight that's going to involve wetlands. We passed the utility district and
one of the items of the utility district is a wetlands map. It seems to me that
that maybe ought to be the priority for your staff at this time in that utility
district project and when could we possibly have a wetlands map so we can talk
about these things from fact, not guesses?
Paul Krauss: Councilman Wing, it's kind of tough to determine exactly how long
that's going to take because I need to have, we're putting together a request
for proposals right now for the consultant to work with us. I'd like to see
how, it's kind of a new area to combine all the three elements that we're doing
and I'd sort of like to see what their approach is. We can certainly stress
that we want a wetlands map as one of the earlier work products because in fact
they're going to have to go out and survey every water body in the city anyway
for the base data for this entire study so I think it's reasonable that we can
probably get the map done quickly. Or at least the background map. The
ordinance will take a little longer. Hopefully, we may be able to get one this
year yet.
I. EXTEND LETTER OF CREDIT AND EXPIRATION DATE FOR INSTALLATION OF IMPROVEMENTS 1
SEVEN -FORTY ONE CROSSING, HSZ DEVELOPMENT, PROJECT 88 -17.
Mayor Chmiel: I have item (i) that I wanted to pull and that -'s extended letter 1
of credit. Expiration date for the installation of improvements on Seven and
Forty -One Crossing in the HSZ Development. Back in December we did grant a
request of an extension of a completion date by July 1 of 1990. It appears as
though the developer would like to extend this just a little longer. I guess
we've gone through on this same specific project time and time again. I would
like to say we can work with the developer but I would like this to be the last_
extension to be granted for this. I think it's time that we get it completed.
People have been promised things out there for some time and I feel that we
should accomplished what was set out to do in the first place. Any other
discussion?
Councilman Wing: I'll move to allow this extension with the one addition that
it be understood that this will be the last extension considered. 1
Councilman Workman: Second.
Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Workman seconded to extend letter of credit 1
and expiration date for installation of improvements at Seven -Forty One
Crossing, Project No. 88 -17 with the understanding that this is the last
•
extension that will be considered. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
J. EXTEND LETTER OF CREDIT DATE FOR INSTALLATION OF IMPROVEMENTS, LAKE RILEY
WOODS 2ND ADDITION, PROJECT 89 -15. 1
Mayor Chmiel: This too, I just feel that we have to work with developers but
there's a certain time that I think we have to call a halt to it. I see this
specific one, they're asking for a year extension. The position that I see this
would be to give them a 6 month period to accomplish what they have set out to
do and that being that the letter of credit used as a guarantee completion of
the improvements shall be maintained for a similar time period as well. I would
also like to recommend that we go a 6 month and this be a last 6 month extension
13 1
11
City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991
that we have. Did you want to say something?
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, if I could add something. This one's got a lot of
' background to it and I don't want to waste time going into it but for those of
you who recall, there was a house built on this lot that was mislocated because
of the survey is botched up and this cul -de -sac isn't where it's supposed to be.
11 We have an interest in moving things along and not wishing to make it any worse.
We've refused to issue building permits in this subdivision as soon as we became
aware of this last summer. What came to our attention however is that there are
two blocks in this subdivision, one of which is completely removed from, this is
Block 1. Block 2 is quite a distance to the east and they do wish to be able to
pull building permits on this one in the future. This block isn't involved in
this issue. Basically it was a staff decision to refuse to issue building
permits. I guess I just wanted your blessings or to let you know that we would -
like to go ahead and issue building permits on Block 2 but we're going to
continue to withhold them on Block 1.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess I don't have any objections to that Paul. The rest of
the Council?
Councilman Workman: Why Block 2?
Paul Krauss: Block 2 is completely separate from Block 1. It's not even
contiguous and there is no issue on Block 2. All the city improvements are
already in place. The street's done. The utilities. We've already accepted it
so those lots can be served. It's this block over here. These lots are served
off a completely different street. Our problem here is that the cul -de -sac
isn't in the right place. I shouldn't say utilities are in. They're...but the
issue is not germane to Block 2.
' Councilman Workman: I was confused with Lot 2, I'm sorry.
Councilwoman Dimler: I have no problem with it.
Councilman Mason: I have a question with this 6 months to a year. What happens
if litigation hasn't been resolved? Does that affect the extension of that
letter of credit at all?
Paul Krauss: We retain the letters of credit so that if the utilities or the
streets in this case are not installed in accordance with approved plans, that
we can withdraw the letter of credit and use that money to make it right. We
would still have that opportunity here theoretically. We still have not taken
possession of that street and it's still in the wrong place. We had hoped that
they could work out something where they could leave the street where it is and
dedicate it and fix the lots but so far they haven't been able to.
Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor, if I may comment on that? On the time extension.
The original development contract called for a completion date of August 30th of
1990. If we are granting only a 6 month time period extension, that would, I
guess maybe we should clarify if it was from that original timeframe or is it
from this time forward?
11 14
1
City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991 1
Mayor Chmiel: Well I'm looking from this time forward for the 6 months. Any ,
other discussion? If hearing none, I'll make that as a motion.
Councilwoman Dimler: I'll second that.
Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to extend the letter of credit
for installation of improvements for Lake Riley Woods 2nd Addition, Project No.
89 -15 for 6 months from today. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
VISITOR PRESENTATION: None.
PUBLIC HEARING: METES AND BOUNDS SUBDIVISION TO ADD A PORTION OF LOT 2, BLOCK 1
2, LOTUS LAKE ESTATES TO LOT 3, BLOCK 2, LOTUS LAKE ESTATES; AND VACATION OF
EXISTING UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS, WAYNE LARSON.
Jo Ann Olsen: The applicant is requesting approval for a metes and bounds
subdivision to add a portion of his adjacent property to...for the addition to a
garage. Typically we require a straight line subdivision but that would have
reduced the lot to below 15,000 square feet and he did not want to create a 1/
non - conforming lot so instead he's proposing just a section of the lot that
would still give him the setbacks required for the sideyard setbacks and still
maintain the 15,000 square feet on the adjacent parcel. Along with this he's
also requesting vacation of an easement where the proposed division will be
located across. There are new utilities through there and he is replacing that
easement as part of the subdivision and we are recommending approval. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. As I say, this is a public hearing. Is there anyone
wishing to address this specific item? Once again this is a public hearing. 1
Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to close the public
hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was
closed.
Mayor Chmiel: I'll bring it back to Council. Any discussion? Tom?
Councilman Workman: Just one of a general nature again that I bring up 1
everytime we have one of these things. What are the conditions for metes and
bounds versus a plat survey or, plat?
Paul Krauss: That's a question I always ask the City Attorney.
Roger Knutson: I don't have my City Code with me tonight as I was telling Jo
Ann. It's in my office. We define it in the City Code. There are certain
situations where we allow plats and others we allow metes and bounds. Generally
speaking if you have one piece of ground and you're dividing it into two pieces,
you can do it by metes and bounds subdivision. If you're going to do a multiple
lot, you've got to do a plat. That's over simplification. We've got two pages
describing the process.
Councilman Workman: The reason I bring it up is because somebody was burned a
few years ago. Six years ago on this kind of a deal and it was a multiple lot
deal I think and that's basically how I explained it and that more simple, two
lot kind of deals would be metes and bounds. The person didn't feel they got
15 1
1
City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991
treated very well by the city and everything else and so I wanted to, again I
ask this everytime. I think we have 3 or 4 of these maybe a year and it just it
was brought to my attention. It had nothing to do specifically with this one
but maybe so people understand a little bit.
Jo Ann Olsen: If it's a simple description, you know a real long detailed one,
then we usually require it to be platted.
Mayor Chmiel: Don, did you have a comment?
Don Ashworth: Yeah. I think that's the key point. A typical metes and bounds
may be a page long. It will start with, starting at a rock and walking 600 feet
a certain direction. There's no way you can find it. Our people here have a
' very difficult time trying to find a metes and bounds. It's over a page long.
If it's a simple description like Lot 1, Block 2, Western Hills and you want to
make a simple subdivision where you're going to buy the east 10 feet of Lot 1,
Block 1, Western Hills, everyone can kind of figure that out. But again if
11 you're doing one where it would be subdividing the west half of starting at a
rock and walking 600 feet and going on and on and on, who knows what you just
divided in half. You just can't find it.
Roger Knutson: If anyone is further interested, it's spelled out in Section
18 -37 of the City Code.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion? If hearing none, I would like a
motion from the floor.
Councilwoman Dimler: Mr. Mayor, I move the approval of the Metes and Bounds
Subdivision #90 -19 and the proposed easement vacation #90 -8 of the 6 foot
utility and drainage easement with the two conditions as listed on page 3 and
also with making sure that our legal counsel is going to do the recording at
Carver County.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilman Workman: Second.
Resolution #91 -7: Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to
approve the Metes and Bounds Subdivision *90-19 and the proposed Easement
Vacation #90 -8 of the 6 foot utility and drainage easement with the following
condition:
11
1. That the new metes and bounds subdivision with the description of the new
drainage and utility easement be recorded at Carver County by the City
Attorney along with a development contract listing any conditions of
approval.
' 2. The applicant shall provide a drainage plan showing how drainage will be
accommodated between the two homes (Parcel A & B) and within the new
drainage easement. A Certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the
City Engineering Department approves of the drainage plan and on site
' improvements.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
11 16
1
City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991
PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE TO THE 75 FOOT WETLAND SETBACK FOR EXISTING DECKS, 661
AND 641 CONESTOGA TRAIL, COSTA AND MAAS. 1
Public Present:
Name Address
Diane Maas 641 Conestoga Trail
Kelly Costa 661 Conestoga Trail
Mark Toulkey 7251 Sierra Court
Mark Niederluecke 651 Conestoga Trail
Dan Revsbech 7241 Sierra Court
Lynn Stokkee 7221 Sierra Court
Jo Ann Olsen: In the report, if you viewed the whole story, the two deck
variances kind of got lost in the middle of a lot of other issues. Basically
what happened, this was part of the Chanhassen Vista PUD which we found that
they had a Class B wetland during the preliminary plat approval process. So we
went out with the developer and staked the edge of the wetland with a
representative from the Fish and Wildlife Service. The survey that was then
presented to staff, during the rest of that process approval, was a wetland
shown in this location. That was the wetland...surveys for the single family
homes that were developed there and any addition of decks and other structures.
Last year we went out when this home was being developed because there was some
grading activity near the wetland. What we found was that there was, the
erosion control fence was way inside of the wetland. That the house, this house
and then we went and measured all the other ones, were way inside of the 75 foot
wetland setback. So going back we found that it was an incorrect survey. It
was not the correct wetland boundary. We then had the developer resurvey. Well
we went back out and restaked the boundary of the wetland. Had the developer
have a surveyor come out and resurvey it and this shows the location, the actual
location of the wetland. What we have now is an existing situation where
there's non - conforming structures. They're within the 75 foot setback of the
wetland and decks that are also within the 75 foot setback. The two decks, the
variances that are before you tonight were built without a permit and so we
still have to pursue that individually in that they had to be required to
receive the building permit and meet codes. One of the decks does not meet code
and is unsafe. As part of that there's a double building permit fee. As far as
the whole situation for this whole block, we will be proposing to bring this
back in front of the Board of Adjustments for their comments. Back to the City
Council after we've contacted all the other lots that are involved in this and
to possibly have a blanket variance to make them conforming structures. The
residents there are really not at fault. They felt they were being, the homes
were located in the right location. That the surveys were showing them meeting
the 75 foot setback. Staff also, the surveys that we were signing off on showed
75 feet. We did not go out individually with each of the lots that were being
developed to measure them and so this is the existing situation. So I guess
what we wanted tonight was for your comments on how you'd like to see this
addressed and whether or not you would like us to bring it back for review and
to pursue a blanket variance. Right now they're non - conforming structures which
leaves them kind of in limbo.
1
17
1
City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thank you Jo Ann. Is there any discussion Council?
Giving any sense of direction.
Councilwoman Dimler: We're talking about taking down homes here if we don't, is I
that what we're saying?
1
Jo Ann Olsen: Yes.
1 Councilwoman Dimler: Well that sounds reasonable. Why don't we go ahead and do
that?
Mayor Chmiel: They have a right to develop their properties and as it appears,
it's been just one goof up against another here and it's really not.
' Councilwoman Dimler: Well obviously we needed to move in to the direction of
giving a blanket or seeing the 8 applications come in as a blanket application
giving the variances. I do think we need to make sure that the residents know
what they can and can't add on in the future you know and make sure that they
understand that. What our expectations are. I'm not real sure and I'd like to
hear comments from other Council members what to do about the deck situation.
Mayor Chmiel: I'd like to open this up and if there's anyone who's like to
address this issue. Neighbors that are living there or the residents living
there. Come up and just state your name and your address please.
Diana Maas: Hi. My name is Diana Maas. I live at 641 Conestoga Trail. I came
before you last November after hitting a lot of dead ends. Not knowing what to
do. I guess I agree with Jo Ann. I'd like to see the variance passed so that _
we could continue to use our homes and our decks. On the list of things in the 1
report that was provided by Jo Ann, there's some pages that contain listings of-
when permits were issued and when notices were sent out. One thing that that
' doesn't show is that during this whole time, as first time homeowners we called
the city and said how do we got about this. We were aware of the setback
ordinance and we said this is what we're dealing with and they said, well you
won't get a permit. You need a variance. It doesn't mention the numerous times
I've talked on the phone to staff or sat in their office and said okay, what's
the variance procedure. Well, you have to prove hardship. Well you're not
going to prove hardship. You're not going to get a variance. This all was
' going on at the same time that the home that is shown where their back of the
house is right up against the wetlands was being dug and built and construction
was going on. It happened at the same time the house next door to them was
1 building their deck with a deck permit that the city issued them and all of this
was going on. Our next door neighbors the same time we were saying, can't we
just get our variance or our permit to build our deck. If you go out and you
visually see our yards, my personal yard is a greater visual distance from the
wetlands and it made no sense. My home is one that is a smaller home. There's
the front door right next to the garage door. I have no other access out of my
' house other than the sliding glass door 7 feet off the ground. We went ahead
and built the deck at the same time the other was going on assuming that there
was some sort of error and it would all come clear in the future and that's why
I came to you after continuing to hit dead ends in November. I'd just like to
see you know the permits and everything be issued and everything legal. That
was our intent.
i 18
1
City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991
Kelly Costa: I have the same thing to say. My name is Kelly Costa and I live
at 661 Conestoga. Basically that's the reason that we built our deck also was
because we have 3 very small children under 6 years old and we built out deck
back in 1988 and this has been going on since then. To not have a deck and
sliding glass doors 6 1/2 feet off the ground is just, it's not safe for them so
we figured let's go ahead and build it and we'll hope that this will all come to
a head. That's about all.
Good evening. I'm Mark Toulkey. I live at 7251 which is the house that was 1
pointed out as 40 feet away. When they were building our house they noticed
this problem. I think I'm correct when I say that all of us certainly want the
wetland there. It's one of the things that when we bought our lots that
attracted us to it and we don't want to destroy that in any way. At the same
time there was a mix up from the very beginning. I haven't been sure of where
we stood since we've known that until today really and we've been visiting with
the people at the City. Jo Ann and it's been a slow process until tonight and
hopefully I know that all of us would like to see the blanket variance go
through. We'd like to do some things like perhaps put decks on in the future.
Certainly the space that they would go on would be within the 75 foot setback as
it currently stands but so is our house. The other way I look at that is we're
using that property right now as yard space and placing the decks there probably
wouldn't change that in that it would just add that extra structure. So I guess
we'd like the variance. We also want to be somewhat careful of what happens to
the wetland at the same time because we enjoy it. Thank you.
Mark Niederluecke: My name is Mark Niederluecke and I live at 651 Conestoga 1
inbetween the Maas' and the Costa's. I currently have a building permit for a
deck and I'm inbetween there. Now I got my deck just this past summer. We've
been going with this issue for probably close to 2 years. I had a little more
time on my side because I'm single. I don't have the family. I didn't have the
need for the extra exit and so forth. What I'm particularly concerned about is
seeing that we all receive some fair and equal treatment to the difference uses
of our land. I currently have a deck which at this point I'm looking to put
another section on but I'm holding up until some decisions are made here. I
don't have steps down from mine because the part that I would like to build on
would bring me to probably within about 65 feet or 70 feet of the variance that
we're talking about. My main concern is simply that given that there are
certain houses that have been given rights to use upwards of possibly 35 -40 feet
of their deck, that we all be given at least the opportunity to build a
reasonable deck on our property and to be given equal opportunity to use that
land in the back of our house while still preserving the very nature of the
wetlands. I know one house is actually put up next to me a wall to help 11 preserve sediment from going back into the wetlands and changing the nature of
that and I think we're all very active in making sure that we maintain those
lines while at the same time asking you at this particular time to offer us all
the same opportunity to use those lands that are in front of us. Thank you. 1
Dan Revsbech: I'm Dan Revsbech and I live at 7241 Sierra Court and live right
next door to the house that was being built. I had the deck that was being
built at the time that the Maas' were putting up their deck. I have lived there
for about 2 1/2 years now and in that time I've seen an erosion barrier go up
around this property. Around this wetland area 3 times. I've seen it move a
multitude of times. I've seen city people out there. I've seen Novak -Fleck 1
19
. 1
1
City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991
people, the builders out there moving in to meet their sieeds. There's been
confusion between the city and Novak and we were assured by both the city and
Novak informally that all of this was being done on the up and up. Most of us
as first time homeowners are looking upon this in good faith. And as was
already stated, you know a lot of us gave up a lot of square footage of land in
order to build by this wetland and certainly the last thing we want to do is see
that destroyed. But on the other hand, this wetland as the variance was moved
' inward, I'm not sure what the legalities are of it but as it's moved inward, I
think it better states what area of the wetland actually is. Until this last
year, of course we were facing some drought situations, we have had no standing
water. In fact we could mow. I could mow all the way back to where that last
variance was, still could today. It gets a little we during the rainy time.
That goes away. It dries out and there it stands. Anyone who has sodded, has
sodded up to the base of where this wetland realistically starts and what I'm
' hearing today is that this outer erosion barrier includes area that's been
sodded. I haven't seen, or never saw during the building process any land
movement that would have destroyed any of the wetland that was existing at the
' time that we chose to build there. So I guess I'm a little confused as to how
that initial barrier was also established and where realistically that should be
placed. It appears that it's placed in the appropriate position at this point.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you.
Lynn Stokke: Hi. I'm Lynn Stokke and I live at 7221 Sierra Court. I happen to
be in the corner lot where I can overview everyone's property that has decks and
whatever it may be and I think one of the things that the people or my neighbors
are trying to achieve is they're just trying to beautify their property. Build
I decks and additions and whatever that will suit their needs and I don't think
that they're asking for anything out of the norm. Some of the properties that
we talked about, they had no fire exits if they had a fire in the front of their
house and by, I believe it's the State Fire Code, you should have a fire exit in
1 two opposite directions. There's 3 houses that don't even meet that so there's
a lot of issues through the whole thing that have really been back and forth and
a lot of the homeowners that are first time home buyers had no idea of that. I
' happen to work in the building industry so I knew what to ask for. Knew what to
do but I sit back on my deck and I look at all these problems that they're
having and I just hope that out of compassion or whatever, that something would
be resolved so they can get back to finishing their property and not destroying
the wetlands. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Lynn. Is there anyone else?
Diana Maas: In taking into consideration Jo Ann's proposal is that you will
double fine us for the permit fee and for a fine. With this whole issue going
' on and not getting consistent answers and stuff and in fairness to how permits
were issued to some neighbors and not to others and how we've tried to comply
with what's been put before us, I would hope that you would take that into
' consideration when you consider if you're going to do that double fining or not.
Thank you.
1
1 20
1
City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991
Mayor Chmiel: Any discussion?
Councilman Mason: Yeah. As I read through this and hear these people talking,
it seems to me there are two problems. There was an incorrect survey which
we've run into before. And building decks without a permit, I mean people, what
does that say for all the people that do take the time and put up with the
inconvenience? I feel it's something that needs to be done about that. I'd
like to see something done about both issues but I don't know if we can. The
incorrect survey and building without a permit.
Councilman Workman: With that I would move to close the public hearing.
Councilwoman Dimler: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: This is not a.
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes it is.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes it is. Okay. '
Councilman Workman: Is it one?
Jo Ann Olsen: It started out as a public hearing to act on the variances and
that's where we realized it was all, we're going to bring in all the other
properties and do it again.
Roger Knutson: This is a discussion item isn't it?
Jo Ann Olsen: It's under public hearing. ,
Roger Knutson: But you're not approving a variance tonight?
Jo Ann Olsen: No, not anymore. 1
Councilman Workman: So it's not one? 1
Councilwoman Dimler: So is it a public hearing or not?
Jo Ann Olsen: It was published that way. ,
Mayor Chmiel: Was it published as a public hearing?
Jo Ann Olsen: Yes. ,
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, I didn't see that as a public hearing item. But if it was
published as such, then we have to make a motion to close the public hearing.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to close the public
hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was 1
closed.
Mayor Chmiel: Now let's have some additional discussion.
21 1
1
City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991
1
Councilman Workman: Mike, I'm not sure I understood what you're saying about
the building permit side of it.
Councilman Mason: Well, according to the report we have, there were two decks
built without building permits, plain and simple and everyone else that has a
' deck around there did apply for a permit and received it. Now for whatever
reason they didn't, and that may be.right or wrong. I'm not making a comment on
that. Two decks were built without permits.
Mayor Chmiel: You're saying that the fee, establishment of the double fee you
feel should stand?
Councilman Mason: Well if that's standard procedure, yeah. I guess I don't
want to make a motion to that at this point. I want to hear what other people
have to say about it.
Councilman Wing: I've only been here since November. I think this is the
second time I've sat on this one and the Mayor took the words right out of my
mouth. Goofed up is what I wrote down on my paper and then you chose those same
words. I think it kind of specifies how I feel. I think this is old news. I
think it's done. I think it's been gone on long enough. I think that the
people in good faith tried to find out what was going on. Other people getting
the permits right next door and they were told they had to get a variance.
I guess after listening to all the confusion, I support pursuing the blanket
variance. I support the permits being paid but I would suggest waiving the
' penalty and I support that the deck that's not in conformance, that isn't
meeting City Code, that either has to go and be brought up to City Code. That
one would be unacceptable. But I think this has gone on long enough and I'd
like to see it be handled tonight.
'
Mayor Chmiel: Paul, what is the standard depth of each of those decks?
1 Paul Krauss: From the house to the edge of the deck? I'm not sure.
Jo Ann Olsen: Approximately 12 feet.
1 Mayor Chmiel: 12 feet. Are most of you in conformance with that 12 foot depth?
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, I think the way we came up with the idea for the
' blanket variance is we took the most extreme example of what's out there today
with a house and a deck and figured that that probably sets the standard and it
didn't appear that anybody else would be any worse than that.
1 Mayor Chmiel: My concern is that we don't add deck to deck to extend it farther
than what's existing. That's why I'm trying to determine or if we can come up
1 with the number of feet with the depth from the edge out. From the edge of the
house out. Does that make sense?
Paul Krauss: I think we proposed a 46, was it 46 foot.
Jo Ann Olsen: Approximately 36 foot.
1
22
1
City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991
Paul Krauss: 36 foot from the edge of the wetland to the house so it will give
people more latitude actually. 1
Jo Ann Olsen: So they could add if they wanted to with that.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess I just want to tie it down so people understand that's ,
what we're looking at as well.
Councilwoman Dimler: Mr. Mayor? I guess I just have a few points of
clarification. Are we saying here that, I agree with most of what Richard said
but I want to know if we're sure, are we saying here that in the future then we
give this blanket variance, can they add on in the future? Can they put decks
on if they don't have one now? They can't.
Jo Ann Olsen: If you approve of a reduced setback to say 36 feet, then yes.
They could go up to that 36 feet.
Councilwoman Dimler: If they meet that? Okay.
Councilman Wing: With a permit.
Councilwoman Dimler: Also, has anyone checked the condition of the wetland?
What has all this activity done to it?
Jo Ann Olsen: It still is in pretty good shape. I mean the development hasn't
altered it too greatly. It hasn't been filled too much. If you compare the
topo before development and after development, it's still approximately the
same.
Councilwoman Dimler: So no restoration needs to be done in your estimation?
Jo Ann Olsen: No. What I would like to do as part of the blanket variance is
to set some conditions on what can be done and maybe some retaining walls where
necessary. Mostly just to educate where the edge is and what can and can't be
done but it's still in pretty good shape.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. And then I just have one other concern and that is
that you know most...have been here before and know that there's all kinds of
decks being built without permits that are without variances and I just don't
want to set a precedent here and I don't know exactly how to go about making
this a particular case non precedent setting for other decks.
Mayor Chmiel: I think what we could do is work that through the buildings
department. Is provide them something as they develop their particular property
and plan on building to indicate that that is a requirement of the city if they
intend putting a deck on it. Prior to any construction they must come in to the
city. Maybe somehow that might alleviate the problem.
Jo Ann Olsen: I think they're aware that they needed the permits. ,
Mayor Chmiel: But are they given something in hand to say?
23
11
11
City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991
Jo Ann Olsen: They're aware that they need a permit. Something in hand, I
' don't know and with that double fee, that's also, I don't know if that's
building department.
' Mayor Chmiel: That's a building department charge when you're not in compliance
with the ordinance. i
Councilwoman Dimler: Well see that's where I'm worried that if somebody reads
this in the paper now and they say we did the same thing, give us that.
Mayor Chmiel: That's my concern too.
Councilwoman Dimler: And pretty soon we'll have all of them come forward and
want that waived. I don't know.
Jo Ann Olsen: I can understand their frustration but the fact is that it was a
problem that we've been trying to resolve and yes, they do have to go through
the variance procedure but there still was a violation of not receiving the
permit.
Don Ashworth: Are you talking about waiving the double fee?
' Councilwoman Dimler: Waiving the penalty, yeah.
Mayor Chmiel: Taking care of this one but for any future use with any new homes
being constructed, that they be notified at that given time upon the issuance of
their building permit. If they're planning on putting on a deck, they be fully
aware as to what the setback requirements might be from wetlands or property
lines or whatever. I think it needs a clarification because it seems like we're
getting more and more of these and somehow we have to get...
' Don Ashworth: I totally agree. Paul and I and Jo Ann can take a look at what
it is that is given to the applicant at the time the building permit. That's a
good suggestion. To the best of my knowledge we're doing a portion of that
' right now though. Am I not right?
Paul Krauss: We do give out information. The problem is we give out, you know
it's the builder that gets the building permit and they leave and the homeowner
' moves in. What we've tried to, first of all it's a standard procedure anywhere
in the Twin Cities that generally if you do more than $50.00 worth of work on
your house, you _need a building permit for something. Whatever you're doing.
We've tried to get at that as well. We've been having articles in the
newspaper. I think you might recall last spring we ran an article with a deck
that had fallen off a house that didn't have a permit. It was kind of an
' interesting picture. We intend to do that every year but it's tough. You know
we are going to have a city newsletter going out in the near future. We would
like to use those sorts of methods to contact the individuals directly but it's
tough to intervene when we don't have, you know the only way we find out about
' these things is if somebody goes ahead and does it and we find out. Somebody
tells us.
Mayor Chmiel: And that's what I'm trying to come up with a conclusion. How can
' we eliminate that given problem?
24
City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991
Paul Krauss: Well I think the newsletter is the ideal source because people
don't build these things in the winter and we can get it out to them early
spring and the newspaper's been helpful with that.
Councilman Mason: I think the idea of a blanket variance is a good idea here. I
mean yeah, what Richard said. There was a goof up. I still am unclear as to
why we would say for these two decks, for whatever reason. Oh, you guys didn't
get a permit. There is a fine in place for doing that but we're going to let
you guys off the hook on this one. You hit it on the head Ursula. What's going
to happen?
Councilwoman Dimler: The precedent being set. '
Councilman Mason: Two months down the road when that happens again.
Councilwoman Dimler: As much as I'd like to do that, I'm just fearful of what
will happen in the future because then you might as well not have that rule in
there because they're going to say, you did it for them. Now this is
discretionary action.
Roger Knutson: Maybe to put the subject into perspective on how severe this
terrible fine is. I was just asking Paul and Jo Ann how much -a normal building
permit fee is. We're not talking a lot of money by most standards. I mean 50
bucks. 20 bucks. Something on that order.
Paul Krauss: Well I think it's based on the value of the deck. We're not sure
of the exact thing but they aren't that valuable.
Jo Ann Olsen: Yeah, it's not that much. ,
Roger Knutson: So we're not talking $1,000.00 fine or $500.00 fine. It's
probably more on the order of $50.00 or $20.00.
Jo Ann Olsen: Less than the variance fee.
Councilman Wing: In which case I favor keeping with the penalty and withdraw my
comments.
Councilwoman Dimler: Well and I hope that Diane and Kelly understand that we'd
love to do it for them but it's going to set a precedent and we can't afford to
do that.
Councilman Workman: You know when you can still drive into a small town, or a
township and you see that sign right at the border. It says, building permit
required and I'm the only one the reads them but quite frankly I think if you
try to cover and make sure everybody knows. If you put it with their first
billing statement on their utility. If you put a notice in there that says
they've got to get a building permit or if you put it in a newsletter or you put
in a full page ad in the newspaper, it makes for very boring reading and I don't
think people are going to read it anyway. But I think people generally know,
and maybe generally is opening a hole there but I think people know that they've
got to get a building permit for this stuff. I don't know, we've done some 1
different things before but in the same sense, we might as well not have the 75
25 ,
1
City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991
foot setback because the way we shoot holes through that thing monthly, but I
' will say for the storm water utility. Not 60% funding. Not 100 %. 150% funding
so that we can get that map going and about 16 staff people so we can get this
done because we don't have enough people to follow and catch up with this stuff.
People can, you're right. There's probably 25 decks going in the city right now
that we don't know about but we rely on people to either tell Council that has
to tell staff or whatever. We can't keep up with it. .
Councilwoman Dimler: I agree with you Tom except I'd say for the 60% funding,
the priority would be to get the wetland map done.
' Councilman Wing: I'm not convinced that 60% won't cover all of it.
Councilman Workman: I know 150% will but anyway. I think that the Board of
' Adjustments in their great wisdom and they're newly acquired wisdom, should have
a look at this and I think Willard and Carol should be brought in on this and we
should think about it again and I don't know what we can do to keep up with
everything but.
Councilwoman Dimler: Are you making a motion?
' Mayor Chmiel: We have a motion on the floor. Dick has done that. Dick, do you
want to rephrase your motion?
Councilman Wing: Well...I think I wanted to withdraw my heartfelt concern.
I guess I have to withdraw it because I in fact changed my thinking and would go
wio the penalty. May "I ask just a quick question? On the non - conforming deck.
F- - o Ann, for the deck that's non - conforming or not meeting City Code. What's
' yoo,r intent with that, permit or not? What's the status of that particular
deck?
' Jo Ann Olsen: Well the building department has contacted them to bring it up to
Code and has made them aware that it needs to be brought up to Code.
' Councilman Wing: That's a separate issue here and I don't think we should
consider that at all.
Jo Ann Olsen: Oh yeah. That would be part of getting the building permit they
' would have to do that. They can't get a building permit without it being
brought up to Code.
Councilman Wing: So that deck is going to be up to Code or out of there one way
or the other? Okay.
' Councilman Workman: So I make a motion to.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, I'm open. Roger?
Roger Knutson: One last comment.
Councilman Workman: Well we don't need to make a motion.
' Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah we do.
26
i
City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991
Roger Knutson: We know that.
Councilwoman Dimler: What? ,
Roger Knutson: I was just pointing out Jo Ann tells me you already know is that
the Board of Adjustment does not pass on wetland variances.
Councilwoman Dimler: Alright. So it doesn't go to the.
Jo Ann Olsen: But we were going to bring it to them and actually amend the '
ordinance because we know that the Board has reviewed those in the past and
would like to continue to do so. 1
Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, and I have a concern for the time delay too because
I think the neighbors, we would all be more comfortable if it were resolved
ASAP.
Paul Krauss: We'll bring this one straight back to you because we haven't
amended the ordinance yet to require that. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Councilman Workman: Do we even need a motion on this then? 1
Mayor Chmiel: I would say yes.
Councilman Workman: I think they know what we're thinking.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, I'm open for a motion. 1
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay I move that we direct staff to pursue the blanket
application for the 8 lots to give variances to the decks. The homes. Whatever
and then also that the Costa and Maas permits plus penalty would be installed or
whatever. Have they paid for their permits without the penalty?
Jo Ann Olsen: Not that I know of. They must receive the building permit and '
pay double fees. Is that what you mean?
Councilwoman Dimler: Pay the double fees, yeah. 1
Councilman Wing: I'll second that.
Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Wing seconded to require the applicants at
641 and 661 Conestoga Trail to receive a building . permit, pay the double permit
fee and meet any conditions of the Building Department. Also, direct staff to
pursue the blanket application for a variance to the wetland setback for the 8
lots. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Councilman Mason: Can I just ask about that incorrect survey? 1
Mayor Chmiel: Sure.
27
1
City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991
' Councilman Mason: This crops up every once in a while too. Does the City have
any recourse in a situation like that?
Mayor Chmiel: Not really. Do we have Roger?
Roger Knutson: The landowners, if suffer damages as a result of an
incorrect survey can go after them. I assume there was, I don't know how this
error occurred. I have no reason to believe there was fraud or ill intention.
It was just a screw up so if the landowners have suffered, they certainly could
with their legal counsel go after.
' Councilman Mason: But the City has no recourse?
Roger Knutson: Probably not.
Mayor Chmiel: Unfortunately. Thank you for coming.
' AWARD OF BIDS: EMERGENCY REPAIRS, PUMP ON WELL NO. 4.
Councilman Workman: So moved.
Councilwoman Dimler: Second.
' Mayor Chmiel: Just a minute. Let's hear just a few dollars with those words.
Don Ashworth: I understand from that comment then that the Council is fully
aware that we did have a down in Well No. 4. We do have Jim Bullert who is here
from Bruce Leisch. They did take quotes. Jim, if you would mind going through
those real quickly.
Jim Bullert: Okay, I am Jim Bullert from Bruce Leisch Associates. I don't
think I've met anyone here but you've probably seen my name on some of the
reports that have come through. Especially the water planning report that came
through in November. In that water planning report, one of the things we
recommended to upgrade your system was to change Well No. 4 so that it no longer
pumps out of the ground with a well pump and then into a booster pump, through
the booster pump and into the watermain system. We've got two 75 horse power
pumps there in series. This was originally designed for future addition of a
water treatment plant. Something that will never be added out there. We
suggested in the report that you replace the well pump with a 125 horse well
pump and eliminate the booster pump so we're actually dropping from 150 total
horse power to 125 total horse power resulting in some energy savings and
eliminating a lot of operational problems. With the two pumps that are there
now in series, if they are not perfectly matched, if something in the system
drops the pressure such as a fire or watermain break, the well pump can't keep
up with the booster pump. You get into a surge condition. It kicks both pumps
out and we've got the well down. Then usually that's when you really need the
' water. During a fire or during a watermain break or whenever the pressure would
drop. Recently we had a leak in this well house. The leak is in the canister
that holds the booster pump. It's not an easy thing to fix. It's not extremely
' expensive to fix it but I think we're looking at several thousand dollars at
least to fix it. We don't know exactly what's wrong because it's under the
concrete floor and that's going to have to, we're going to have to get down
1 28
City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991
there through the canister to see where it's leaking. We recommended in the
report that whatever that well needs any kind of maintenance at all that you ,
just go ahead and put the new well pump in. Eliminate the booster pump. I did
get some quotes on doing that. If you look on the third page of that handout
that I gave you. We could put in a submersible well pump or we could put in a
vertical turban well pump. If we put in a vertical turban well pump, we'd also
have to install this surge tank. Our best price was from Bergerson - Caswell who
did the last well. Well No. 5 and has done other work in the city. Total cost
is $16,571.00. We'd also need to change the electrical to eliminate the two 75
horse starters and put in a 125 horse starter and the corresponding wiring. And
that's $8,663.00. That was a quote from Bentech who has done all your
electrical over the last several years. I guess at this point I recommend that
you go ahead with this. If you absolutely don't have the money, we can stick
another $3,000.00 in it and get by with this problem of having the well pumps
kick out when we need them. '
Mayor Chmiel: On that, being that we have two 75's as you say connected in
series, what is the gpm's on that?
Jim Bullert: 1,000 gallons a minute.
Mayor Chmiel: 1,000 gallons. '
Jim Bullert: And that's what the new well pump would be. Same thing.
Mayor Chmiel: So we are not losing anything? 1
Jim Bullert: No, not at all.
Mayor Chmiel: So we're reassuring ourselves that we're not going to have a well
go out?
Jim Bullert: Right. We are marginal at this point until we do get another well 1
in I think as far as the overall water system so we don't want a well pump going
down if we can avoid it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion?
Councilman Mason: Can you just talk real briefly on the difference between
submersible and vertical turban? I mean other than $10,000.00.
Jim Bullert: Yeah. Submersible well pump has the motor down in the well. This
well is 300 some feet deep. The pump actually hangs down about 180 feet down.
The water level is only 80 feet down so with a submersible the motor's down in
the well. With the vertical turban, the motor's up above ground with a shaft
going down 180 feet. Right now all your well pumps are vertical turban except ,
the new one we just put in is a submersible. No 5 is a submersible.
Submersible's are a little more expensive but most cities are going to
submersibles now because you don't need a well house which saves a lot of money. 1
Councilman Workman: But we've got a well house?
Jim Bullert: You've got a well house now so it doesn't matter. '
29 i
1
City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991
' Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussions?
Don Ashworth: I should make a quick note.
Councilwoman Dimier: I'd like to know what the current balance is in the fund
Don. Do you happen to know?
' Don Ashworth: I don't. The amount, a year ago as far as projections within the
water availability fund to how we actually close the year, we took in more than
this proposed expenditure and I can't recall if it was, I believe it was right
around $50,000.00. I should have gotten the specific numbers for you but I feel
very comfortable that from what you looked at a year ago in terms of the
anticipated ending balance for that particular fund. You ended up with about
$50,000.00 more than what we had initially seen.
' Councilwoman Dimier: Do we have any other troubled areas that are likely to
come up in 1991?
11 Don Ashworth: Well, we are funding a number of repairs or a number of items for
1991 including finishing the cost associated with Well No. 5. We have, I'm
trying to think of under that capital budget but we have established a 5 year
budget. I feel comfortable that that 5 year budget addresses the water needs
within the community and we have the resources to carry those out. We are not
shorting ourself in terms of being able to carry out other improvements by
funding this particular replacement. I should note that this item was, normally
you go through a formal bidding process. I talked with the City Attorney. He
feels comfortable that this does represent an emergency repair so in other
' words, even though the cost exceeds the $15,000.00 required under State Statute
for formal bidding, should the City Council act to approve it as an emergency _
repair, we can accept one of the two, or the low quote in place of the formal -
bidding process.
Mayor Chmiel: As also a resolution?
Don Ashworth: I believe that probably should be in a resolution.
Councilwoman Dimier: Okay, and could you clarify what makes this an emergency
please?
Don Ashworth: Simply recognizing that we do have that well literally down. If
we do not carry out the repairs, there is a potential. It is leaking underneath
that well house. The sooner we can stop that leaking condition, the less chance
there is for a potential permanent damage to the structure itself. In terms of
just the fire fighting capabilities, if I'm hearing what Jim is saying
' correctly, with that well out, if we lose another well, we could be in trouble.
Jim Bullert: That's right.
Councilwoman Dimler: Alright so I would say that in order to prevent further
damage that we could require this an emergency and that we go with Alternate B
with the Bergerson - Caswell proposal of the total of $16,571.00.
Mayor Chmiel: And this being a resolution? Establishing this as a resolution.
11 30
City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991
Councilwoman Dimler: Right.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, is there a second? '
Councilman Workman: Second. So are you going with the submersible or which
one was more expensive?
Councilwoman Dimler: Alternate B.
Jim Bullert: The vertical turban is cheaper.
Councilman Workman: The above ground? '
Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah. Because we have the pump house there.
Resolution #91 -8: Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded that
in order to prevent further damage, to approve a resolution for emergency repair
to Well No. 4 with Alternate B from Bergerson- Caswell in the total amount of
$16,571.00. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. 1
A. PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 8.7 ACRES INTO 15 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, LOCATED
SOUTH OF PLEASANT VIEW ROAD AND VINELAND FOREST PLAT AND EAST OF PEACEFUL
LANE, TROENDLE ADDITION.
B. AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR EXTENSION OF NEZ PERCE DRIVE
FROM PROPOSED TROENDLE ADDITION TO PLEASANT VIEW ROAD.
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, the applicants are requesting approval to divide a 8.7
acre parcel into 15 lots. You reviewed this at a meeting in November. The
Planning Commission had recommended approval. There was a concern raised by the
neighborhood regarding the potential extension of Nez Perce out to Pleasant View
and when that might occur. We were asked to then research that issue further
and report back to you. We met with the developer and the adjoining property
owner and basically concluded several items. Staff outlined the City Council's
goal of extending Nez Perce to Pleasant View as soon as possible and we
basically got the understanding of support of both individuals. They didn't
oppose the concept. Mr. Owens did indicate however that although he's not
presently in a position to develop his property because of a bankruptcy
proceeding, that in fact it may be some sort of a long term goal on his part.
Both individuals. indicated that they were at this point unwilling to undertake
the cost of the feasibility study. That they did not believe that that would be
their responsibility if they had an ability to pay for it. Concurrently we also
said that we'd go out and get an estimate on cost of the feasibility study and
we've done that and under a separate action item tonight, you'll see that
there's a proposal to do a $3,700.00 feasibility study. There's basically two
legal issues that we investigated relative to this issue. The first concerned
Mr. Owens' bankruptcy. There was a question as to whether or not we could. If
the City Council wanted to finish this road project at this time, you'd be in
the position of needing to condemn the property. Mr. Owens has no ability to
sell it to us at this point, and undertake financing of the road and basically
absorb that portion of the expense that we can't assess back to the Troendle
Addition and sit on that until Mr. Owens develops his property and you can then ,
31
11
City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991
levy assessments. The City Attorney did confirm that we could probably condemn
sand that was needed although we may need approval from the bankruptcy court.
However, it's not clear if we could sustain assessments against that property.
So again that puts you kind of behind the 8 ball. You need to finance or front
end the cost of the feasibility study and the actual road construction in the
expectation that at some point in the future you'd be reimbursed. The second
legal issue that we want to investigate is whether or not the extension of Nez
Perce can rightfully be tied to the Troendle Addition. In there there's kind of
a mixed answer and the City Attorney can clarify this if need be but basically
you can only limit or connect the two items to the extent that the Troendle
Addition needs the extension to proceed. Beyond that we would have difficulty
' doing that. After we had an opportunity to review the issues that were raised a
little bit further, we also have some concerns that we have some extraordinarily
long temporary cul -de -sacs that would result as currently proposed. As
currently proposed, if Nez Perce was built up to this point and a temporary dead
end provided, by the time you came in off of Lake Lucy, came up Nez Perce and
got down to the end of Troendle Way, you're going in approximately 1,400 feet.
' Nez Perce itself is approximately 1,100 feet. Now we don't have a specific
standard in our ordinance, as many ordinances do, about how long a cul-de-sac
should be but that's quite a bit longer than most cities would find comfortable
and the reasons are several. Emergency vehicle response time gets rather
' lengthy. Streets like that are expensive for us to maintain and snowplow
because you have to go all the way up and all the way back. You're always
doubling around. They provide less than adequate or optimal access and there is
a concern that when you add in the number of homes in this addition to the
number of homes in Vineland Forest that would get access off this, you're up to
I think it's 32 homes. What we did is we had some meetings on this late last
week or some conference calls with the City Manager, myself and the City
Attorney to kind of work our way through this and what we came up with is kind
of a revised recommendation. If you'll recall, the applicant indicated that it
was not their intention to proceed immediately with construction of homes on
this plat. That their primary goal was to take title to the property and get
the plat recorded so they could do that and that they were planning on
developing at some point in the future. What we've worked out and honestly
I have not had an opportunity to speak directly with the applicant about this.
We came to this decision last Thursday and I tried to contact him since then and
was unable to. What we've come up with is a recommendation that you sort of
' make this into a two phase proposal whereby Phase 1 would be north of this line.
Phase 2 south and Phase 2 would be under our proposal platted as an outlot.
Phase 1 would be allowed to develop initially with Nez Perce constructed up to
the Art Owens property. Two of those homesites access off of Pleasant View so
they're not really a concern coming off of here. There will be 4 new potential
homesites and that fourth homesite does not occur until Mr. Troendle vacates the
life estate. What we're proposing is that outlot, as a condition of platting
' for that outlot int he future, that when the developer wishes to plat it, that
they have to petition the City Council for the extension of Nez Perce out to
Pleasant View. In that manner we'd be tying it together with the completion of
that street so by the time we add in the full component of 32 homes, we'd have
the street completed. Now if in the meantime the Owens property is sold or
developed and the road's built, then obviously we meet our goal and the
subdivision of that second phase can proceed unhindered. We think that that
' accomplishes a few things. It limits the amount of homes that are going to go
in there intially so I think we've addressed the concerns of the traffic
32
1
City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991
concerns on Lake Lucy. It gets Mr. Beddor his plat as quickly as possible in
recognition of his timeframe. And finally it provides for the ultimate
construction of Nez Perce and what we think is an equitable manner and avoids
all those issues that we have in dealing with the bankruptcy of Mr. Owens
property that makes me a little concerned and I don't know if I'd advise dealing
with the front end of those costs because I couldn't guarantee you when we'd
recover that. As I said, we did get an estimate on a feasibility study and
there's another action tonight on that but if you proceed with the
recommendation as proposed, you wouldn't need to act on that feasibility study.
We wouldn't undertake that feasibility study until we had a proposal to develop
in mind. There were a couple other issues that were raised at the Council
meeting. The first one concerned the location of an existing barn on Mr.
Troendle's life estate relative to the extension of the new street. It requires
a variance to leave that in place. Staff had recommended against it and the
Planning Commission had as well but there appeared to be some desire on the part
of the City Council to approve it. There was no action taken on it. Now staff
continues to recommend against it. We think that while it's a relatively minor
issue, that new subdivisions do create a lot of financial benefit for
individuals and that typically in the past we've recommended removal of
impending structures. However as I indicated in the report, we don't view this
as a life and death issue. We are not recommending it's approval but we did
provide revised language in there should you wish to approve it, that you could
adopt that would basically allow it to remain in place as long as Mr. Troendle's
on the property and that that would be filed against the property so that it
would be of record. It's a little clunks. I can't ask you to approve a
temporary variance because there is no such animal but I believe we can work it
out that way. There is an error in the report though. The language that
I added in there, if you do wish to approve this, and it says added to condition
number 11. It's actually condition number 12. There was a second issue of
concern raised by the neighbors and we don't have a good response to this one.
For those of you familiar with the area, there was a concern raised about the
curve between Lake Lucy Road and Nez Perce. It is a tight curve and it's not an
optimal design but in talking with the former, I guess, City Engineer about
that, he indicated to me that it was a design compromise. That when the road
was connected, that there was a desire to minimize the impact on adjoining
properties. Now we can look at fixing that curve but fixing that curve is
likely to require the taking of somebody's lawn or you know, it's going to
involve some property acquisition. Also, and our opinion is not linked to the
Troendle Addition. It's quite a ways away from it. To give you a feel for it,
it's about 300 feet down this way so you basically have to go all the way
through Vineland Forest. It's a worthy idea to pursue I guess but I wouldn't
tie it to the Troendle Addition and I'd exercise some caution if you will in
terms of who might absorb the cost of that. The last item is we received
several letters from Frank Beddor relative to the staff proposal that we take 7
feet of right -of -way along Pleasant View Road. The response is quite lengthy. I
won't go into that in detail but suffice it to say, we still think the idea has
merit and we think that in terms of setting a precedent and based upon what we
know today, that the 7 feet doesn't sound like a lot but we are continuing to
recommend that we do obtain it at the time we can obtain it which is during the
platting process. I'd reiterate that nobody envisions a major upgrading of
Pleasant View Road that would disturb that residential environment that's kind
of unique that we have over there. All we're anticipating at this point is at
best some safety related improvements that probably, in our opinion, will have 1
33
1
1
City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991
to be undertaken at some point as traffic continues to build there. With that
we are recommending approval of the preliminary plat subject to the conditions
in the staff report. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Anyone wishing to address that?
Daryl Fortier: Good evening Your Honor, Councilmembers, I'm Daryl Fortier. I'm
here to represent Mr. Frank Beddor, Jr. Also with me tonight is Jules Smith.
Of the 15 items on the staff report we are in agreement with 11 of them. The
first one we would like to discuss that presents a problem to Mr. Beddor is item
number 1 and that is a suggestion that this be a dual part plat. If we are
' uncertain of the objectives. We have not been able to talk to staff but if the
apparent objective is to get some petition or someone to request the city to try
to proceed with Nez Perce, I'm sure Mr. Beddor has no objections to joining the
' residents along Lake Lucy Road and filing such a petition. We don't quite
understand what is behind it but I guess on first glance we would join with the
residents in filing such a petition. We see no difficulty in that. The second
thing we'd like to point out is some of the issues that are being raised or
justification for the splitting of the parcel into two plats if you will. We're
uncertain of, it does present a difficulty to Mr. Beddor in his execution of the
life estate to Mr. Troendle and that's one of his primary reasons for doing this
' plat. We are not in a particular hurry to develop. That's true. We would even
be willing to say that we will not file the plat or the City need not sign the
plat until January of next year. Therefore you could be assured we couldn't
proceed and actually in January of next year we intend to come in here and ask
for another year's extension. We realize you cannot grant that tonight but if
you could, we would request it tonight. But in order for Mr. Beddor to proceed
with his life estate he must be able to make sure that the value of the plat is
there and that the plat will be approved by the City as being submitted.
In other words, a plat with 6 lots on him cannot be accepted to the other party
when they are anticipating 15 lots. The value is not the same so it does
present a severe problem to Mr. Beddor. Regarding the safety issues that are
being raised, we're not certain that a good case can be made or no compelling
case can be made at least that this presents, this extensive cul -de -sac presents
a significant problem to health, safety or welfare within the city. The issue
of plowing and turning around. Whether you go the extra 300 feet you're
proposing to cut off seems to be really a minor point. You would be going that
extra 300 feet on any cul -de -sac which comes off a main thoroughfare. As far as
' the amount of traffic coming off, over at Fox Chase you have, immediately
adjacent to this, you have 52 residents off a much longer cul -de -sac. Now we're
not suggesting that you repeat any mistakes that may have been made in the past.
We are simply pointing out that at Fox Chase where there are 52 residences,
there is no chance for a second outlet. In this particular plat we are
proposing a maximum of 32 which would include the Vineland Estates. And any
time the city sees that as a problem, the physical wherewithal to solve the
problem and the political wherewithal is all within the control of the city.
This is not another Fox Chase situation where you will be stuck with it. Any
time the city choses, they could proceed to condemn the land across the Art
Owens property and execute the concept study that was previously agreed upon and
complete Nez Perce all the way through to Pleasant View Road. That's within the
choice and the discretion of the city whenever they see that problem which may
arise. We cannot do that of course as a private party. So I guess that really
sums up the difficulty we have with 1. Again, if it is simply an issue of who's
34
1
City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991
making a request that we proceed with a road, we would be pleased to join with
the other residents and request Nez Perce. If that is not the issue and you are
seeking some other solution to it, we think we don't understand it and we would
simply ask that you approve the plat because we don't think there's a compelling
reason to deny it based on those reasons. We think it is always within the
city's realm to solve any problems that have been suggested. We agree with 2,
3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. When we come to point 9 regarding right -of -ways, we agree
with the 2 of the 3 points in point 9. We disagree with the right -of -way for
Pleasant View Road. The additional 7 feet being requested. We have prepared a
brief little graphic here. If you can see this small map, what I've done is
shown the Vineland Estates. We are immediately next door and the areas along
Pleasant View highlighted in red are those areas where 66 foot right -of -way has
within the past 7 or 8 years or how long I've been representing Pleasant View
Homeowners Association, been approved. Those are the only plats approved along
this road and all of them have been approved with a 66 foot right -of -way. In
the future if you decide that you need an 80 foot right -of -way, you will have to
go back against all of these properties and all of the properties in white and
request that you get an additional 7 feet from all of them. We are simply
saying that an issue of fairness, treat Mr. Beddor the same and in the future
take the additional 7 feet from Mr. Beddor if that's what you decide to do but
take it in the future when you address those issues with the rest of the
property owners. 0o not do it now. It is a straight away situation. This is
not a curve. This is not an alignment detail that you are sure you're going to
need. It is the safest part of the road and we don't see any justification for
taking it now. The reason we are objecting is one of fairness as Mr. Beddor has
stated in his letter. We have been involved with the City on a separate issue
where we have installed a portion of a public improvement and we have found in
the future that when the rest of the public improvement goes ahead, that there
is no way to recoup the loss that the client puts in initially. For example,
the value of the 7 foot that he gives up now will be lost to him. In the future
he will still get assessed including the value of land taken from other people
and he will have to share an equal share of that. He will be paying twice for
that land. We think the way to solve that is either to adjust your assessment
policy or to defer it until the widening of the road or the improvements of the
road are incurred. We think it is unfair to do that at this time. The next
point we'd like to point out is number 12. We are in agreement with 10. We are
in agreement with 11. Point 12 suggests that the variance for the garage
setback not be approved. We would just like to make it clear that we believe
there is ample grounds for granting a variance. Of all of the projects we've
been in front of you with over the past 10 or 15 years, this one is the easiest
to justify for a variance. It is a condition not of our making. It is an
alignment of a road that we cannot change. We have tried. We cannot change
this. We are being forced to put the road into this location. It results in a
non - conforming use. We agree but there is nothing we can do about that. We
cannot move the road. The City may have that authority. We do not. We are
suggesting however instead of requesting a variance, that we would certainly be
willing to set Lots 1 and 2 aside on Block 1 and we would put into their deed
that no improvements would be made to either lot until such time as Mr. Troendle
vacates his property or that the garage structure must be moved to be in
conformance with the 30 foot setback. Either or. We will put that on the title
of the deed of both properties. In that case Mr. Troendle's driveway will stay
where it is. He will not be permitted to connected to Nez Perce Road and we
will not be permitted to sell or build Lots 1 or 2. Those are 2 lots we'll be
35
1
City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991
tying up for Mr. Troendle's benefit. The final condition that we would have
some disagreement with is, we agree with 13. Ue agree with 14. Point 15 is
perhaps only a minor disagreement also. It is requesting that we agree today
that in the future we will not argue about some future assessments or we will
not contest them. We would agree that if assessments for any public
improvements in this area were to be uniformily shared, equally based on square
footage or lot area with all those parties participating who are benefiting, we
would have no objection but the recommendation does not say that. It simply
says that we will not object. We cannot make such a statement for future
homeowners. We think that their rights to object to assessments should be kept
with them. As a developer we can certainly make the agreement that we would
1 put onto a deed a restriction that all of these lots are subject to future
assessments equally based on the shared value of the improvements in that area.
Specifically I have a feeling we're talking about Nez Perce as it goes to
' Pleasant View Road. We agree with that but we think the person on say Lot 2 off
the cul -de -sac benefits equally as a person off Vineland Estates or the person
off the Art Owens property and we are simply asking that for the benefit of
' future residents, that these assessments be uniform and equal. Therefore that
one causes us some problems also. I'm sure Mr. Smith can, Jules here can
address it more eloquently than I certainly can. I'll be pleased to answer any
questions.
' Councilwoman Dimler: Would you repeat again what did you want for condition 12?
I didn't quite catch that.
Daryl Fortier: For number 12, rather than seeking a variance, we would agree
that both Lots 1 and 2 of Block 1 would have a deed restriction precluding their
development until Mr. Troendle vacates his property or until the garage is
brought into a conforming use. Conformance with the setback.
Councilwoman Dimler: How do you propose to do that?
Jules Smith: Because the way you've stated it, the Troendle's life estate...go
ahead and do something with it even though the garage is still within. What
1 we're really saying is, we will not do anything to those two lots for as long as
Mr. Troendle has a life estate. There after we won't do anything until that
garage is removed. I mean we will take down the garage after he...or after his
life estate...
' Councilwoman Dimler: Is that what you were saying in your substituted wording?
' Paul Krauss: I didn't link in the second lot but it basically does the same
thing.
' Jules Smith: All we're saying about Lot 1 is that, just the way it is now, his
driveway would just stay the same as long as he's using it. As soon as he
doesn't use it, then that lot would have to go the other way. And there
wouldn't be, as a matter of fact, an easement over Lot 1 that we would execute
in his life estate is only for his life so it would be turned automatically but
however we want to put it on record, we would put on record that easement would
terminate on Lot 2 as soon as he dies. It would be on record anyway but we
' would put it in the developer's agreement or anything you would want to put it
on record.
1 36
City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991 1
Councilman Workman: That would still be a temporary variance of sorts. 1
Jules Smith: Well it's not going to be a variance.
Daryl Fortier: We're requesting that you delay implementation of compliance ,
until the life estate lapses.
Councilman Workman: We all butter our toast a little differently. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other questions? Does anyone have anything to discuss
regarding the additional 7 feet right -of -way? 1
Roger Knutson: Can I ask a question? You're resisting just final platting Lots
1 thru 4 and making the rest of it an outlot because you want the City's
assurance that the whole layout is acceptable? Is that my understanding?
Daryl Fortier: We need some way of, Mr. Beddor is concerned about Vineland
Estates lots off Pleasant View. The owner of Vineland Estates has indicated a
willingness to swap lots. In order for that to occur, we must have some kind of
platted lot that we can swap. That is one difficulty. The other difficulty is
he, in establishing the value of Troendle Addition, Mr. Beddor's realtors or his
financial advisors and Mr. Troendle's must reach agreement as 'to how many lots
there can be. Therefore some understanding that the City will indeed approve
something is critical.
Roger Knutson: If the City for example were to, I don't know that they would,
but approve the preliminary plat of the whole thing as you have it set out there
and then in terms of the development agreement that you final plat four lots not
at stage 1 and you've already approved the concept of the preliminary for stage
2 if that's what happens and the rest of it, stage 2 will be developed at such
time as Nez Perce is constructed for example.
Daryl Fortier: Unfortunately we only got the, I only got the staff report at
about 6:20 this evening and I have not had a chance to contact Mr. Beddor as to
what other difficulties that would entail. I do know of the two difficulties
I've been mentioning. As to whether or not Mr. Van Eeckhout next door has some
difficulties with it, it's a very uneasy situation for me to say yes or no to
simply because I see this being connected to some future event for which this
developer has no control over.
Don Ashworth: Could we pose the question to Mr. Smith? I mean do you see what
we're trying to get at? I think a preliminary plat for the entire parcel, a
phasing plan fully protects your client and yet provides some assurances that
the City is looking for as far as potentially getting that road through at a
future point in time. ,
Jules Smith: If you're saying that, and as I read this, well before I answer
that one there's just one other little minor problem. If we were to put in Nez
Perce and that little punch down of the road because this says those two lots
have to go on Troendle Way or Troendle Circle or whatever it finally ends up
being called, and we don't do the rest for a while, that's a very, that's kind
of an expensive way to do it. Obviously when we go in there to develop that
eventually, you know we should do it all at once. The grading of the roads and
37
City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991
the whole thing. So you don't really, we would really think long and hard
before we would develop that separately. I mean put sewer and water and roads
in at two separate times. That would be really expensive. But as I read this,
and correct me if I'm wrong Paul. As I read this, what you're saying to us is
okay, we'll do that and we'll do this as an outlot. We'll approve it but we
will not let you actually. We'll let you subdivide it when you petition to have
that road put in. Is that what I'm reading? Well as I say, I haven't had a
chance to talk to Frank. In that sense, I don't think we'd have, I don't want
to categorically say this because I haven't talked to him about it because I
only saw this thing at 4:00 this afternoon but I don't think we would have a
problem with that just as the filing of the petition. You know, gee I'd like to
see the road come in and here's a petition but if the petition is tied to the
number 15 that says we have to pay for the whole road, yeah I think we'd have a
real problem with that because I don't think we should pay for the whole road.
' The whole thing may be mute, well moot. I may be mute on it, because if Art
Owens plats and the road is built, hey that's it. I mean it's going to be part
of his plat. He just builds it just like we build our section of it. He builds
his section of it. It never comes to assess. I mean it may be a moot point. I
don't have a problem I don't think. I'd want to talk to Frank. I really...do
that but all we have to do is petition and we're going to be assessed just like
everybody else is assessed, I mean we're not opposed to paying our share of the
costs that are involved in that and I'm sure there are some costs over and above
the typical platting costs because of some other problems on, what is it
Peaceful Way and some of that. You know they'd be more than say you would
require from the developer platting that. Art Owens property so you might have
some additional costs in there. We wouldn't be opposed to that. But if all we
have to do is petition for it, I think we'll petition for it tonight.
11 Don Ashworth: If I may. One of the reasons that staff went in the direction
tha' we did, recognizes that if you provide a preliminary plat approval for the
entire subdivision, you're guaranteeing them x number of lots. You're allowing
them the right to move ahead with the first phase. They literally are
guaranteed that they can do a second phase if they do it within some period of
time. One year or two years. That kind of buys the time necessary that Mr.
Smith was originally looking at. On the other side, if you do a final plat for
the entire lots, hypothetically Mr. Beddor could sell that plat to whomever
tomorrow and you have really no assurance that we're going to have an
opportunity to look at that road extension at a future point in time. Before he
moves ahead with Phase 2, at least he has to come in and see you and at that
point in time we can look to again forcing the petition, or at least instituting
that process as it may go against the Owens property. I do not agree with Mr.
Fortier's position that you can literally put that remaining road section in at
any time you want and assess the full cost. I really believe that they should
be looked at concurrently. This recommendation allows you to do that. I think
to go in, put in a road on one singular piece of property which is what you'd
have left at that point in time, at least if it were me, I might question the
public purpose that was being accomplished but that's neither here nor there. I
personally think that the recommendation has been given. Hopefully can meet the
I/ needs of Mr. Beddor. I'd like to see that occur. I'd like to see us help Mr.
Troendle sell the property. I'd like to make sure we protect the interests of
the property owners in that area that would want to see that road go through and
11 I think it can be done in a fashion that protects Mr. Beddor, Mr. Troendle, Mr.
Owens and the City.
11 38
City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991 1
Mayor Chmiel: I guess I basically agree. Paul, did you want to say something? 1
Paul Krauss: Just to clarify something briefly. Maybe Roger will jump in and
this is on a different issue though. Mr. Fortier commented on the equity of
assessments that might result from a road being built in the future and it's
kind of tough to second guess what you or future council might do in that
regard. However, I think it's fair to state that as we see the benefit
distributed from this road extension, the benefit it seems to us to be
distributed across the Troendle lots and across Art Owens property. Vineland
Forest has already built a rather extraordinarily lengthy street so that
Troendle Addition can hook in. I mean it went further than it needed to in that
subdivision basically to give access to the next lot in a coordinated manner.
You know I fail to, I'm not certain but I don't think we could sustain
assessments to show benefit in Vineland Forest. As far as the equity of
assessments goes I guess, maybe I'm naive but I take equity for granted. I
would envision some sort of an area assessment. Again, we can't bind a future
Council but an area assessment that's based on lot area would probably be the
most equitable way of doing that. Without having a feasibility study, nobody's
willing to front end the cost of the feasibility study. I have a difficult time
asking you to do it because I don't know when we'd be reimbursed. If we took a
feasibility study, if we actually went ahead with the project, we would know
exactly how much each lot's going to pay. Unfortunately we don't seem to have
that option open to us.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes sir. Please state your name and address. 1
Terry Barke: Good evening. My name is Terry Barke and my address is 960 Lake
Lucy Road. I'm here tonight with a number of my neighbors from Lake Lucy Road. 1
I addressed the Council in November, you may remember. I'd just like to make
this statement that it may not be obvious to you but my neighborhood, or just to
confirm that my neighborhood, my neighbors and myself, we basically like the
staff's recommendation. If there was any question, we have no problem with that
whatsoever. It seems to us to be actually a very good solution. It sounds like
it does solve a lot of people's problems. What's being discussed tonight in
terms of making sure the plat's get laid out so that these folks can proceed and
get what they want and again if that proceeds that way closely according to the
plan here that the staff is recommending, that's great with us too. It sounds
like a good way to go. So I just wanted to make sure that if there are any
questions, we like what we're hearing from the staff and it sounds like it's
going in a direction that we feel good about. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else? Any other discussion? ,
Jim Stasson: My name is Jim Stasson. I live at 6400 Peaceful Lane. Nothing
shows on this tonight but the road that has been proposed to go through Art's
property shows a big sweeping curve as it comes into Peaceful Lane. Now we're
trying to get rid of the big sweeping curve on the other side and it doesn't
seem to make sense to put a big sweeping curve coming into Peaceful Lane from
that. I don't understand why that can't be a squared off corner like a normal
corner would be. I just want to get that on record now before it all gets made
permanent as they say. Yeah, this corner here that shows a big radius corner
coming in. If we're trying to get rid of the big radius corner on the other end
39
City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991
1
of us to slow the traffic down, you know this is just going to be the same thing
' coming the other way.
Paul Krauss: We laid that out for a few reasons. The reason for constructing
Nez Perce is clearly so that it becomes a connection. A thru street. Now it's
a very minor collector but it's just basically made for that neighborhood but
what you want to do is promote the of traffic through here and out Now
this is not a final design and we've indicated to the gentlemen that, this house
is over here, that we try to take pains to...to shift the road as far away from
his home as possible. Right now there's a wide curve right through here off of
Pleasant View and the way we're showing it is that that piece of road would be
knocked out and it could turn back to lawn and we could vacate that for all we
care at this point. But we don't have a final design. I mean that's what the
feasibility study's supposed to do. What will probably happen if Peaceful Lane
needs to extend further south to the Owens property or whatever, it would
probably come in at a T intersection as we've envisioned this but again this is
a little hypothetical because it hasn't been designed.
Jim Stasson: I realize it hasn't been designed but when you start showing
curves like that at this stage, you know I live right on the corner of where the
other curve is and if we're going to try to slow the traffic down that way, it
makes sense to try to bring them into a regular T type corner down there. I
don't understand why they can't come to a stop and make a turn rather than come
around like a racetrack.
' Paul Krauss: I guess the point is that on Peaceful Lane there may be 1 or 2
homes south of that intersection. We don't know at this point. If there's
considerably more homes than that depending on how the Owens property develops,
maybe it makes sense to do that. But we want to promote the thru movement
through there. Now there would have to be a stop sign.
Jim Stasson: I want to unpromote the thru movement.
Paul Krauss: There would be a stop sign over here and if the road came in like
that, there'd be a stop sign over there.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, there would. You'd have to.
Councilman Wing: It doesn't solve his problem though. He's talking about just
the general speed and flow of traffic with that type of curve. I heard what you
said.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Any other discussion?
Jules Smith: If I may. I'd just like to make a quick other point and that is
1 on the 7 foot matter. We're on a straight away and Paul now says we're not
talking about widening the road. We're talking about some safety features and
what have you. That's the straightest part of the road except maybe way, way on
the other end, I'm not sure but it certainly is. It's in the center of the
straightest part of the road and it just seems to be, nobody knows what they're
going to do. Nobody knows whether anything's needed there other than the 66
feet you already have which is plenty wide enough to put in an extra lane for
parking or anything else. A 36 foot or whatever of paving surface and it just
40
1
1
City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991 1
seems to me to take the 7 when you don't know if you're ever going to need it
doesn't seem very right in addition to what Frank says. But beyond all that,
before the whole matter becomes moot, we really would like to proceed on this
plat rather than have it either tabled again or whatever because we're running
into some time problems.
Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else?
Councilwoman Dimler: I do have one question. Since we were talking about
linking this to Pleasant View and that's going to be done through Peaceful Lane.
As I mentioned before, Peaceful Lane is basically a driveway and at this point I
hope that we're planning to upgrade Peaceful Lane at that time. Is that what
we're planning to do?
Paul Krauss: Again, I can only tell you the concepts that we've developed. The 1
concept would require, I mean you look at that street. It needs to be rebuilt
all the way out to Pleasant View.
Councilwoman Dimler: So are we going to change the name at that time?
Paul Krauss: Presumably the entirety of the road would be called Nez Perce. Now
if Peaceful Lane continues to drop down south of here, I guess Peaceful Lane
would start here instead of starting there.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. Thank you. ,
Jim Duchene: I have a question. I'm Jim Duchene. I live on 961 Lake Lucy Road
and a couple questions for Paul on the cul -de -sac. You said the length was
quite long. What were you recommending on that? I didn't quite follow you.
Paul Krauss: The -de -sac, Troendle Way or Lane or whatever it is runs about 11 1 feet. Now our Code basically says that we should exercise judgment and
care of some such language when we have overlengthed cul -de -sacs. A lot of City
Codes set an arbitrary limit of 500 feet on a cul -de -sac and there's some real
reasons to set some kind of a limit. You know 1,400 feet in my professional
judgment is clearly beyond what you'd prefer. Now that's on a temporary basis.
At such time that Nez Perce is constructed as a thru street, the entirety of the
cul -de -sac length is from here to here and that's a permissible length in the
long run.
Jim Duchene: Okay. My other question was, up on Lake Lucy Road and Nez Perce,
the other direction, will there be stop signs up in that direction? You pointed
it out on the other end, the north end, but how about the south end? On Lake
Lucy and Nez Perce where it comes into the development.
Paul Krauss: Lake Lucy and Nez Perce is a curve. It's not an intersection. We
do have a stop sign, I mean that's something I suppose we could look at but I'm
not sure where we'd put it. I guess I'd defer to Charles on that but Vineland
Forest does have a stop sign where it enters onto Lake Lucy.
Jim Duchene: Is there a stop sign up there? Okay. And could we not address
Nez Perce coming onto Lake Lucy by putting a stop sign coming north?
41 1
1
City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991
Charles Folch: Paul, that's certainly something we could look at if directed so
by the Council. At this point my gut feeling is that the alignment that Lake
Lucy Road has currently joining with that portion of Nez Perce, it's intended to
be a thru movement and not necessarily stop but that's something we could
certainly take a look at.
Jim Duchene: That is a total blind spot if you've been up there. I think a few
of you had commented you had, Dick I think you were up there. You stopped at
the house. But as you come around the corner, you cannot see down so that is a
blind spot and I noticed when we read the report, the initial report, I think a
lot of you had walked up there and had seen that that road, I believe it was 18
1 feet is what that road, the width is that I measured up there so, on Nez Perce
prior to Lake Lucy.
Councilman Wing: Don, isn't this a completely and separate issue totally
unrelated to what we're discussing tonight? That particular intersection?
Jim Duchene: Well it is tied on to what I've got here.
i Mayor Chmiel: Not necessarily. It eventually is going to connect.
Paul Krauss: Well, I guess in terms of conditions on the Troendle plat, my
recommendation would be that you can consider it a separate issue. In terms of
this being a valid issue that you want to pursue that just happens to be raised
at the same time, yeah. That's fine.
Jim Duchene: Thank you.
Councilman Wing: I'd just like to recommend that the last comments be referred
to the Public Safety Commission and possibly addressed at that point. -
Mayor- Chmiel: Okay, that's fine.
Jim Stasson: I'd just like to make, Jim Stasson at 6400 Peaceful Lane again.
Why would Peaceful Lane have to change to Nez Perce? Can't Nez Perce end at the
intersection and we still be Peaceful Lane?
Paul Krauss: Generally when you lay out a street that connects Point A to Point
' B, you want the same name on the entirety of the street so people can.
Jim Stasson: But if you made that a real intersection where it came into
Peaceful Lane, then it would be just like Peaceful Lane coming into Pleasant
View Road. Otherwise if you use that logic, every street would have the same
name.
Paul Krauss: Every street that has continuity should have the same name.
I guess, you know you're asking me to comment on your concept that has that
coming into a T intersection. Right now I don't feel comfortable with that T
intersection but if it did design that way, yes.
Jim Stasson: What's the reason that you don't like a T intersection there?
1
1 42
1
City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991 1
Paul Krauss: Because you're introducing a turning movement on the street that's
going to carry more traffic and you're providing a thru movement to a street
that only has two houses on it.
Jim Stasson: I didn't catch that. When you come up on Peaceful Lane to 1
Pleasant View Road, you've got a T intersection.
Paul Krauss: Right. 1
Jim Stasson: What's the problem with having a T intersection two houses further
back? I guess I don't see why that. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. I think it's really beyond the scope of what we're doing
right now and I don't think that's a discussionary thing but I agree with what
you're saying that you don't want to change from Peaceful Lane to Nez Perce. 1
Jim Stasson: Right.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess I agree because there's a lot of given problems that you 1
have to go through as an individual.
Jim Stasson: Well yeah. I have to change. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Everything you have.
Jim Stasson: I have to change everything I have. 11
Mayor Chmiel: And that does create a problem. I would just as soon see that
I/
remain as Peaceful Lane rather than call it Nez Perce.
Paul Krauss: Certainly, if there's a way to work that out.
Councilwoman Dimler: I don't want to make that decision right now.
Mayor Chmiel: No. Okay. I think we have discussed this substantially unless
someone else wants to throw something else in. If not, Roger?
Roger Knutson: Just one last point. I think it is germane. Considering what
the discussion has been about petitioning and what that significance is, maybe
I could suggest._ If this is the direction you want to go in. I don't want to
put that in your mouth but is the wording of condition 1. I could suggest
rewording the first two sentences, the second sentence after the first sentence
is fine. The second sentence of condition 1 to read. Third sentence. There we
go. Notice shall be placed in the development contract as a condition of
platting the outlot. Then Nez Perce must be constructed thru to Pleasant View
Road as a condition of platting the outlot. I'll do it again. Notice must be
placed in the development contract that as a condition of platting the outlot,
Nez Perce must be constructed through to Pleasant View Road. I think that's
what the intent is. That doesn't answer the question of finances.
Mayor Chmiel: That might also pertain to the specific one discussion we had
here. If we're talking Pleasant View, the City construct Nez Perce through to 1
43
1
11 City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991
Pleasant View Road, I think it'd be from Nez Perce to Peaceful Lane to Pleasant
View.
Councilwoman Dimler: Is that alright?
Roger Knutson: I think as Mr. Smith aptly pointed out, filing a petition
doesn't really do much.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. That doesn't look, I think that's reasonable.
Jules Smith: I just have a question. We have to file a plat within a year and
say we get a year's extension. Two years or whatever it is. In two years not a
lot is happening. What you're really saying is, we would have to, well there's
no way we could control the construction of that road. What you're really saying
is, well we'll give you preliminary approval of this plat for 2 years, or
whatever. For how long as you extend it but if the road isn't there, you lost
the second phase. You can't build it. Well that gets right back to where we
were with Daryl's problem. The land isn't worth that to us. We don't have the
lots, there's no way we can force it. We can't make it. We can't build a road.
We can't make the city build it. We can't do anything. We just lose our plat.
That's essentially what you're telling us. Is that it? All I can do as an
owner of that property is ask the city to build it. If they think the road is
necessary, hey they've got a petition in front of them. Let's build it. I mean
you guys are in control of that, I'm not.
Mayor Chmiel: I don't see where that's the responsibility of the City.
Jules Smith: Well, the point is, the City doesn't have to do it because
obviously if Art Owens plats or if that land is ever platted, whoever plats it
is going to build it and that's probably as it should be. What I'm saying is,
essentially we're getting approval for 4 lots or 6 lots tonight period because
we have no guarantee we can do the rest of them ever and it's beyond our control
to do anything to get that approval. We can't force a road to be built. We
can't pay for the road to be built. We can't do anything.
Roger Knutson: We can certainly put in there, I don't think the Council would
have a problem with it, that if you want to pay for it.
' Jules Smith: Well, that's outrageous.
Roger Knutson: You just said...
Jules Smith: What you're really saying is we're not going to approve, we
approve 6 lots this evening. That's what we'll approve.
Don Ashworth: Jules, let's see if we can't work something that's reasonable. I
think that having a requirement in there that they simply agree that they'll
petition the City to have the feasibility study completed, etc., that does put
the authority back to us. That gives us the ability at that point in time to
commission the study and potentially assess. I think we should look at it
though in terms that there's a possibility you may have sold those 6 lots. If_
that is the case, those people are not going to want to pay for any costs
associated with Nez Perce. In fact, they're going to come back in front of this
44
11
1
City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991
I/
Council and say, no. We like this cul -de -sac condition. We don't want you to
do that. ,
Jules Smith: I have no problem with saying that those lots will be subject to
some approval. If there is an areawide assessment for those that are benefitted
by that section, they're going to be covered. I have no problem putting that of
record.
Don Ashworth: Or something to the effect that if you've already sold those, and
that's really beyond your.
Jules Smith: ...they're still stuck with it whether we own it or they own it.
Don Ashworth: Well again, it gets kind of back to like Kerber Blvd.. When we
went to put through Kerber and you had people in the Saddlebrook area, Chan
Vista. Those people surely didn't want to pay for Kerber. They bought that lot
and the last thing they wanted. I've got to believe though Jules that we can
come up with some reasonable language that says that those lots, excluding those
lots no longer under your control, that the developer is willing to pay his fair
share. So he might end up with a situation where you don't have what I'll call
is a uniform assessment roll in terms of you may, those first 6 lots.
Jules Smith: Those that have already sold? 1
Don Ashworth: That's correct. And I've got to believe that we can come up with
language that is going to protect Mr. Beddor but still protect the city...and I
would recommend that you accept the language of simply having them petition but
I think that we do need to work in the section of the development contract that
talks about their willingness to potentially accept a portion of those
assessments and as that may apply to lots that are still under their control
because again they could potentially have sold those lots between then and now.
Roger Knutson: How about petition and pay for the cost of the feasibility 1
report?
Don Ashworth: What? ,
Roger Knutson: Petition and pay for the cost of the feasibility report.
Don Ashworth: Well, we can make a determination at that point in time that we
want to include the costs of the feasibility study.
Jules Smith: If you're going to build a road, it's usually in the cost of the
road...
Don Ashworth: That's correct. I don't have a problem there either. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I think we know where we're at. I would look for a motion
in regard to proposal for a staff recommendation and maybe with some minor
revisions which we just discussed.
Councilwoman Dimler: I'll attempt a motion here. I need some help. Okay, I
move item 6(a) to approve the subdivision, the Troendle Subdivision with the 15
45
1
1
II City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991
I conditions with condition number 1 to be worked out. Okay, it's a preliminary
plat #90 -15. With the following conditions. Condition number 1 with language
to be worked out with staff and legal counsel in a way that protects the City.
Is that enough to go on?
II Roger Knutson: We have the intent of the Council.
II Mayor Chmiel: Yep.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. Condition number 2, condition number 3 as is.
II Condition number 4 as is. Condition number 5 as is. Condition number 6 as is.
Condition number 7 as is. Condition number 8 with the addition that this, to
make sure that it does get recorded so we don't have another Peterson /Blanski
situation. Condition number 9 (a) and (b) and (c) as is. Condition number 10,
II condition number 11 with a substitute for condition number 12 and here's where I
need help. With the intent that yes, Mr. Troendle can live there as is and when
that that the building, the barn garage gets removed and that
l something about the driveway at that time, the easement is vacated.
Jules Smith: The easements go on...access onto Nez Perce.
II Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, do you understand the intent?
Jules Smith: The easement would terminate upon the life estate terminating.
II Mayor Chmiel: Also a deed restriction in there of some type.
II Councilwoman Dimler: Ah yes. With a deed restriction acceptable to the City.
Councilman Workman: On what, Lot 1 and 2?
II Councilwoman Dimler: On Lot 2. Do you want to add Lot 1 and 2?
Mayor Chmiel: Right.
II Jules Smith: Yeah. It'd be 1 and 2. You want to make sure the...
II Councilwoman Dimler: Alright. So a deed restriction acceptable to the City
shall be drafted concerning the garage /barn and Lot 1 and 2.
Roger Knutson: You said deed restriction. That's really, you really put those
II in the development contract.
Jules Smith: You just file what's there. You just want something on record.
II Mayor Chmiel: That's right. Just protection.
I Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, you understand the intent of that one?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
II Councilwoman Dimler: Until the end of the life estate, yeah. Condition 13, 14
and 15 as is. I
II 46 !
II
City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991
I/
Councilman Workman: First can you reiterate 9?
Councilwoman Dimler: 9 as is with the (b) part there that was being discussed.
I would like to see us take that because I think it's perfectly acceptable to
ask for right -of -way and easements with the subdivision and preliminary plat
approval plus in the future if we don't need it, we can always vacate it.
Councilman Workman: Paul, was Daryl's map with the red ink correct?
Paul Krauss: Well I didn't have a chance to review it but it looked accurate.
Councilman Workman: In light of that and . his comment that they'll pay twice. In
other words, we won't pay him for it and then when the assessments come out
he'll have to pay for those. Is that a situation that's?
Paul Krauss: I guess maybe the City Manager can respond to that. i
Councilman Workman: I mean we're going to have to pay for everybody else's on
that road if this map is correct just about. ,
Councilman Wing: We have to look to the future because we're trying to be
consistent now. I mean they can say we were inconsistent years ago and I would
dispute that but we're trying to be consistent now that anything that occurs
along that road from this day forward is going to be in that same position. It's
going to be an automatic request for the easement. If we are inconsistent this
time, then we might as well be inconsistent from there over to TH 101 from this
point on. The only question I would have is why even go 80 feet. Why not stay
with the 66 feet on this.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess that makes sense too as far as I'm concerned.
Councilman Workman: But you know what I mean. I mean the other ones are
developing. They're not going to do anything else but we're going to take this
here. Granted we're going to start to be consistent although it would appear
from this point we're being inconsistent but we're taking it, which is our
right, but we're not going to be able to get the other ones without paying for
them.
Councilwoman Dimler: Or if they come in to subdivide we can take it. 1
Councilman Workman: Yeah, but that's done I think isn't it?
Councilwoman Dimler: No. 1
Paul Krauss: If I could. You know you pointed out you do have the right to do
it. That's unquestionable. You have the right. I guess you're looking for the
moral ground in doing it and I can't sit here today and tell you that with great
certainty that we need that 7 feet because I'm not sure. While we don't
anticipate any significant rebuilding of Pleasant View, one of the things you
need to look at when you improve a street is sight distances and you know, the
road starts to curve down as you're just going past that property. Now it could
well be that you need to skim off a knob on the road or something else that
requires grading to do that in the future. As to the moral higher ground on
47
1
1
City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991
this, when somebody subdivides property, I think there's a presumption that
they're doing it for some financial gain and clearly when you subdivide off
lots, you're going to be making a profit on that. Does that compensate for the
public cost that we would entertain in the future? I don't know. I think it
1 does. I mean we're talking about a relatively nominal amount of land here. I
guess for the same reason though I'd be relunctant to set a precedent whereby we
burden the public in the future with a higher cost of doing the improvements
that are needed when we could have gotten it basically for free at some point in
the past.
Councilman Workman: I guess in relationship to that I just don't see this road
ever having the ability to widen the way we want it to widen and so in that case
we might take it but it seems moot.
Councilwoman Dimler: We can always vacate it.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, if that need's not there.
Councilman Workman: I just, in driving that road, I don't drive it. I think
frank is probably the biggest flag waver on that road and nobody should drive on
tre road and he's probably correct. I don't drive on that road if my life
depends on it.
Councilwoman Dimler: But see to me Tom it's inconsistent.
Mayor Chmiel: I drive on it all the time Tom.
Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, and it's inconsistent to say that we're going to add
1 population here and at the same time keep the road the same way it is. Plus
you're going to have Crosstown.
Councilman Workman: But I'm just saying the development in those corners is so
tight and maybe we're going to be removing houses.
Mayor Chmiel: I doubt that.
Councilwoman Dimler: But TH 101 might go to 4 lane. you're CR 17 might go to 4 lane.
I think
,you re going to see a lot of traffic in there in the future.
' Mayor Chmiel: Well you may see an increase. I don't think you're going to see
an...
Councilwoman Dimler: Well no, I'm saying it's going to increase. It's not
going to decrease. And safety concerns on that road as well.
Councilman Workman: But there's going to be places where we can't widen it so.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. We have that motion on the floor and we have a second.
' Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve Preliminary
Plat #90 -15 for Troendle Addition without variances subject to the following
conditions:
48
1
City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991
I/
1. Final plat shall be limited to Lots 1 -4, Block 1 and Lots 1 and 11, Block 2
of the Preliminary Plat. The remaining area is to be platted as an outlot.
Notice must be placed in the development contract that as a condition of
platting the outlot, Nez Perce must be constructed through to Pleasant View
Road.
2. A tree removal plan shall be submitted for Lots 1, 2 and 3, B1
ock 1 prior to
issuance of a building permit. Clear cutting, except for the house pad and
utilities will not be permitted. 1
3. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the city and
provide the City with the necessary financial securities to guarantee proper
installation of the improvements.
4. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed
District permit.
5. The developer shall dedicate the utilities within the right -of -way for
permanent ownership. 1
6. The cul -de -sac on Troendle Way shall have a radius of 60 feet and the street
name shall be modified to either Troendle Circle or Troendle Court to
eliminate any confusion in applying it as a through street. Final street
plans shall be developed for approval by the City Engineering Department.
7. The applicant shall install erosion control silt fence around the ponding ,
area until such time that turf is established. Turf or sod shall be placed
behind all curbing.
B. Shared driveway access off of Pleasant View Road for Lots 1 and 4, Block 2 ,
is required and a cross access easement shall be provided and recoreded with
the County. This common section of the driveway shall be constructed to a 7
ton design paved to a width of 20 feet and have a maximum grade of 10%.
9. Provide the following easements and rights -of -way:
a. The drainage and utility easements along the westerly property line of
Lots 9, 10 and 11, Block 2 and the ponding area on Lots 3 and 4, Block 1
that are shown on the grading and erosion control plan shall also be
shown on the preliminary plat accordingly.
b. Additional 7 feet of right -of -way along Pleasant View Road.
c. Standard drainage and utility easements.
10. The applicant shall submit storm sewer calculations verifying size and
capacity of the storm sewer system and ponding basin. Eight inch sanitary
sewer at a minimum rate of 0.4: shall be constructed on this subdivision and
service locations for all of the lots on this plat shall be shown for final
submittal review. The final plans and specifications shall be submitted to
the City Engineer for review and approval.
11. Park and trail fees shall be required in lieu of parkland dedication. 1
49
11
City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991
12. So that no variance is required, Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 will have a deed
I restriction precluding development until Mr. Troendle vacates his property
or until the garage/barn is brought into a conforming use. Lot 2, Block 1
shall be serviced by Nez Perce Drive and the gravel driveway to Pleasant
View Road shall be removed.
13. The temporary cul -de -sac should be provided with an easement to accommodate
the temporary pavement and be provided with a barricade equipped with a sign
indicating the road will be extended in the future.
14. Lots 1 and 11, Block 2 are required to have access from Troendle Way.
15. The developer waives the right to contest area assessments that may be
placed upon all lots platted in the Troendle Addition relative to the
completion of Nez Perce through adjoining parcels to link with Plesant View
' Road. This condition shall be placed in the chain -of -title of all lots in
the plat.
' All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR EXTENSION OF NEZ PERCE DRIVE FROM
' PROPOSED TROENDLE ADDITION TO PLEASANT VIEW ROAD.
Don Ashworth: In light of your last action, this is moot on this.
' Mayor Chmiel: I think it is. Won't need to go.
ESTABLISH DEVELOPMENT FEE SCHEDULE.
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, I'll try to be brief with this.
Mayor Chmiel: I certainly hope so Paul.
Paul Krauss: I often try, I don't always succeed. Basically upon my arrival at
the City I operated under the existing fee schedule for quite some time and it
' gradually dawned on me that our fees haven't kept pace at all with general
inflationary costs and also they haven't kept pace with a new trend that appears
to be developing whereby communities try to put some of the cost of the City
review of development proposals back on those development proposals. Near as I
can tell, the last time our fee schedule was reviewed was 5 or 6 years ago but
nobody's quite certain. Now I've talked to you on several occasions about
trying to update that but what I did is I surveyed a number of communities to
1 find out which of these communities are actually trying to defray city expenses
and review of new development back on those developers. Right now we basically
charge very nominal permit fees which is fine and it encourages growth and all
' that but what it basically does is my time and the engineer's time and everybody
else is paid out of the general fund to review new developments and there's an
equity issue with that. I found a number of communities, the one's I surveyed
' are in fact trying to recoup some, not all because you can't, it's very tough to
do some of the costs of staff time and reviews that are associated with those
permits. Some of the cities, a lot of the cities required the escrowing of
funds. Basically you draw down that escrow but every community I talked to that
did that had problems with it and there were problems with accounting. Eagan in
1
50
1
City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991
fact is quite behind the 8 ball. They are several hundred thousand dollars in
the hole because they had expected to generate fees and they didn't keep up with
their escrows and now the developers won't pay it. The long and the short of it
is, Bloomington had an approach that I appreciated. They looked at escrowing
of funds. Decided not to do that but rather to try to raise the one time permit
application fees to more closely approximate the cost of developing. What we're
proposing is not a major, in my opinion, is not a major increase in these fees.
We're not going all the way to try to recoup all our costs. Just to make them a
little more reflective of what we're actually spending on these things. Plus to
account for 5 or 6 years of inflation since we've never done that. In proposing
the fee schedule too, there were a lot of items that we had never clarified what
the fee should be. The new grading ordinance for one. The administrative site
plan review for another. We touched on earlier this evening, we want to have a
process whereby the City Attorney's responsible for the filing of all plats and
documents. 1 think it became painfully clear that we need to do that and it's
going to stand us in good stead. Roger developed a fee schedule for filing
those documents that really is very nominal. It passes the filing costs along.
Depending on how much work, you know if they give us completed documents, it's
really not a cost that they wouldn't have encountered anyway using their own
attorneys and I think it gives us a lot more control over the process. One
thing else in preparing the fee schedule is I tried to separate out those
application fees that the normal homeowner might encounter from those that a
developer might make to us and I think the idea behind it is we wanted to keep
those application fees for homeowners reasonably low. If it's a variance or a
wetland application or something or a simple lot division, we're not looking to
make them pay the price. In fact what we're proposing to do is in essence
subsidize those with the larger developments paying something that more closely
approximates our cost. I can touch on these, you know I don't want to go
through the whole list. In doing this I realized that we never had a list like
this before so the fee schedule was not, at least for planning items was not
laid out in a single place as is this. A couple of things that we changed,
apart from raising the fees a little bit are PUD and Subdivision fee
applications are real clunky right now. You pay for a concept. You pay for a
preliminary. You pay for final. I'm not just saying toss that out. Let's make
one application fee. Make that application fee accurate. It makes our
bookkeeping easier and we'll collect the funds. We're not always collecting
them consistently now. Site plan review. We charge nothing. If somebody comes
in here with a 70,000 square foot building, we were charging them $150.00. Now
that might involve 8 meetings of staff time. Might involve 2 or 3 reports. The
engineer's report. We're proposing that there be a sliding fee on that. That
it be based to the size of the building and again, I compared these, or tried to
compare these to other communities. I can tell you that we're not going to
float to the top of the heap as being the most expensive community to develop
in. In fact I think we're still maintaining a reasonably low fee schedule for
them. If you look through the tables that are in there, the new one as I said
is the filing fee cost. The Attorney's fees. That's laid out in there. I
strongly encourage you to go ahead with that. I think that's imperative. One
other new thing that, oh! Two other new things that are in there. Consultant
fees. Most cities when they retain a consultant to review a development pass
those costs along to the developer. We don't do that. Now we don't use that
many consultants right now but let's say we have a proposal that comes along
that raises some serious traffic issues and we want to have more expertise
brought in for us on that. We should have a mechanism. Most cities do, to say ,
51
1
1
LJCy wuiRll ireeLiny January 14, l'rYi
to the developer, you escrow those funds with us. We'll get a contract. The
consultant's working for us. Not for you but you're going to pay the bill. It
' seems that we shouldn't have to pay to prove that the developer's project is
okay. That should be their obligation so that's in there. And the last thing
that's new but you reviewed it and approved it last summer is you may recall
' that to get the word out on new developments better than we do right now, we
embarked on a program of requiring the posting of signs on properties that are
going to have developments. We nearly got the signs. I saw a mock up of it a
couple of weeks ago. We should have them in a week and we're establishing a fee
schedule for those that basically covers our cost in maintaining the program.
With that.
Mayor Chmiel: I see where our original costs on those was might higher than
what we anticipated and we were able to buy them for less dollars.
' Paul Krauss: Yes. Yes. And we got it through a local sign company too.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. As I am sort of used to looking at fee schedules, more
specifically in other communities. In some cases we do go through rezoning. We
' don't go through the PUD's and so on but many of these are very consistent to
what I have seen in charges that we have to pay as a company. One thing that's
sort of, to go through the process. The only thing I don't understand is why we
' don't have something for the zoning ordinance amendment.
Paul Krauss: Ah! Okay. One of the things I did Mayor is rezoning. Rezoning
is a major action for us and I put the rezoning fee, I upped that from $250.00
to $500.00. Also Comprehensive Plan Amendment we only had at $100.00 and when
we're going to amend this Comprehensive Plan, where we finally get it in place,
it's going to be a lot of work. A lot of neighborhood meetings and everything
1 else so I raised that to $500.00. Now specifically the zoning ordinance
amendment. Most times when we get somebody to request a text change in the
ordinance amendment, it's either because we didn't consider it originally and
' our ordinance just never dealt with it or a lot of times they're just appealing
for us to change a policy. I guess I felt that since it was a policy type of
matter, that I really didn't want to, I don't know. I didn't feel it was
appropriate for us to charge them. We're going to charge them for the
' development that they're proposing but the amendment to the ordinance, the
ordinance is kind of our deal.
' M r Chmiel: Yeah, I guess I'm not much for increasing because it burdened by
th ._eople coming into the community but I think we have to realize that we're
operating as a city and we're having shortfalls. This is something that we
' really have to look at rather strongly so it's paying for itself rather than
costing us dollars. I sort of agree with what's being proposed here. Any other
discussion?
' Councilman Mason: I'll agree completely with what you're saying.
Councilwoman Dimler: I move approval of item number 7.
' Councilman Mason: Second.
' 52
11
City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991 1
Resolution #91 -9: Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Mason seconded to adopt
the Development Fee Schedule as presented by Staff on pages 10, 11 and 12 of the
staff report dated January 9, 1991. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously.
DISCUSS RURAL AREA DEVELOPMENT. 2.1/2 ACRE MINIMUM LOT SIZE.
Mayor Chmiel: If you could just hit this rather lightly because I think many of
us have had an opportunity to review that.
Paul Krauss: Well Mr. Mayor, as you're aware. This is kind of a different
animal. This is not an ordinance that we're talking about. This is a contract
that we entered into with the Metro Waste Commission and Metro Council to get
the Interceptor pipe approved and we found out that not too long after they
required us to change our ordinance to require a minimum of 2 1/2 acre lot in
the rural areas, they changed their policies and everybody else can go down to 1
acre. Now nobody's proposing to change the density. The density is still 1 per
10 in the rural area and we fully agree and support with that but what we'd like
to do is have the flexibility so that when development does occur in the rural
areas, that it can be clustered. As long as it can be served with on site sewer
adequately and we have a very strong ordinance in place to do that, we wanted
that flexibility so that hopefully whether you feel that the large lot
subdivisions we have now are good, bad or indifferent type neighborhoods, that
they do make it very difficult to bring into the community as it expands and
hopefully if we cluster the housing in the future, everybody would be better
served and it would be less expense and less disruption. So Planning Commission
reviewed this and strongly requested that the City Council direct myself and
Roger, Roger did a contract amendment, to forward this to the Metro Council for
action. Frankly I don't know the procedure for this because I've never heard
one of these before but if you give us the go ahead, I'll get it over there and
we'll get the ball rolling.
Mayor Chmiel: See what happens. Okay. Any discussion?
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. I'm just wondering, you know the Carver County, the
rest of Carver County has a density of 4 and 10 instead of 1, I mean 4 in 40
instead of 1 in 10. I'm wondering if we can ask for that to be changed simply
for the reason that if you have 4 in 10, or 4 in 40 you can have your homes all
grouped in one section and 36 acres of that, say a 40 acre plot, that 36 acres
are left undisturbed and are in a better position for future development. If
you have it 1 in 10, their homes are scattered and you have more roads and more
of the land disturbed and maybe not beneficial for future development. Would
Net Council go along with that?
Paul Krauss: I think they would Councilwoman Dimler. You know I looked at the
Carver County program and we all, both Carver County and Chanhassen and Chaska
and a number of other communities, we're represented by John Bolin in the
Southwest Communities Group and John carried forward a written commentary from
us on that. Basically Carver County and Chanhassen were supportive of one
another's positions but when it came at it from a different point of view.
You're quite right. I mean if we were, what that would do though, you know it's
environmentally beneficial and there's less roads and less scattered development
so I wouldn't necessarily oppose it but what it does is it takes away the right
53
1
LiLy JUi1 L HeeLiIiy JdilUdry 14, 1771
to develop from those who have less than 40 acres. Now Carver County's actually
thinking about going into a, I don't know what the ratio is but figuring it over
160 acres. Our situation is somewhat different from the large ag holdings that
you find out past Chaska in that a lot of our property has already been
subdivided so that maybe somebody has 20 acres. If we went with a 4 per 40
' rule.
Councilwoman Dimler: You'd have 2 per 20.
' Paul Krauss: Well, if you interpret it that way, then it hasn't changed
anything.
Councilwoman Dimler: That's true. Okay, I understand. I see what you're
saying. So you think that the Met Council would have a problem with that?
Paul Krauss: I don't think they'd have a problem with it. I think that we
might have some upset property owners who thought that they could get one or two
homesites and then find they couldn't because they don't have 40 acres.
' Councilwoman Dimler: That is the problem with it. You'll have some unbuildable
lots. But basically I support the 1 acre and I'd like to see the density remain
the same then.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? I think we should submit the proposal and
see what happens.
Paul Krauss: Do I need a resolution on that?
Mayor Chmiel: I don't think so. I think basically what you drafted here would -
be probably enough.
Roger Knutson: ...execute the agreement.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Can I have a motion? Somebody.
Councilwoman Dimler: I made all the motions tonight. Somebody else do it.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes you did. Richard?
' Councilman Wing: To adjourn?
Mayor Chmiel: Close.
' Councilman Wing: So we did need a motion?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. We should have one.
' Roger Knutson: Just a motion authorizing the execution of this proposed
contract amendment.
' Councilman Workman: I move that what Roger just said.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, is there a second?
' 54
City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991
Councilman Wing: Second. ,
Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Wing seconded to direct staff to submit the
proposed contract amendment language to the Metropolitan Council for approval.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
Mayor Chmiel: Just a quick touch I wanted to hit on, right of entry on Hwy 5
and discussion with the proposed construction. As you are aware that MnDot
indicated that if we did not have all our rights of entry, that they would
probably delay the project by a year. We had a couple that had not come in.
The others I made contact and staff had cleaned up the balance but I did make
contact with two additional ones, Amoco and Sinclair. We are not able to get
that. Amoco first submitted theirs with a hold harmless clause which MnDot
would not accept so I wound up calling Amoco on Friday. Had some discussions
with Chris Kristufek and asked him if there was some way we can pursue this.
I didn't want us to hold up or lose a year on the construction activity. He in
turn immediately, and I explained to him why we needed the right of entry and it
was still protecting him from a standpoint of if they wanted to go to court on
the valuation that the highway department set on their property. He understood
that and he then called, as I said, and got back to me and indicated that in
talking to the right people they were able to air express to MnDot the
acceptance without the hold harmless in it. So that cleared up Amoco.
Sinclair, I also called them and talked to them. That is right now yet in
discussion and the City Manager is going to follow up on it to make sure that
that comes in. My understanding, if we have just one parcel we can continue
with it and MnOot is willing to proceed with the construction activity. Is that
right?
Don Ashworth: Yes. In fact I think the Mayor is understating the area. His
involvement from the standpoint that there were the four parcels and we did get
McGarvel to submit his and that was after Don had talked with him. Same way
with the Chan Holding Company. They had taken an objection and Don talked with
them. Earl Howe had taken a very strong position. The project would not move
forward unless all of these parcels were taken care of and with the involvement
that has taken place as of discussions with Earl on Friday, work that Don has
done, we are virtually assured that that project will move ahead or be moved up
by nearly the one year period of time which means they are moving into plans and
specs and there will be an award for that project April, May of this year for
most of the completion in 1991.
Councilwoman Dimier: To what point?
Mayor Chmiel: To County Road 17. Or excuse me...
Don Ashworth: Park Road.
Councilman Workman: Lake Ann huh?
Mayor Chmiel: Right at the business area there.
55 1
City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991
II
Don Ashworth: Mini storage.
1 ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
II A. APPROVAL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN PERSONNEL POLICY, ASST. CITY MANAGER.
Todd Gerhardt: Attached for the City Council's consideration is the proposed
personnel policy for the Chanhassen City Employees. This document is a
I combination of policies that I've received throughout cities throughout the
metro area and also those policies that are mandated by both state and federal
governments. The need for this document has come about, it's with the increased
II number of employees and keeping those employees advised of policy changes,
written or unwritten, that the City has implemented over the years. And it
provides to those employees in black and white a document that they can have in
their hands and review it anytime. I'm pretty proud of this document based on
II the review aspect. We started approximately 1 year ago in reviewing this
document with all our employees. From that we got comments back. Made
revisions. Met with the department heads. Reviewed additional changes that
I they felt were important for them to administer and manager their employees.
And after those revisions, we sent those on to our City Auditor. The Auditor
reviewed this to make sure we were in compliance with the regulations that they
I have to implement and review. A lot of the benefits and health and employee
benefits and those aspects. From that we did pass that onto the City Attorney
who has been encouraging us to have a policy adopted by Council when dealing
with personnel issues. I'd just like to conclude that the attached personnel
policy is in compliance that we feel with all State and Federal guidelines and
would ask for your approval of it tonight.
•
I Don Ashworth: I should have had, if I may, I should have had one additional i
lino on the bottom of Todd's and that is, my reading of that document, there is, {
we are not providing or modifying any of the existing personnel policies that
II would have a monetary implication. For example, we are not increasing vacation
days. We are not changing severance policies. We are not changing any other
section that I am aware of that would have a monetary side to it. In other
words, where again if you're providing additional vacation days, there's a
I monetary affect in providing those additional days. And so the policies as the
apply, let's say the vacation schedule is the same that it's been for the past
10 years. It's simply putting it into one spot so everyone knows where it's at
II and they can find it. Right?
Todd Gerhardt: That's correct.
l Mayor Chmiel: I just had one question Todd. I think it's a well developed
document. I like what I see and it does specifically spell out the requirements
from probationary right on through employee benefits. The only thing I have one
1 question on is in relationship to sick leave. As it indicates here, regular
full time employee shall earn 8 hours of sick leave for each month of employment
which basically boils down to 12 days per year. Is that where that can build up
II to so many and then at the end, if an employee so chooses after termination with
the city, that he is then compensated for that?
Todd Gerhardt: The employee would have to put in a minimum of 5 years of
II employment with the city to receive that benefit. That's correct. It lends to
56
11
II
•
City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991 1
a couple of things. One, it takes away the abuse of sick time that we've seen ,
in the past and it also provides I think a part of our severence program for
employees that if termination should occur after that 5 year period, you know
that's what they get. ,
Don Ashworth: It's one half of accumulated sick leave and again that policy has
been in effect for close to 15 years that I'm aware of.
Todd Gerhardt: Similar policies as they have in Minnetonka, Woodbury, and in
St. Louis Park also.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Some industries don't have the specific amount of hours for
sick leave. It's done sort of on a basis of past performances. How much sick
leave there is. For instance if someone needs up to 30 days, they wind up
giving them that many particular days but it's not specifically spelled out per
se.
Don Ashworth: A long term disability policy that we have in place requires a
waiting period of 120 days. In the past we have had some problems where we've
had even long term employees, Vic Coleman was a good example who had what
appeared to be accumulated a lot of sick leave days but he ended up, what was
the illness? Anyway, he was repeatedly in the hospital and there towards the
end, in the final waiting period, he went without pay even though he had worked
for the City for more than 20 years. Had never abused sick leave in any way so
there's the other side of that coin too. That having allowance for a person to
build up sick leave, especially recognizing that you do have this longer waiting
period for policies such as a long term disability, I guess in some ways makes
sense in my own mind. Diabetes. That's what he had.
Todd Gerhardt: It's basically a short term disability policy that we encourage
the employees to accumulate those sick time because of that 120 day waiting
period. The City doesn't have to pay them for short term disability policy. A
lot of cities have both a short term and a long term disability. We consider
the sick day accumulation as the short term.
Councilman Workman: But that isn't always, the situation I'm thinking of
specifically is in the case of a pregnant person. I'm not sure what the rest of
the industry does, the school districts and everything. It seems to me, my wife
in the school district has a pretty good situation. I'm not sure, but a younger
employee, female who's going to have a baby that works for the City of
Chanhassen and needs some time off doesn't get paid unless she accumulates sick
days. She probably hasn't accumulated many sick days because she newer. She
has to, while that's a situation where she's not getting paid for let's say it's
an extended time. An amount of time, 2 or 3 months or so. She's not getting
paid by the City. She's also in a situation where she has to pay for her health
care portion the City doesn't pick up. Has to continue to pay for her benefits.
There seems to be a situation where the person is kind of put in triple jeopardy
because not only are they not working and they're not getting paid, but they
have to continue to pay for benefits. There seems to be a lot of increased
costs. Maybe this is a nationwide problem but it seems like the City's benefits
don't quite come up. When you're talking about short term disability and keep
in mind that insurance companies are real hesitant to insure city employees,
government employees anywhere near to full salary on short term disability
57
1
City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991
' situation. Maybe 30% max industry wide so they have a difficulty even picking
up a short term disability policy. They did run into problems say with a
pregnancy. Should pregnancy, should we be looking at something? It just- seems
to me we're a little rough when it comes to.
' Don Ashworth: For short term policies you're thinking of?
Todd Gerhardt: If you're looking at it and the only benefit, I mean really in
that would be a pregnant woman, I would say modify the, instead of paying the
premiums for short term disability policy over a length of time, that you just,
the City pick up the benefits of that pregnant woman over that period. I would
think it would be cheaper going that route. I know you're taking the risk of
that employee may not be coming back after a 3 or 4 month period of time if that
person's off but in the long run.
' Don Ashworth: This gets to be a real difficult area and it's one in which you
have to ensure that you treat the male class the same as female so it's all
' treated as illness. Generally, if I've looked at the past period of time, our
employees here who have looked to a 90 day leave, 3 month period of time, have
generally been able to be paid for that period of time but actually they can go
upwards of 6 months.
Councilman Workman: How are they able to get paid?
Don Ashworth: Through accumulated sick leave. Now where you have multiple
pregnancies, where they've had 2 or 3 children over a shorter period of time,
you're right. They have not built up to the full extent. To the best of my
' knowledge, Karen Engelhardt for example did have full sick leave during her
whole tenure. I believe that both Vicky and Kim, at least on the first 90 day.
When they got into the second child that's where they started having problems.
They did not have, even as they went into that second child. Maybe we should
look into that.
Councilman Workman: The newer employee and I'm speaking of female. I don't
mean to exclude the males and I really am a sensitive guy. If you have to say
you're sensitive, you're not. But so I would have to have about 6 or 7 years in
to accumulate 6 months of sick days and not have used any of them to accumulate
all that time. Are we talking about, if we're talking about a younger woman and
' I'll say younger woman is about Ursula's age. 22 or so. Let's say 22, out of
college. 'Well, that's the time maybe when if she's married she's going to have
children and she's going to have to wait until she's 30 because the darn City
' Manager, but I mean. You know what I mean? It just seems like.
Councilman Mason: School Districts, I mean both working in the public sector
' and it's fairly common, gets 30 days of paid and that is accrued sick leave. If
you've accrued that time, you get it. Anything after that is unpaid.
Councilman Workman: You have to accrue the sick days? You don't get anything?
Councilman Mason: Yep. Now you're given 12 days as soon as you start
employment which I suppose is the difference because here you have to earn the 8
' hours to get the day. I mean you start out, when you sign a contract for 12
days but it's very common in school districts that way and 30 days is, 6 weeks
58
1
City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991
is very common paid. Anything after that is unpaid.
Don Ashworth: You know I misspoke. I said I think 90 days and the 6 month
period. I guess you can look to an extended if you have some type of problem
but I'd say the typical maternity leave is 6 weeks. With many people trying to
go to the 90 but I know that 6 weeks is not uncommon and a woman could return to
work typically after the 6 week period. That's working for like a 2 and 1/2
year period of time and that's making the assumption that there weren't any
other days that they could have used during that timeframe. I mean it's not
logical that there would have been no normal holidays during that timeframe.
They could have used some vacation days. I guess in my own mind I don't think
that our policies are that harsh. 1
Councilman Mason: Can they use vacation time for that too?
Don Ashworth: Yeah.
Mayor Chmiel: Normally, yeah.
Councilman Wing: I heard you ask a question I didn't feel got an answer and
that was the question of accrual. Is this an open ended accrual? Is there an
accrual limit? I mean it's not in here. They can just accrue, after 35 years
they could just accrue right straight through?
Councilman Workman: We have guys that have about 2 years accrued don't they?
Don't we have people that have.
Mayor Chmiel: There's a maximum up to so many years though normally.
Councilman Workman: I have a very liberal policy but there's a limit.
Todd Gerhardt: Is there a limit on the accrual of sick time?
Councilman Wing: It seems like somebody could.
Todd Gerhardt: There's not in this policy. ,
Don Ashworth: We did have and what happens, actually it's Jerry Schlenk. What
happens is that every time, a couple years would go by and then we'd take•and
kick up the overall accrual basically to insure that Jerry stayed within the
overall limit. There are State Statutes though in terms of it associated with
severerice. The maximum that can be paid. Maybe that's what you're referring
to.
Councilman Wing: That's the only thing I didn't understand. If Jerry Schlenk
at the end of 35 years has accrued 25 years of sick leave. I mean not to be
silly here but did you say we're paying off? If he has a year's sick leave
accrued or 6 months or 3 months?
Don Ashworth: No. What had occurred for a few years is we just, let's assume
that the maximum was 280 hours. Well then we moved it to 292 and then we moved
it to 320. I guess in kind of looking at it, Jerry is by and far kind of in a
class by himself and I really couldn't see.
59
1
City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991
' Councilman Wing: You want a motion on that?
Don Ashworth: Well you know, he's really the only one we're really affecting by
that cap thing and I couldn't see penalizing what I considered to be a good
employee force.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, any additional discussion?
Councilwoman Dimler: I have a question on page 6, Section 5 under the
compensation. Number 2 it says here that the City Council supposed to approve
the plan established by the appointed authority. I'm just wondering, I don't
remember approving anything. Have we approved that and when was the last time
we did?
Todd Gerhardt: You approved it during the budget process this last December.
Don Ashworth: Are you talking about the pay compensation?
Todd Gerhardt: Position classification plan.
' Councilman Workman: You gave everyone a 25: raise.
Don Ashworth: Call it different names but that's basically what it was.
' Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, that's the pay compensation? 0kay, so you present
that to us every year?
Mayor Chmiel: Yep.
Todd Gerhardt: It's a bound booklet that has all the job description, goals,
new midpoints.
Councilwoman Dimler: I was looking at one document... Okay, also on the, I
wc:.id recommend the establishment of an employee advisory board with (a), (b),
(c) and I would recommend that it be 2 Council members instead of a Council
member and the City Manager.
Councilman Mason: Where are you Ursula?
Councilwoman Dimler: On page 19.
Todd Gerhardt: I was going to save that for the next meeting but that's fine.
' Councilwoman Dimler: Not that I have anything against Don but because I think
as the appointing authority as he's referred to, he's got quite a bit of power
already.
Don Ashworth: I don't have a problem with that.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay.
Councilman Workman: I'd like to be on that.
' 60
1
City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991
Councilman Mason: I would too. 1
Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, I would too.
Mayor Chmiel: I would suggest that we have someone involved in insurance, which 1
is Tom and Mike has handled many of these things for the school district. Put
those 2 on it.
Councilwoman Dimler: That leaves me out. I think you should have a woman on
there representing the women employees.
Councilman Workman: Didn't I just speak to the maternity? Didn't I just
mention that?
Mayor Chmiel: You can be the substitute in the event someone is not there. '
Councilman Mason: I just took two months off for parental leave in my school
district. 1
Councilman Workman: Mr. Mom.
Councilman Mason: Can I just ask a question about employment - at will? Does 1
that mean if you don't like somebody you can just say you're out of here? Like
that?
Councilman Workman: It's not that easy I'll tell you. Believe me you.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, you were making, yes Tom? 1
Councilman Workman: I'm sorry, Ursual?
Councilwoman Dimler: That was all the comments I had. 1
Councilman Workman: If Ursula would like to be on that committee, that advisory
committee, I would move myself off. I'd like to make that point. 1
Todd Gerhardt: You could modify this document to include 3 Council members.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, we've got 3. 1
Councilwoman Dimler: Alright.
Don Ashworth: It's always nice with an odd number for ties.
Councilman Wing: Where does the City Manager fit in to it then? Does this ,
exclude him?
Mayor Chmiel: He should just sit back and watch it. 1
Councilman Workman: I could show up as a Board of Adjustments member. One
other thing, maybe not related.
61
1
City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, would you just keep moving it.
Councilman Workman: Yeah. Thanks Don. One quick thing, very, very light
thought on this right now. Would it be prudent and I'm thinking of we should
maybe start another commission while we don't have problems in this area Would
it be even if the commission met once a year or on an as needed basis. Would
it not be behoove us to start a civil rights commission sometime? To have a
formal framework. Much as we have a sexual harrassment thing here. Naw, it
doesn't really happen you know but we should have the framework there. Would it
be something that the City as we grow and diversify with different people to
maybe start thinking about something like that?
' Todd Gerhardt: In the Affirmative Action Plan.
Councilman Workman: Well, I'm not thinking in relationship to the City's hiring
practices, and I do have another thing on that. But I'm talking about citywide.
Citywide. I went to school in St. Cloud and they called it White Cloud because
they've had a lot of problems up there. We don't have those problems but do we
have to wait until we've got blatant problems to think about something like
' that? I don't think we need a decision on it. It's just something I wanted to
bring up and maybe we can do it.
Don Ashworth: We had an ordinance on the book actually establishing that type
of commission. I'm not sure how long it had been there but when we went through
the codification process, no one had ever served on it for more than 10 years
that I was aware of and basically we just eliminated it.
Councilman Workman: Well I think maybe the City Council could become that
commission. Not that they have to meet but just have the framework and the
structure together in case there's a problem.
Don Ashworth: Good idea.
Councilman Workman: So that way we don't, I mean people are not hey, I'm on
this commission and we never meet. Then lastly quickly, I'd like staff to maybe
follow the lead of liberal St. Paul on their hiring practices for employees that
smoke and their denial of employment for anybody that smokes based on health
insurance costs, etc.. Have you guys heard that? The City of St. Paul has
passed an ordinance.
Todd Gerhardt: It was for the fire fighters. It was a fire fighter that they
would not hire a fire fighter.
' Councilman Workman: No. Yeah, but it's city wide.
Mayor Chmiel: It's also eliminating them from smoking in company vehicles or
firetrucks or any of that nature. I don't know how Constitutional that is.
Roger Knutson: It's a fairly complicated subject. Some cities have done it. I
work with one city who did it for a fire department. I don't know, personally I
have not been involved with any other department that's gone beyond that. You
have collective bargaining issues and things like that. It's something if you
1 62
1
City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991 1
want us to look at it we can look at it but.
Mayor Chmiel: You can get your insurances cheaper...
Councilman Workman: It's a proven absence from the workplace problem with
cigarette smokers. Right Don? I mean there's proven studies. '
Todd Gerhardt: Jerry Schlenk smokes though.
Councilman Workman: Yeah, but I think it's been proven and that's why St. Paul 11
was able to go ahead and do it because there's proof all over. Let's keep an
eye on that because I know I will.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Can I have a motion for approval of the City of
Chanhassen's Personnel Policy and appointment of the Employees Advisory Board
consisting of 3 Council members?
Councilwoman Dimler: Three? Is that okay did we decide?
Roger Knutson: I'll just point out when you've got 3 you have to comply with 1
the open meeting law requirements.
Councilwoman Dimler: It's open to the public? 1
Mayor Chmiel: Sure, they're open to the public.
Councilman Mason: Well would they be though with employee problems? I mean you
can't have. There are State laws about that too.
Mayor Chmiel: You can also have closed meetings if it's in relationship to 1
personnel policy.
Roger Knutson: It depends on what you're dealing with. There's a government...
practices act that allows you close the meeting under certain circumstances but
you have to go through a process to do that.
Don Ashworth: You know, maybe there's an area we should think about a little '
bit more because most of the grievances you might hear, as I would see it would
be minor but hypothetically someone could make more of a to do out of it. I
guess I like the idea of simply being able to meet with the employee and not
have to have the, well the open forum where it might be his statements regarding
another employee he's working with.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, we'll eliminate it. We'll put two councilmembers. Ursula 1
and Mike and have Tom serve as an alternate.
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, I think this is an area that excludes the City '
Manager in an area that's really I see his responsibility and I guess I'm
certainly favorable to 2 councilmembers but I'd like to see the City Manager
also listed as an Advisory Board member. I think it'd be inappropriate to
exclude him.
Councilwoman Dimler: I thought he was.
63 1
1
City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991
Councilman Wing: I thought we had taken you off in lieu of.
Don Ashworth: No.
Councilman Wing: Then I misunderstood.
Councilwoman Dimler: No, we have two councilmembers and the City Manager rather
than just one councilmember and the City Manager.
Mayor Chmiel: Can I have that motion?
' Councilman Workman: So moved.
II Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilman Mason: Second.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the City of
Chanhassen's Personnel Policy and to appoint Councilwoman Dimler and Councilman
Mason along with the City Manager to the Employee Advisory Board and appoint
' Councilman Workman as an alternate. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously.
POTENTIAL FALSIFIED SURVEY, 6285 AUDUBON CIRCLE, PLANNING DIRECTOR.
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, those of you who were on the Council last fall will
remember that we found what we thought to be a falsified survey for a single
family home. We're pretty sure that it was a false survey. That there is in
fact a variance that resulted on this house but we've tried to run it down
though and our City Attorney has counseled us that the legal option is probably
'
re' - risky and not likely to result in success. At the Council's request I
co' ed the State Licensing Agency in the AG's office who thought would have
the lity to investigate this. It turns out, they don't have the ability to
' investigate the builder who we think was the culpable party but rather they can
only investigate the surveyor who we think has been above board. Therefore it's
my recommendation that we ask the AG's office to drop this. I see no reason to
defame the character of a surveyor who I think has been above board on this.
Unfortunately this is one of those things we don't have a lot of ability to
correct but I think we can learn by it.
'
Mayor Chmiel: I agree with that position and I would like to somehow make sure
that we don't have alterations of additional filings and that's my only real
concern. I think if we at least let them know that we know that it's there,
what do we do with what's existing?
' Paul Krauss: You mean with the fact that rather take it by easement? I don't
know. I think this has alerted the folks doing reviews of building permits and
my department and engineering that they need to double check and reflect back on
aerial photographs and other means of getting at that. You get stung by one of
these once, you remember it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay and next time we'll have a little map so we can find that as
well. Thank you.
1 64
1
City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991
Councilman Workman: I move to adjourn.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilwoman Dimler: Shall we first approve that he drops the case or whatever?
Mayor Chmiel: I don't think we have to have any approval.
•
Councilwoman Dimler: Alright. 1
Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded to adjourn the meeting. All
voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11 :00 p.m.. 1
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
65
1
II CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION UNEDIT''
REGULAR MEETING t
JANUARY 2, 1991 r.>
Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7 :35 p.m..
MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steve Emmings, Annette Ellson, Ladd Conrad,
Brian Batzli, Jeff Farmakes and Joan Ahrens
I STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Jo Ann Olsen, Senior
Planner Sharmin Al -J Planner 1 and Charles Folch, Asst City Engineer
PUBLIC HEARING:
JERRY PERKINS, POPE ASSOCIATES - PROPERTY ZONED BH AND LOCATED NORTH OF
' LAKE DRIVE EAST, EAST OF DAKOTA AVENUE AND SOUTH OF HWY. 5:
A. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 4,042 SQUARE FOOT VEHICLE INSPECTION STATION.
B. REPLAT OF CHAN HAVEN PLAZA 2ND ADDITION INTO TWO LOTS.
11 C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A VEHICLE INSPECTION STATION IN THE BH,
BUSINESS HIGHWAY DISTRICT.
Public Present:
Name Address
=
Don Hagen 33 -10th Avenue So., Suite 100, Hopkins 55343
Stan Krzywicki 5275 Edina Industrial Blvd., Edina
11 Jerry Perkins, Pope Assoc. 1300 Energy Park Drive, St. Paul
Dennis Palmer, Systems Control, 5275 Edina Industrial Blvd., Edina
Richard Kubik Systems Control
Tom Kotsonas 8001 Cheyenne Avenue
Alex Krengel 8009 Cheyenne Avenue
Walter Rockenstein Faegre & Benson, 2200 Norwest Center,
905 7th Street, Minneapolis 55402 -3901
Alan Klugman Westwood Professional Associates
Al Iverson PMT Corp
Richard Andreson PMT Corp
' Donald Chmiel City Council
Richard Wing City Council
Tom Workman City Council
Ursula Dimler City Council
Sharmin Al -Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Conrad
called the public hearing to order.
Walter Rockenstein: Chairman, my name is Walter Rockenstein. I'm an
' attorney with Faegre & Benson. We're the legal counsel for Systems
Control. I think we'd like to have two parts to our presentation. First
one of the major questions that's been asked each time we've been before
the Planning Commission is how we're going to handle traffic accessing this
site. We have Alan Klugman from Westwood Professional Associates who's
going to address that issue and when he's finished addressing the traffic
issue I'd like to come back and go through the conditions that the staff
has proposed dealing with each one of those and indicating those that we
Planning Commission Meeting
January 2, 1991 - Page 2
are in agreement wit w 's most of those, and the one or two that we
r � with, which is h ,
have some disagreement with and the reasons for our disagreement. So I'd
like to have Mr. Klugman begin the presentation by talking about traffic.
Alan Klugman: Mr. Chairman, I have a number of overheads if It would be
okay to speak from the projecter there?
Conrad: Uh -huh.
1 Alan Klugman: I'd like to talk to 3 issues tonight. First is a brief
description of trip generation characteristic of this site. The second
issue would be a description of the assignment of site traffic and then
finally the third issue would be an assessment of the impact of site
traffic both on the surrounding roadway system and the site itself, or I
should say the on -site operations. Before I get into the full discussion
I'd like to start with a few quick definitions so we're all on the same
1 terms. The first one is vehicle trip. In terms of traffic engineering as
an example, if one car arrives at the testing station, completes it's test
1 and leaves, we're calling that 2 vehicle trips or vehicle trip ins. All
the numbers that I'll be describing tonight are vehicle trips. The next
two terms relate to the different days of the month that we will observe
out there. The first one is the average day, or the typical day during the
' course of the month. The second day is the peak day which reflects
basically the last 5 days, the last 5 working days of the month. Based on
these programs in other states, there's a surge in inspections towards the
1 end of the month as people rush to get their inspections completed prior to
their expirations of their licenses. Typically in the other states where
Systems Control operates, they've observed peaking of about 150% to 160% of
the average day at the end of the month and in fact for design purposes,
' that works out to 156% is what we've used. The final term is the peak
hour. For this particular site we're looking at two different peak hours.
If I can go to the bottom one, that's the peak hour of the surrounding
roadway system which in this area is approximately 4:30 to 5:30 p.m..,
That's when TM 5 and the various cross streets are at their busiest. The
site itself, the trip generation characteristics of the site itself show a
peaking in the late morning and on into the noon hour. In fact during the
typical p.m. peak hour, the roadway system of the site itself is about
approximately half of our typical hourly volume for the day. So just to
reiterate the peak hour for the site does not coincide with the peak hour
of the roadway system. Approximately the next 3 graphics 1 have here will
be a quick run through of the trip generation characteristics both for this
site and for other auto or into land uses. All the graphics I'm showing
' tonight are the ones that we showed at the neighborhood public meeting a
few weeks ago with the exception of some count data for the McDonald's
which we completed after that meeting. If we go to the right two most
1 columns of this chart we see what the typical projected traffic is for the
Systems Control site. All the numbers that I'm dealing with in reference
to Systems Control represent the year 1998 which is the final year of the 7
year contract that SC has with the State to provide this program and of
course in 1998 the vehicle registrations will be a bit higher than they are
today. And then also for this site we're looking at two different time
periods. The right most column here is the peak at the end of the month.
' The column one in from that is the typical average day of the month. So in
summary, the site itself is expected to generate 1,260 trips on the busiest
1
Planning Commission Meeting 1
January 2, 1991 - Page 3
day of the month. Approximately 810 trips on a typical day. The other 3
uses that we show here, a gas station, a fast food restaurant and a drive
in bank are typical national averages based on data collected by
the Institute of Transportation Engineers. They do not necessarily reflect
any one site in Chanhassen but rather their typical national averages so
this puts the particular testing site in some type of perspective. Moving II
from a daily basis to an hourly basis, one of the questions that came up at
the neighborhood public meeting was how does the particular McDonald's
adjacent to this site compare versus the typical uses that we talked about II
and the column on the far right summarizes that. We conducted a traffic
count at the McDonald's for both the lunch hour period and for the evening
dinner time period and we saw that during the typical one hour period, the
McDonald's site generated at lunch time about 300 trips. For the Systems
Control site we're showing 4 different bar charts. 1 hope it's not too
complicated but basically the ones on the left represent the average day
and the ones on the right represent the peaking at the end of the month and i
within those two sets we also have the p.m. peak hour which is on the left
and the noon hour which is the higher hour so just to cut to maybe the
highest number, the 176 trips is what we estimate in 1998 at the end of the ll
month for the busiest hour of the day which is approximately 11:00 to
12:00. 11:00 in the morning to 12:00 noon. That's the number of trips
that this site would generate. During the busiest time of the roadway II system, the p.m. peak hour, we're looking at less than half that or the 76
trips for the p.m. peak hour. Now if we look at this number again here,
the 76 trips from the p.m. peak hour and then put that in some perspective
compared to other typical land uses. Typical auto oriented land uses.
Again, we looked at the gas station. A typical fast food restaurant. A
typical drive in bank. The two Systems Control numbers both for the
average and the peak at the end of the month and then finally the exact
count we did at the McDonald's so there's a lot of numbers up here but I
guess what we're trying to do is show some perspective that in the busiest
hour of the month the testing site is expected to generate about 76 trips II during the p.m. peak hour. During that same time period on a typical day,
the nearby restaurant generates about 97 trips.
Conrad: Are those today's numbers or the future numbers? 1
Alan Klugman: The 97 is today's count. The 76 would be the 1998 value so
it'd be the highest value. Maybe if I could step back for one moment in
terms of where the, numbers came for the Systems Control site. In -some of II
the other data that's been submitted to the city, there's a description of
the overall metropolitan wide system. Unless there's specific questions we
won't go into a great deal about that but in summary there's 11 sites
located throughout the metropolitan area. The sites vary in terms of their
size and how many vehicles they're expected to service on a typical year.
The sites are all located within what we call geocenters of population that'll
each serve different areas and the numbers of inspections is then projected
based on the population within that area so this is part of a system wide
projection for all 11 sites. Going onto the second phase of my discussion
which is the assignment of the site traffic, we worked with David Braslau
of David Braslau and Associates who Dr. Braslau also completed the air and II
noise quality analysis. Working with Dr. Braslau we generated this
direction of approach assumption which again is based on the fact that
there's 11 sites spread throughout the metropolitan area and the traffic toll
Planning Commission Meeting
January 2, 1991 - Page 4
any one site would be more or less balanced via the major roadways that
' serve that site. The nearest proposed sites to this one are one in
Minnetonka to the north and to the east will be sites in Savage and in the
Bloomington /Richfield area. But in summary we show that along the major
roadways, TH 5 we're looking at approximately 40% from the east,
I approximately 25% from the west and then some more local movements via TH
101 in the downtown area of about 5%. As I guess we've discussed
previously, with this site we're on Lake Drive south of TH 5 and we have
1 two major access points from TH 5. Of course the closest one is Dakota
Avenue and then further to the east we have 184th Avenue or Dell Road and
both of those sites are within the improvement area for TH 5 which I'm sure
the Planning Commission is very well aware of. What we have here is a
sketch both for the Dakota Avenue intersection and also for the new
intersection which will be at 184th Avenue. Dakota Avenue will be a
rebuilt, reconfigured intersection to include turn lanes in each direction,
' median islands, a new signalized intersection and then further to the east
along TH 5 the intersection of Dell Road and 184th would also be very
similar in character with median islands and turn lanes. The time table
for that shows that this improvement along TH 5 will be occurring in about
the next 1 to 2 years out to CR 17 so it does dovetail nicely with when
this site will come on line. The roadway pictures that we showed here we
received from the MnDot design plans and those are the ones that we and Dr.
1 Braslau used for analysis purposes and I guess real quickly running through
the analysis. Level of service calculations were done for the major
intersections for the site generated traffic both for baseline conditions
11 and for the baseline with the site added on top. And for the one year
after opening, an analysis of that period shows that for both of the major
intersections at 184th Avenue and at Dakota Avenue along TH 5, the overall
level of service at the intersection would not be impacted or would not
change with the addition of the site generated traffic in the p.m. peak
hour which is a critical hour for the roadway system. Now the one other
intersection that we looked at was the intersection of Lake Drive with
1 Dakota Avenue which of course is a stop sign controlled intersection which
would serve a majority of the site traffic. Using the stop sign analysis
method with the base line traffic and the addition of a site generated
' traffic for both the p.m. peak hour, busiest hour of the roadway system and
the noon hour, busiest hour of the site, that unsignalized intersection can
adequately accommodate the traffic volumes. 5o I guess in short summary,
this one site added to the baseline traffic would cause no impact to the
surrounding roadway system. Finally the final point I'd like to make is an
analysis of the on site operations which is a question that seems to come
up with every site that we look at and that is the ability of the site
itself to store and queue the vehicles that need to be served right on
site. If I can refer to the first picture that you had up that shows the
site. Thank you. The site itself has approximately 875 feet of stacking
' in the various lanes to serve this site. We ran an analysis using typical
queueing analysis procedures. It's a type of analysis you could use for
drive in bank, drive in restaurant, vehicle testing site. Any site that
has drive up traffic. Using that analysis and typical queuing methods, we
looked at the length of stacking that we have available. We looked at how
many vehicles could stack in that amount and using a conservative value of
about 25 feet per stacked vehicle, we can store approximately 35 vehicles
on the site. We then ran an analysis where we looked at a probability of
what is the busiest flow rate within the busiest hour of the busiest day so
1
Planning Commission Meeting 11
January 2, 1991 - Page 5
1
it's the peak within the peak within the peak and we said at a 1%
probability.of overflowing the site, how big would the site need to be.
When we worked out those numbers, we conclude that a site that can store 2311
vehicles on it would have a 1% chance of backing up with the busiest time
in the busiest hour of the busiest day. Okay, so 23 vehicles give us
that 1% chance of backing up. This site conservatively can store 35
vehicles which gives us at least a dozen vehicles to safety factor beyond II
that 1% chance. So we feel that there's definitely adequate space here to
store all the vehicles on the site and when I say on site, that's before II the public cul -de -sac. I guess if there's no questions, that's hopefully
kind of a brief run through of the traffic aspects and if there are no
questions, I'll turn it back to Mr. Rockenstein.
Walter Rockenstein: I'd like to go briefly down through the conditions
that are indicated on pages 17, 18 and 19 and indicate those that we're in
agreement with and those where we have difficulty. We start out with
perhaps the biggest difficulty in that we remain in disagreement with the II
staff over the need for a mansured roof on the facility. These testing
stations not surprisingly since it's a metropolitan wide system, have been
designed to present as identical a view to customers coming to them as is
possible. The information that will be sent out ahead of time on these
stations will include photographs of the stations. Will include we hope
the maps that indicate the way to approach the station. The hope is that 1
the uniform look of the station will make it easy to find and easy to
locate and identify. All of the other cities that we have been in to date
have approved the design that we have indicated which does not include a
mansard roof and Systems Control believes that that design is the one they II
should use here.
Conrad: Do you have a picture of the design at your disposal? ,
Walter Rockenstein: I beg your pardon?
Conrad: Do you have a picture of the design?
Walter Rockenstein: It's a design much like this building with a straight II
parapet roof. We would increase the height of that parapet to provide
screening higher than it is shown on those plans. That is one of the
issues that was raised was the need to screen the equipment on top and
we're in agreement that that must be done and would be providing that. If II
you look at the site itself and the surrounding buildings, you would find
that only one of the surrounding buildings has a mansard roof or one that's
even sloped and that is the McDonald's. The office building which will be
immediately across TH 5 has a flat roof with a parapet. The buildings to
the east are all flat roof also with parapet so we don't agree with the
staff's conclusion that this is in the heart of the business district where
mansard roofs are the norm. That in fact is not the norm at this site. We
also find it interesting that the City Hall which is much closer to the
heart of the business district is not a mansard or sloped roof but is a
flat roof, exactly the same as we're proposing. We agree with the need for"
a sign plan and the need to obtain sign permits as indicated in number 2
but we would indicate that on 2(c) it is MnDot that has to give the final
approval to signage located in State rights -of -ways so although we can put II
it on the map and we intend to have it and we hope that the PCA will
1
Planning ommission Meeting
g
January 2, 1991 - Page 6
support us in achieving that, it's only MnDot that can give that final
approval with respect to the State highways and in fact it is only the City
that can give approval for the City's rights -of -way. This is in number 3
we're really coming back to the plan that was originally submitted by
' Systems Control. Systems Control originally submitted a private road
without a cul -de -sac. It was the City that requested the shift of the
cul-de -sac and if the City wishes to move back to the private road, we are
happy to do that and we agree that if you use a private road, you will have
11 to have permanent cross easements and you'll have to have the maintenance
agreement and we would be providing those. We will, as is required, obtain
the permit from the Watershed District and we do agree that when further
development occurs on Chanhassen Haven Plaza, the other site that we would
have to extend that sewer piping to the future detention pond. We are in
agreement with number 5 that you have to use Type III erosion control to
' protect the wetland. The landscaping along the south side of Lake Drive
East, Systems Control would like to provide that. I understand that that
land is owned by Mr. Hagan who also owns the remaining land and he would
have to be in agreement with that. He's here tonight and can indicate
11 whether he's in agreement but we would want to provide that screening for
the neighbors to the south. We will also provide the detailed cost
estimate of landscaping and the additional landscaping on the north side of
' the trash enclosure. We would expect to construct the sanitary sewer and
the watermain improvements and acquire the necessary utility permits from
MnDot and whatever permits might be required from the Pollution Control
Agency and the Department of Health, although I haven't located one yet
11 that's required by the Department of Health.. It may be that one there's
one from the PCA. We do expect to enter into a development contract with
the City and provide financial guarantees and the flammable waste separater
that's being suggested is already a part of Systems Control's plan. It's a
standard feature of all 11 of their testing stations. With respect to the
subdivision, we do expect to pay park and dedication fees. We will provide
the (a) thru (d) . (d) of course will depend on the final drainage plan as
the site is redesigned for a private road. I can't speak to (e) because
the only portion of the plat that's being required is being taken from the
adjoining property, not from that that's being acquired by Systems Control
' but we assume that the adjoining property owner is in agreement with that.
The cross access and utility easements. We are in agreement that those
will have to be provided again and we are in agreement that the currently
existing drainage easement would not be necessary any longer and could be
vacated. With respect to the conditional use permits, we would expect as a
part of that to have number 1 be one of the conditions and number 2, the
direction maps are subject to MPCA approval. I'm sorry we can't make them
subject to your staff's approval. The final approval there is the
Pollution Control Agency. We would be happy to submit our prototypes to
your staff for suggestions but the final approval there is the MPCA's. We
will maintain a contract with the services for the State of Minnesota. The
contract is 7 years in length and we have already agreed previously before
this commission on the other site that we do not intend to perform repairs
' or to sell gas or parts. The program does not involve the testing of
diesels or heavy trucks. We would intend to maintain the site in compliance
with State and Federal Air and Noise Standards and in fact have submitted
data to indicate that we will. We are in agreement that we can provide a
compliance report within 6 months after operation to the City. We're
concerned I have to say a little bit about the City's unlimited license to
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 2, 1991 - Page 7 1
ask us at any time to prepare reports. A full blown air quality study or a is
full noise study is an expensive proposition. We would like to suggest
that if the first report turns up showing compliance after 6 months on the
site, that you consider an alternative that if the city requests the study
and the study turns out that we're in compliance, the city would pay for
it. If it turns out we're not in compliance, we'll pay for it and make thell
changes that are necessary. We think that's a fair way to proceed. If the
City then has reason to believe that we are in violation, they can ask us 11
to supply the report and if we are, we'll pay for it and we'll make the
appropriate changes. And the last one I think we simply need to agree with
staff on some definition of what constitutes fire lanes, drive aisles,
access drive or public rights -of -way. We believe that we have adequate
stacking space without being in any of those but we think, we hope we are
in agreement. We don't precisely know what they mean by drive aisles. We
use that term to include the stacking space. I suspect that they're using
it in a more narrow fashion and we need to figure that out. We are
confident that without being in the way of anybody coming into or leaving
the site, including fire trucks, that we have sufficient stacking space.
That completes our response to the various conditions and I'd be happy to
answer any questions.
Conrad: Just for quick clarification on point number 6 under conditional II
use permit. You basically disagree with paying for a study after 6
months? Is that what you said? You led off by saying you didn't want to
do a whole series of reports so that got me confused. They're asking, the
City staff is asking for one.
Walter Rockenstein: We have no problem with demonstrating to you 6 months is
after we're in operation at our cost that we're in compliance. It's the
subsequent ones and the expense of them. Conceiveably, although I doubt
it, the City could ask us for one of those every month and that would be a
several thousand dollar expenditure on a monthly basis to do those reports.
Conrad: Anything else from your side?
Walter Rockenstein: We're available for questions as other people testify.
Conrad: I'm sure there will be some. Thanks. Okay, we will open it up
for public comments. So if there are any on anything you've heard or
haven't heard, we'd sure like to hear them. Is there anything? Maybe I
could start it off a little bit. I'm curious. There was a neighborhood
meeting. What did come out of the neighborhood meeting? What were the
concerns of the neighbors? Have they been addressed? Who was there?
Walter Rockenstein: Several neighbors are here and I'd really feel more
comfortable if they spoke for themselves but I'll try to summarize the
meeting. We made a presentation which was really a combination of the
earlier presentation we made to the Planning Commission where we explained
who Systems Control is and made sure of the inspection program. All the
different requirements that have been placed on us by the PCA. The fact
that it was a competitive process to get there and then we went through all
of the site diagrams and pictures of this location. Mr. Klugman did his
analysis without the facts about the McDonald's. One of the questions
asked was what is the traffic that McDonald's actually generates and so we
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 2, 1991 - Page 8
went out and counted it because we thought that was a legitimate question
that neighbors had a right to know about. A second specific concern which
was raised was a concern about headlights as people leave the site
projecting into the homes to the south, and you see the staff
recommendation as a result of that. That we try to put berming and foliage
1 in there to alleviate that and we're in agreement with that recommendation.
Questions were raised about traffic afterwards and we continue to try to
ask those questions. Some people were concerned about the relative height
' of the structure and suggested that we lowered it somewhat by lowering the
area it was on. It turned out when we got the plans out with Mr. Krzywicki
that we had shaved more than 2 feet off the existing height of the site in '
an effort to level it off a little bit so I thought we had addressed that
one but if there are others, we'd be happy to have the neighbors come up
and address them now and we'll continue to try to address them.
Conrad: Any comments from the neighbors anybody?
Tom Kotsonas: Tom Kotsonas and I live at 8001 Cheyenne and one of the
neighbors that attended the other meeting. And the summary that was given
is I would say is fairly accurate of our concerns. Basically since we've
been here before dealing with other businesses that have gone into the
area, we're concerned with the amount of traffic. We see this bringing in
a "huge" amount of traffic on a continual basis. Their hours are going to
be, I forget what time they said they open in the morning but they're going
to go to 7:00 p.m. in the evening which of course during the summertime and
11 the weather when it's nice, people like to be out in their yards. We're
looking at a large volume of traffic with McDonald's already and this is
going to add since this is the time that people are getting out of work and
it's most convenient for them to come in and have their car checked.
Saturdays are going to be open from sometime in the morning until
approximately 2:00 p.m. in the afternoon. That's another day that adds to
the large amount of traffic that other types of businesses would not be
' open at that time necessarily. They refer to all the types of businesses
that would go in there would be fast foods, which of course our
neighborhood would wish not to see that become a fast food lane. Or
traffic bearing another gas station or service station or restaurant type
thing. There are other types of businesses that would go in there that
would nowhere near generate the kind of traffic that they're talking about
' generating. We do feel somewhat better if there's some serious attempt to
put in vegetation, trees or various types of things on the south side. Of
course we realize that's private land along that stretch. The road has
already, the new road that's gone in there, the widening and expanding of
it, took out some protection that was there already. And also some things
that they're talking about putting in on the north side. Basically it's
what we see is a large amount of traffic bordering on a residential
' neighborhood and we see that as a detriment to the neighborhood. Visual
effects, it's hard to tell from pictures exactly. We see this as a
glorified gas station I guess is the best way I can put it. It's going to
be all kinds, if it's not trucks but I mean it's all kinds of vehicles
coming in there. There's noise that's going to affect us and we're looking
at, when I get done working at 4:00 -5:00 in the afternoon to 7:00 in the
evening, this is when we're going to be looking at a fair amount of traffic
' with the expansion of the highway. With McDonald's and anything else that
goes in in addition to this in the future and then we're looking at
11
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 2, 1991 - Page 9 1
Saturday traffic until I think it was 2 :00 p.m. they're talking about on
Saturdays that they're going to be open. So I guess that's our concerns on"
that area. Thank you.
Conrad: Okay. Thank you for your comments.
Tom Kotsonas: Oh, one other thing. One of the reasons, and whether or not
you agree. One of the reasons the neighborhood is not here in larger
numbers is that there is a definite feeling, and this is a negative
statement but there is a definite feeling that it doesn't really do much
good for people to come and speak at these meetings because everything
that's happened in the past, there's lip service given to things but II nothing ever really takes place as far as we see accommodations. I don't
mean to, I guess it is a negative statement and that's the way the
neighborhood feels and so there are two of us here and the same thing at
the meeting that we attended before. Half a dozen people but it's tough toll
get the rest of the people out because they feel, well why go.
Conrad: Many things take energy and the neighborhoods that stick with
issues sometimes make changes. And again, I don't want to appear too
defensive on your comments because I think there's, anytime you deal with
government, you know it's like boy. How do I get control over what they're ll
doing? That's probably why some of us are serving here is to feel that it
can be sensitive. Yet most of the time when you want it to be sensitive,
you've got to get there in advance. It's like you should be talking about
the comprehensive plan and is this the right area for highway business use II
which is what that land, this is one development, and there are going to be
several more because we've always allocated that space for business. What
we call highway business uses. 1
Tom Kotsonas: Not always. When 1 moved into that neighborhood it was
zoned residential and so the people that live along that stretch were not ,
looking at this highway use and it seems that when we appeared in large
numbers to protest that, it's business highway. When McDonald's moved in,
we appeared in large numbers for a considerable length of time and it
turned out the same so we put great amounts of effort, time and financial II
dollars into all of those things. The results were the same as if people
had stayed home so when you say you have to get out and do your thing, I
understand. The squeaky wheel usually gets oiled, we'd like to think.
Conrad: It gets you involved in government but I know what you're saying.
Other comments? Anything else?
Batzli moved, Ellson seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Conrad: Let's start down with you Tim. ,
Erhart: I'd like to point out to that gentleman there, the reason we're
here tonight is that citizens opposed the construction of this site in an II
industrial park and so pressure was brought there not to put it there.. -.
and talk against it so I think the fact that you're here tonight underlines
the fact that I think the City does listen. One of the reasons... With
that little comment, I'll start. Dave what, the pond and you have some
Planning Commission Meeting
January 2, 1991 - Page 10
complicated way of getting water off of the site. It sounds like it's not
' going to work perfectly. Dave, you're responsible for that?
Folch: Charles? -
' Erhart: Charles? Where'd I get Dave. Okay, anyway. Why, page 9, can you
explain under grading and drainage? I didn't quite understand... It was
talking about drainage of storm water and water backing up into the parking
lot.
Folch: Well basically initially it was looked at as trying to create one
11 location to drain the entire vehicle inspection site and that typically
looked to be located adjacent to the wetland area. However due to grade
limitations it wasn't possible to accomplish that so in an effort to try
and develop a satisfying drainage scheme the site was basically broken up
into 3 areas for drainage. The northern half of the site which will
contain pretty much the area north of the building, which is impervious.
That area was designed to drain north to the existing highway ditch. Now
' most of that area currently does drain that way and so with the grading
scheme it seemed to work out well. As our ordinance requires, a site
developing has to maintain a predeveloped runoff rate and typically that
' occurs with ponding. In this particular situation, you'll notice the
northern half of the site there's no room to really construct any type of
ponding situation so what the applicant proposed to do was restrict the
flow rate with a pipe size restriction and thereby during certain peak
storm events, there will be some minimal ponding occurring in the pavement
area up there. We're talking minimum. Maybe a few inches of water depth
for a short period of time in that area.
Erhart: Why can't you use the area designated as the swamp?
Folch: Pardon me?
Erhart: Why can't you make this, what you desiginate on the drawing as a
swamp. Why can't you make that into a ponding area?
Folch: The existing wetland area?
Erhart: Yeah.
Folch: Well typically an area that you have like that we'd normally want
to see some type of pre - treatment of the runoff going to that wetland area.
Right now it's mostly impervious area that's draining to it. When you
drain parking lot areas which contain gasoline and oils and things like
that, you normally don't want to discharge those directly into a wetland
' and so what we had originally.
Erhart: Where's it going to go to on the storm water?
Folch: Pardon me?
Erhart: So it enters the storm water going north right?
Folch: Uh-huh.
Planning Commission Meeting
January 2, 1991 - Page 11
Erhart: Okay, where does that go?
Folch: Well initially it will just discharge into the ditch area on the
south side of TH 5. In the future MnDot, the TH 5 improvement project is
proposing to" construct a storm sewer through there which this °system will
tie directly into. 1
Erhart: Okay, so where does that storm water system go to?
Folch: I believe that will drain, there's an existing 42 inch that runs 1
north /south along the easterly border of the property and I believe that
all drains down south. I believe it is to another wetland area north -of
Rice Marsh Lake I believe.
Erhart: What controls the level of the water in this wetland now?
Folch: Basically what runs into it. There's no outlet for it.
Krauss: There was a fundamental problem with using the wetland. That was II
originally our approach and direction to the applicant. We want to keep
enough water in the wetland that it remains viable. The problem with the
wetland though Commissioner Erhart is that it's elevated too high. When
you're out at the site, you actually see that the wetland's tipped up at
the higher edge of the site and the rest of it flows down the other way and
it just wasn't physically possible to drain the site into that thing and
then have it discharge. To do that you would have had to excavate out the II
wetland and made a big sump out of it and you would have destroyed the
natural feature.
Erhart: I don't know how much excavation. 1
Krauss: It was fairly significant. I don't recall exactly how much but it
was in the realm of 5 or 6 feet. 1
Erhart: ...higher on the north end. Well, anyway you looked at that.
Krauss: That was our first preference. ,
Erhart: ...try to maintain water on site as much as possible rather than
directing the storm water. It just seemed to me without looking at the
elevations...a missed opportunity to retain more water on the site as well
as improve the wetland because it really is, in going out there last summer
and looking at it, I remember that was a poor quality wetland. 1
Krauss: It was but it's actually made a startling recovery either because
of McDonald's putting more water into it or the fact that there was more
water last year. It's turned out to be quite attractive and in fact the
owner of McDonald's, Gene Borg is quite partial to it these days. He's put
a wetland theme into the McDonald's restaurant.
Erhart: The problem without water control you never know from year to year
what they're going to end up with.
11
Planning Commission Meeting
January 2, 1991 - Page 12
Krauss: We did ask the developer though to structure this plan so that at
least as much if not a little more water than feeds into that wetland today
will continue to do so. They've got the building itself and a portion of
the southern parking lot flowing into the wetlands so it will continue to
get water.
Erhart: Well I think the location here is pretty much superior than the
previous location. I empathize with the neighbors. The fact that we have
' access here from both Dell Road and Dakota makes it a much more viable site
than what I said all along was a glorified gas station. It's better than
what we were talking about before. I also agree that I think a cul -de -sac
would be a real problem because you really don't have, it's difficult to
' control...I don't know how you're going to accomplish that. Normally we
kind of like to look at those things as far as site plan review and we
won't be able to do that tonight so I guess without development of the
1 other site, I'm not sure how we're going to, are you going to try to plan
that in advance how you would access to the two other parcels or how are
you actually going to lay out the internal?
' Krauss: Well what we were going to do is set up this driveway so that it
basically runs straight into this property and then as we envisioned it, we
T off future connections to that. Right now Lot 2 is proposed as one lot.
It's very conceiveable that it will be divided in half. If that's the
case, they will probably have to share a common entrance onto this private
driveway. You'll have an opportunity to review that however when they
actually propose development on there. _
Erhart: So you'd still put a curve in or create...?
' Krauss: That remains to be seen. However, the reason for the curve is
there was a desire to maximize the amount of land on Lot 2 so that the
drive, the street got pushed over as far west as possible. Then it needed
' to curve to enter into the Systems Control site properly so that problem
would probably still exist.
' Erhart: The landscaping on the south side. That's just on Lot 1 right?
Krauss: Well we believe the plat may be in error there. That there is
property located south of Lake Drive that's owned by the property owner
that we believe is part of this parcel. It's just severed at this point.
It's on the south side of the right -of -way and we're going to see, if the
survey is in error, that that should have been included because it is part
of the property. We'll have them make that change but we understand that
it is owned by Mr. Hagan which was one of the parties that owns the
property.
1 Erhart: Okay. Well it sounds like there's some confusion there...going
right up the street, I wasn't sure how you were going to deal with that.
' Krauss: There's basically a 3 tier level of protection if you will for
buffering the neighborhood. What we've done is had Systems Control design
in a berm and landscaping on the south portion of their site. At this
' point then down here you have the wetland which is green and open. The
landscaping itself that we envisioned would actually be on, you know the
1
Planning Commission Meeting
e tang
January 2, 1991 - Page 13
street comes through here. It's actually on the other side of the street
and would be used to block any direct. '
Erhart: ...issue that that may be owned by somebody else?
Krauss: Well, it's apparently owned by the partnership that owns this '
entire site at this time.
Erhart: 5o you think you can resolve that? 1
Krauss: I think so, yes.
Erhart: Lastly I guess on the roof, it's be nice to have a mansard roof. II
On the other hand, I think the applicant has got a pretty good point that
it's not exactly common in that area. I'm not sure that that requirement
should stand so I'll wait for comments from the other commissioners. Other 11
than that, I think this is an improvement. I couldn't quite face going
through the whole thing again a second time so I'll let Steve move on it.
It looks good. '
Emmings: With regard to the roof, well what is your response? The fact
that we don't have them on all buildings in town. We don't have anything
that requires them on all buildings in town. Why here?
Krauss: Why here? A few reasons. There really has been an architectural '
theme that's been developed over time in and around downtown Chanhassen.
Simply because some buildings were built prior to that or don't incorporate
that, I don't believe that's rationale not to do it in the future. I mean
we've often learned that there's better ways of doing things. I understand!'
Systems Control's rationale about kind of doing this as a franchise. I
mean they all look alike but that's what I hear from every fast food
establishment that walks in the door. You know we have to have a bright
orange building or it has to have arches. Well you find over time that
they learn that it doesn't have to. It has to have some architectural
symbolism so that people recognize it for what it is but they adapt these
things to fit into the context that it belongs in. When we look at some of!'
the buildings in this area. Well McDonald's obviously has a mansard roof
because it's part of their architectural theme. We have the Hanus building
up on a hill across the street. We've talked to that property owner on
several occasions about addressing, you know they're talking about
renovating the site and addressing the architecture of the building since
it's just a block building at this point is one of the things that's been II raised periodically. I also spoke to the planners over in Minnetonka who
have a site being proposed and 1 don't know if they've carried through on
it but they indicated to me that they had a similar concern about the
roofline and were probably going to make a similar recommendation. I don't"
know if that's actually been done yet but that's what I was told before
Christmas. So the long and the short of it is, I think there is a
consistency that we're trying to promote in downtown.. Flat roof buildings
in my view, and it's subjective, are intrinsically unattractive and it's
something that's relatively easy to fix and I don't think that they lose
that architectural continuity in doing that.
1
11 Planning Commission Meeting
January 2, 1991 - Page 14
Emmings: I don't really have any other comments. The staff report was
' really thorough. I thought you did a good job and I guess I support the
staff report...
Conrad: Annette?
Ellson: I have a couple of questions of the applicant. People can use any
of the facilities, isn't that correct? I mean if they worked in Richfield
' ...that facility. Is that why the lunch hour is so busy? Because people
go during work? I was really surprised to see that the peak time is the
lunch.
Dennis Palmer: That's our guess. You can generally tie it in with some
other area of surveys...
' Ellson: So when you have this brochure, it's going to talk about all 11
locations to every household so that people can decide well this is by my
work and this is by my home and things like that? Are all the locations
' going to have the exact same hours?
Dennis Palmer: Yes.
' Ellson: And is it really peak from that 6:00 to 7:00 or something like
that? I know that this neighborhood is concerned about the later hours. I
don't know if you really gain a lot by having it open that much more later?
Dennis Palmer: We're open to 7:00 only two nights a week and 5:30 the
other two nights. We stagger the two days...people who can't get there by
I 5:30.
Ellson: Okay, so out of the week there's only 2 nights that it will be
open until 7:00?
Dennis Palmer: Yeah, 2 nights until 7:00 and 2 nights until 5:00...
' Ellson: You can eat your dinner on the patio for a couple nights anyway.
I was concerned, I have a question of staff. The applicant talked about a
couple of the conditions that were out of their control like the 2(c) and
number 6 of the site plan review. Basically they said that they don't have
' control of the signage. That it would have to be MnDot. Is it a problem
writing it in? I mean how do we enforce such a thing if they're claiming
that they can't control that number (c) is followed through and implemented
' or they can't control that some landscaping will be done. That there's
another landowner involved. How do we make sure that sort of thing gets
done? Can we hold them accountable even though they're not under their
11 control?
Krauss: Well I think so for a couple of reasons, and I'll modify that a
little bit but the idea of signage on TH 5 wasn't initially our idea. It
' was System Controls and we just thought it was a fine idea and decided that
since it was something that they raised and we agreed with, that we would
make it a commitment to carry through on. Sharmin has contacted MnDot and
' why don't you.
Planning Commission Meeting
January 2, 1991 - Page 15
Al -Jaff: They said there should be no problems putting up signage on their
public right -of -way. If we could just indicate where we would want them
and if they don't interfere with traffic, they will provide them.
Krauss: So if we wanted to tailor that condition so that it was made
specific to MnDot's approval, that's fine because that's where it gets out II
of their hands but this was originally their proposal.
Ellson: What about the landscaping?
Krauss: The landscaping, well you know this property, there are 3
interests involved in this review. There's the City and our interest. ,
There's the applicant's and their's and then there's the property owners
who are selling the property. It's been tough bringing the property owners
and the partnership that owns the property. The partnership and Systems
Control together on this but they're both involved in this application and
they both jointly signed the thing and the conditions are jointly
applicable to both of them. This plat, if it's approved, is going to have
these requirements in there and if they don't fulfill those conditions, the"
thing doesn't get built if you approve it. I think that's something that
they need to iron out.
Ellson: In other words, you have to tell them the deal's off unless I can
meet all the conditions of the city and things such as that and then that
would be the same as 2(e) in the subdivision where they're concerned about
the right -of -way as being something that isn't in their control and you're
saying that's sort of the same thing?
Krauss: It's one plat. We're not dealing with one lot of the plat. We're
dealing with the entire parcel.
Ellson: Okay. As to the roof, I can understand that everybody wants them
just like the same but I think Chanhassen is better than the rest of the
suburbs and I think that we deserve to have the best looking building of
all of them. And 1 don't think that a building with 6 stalls or 4 stalls
will be easily misrepresented just because the roofline's a little bit
different. but I don't think we should short change ourselves and go with a II
flat roof if we can get it up front to look a little nicer. Those are my
concerns and questions. There's one more thing. That drive aisle. He was
a little concerned about it. 1 guess maybe we should clarify. What do you'
mean by drive aisles?
Krauss: If we could flip it up and we'd be fully happy, or we'd be
agreeable to working with Mr. Rockenstein in getting a document that
illustrates it. What we want to maintain on the site is that, it's clear
that the public cul -de -sac or the private driveway needs to remain
unobstructed and the entrance needs to remain unobstructed and the ability II
of cars to circulate in and around the parking lot needs to remain
unobstructed. From this point north and around towards the garage doors,
that's all stacking distance. They can stay there to their heart's
content. It's the portions of the site that are going to convey traffic
exiting and entering that we're most concerned with.
t
Planning Commission Meeting
January 2, 1991 - Page 16
Ellson: So long as you both get down what drive aisle means to each other
and is agreeable. I like it. I think it's a good example of us bringing
1 out concerns that I know I was concerned about it being in the office park
and I felt this would be a better type of location along the highway
anyways so I thought this was a good compromise.
Conrad: Brian?
Batzli: How close to the wetland are we here on this site?
' Krauss: The site itself maintains or exceeds the 75 foot setback. The
road is closer but that is consistent with the ordinance.
Batzli: So we're more than 75 feet away?
Krauss: Yes.
' Batzli: Charles, if we were to put some sort of skimmer to help drain the
water off of the impervious towards the wetland, would that...water up
' enough to drain it towards the wetland?
Folch: I still think we'd run into a problem basically with grades. We
I just don't have enough fall to get the, even if we tried to discharge it
directly, it wouldn't have enough fall to get a storm sewer in and
outletted at the pond.
' Batzli: I guess I thought the traffic information was interesting. I
guess I had a tough time, and maybe your traffic person can clarify this.
It seems to me that when you're talking about gas stations and you're
' talking about banks and fast food facilities, not all of those trips are
equivalent to the trips that this facility will see. In my own mind think
that this will bring more trips into the community whereas a gas station is
sort of something you kind of do on your way home. Fast food, there's
enough McDonald's that you're not going to be driving from Minnetonka into
the area to go to McDonald's. Can you address that at all as far as, did
you take a look at actually how many trips you're going to be adding that,
or bringing trips from outside the community into the community?
Folch: Staffwise we didn't actually do a traffic analysis on this site.
' That might be a question where you could refer to the applicant's engineer.
Traffic engineer.
' Batzli: Did you look at that? Can you comment?
Alan Klugman: If I could put up one overhead and then I'll speak from
here. The point you're making in reference to say a gas station or fast
l food restaurant or really any retail use is correct. That oftentimes we
look at two things. There -'s the site trip generation and then there's the
number of new trips to the roadway system. What it really comes down to
' that whatever element you're looking at, say it's an intersection, you
merely have to see how many trips are new and how they change their vehicle
pattern. If I could explain. If a trip is traveling from the west on TH 5
to the east and he diverts to the McDonald's, on TH 5 he's not an added
trip. Either east or west of the intersection. It is a new turn onto the
1
Planning Commission Meeting
II
January 2, 1991 - Page 17
highway okay? And so in terms of what you're saying, for an impact or II
additional traffic to TH 5, you are correct that the fast food or the gas
station would not, all the trips generated to those are not new trips. Foil
this site many of them will be but for the actual analysis that we did, we
assume that they're all new trips and treated them as new movements at the
intersection - with TH 5. Based on those percentages, if we take our peak
hour movements which are approximately 76 in the p.m. peak hour and you
apply the various percentages there and treat them all as new trips, for noll
individual movement are we adding more than 10 or 20 trips to that
particular movement. So we did consider that.
Batzli: So your peak hour was how many trips?
Alan Klugman: During the peak hour of the site? 1
Batzli: Yeah.
Alan Klugman: Peak hour of the site is approximately, on the busiest day 11
of the month is approximately 176 trips in the peak hour of the site which
is right before the noon hour. '
Batzli: So if you're bringing 40% of them in on TH 5, you're adding 40% of
176 turning movements into the site?
Alan Klugman: Well, let's round the 176 to 180. So 180 trips is 90 into II
the site. Right. Now 40 %, as you're saying 40% of 180 would be, excuse me
40% of 90 would be about 36 trips. Our assumption is that of the 40% II coming from the east, approximately half of them would divert at the 184th
intersection so approximately 20 trips for any one movement as we approach,
you know maximum of 20 trips for any one movement as we approach the site. II
Batzli: Well, how does that assumption square with I think there might be
some representation made and you can dispute this that on the map you're
going to try and get people to divert to one intersection rather than equal"
number to both.
Alan Klugman: No. On the map we would show where the site is located in II
the metropolitan area and what the major approaches are to it. It is our
assumption that from the east some would divert to the 184th and some would
go to Dakota Avenue.
II
Batzli: So in other words, on the map you're really not intending to show
a preference for one of the two intersections at all?
Dennis Palmer: We'll work with the City and show which is most favorable II
to the City. The State has to give it's final approval.
Batzli: Yeah, I understand that. II
Dennis Palmer: ...either access. We don't prefer either access. 11 Batzli: I guess I had two more questions for the applicant. Is it
intended at all that this facility might be expanded during the contract
period with the State? Will it be expanded? 1
II
Planning Commission Meeting
January 2, 1991 - Page 18
Dennis Palmer: The contract requires that we expandability. We recognize
that what we're asking here for is the facility. There is room to expand
but we also recognize that we've got to come before this body again to get
approval.
' Batzli: Okay. And then how often.
Dennis Palmer: I might add, it's never happened in any of the programs.
It's just a safety valve. There's a 200% plus capacity the average daily
' volume.
Batzli: That leads me to my next question. How often are you actually
' running at 100% with your test equipment?
Dennis Palmer: At each hour...
I Batzli: What is your up time for your test equipment though? I mean
are you up 95% of the time? Because looking at the stacking measurements,
looking at all these things, you're assuming that all your equipment is
' running at all times and your equipment isn't breaking down so you're
operating with for instance one lane.
' Stan Krzywicki: My name is Stan Krzywicki... Originally hired an
equipment maintenance manager in the Maryland program and in those
facilities...at any one time for any other reason... The individual
equipment we had specifically learned in...and that is not unique to the
' Maryland program. That is typical in the Illinois program as well as the
Washington state program. Actually the equipment is calibrated every hour
to make sure it's accurate.
a Batzli: Okay. The last thing I was going to ask about, I guess of the
staff or applicant. It doesn't matter. On this berm when you're coming
through the inspection facility, wouldn't it make more sense to put
' evergreens on the berm rather than ash or something that may not be totally
blocking for the headlights and things?
Krauss: Commissioner Batzli, which berm are we talking about? The new one
that's being proposed south of Lake Drive is coniferous.
Batzli: No. The one above the swamp if you will.
Krauss: That gets to be a subjective judgment. I think there you're going
to want some mix of vegetation for aesthetic reasons and also so it blocks
a little bit of the building too. The conifers don't typically grow very
high. But we'd be happy to listen to any suggestions.
I Batzli: I guess I'd make the berm double wide and add more permanent green
stuff in there personally. My last comment is that in number 4 I think the
drainage plans should be revised and submitted to the City staff for
approval. The mansard roof, I think if we want to include that on more
buildings, I think we should talk about it and come up with some sort of
rationale as to when we would apply it and when we wouldn't. And in
condition 9. Does the words, "have 4 stalls or more" add anything to that
' condition or can we just put a period after the word, maybe even after the
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 2, 1991 - Page 19
word building code.
Al -Jaff: Building code requires any operation that has 4 stalls or more. II
Batzli: I understand that but I think the applicant said that they would
provide it and they're only going to have 3 stalls. '
Krauss: No, they actually have 4.
Batzli: They have 4, okay. ,
Krauss: They have the fourth one around the corner.
Batzli: That's right. I don't know. I guess I'd delete it just for
clarity but that's okay. That's all I have.
Conrad: Jeff. I
Farmakes: I have a question for staff. The property south of the proposed
site. It's shown as a very narrow strip on the land use piece. How viable ,
of a piece of property is that to develop once you get done with setbacks?
Krauss: We actually have to look into that and we also have the potential II
of using some of the boulevard area in the right -of -way for some of that so
there's a potential it could spill over into the public property as well.
But we need to get some better information on that.
Farmakes: Right now as I understand it or what I saw was that those are
fairly large pine trees that sort of work their way all along Chan Estates
there. Is that, I looked at it and it looked very narrow and once you got II
done with setbacks I was wondering how, is it a developable piece of
property?
Krauss: Well there are no setbacks that are applied to a berm. We can put"
it wherever it fits. In the given area we may not be able to get one as
sufficiently high as we'd like. There is an alternative means of doing
this if the owners of the homes nearby are amenable. I've been involved
with projects where if there wasn't room to do it on the property, that the
partnership owns or in conjunction with City right -of -way, that if the
owners of the property are amendable to it, that you can plant trees in
their back yard up against that property line.
Farmakes: Right now, as 1 understand it, there's just trees along the edge ll
and then sort of just flat. I mean it's just sitting there. The other
question that I had was, has the owner indicated any use for that property
at all to you?
Krauss: You mean on the far side of the street?
Farmakes: Yes. ,
Krauss: No. It's not a developable piece of ground.
1
' Planning Commission Meeting'
January 2, 1991 - Page 20
' Farmakes: Okay. I guess my comment on this plan would also be to see more
evergreen along berm as it comes out there. I know the comment was about
' lights being, in the evening are shining into the homes that are south
of TH 5 but it would certainly help that in the wintertime when it gets
dark earlier. I also agree that because of the sensitivity of that issue,
we're going to have a very large highway very, very close to 'single family
' residents and I think that the roof issue would certainly help visibility.
Tone it down a bit from what I would expect to see in an industrial park I
guess is where it with persona non grata. I think that that would soften
' things down a bit, at least if I was in the neighborhood. It's unfortunate
that this has occurred here. I think the problem was a long time ago when
this was platted there should have been a buffer there and there was not.
The single family homes are too close to the highway. I think that if the
builder could make a concession there it would help. That's all I have to
say.
Conrad: Joan?
Ahrens: I liked this facility on the other site. I know it's not going to
' be raised again but I thought it was, I would rather have this impact a few
businesses than impact residential areas. There's going to be the
Schroer's farm which is just south of the service road right behind the
line of businesses. What is that over there? Where CPT used to be.
1 Krauss: DataServ.
' Ahrens: DataServ. That's all going to be residential back in there too.
Krauss: South of DataSery is Eden Prairie and that's residential there.
1 Ahrens: I know. I know it's Eden Prairie but it is going to be, I'm still
concerned about them even though they're in Eden Prairie. That's all going
to be residential and I think that this is going to have an impact on Eden
Prairie and Chanhassen residential and I liked the other site much better.
I'm sorry to see it's moving. I have a question about TH 5 improvements
and I don't understand something. How will the improvements impact the
' landscaping on the north side of the site? Is the highway going to move
south or north?
Krauss: This parcel, this plan was designed with the foreknowledge of what
those improvements involved. If you see that triangular sliver of land
outlined as TH 5, that's a chunk of this existing parcel that under the
plat would be dedicated for right -of -way for the highway. So it was
designed as I say, with the foreknowledge of how the highway was going to
sit and everything being developed from a landscaping standpoint is on
their property inside that new property line.
Ahrens: I have a question about drainage which I guess I still don't
understand. Part of the property is going to be drained into the wetland
right?
' Folch: That's correct.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 2, 1991 - Page 21
Ahrens: And is that going to be draining from the impervious area onto the
wetland?
Folch: No. That will primarily be Sharmin if you could put up that site
plan again. It's primarily going to be impervious area immediately south
of the building and around the wetland area and there will be a portion
actually of the site immediately west of the building that will also drain II
down to the wetland area but primarily it will be impervious area, grassed
area. '
Ahrens: So there's no concern about pre - treating whatever's flowing into
the wetland?
Folch: No.
Ahrens: As far as the roof goes, I think it's more attractive to not have II
a flat roof just because I don't like, it's a completely subjective comment
but I don't like to drive down the highway and see everything with flat
roofs. I just don't think it's attractive and I don't think just because
we haven't required it in the past doesn't mean we can't do it now so I
don't have any problem with that. I think the staff report was very good
by the way. 1 thought it was very complete. I think the applicant's
comment on point 6 under the conditional use permit is reasonable. I don't"
think that, I think we should protect them from any over zealousness in
monitoring what they're doing on the property and if it is a concern of the
city, that there may be some non - compliance going on. Then if it proves II that they are in compliance with whatever laws, then they pay for it. If
not, I think that's reasonable. That's it.
Conrad: Okay, thanks Joan. Tell me about Dell Road. That will be built II
when? When do we have?
Krauss: Next summer. '
Conrad: Next summer. And it will be signaled?
Krauss: Yes.
Conrad: Okay. The neighbors are concerned about traffic and the bottom
line is, there's going to be even more traffic or things are going to go
there whether it be this or something else. And obviously this applicant
can come in and say there's enough, we can handle the traffic load that
they're going to generate. The study, was there a study? There must have II
been when we started putting in Dell Road and improving, that would justify
so many turns and so many, such and such a traffic count for the highway
business area. Do we have a study that says how many we can handle? ,
Krauss: Mr. Chairman, I'm not certain. Certainly there was a feasibility
study done for Lake Drive improvements which we've rebuilt that road over
the past summer and it's designed with the foreknowledge that not only are
were you going to get commercial development on this site but that the area
around DataSery is going to develop with industrial office so it was
designed with that capacity in mind. That information was conveyed to
MnDot and when they designed Dell Road and redesigned Dakota, they designedll
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 2, 1991 - Page 22
it with that kind of capacity mind.
xty in end.
Conrad: So the next time somebody comes in and wants to put another
facility in right next to this property, we're going to feel comfortable
that basically the study's been done by or us on Lake Drive? That it
still has capacity? How many more developments can go in this particular
location?
' Krauss: On this particular parcel, they're dividing it into two lots right
now. I think it's reasonable to think that that Lot 2, depending on what
goes there, could be further subdivided in half. Under the BH district you
can have fast food establishments. You can have gas stations. Various
things like that. If you get an office building, they may take the entire
property. In talking to the owners, they don't have a buyer for that
parcel yet so it's kind of hard to tie them down to what's going to happen.
' From a traffic standpoint though, frankly I think that that's going to pale
in comparison to what's going to be going up down the street on the
DataSery property. DataServ, I don't know if it's common knowledge yet but
DataSery is now marketing portions of that site for industrial office
development. They were initially holding the whole thing for their own
growth. They are still holding onto a substantial portion of it but they
are going to be marketing it and 1 understand that there's quite a bit of
interest in it. Now as you get over to the east, more of that traffic's
going to be oriented to Dell Road but some of it's going to approach it
from the west. We knew that when Lake Drive was designed and we knew that
' when we gave information to MnDot on the highway design. Traffic reports
on a case by case basis are real misleading because you'll often find that
no one development ever breaks the back of the traffic system unless you're
talking about the Metrodome or something like that. You know it's an
' incremental thing. We believe that we've handled it as best we can. I'll
be the first to admit, Dakota even when it's rebuilt is rebuilt with some
compromises in mind. You know it's not built to the standard that you
' might have wanted because there's a McDonald's sitting in the way on one
side and there's a gas station on the other but they are getting in all the
full turn movements that they wanted to get and it is fully signalized and
the redesign of TH 101 on the north side over there is going to help quite
a bit too. 5o yeah, the long and the short of it is, we think we have a
handle on it, yes.
' Conrad: So when the next developer comes in on the parcel that's being
split off and they have an equivalent type traffic pattern to what we're
seeing tonight, we're still going to feel comfortable that the traffic can
be handled?
Krauss: We should, yes.
Conrad: I had some similar concerns about the wetland. I think I hear
staff's comments about why it is. I think I feel like Tim. It seems like
a missed opportunity. It's like we're doing something that's going to
handle it but, there's two sides of things. There's no presettling into
the wetland which we should have if we did it right. Yet on the other hand
we had, it looked like we had a chance to improve the wetland and really
make it a very nice asset. It's probably going to be an asset in the long
run anyway but it's just sort of one of those things that I do hear the
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 2, 1991 - Page 23 1
staff report. I understand why you designed the drainage patterns the way
you did but 1 don't have a solution to my concern. I guess that's the
bottom line. I generally like the location. I like the business. I like II
this in this - particular location. I like how it looks. I like the
separation that was enforced in there by the wetland and the location that II
the building had to go significantly far enough away from the residential
neighborhood where the testing site is. I think there's some nice things
about it. Have a few other particular concerns however. The roof. We
don't have standards on architectural design. We have building codes but II
we really don't have design standards do we? We don't brick or better type
of standards. We don't regulate architecture.
Krauss: No we don't but we do have an architectural review component in
the site plan and that was reiterated somewhat when we redid the site plan
review about a year ago. You're fully capable on good standing to look at II
building architecture and require some changes. Building architecture is
not something to make or break a proposal but it is something that the site
plan ordinance does allow you to deal with.
Conrad: But you know developers can't stand the City tampering with
architecture. Beauty's in the eye of the beholder so we're just going to,
what's the rationale? The rationale is we've started to tamper with
architectural design and therefore we can continue it and it's defensible? II
Krauss: I would use some different wording. I fundamentally believe that II
architectural review is a legitimate extension of what we do when we look
at site plans.
Conrad: But our standard now is you're telling me is a mansard roof on '
everything.
Krauss: I would accept a peaked roof as well. I mean there are lots of
design alternatives to a flat roof. When we were, for example when
Hardee's was looking at the Hanus site, we told Hardee's that you cannot
put a bright orange building in downtown Chanhassen. It just won't fly.
The Hanus building we've described, we've attempted to work out some
solutions for that. It's become a fairly recurrent theme in our community
and in others.
Conrad: Well do we need standards? Do we need, you know, I don't want
developers thinking that we're wills nilly on this and we're not because
I've been here long enough to know that we really don't do a whole lot of
direction. We do enough to make sure that we have some quality projects
out there but do we need some different design standards that guide us or
are they there Paul?
Krauss: No, specific standards are not there and that was somewhat
intentional because I have not seen a good set of specific design
guidelines that work in every instance. You know I think Minneapolis and 11
possibly Mr. Rockenstein's more familiar with it than I, you know
Minneapolis was reeling from the fiasco of City Center and they're talking
about, if they haven't already done it, setting up an architectural review
panel. You know sort of an adjunct to a planning function. I don't think
we need to go to that extent. In fact we have two people on the Planning
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 2, 1991 - Page 24
Commission who have design backgrounds and some interaction with that. It
is a subjective judgment and I wouldn't encourage you to go too far off the
deep end into it but this I don't think is all that significant a change.
One other instance where we did exact some improvement in building design
' was on the Roberts Automatic site plan which was for a factory building.
We didn't get a peaked roof there but we got better design features in
terms of window mullions and entrances and the Council was very cooperative
in backing that up. So this is not the first time we've done it.
Conrad: Okay. I'm a little bit uncomfortable. You want low profile roofs
so what we've talking about is peaking the roofs. Adding to the profile.
What's your feeling? Other than not having it there.
Tom Kotsonas: Aesthetically I think the roof, a peaked roof would look
' better than...
Conrad: So based on lower profile, we've got it pretty low profile right
now from what I can tell seeing some renditions and elevations but if we
add a little bit of height, that's not going to bother the neighborhood if
it aesthetically improves it to our?
Tom Kotsonas: I think the neighborhood...fact of life that it's going
there, then the better it looks, the better off it's...everyday looking at
it. If it's flat and looks like "a glorified garage "...gas station, could
make it aesthetically look better it helps us in that area.
Erhart: Maybe I can help out. I've listened to this now as we've gone
around and I took the first position of thinking that we shouldn't try to
require that but as I've heard the commissioners talk, in my mind I've
developed a rationale why we should and that is that this building is
particularly ugly in the fact that it has overhead doors. Now relative to
other kinds of buildings you're going to find in this kind of zoning which
will have a lot more glass, this building is unique and I think that in my
mind is the rationale that I will change my mind on that point and maybe it
sounds like you're looking for. What's different about this building that
we would go in and impress upon them an architectural standards that we
might not do to another building?
' Conrad: That's good enough for me. I like Brian's comments on the berm.
I think we should be pursuing the south side of the road too for berming
and for light protection from the neighborhood. The directional maps that
we don't have control over yet, we want very much. You know I want to
leave that condition in. I don't know what's enforceable in terms of the
conditional use permit in the language that we have. I understand it's
outside of everybody's control that's in this room right now yet on the
other hand I think it's really important that we off load as much onto Dell
Road as possible and a map can do that. Signage can do that. I guess I'd
like to see that there whether it's enforceable by the City or not. In
terms of the 6 month review, why do we wait 6 months? Don't most of the
problems occur in 30 days? What happens after 6 months?
Krauss: Well a couple things. First of all that was language that we took
from the final version of the new ordinance that would make these things a
conditional use. It was a standard that we discussed last fall so we just
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 2, 1991 - Page 25
applied it here. Also, I think that when issues were raised about how
these places operrt or operate in other states, Sharmin contacted those
other states and other property owners around there and it became clear
that if, it's like anything else. You know if a new restaurant opens up,
you'd rather not try it the week it opens. You want them to figure out howl'
to get organized. It would probably be punitive to do it in the first
month and 6 months allows things to settle down and take a more normal
course and probably be more representative of what's. 1
Conrad: Of the future you're saying? So rather than helping or mucking up
the works in the first 30 days when there's going to be problems, let's II make sure it's good for the future after 6 months? Okay. I buy that. I
also buy the fact or the logic of the applicant saying hey, they'll pay for
the first one. If the City wants to do more, then we should pay if there
are any problems. I like that logic. I don't think, the City didn't imply"
that we were going to do more than one and the wording is not there that we
are yet from the applicant's standpoint, that's sure an opening and I sure
don't mind what the applicant was suggesting in that regard. Those are my
comments. Anything else?
Erhart: Yeah, I have a question. Sharmin, in item 7 under the Site Plan
Review where the applicant questioned declaring permits of PCA and
Department of Health. Do you know in fact that those are required or are II
we just throwing those in there?
Folch: Maybe I can comment on that. 1
Erhart: Charles right?
Folch: That's correct. Both PCA and Department of Health permits will be
required. Department of Health comes involved when anytime you're doing a
watermain extension or construction and that is proposed on this project.
Erhart: Is that proposed or is that a requirement?
Folch: Pardon me? ,
Erhart: Is it a requirement that you get approvals from both those?
Folch: It is a requirement.
Conrad: Anything else? Is there a motion? '
Batzli: I move that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site
Plan Review #90 -11 shown on the Site Plan dated December 3, 1990 subject toll
the following conditions. Number 1 as written. Number 2, following 2(c),
the word intersection include the parenthetical, (subject to MnDot
approval). Number 3 as written except 32 feet will become 36 feet. Number
4 as written except at the end of the second sentence add the words, and
shall be submitted to city staff for approval. Number 5 as written.
Number 6 as written except the end of the second sentence add, and the berm
between the facility and the area marked "swamp ". Number 7 as written.
Number 8 as written. Number 9, insert a period after the word code and
delete the rest of the sentence.
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 2, 1991 - Page 26
Conrad: Is there a second?
1 Ellson: I'll second.
' Batzli moved, Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Site Plan REview #90 -11 as shown on the site plan dated
December 3, 1990 subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant must provide a mansard roof on the proposed building.
Plans must be submitted and must be approved by City staff. Plans
should also illustrate screening for HVAC equipment. Wood slat screens
1 are unacceptable.
2. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting any signage
' on site. Provide a sign plan incorporating the following elements:
a. Monument signage incorporating waiting time information.
b. On site directional signage as outlined in the report.
c. MnDot /Hwy 5 signage to direct westbound traffic from Eden Prairie
i to enter the site via the Dell Road /Lake Drive intersection,
(subject to MnDot approval).
' 3. Revise plans to eliminate the public street and utilize the private
driveway. The driveway shall be designed to incorporate a 36' wide
curb and gutter, storm sewer and a 9 ton design. Plans to be approved
by the City. A permanent cross easement and maintenance agreement
' acceptable to the City Attorney shall be drafted and filed against all
current and future lots in the Chan Haven Plaza 3rd Addition plat.
' 4. The applicant shall obtain a permit from the Watershed District and
comply with all conditions of the permit. Drainage plans shall be
revised as outlined in the report and shall be submitted to city staff
for approval. When the easterly portion of Chan Haven Plaza 3rd
' Addition develops in the future, the storm sewer outlet south of the
cul -de -sac shall be extended to the future detention pond and the
temporary ditch shall be eliminated.
1 5. Type III erosion control shall be used along the edge of the Class B
wetland.
6. Landscaping along the south side of Lake Drive East shall be provided
to ensure screening and provide privacy to the homeowners located to
the south of Lake Drive East. The applicant shall provide additional
landscaping along the north side of the trash enclosures and the berm
between the facility and the area marked "swamp ". The applicant shall
also provide staff with a detailed cost estimate of landscaping to be
' used in calculating the required financial guarantees. These
guarantees must be posted prior to building permit issuance.
' 7. The applicant shall construct the sanitary sewer and watermain and
street improvements in accordance with city standard specifications and
shall prepare final plans and specifications and submit for city
1
•
Planning Commission Meeting
January 2, 1991 - Page 27
approval. The applicant shall acquire a utility construction permit
from MnDot and acquire the proper permits from the Pollution Control
Agency and the Department of Health.
8. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the city andll
provide the necessary financial securities as required.
9. The applicant shall provide flammable waste separator as required by I
building code.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. '
Conrad: Is there a motion on the subdivision?
Elison: I'll move the Planning Commission recommend approval of ,
Subdivision as shown on plat dated December 3, 1990 with the conditions
listed in the staff report.
Batzli: Second.
Conrad: Was there any discussion on item (e)? I think the applicant had all
concern on (e) didn't he?
Ellson: But he was saying that was one of those things that he has to work
out with the landowner and it's in his rights to do that so that's probably ,
the best way to do that.
Emmings: It applies to the whole property, not just their property. 1
Conrad: Are you comfortable with the wordage on (3) then?
Batzli: I don't know. We didn't really talk about it much. ,
Conrad: Any other discussion?
Elison moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Subdivision as shown on the plat dated December 3, 1990 with
the following conditions: 1
1. Park and trail dedication fees to be assessed at the time building
permits are requested.
2. Provide the following easements:
a. Standard drainage and utility easements around the perimeter of all/
lots.
b. Drainage and conservation easement located over the wetland on Lot II
1.
c. Thirty foot wide utility easements centered on sanitary sewer and
watermain located outside of public rights -of -way.
I/
Planning Commission Meeting
January 2, 1991 - Page 28
d. Drainage and utility easements dedicated over Lot 2 to accomplish
1 the temporary drainage ditch and future extension of storm sewer.
e. Dedication of required right-of-way along the Hwy 5 frontage to
1 accommodate the Hwy 5 improvement project.
f. Cross access and utility easements located over the proposed
' private driveway. These easements shall run in favor of Lots 1 and
2 and any future subdivisions thereof and shall be drafted in a
manner acceptable to the City Attorney. This easement shall also
be drafted and filed concurrently with a private maintenance
1 agreement acceptable to the City.
g: There is currently a drainage easement running in favor of the City
over the northern portion of the property. This easement is no
longer required and the applicants have requested that it be
vacated by the city. Staff is recommending that this be approved,
however, this action is undertaken by the City Council and does not
require Planning Commission consideration.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
i Conrad: Conditional use permit?
' Erhart: Before we do this one, does staff have any response to the request
to remove essentially item 2? The three words, approved by staff. They
contended that those maps could not be approved by staff or shouldn't be
approved by staff. Any comment on that?
Krauss: We'd like the ability to review it before it's send to MnDot. If
that's the best we can do.
1 Erhart: Reviewed?
' Krauss: Right.
Erhart: Okay. With that I'll move approval of conditional use permit
#90 -5 subject to the following 7 conditions listed except on 2 change
the word approved to reviewed.
Conrad: Is there a second?
1 Batzli: Second.
' Ellson: Second.
Conrad: Any discussion?
1 Ahrens: I didn't hear what you said about.
Ellson: Instead of the word approved he wants reviewed right?
Erhart: I did not change 6 in that I thought the consensus was that we
would do the inspection after 6 months.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 2, 1991 - Page 29
Conrad: Right, and Joan was asking about number 2 right? '
Erhart: I change the word approved to review.
Ahrens: I was talking about 6. '
Ellson: The second line in 6 the applicant was concerned that somebody
reading that could mean 2 years down the line, if they believe there's a
problem, they could ask for it. In the way it's written, maybe it does ask!'
them for that.
Ahrens: He talked about the City paying for it. 1
Elison: Right. So maybe it should say something like after the initial '
compliance report, something about the expenses attached or is this where
we put it in?
Batzli: See I would prefer to delete that sentence in it's entirety rather'
than to commit the City to pay for the test personally.
Erhart: Yeah, I agree with Brian.
Emmings: The City can always decide to do it's own test.
Ahrens: I'll go along with that.
Erhart: So amend the motion to delete line 2, paragraph 6. Sentence 2,
paragraph 6. '
Batzli: And I'll resecond it.
Erhart moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend '
approval of Conditional Use Permit #90 -5 subject to the following
conditions:
1. Compliance with conditions of site plan and plat approval.
2. Provide direction maps reviewed by staff with each notice that vehicle
testing is due. The maps shall clearly illustrate and promote entering III
the site from Dell Road rather than Dakota Avenue.
3. Applicant is required to maintain contract to provide services with the 1
State of Minnesota.
4. No repairs to be performed or gas or parts sold at the site. '
5. No testing of diesels or heavy trucks to be performed at the site.
6. Maintain site in compliance with State and Federal air and noise 1
standards. After 6 months of operation, a compliance report shall be
prepared by the applicant and supplied to the City.
7. All vehicle stacking and parking to be in designated areas. No parking"
or stacking is allowed in fire lanes, drive aisles, access drives or
1
Planning Commission Meeting
' January 2, 1991 - Page 30
' public rights -of- -ways.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
' Conrad: These three, this project will, the site plan will go to City
Council, the 28th? The 28th of January. Thank you all for coming in.
Appreciate your time.
' ELECTION OF OFFICE OF CHAIR AND VICE - CHAIR.
' Conrad: Under new business we have election of office of chair and
vice - chair. I'll precede that just a bit. I think the last year I decided
to stay as chairman simply because we had comprehensive plan to play around
with and many thought that it was a good idea for me to continue on. I
think there is time to find somebody else amongst the 7 of us, the 6 of you
to take over as either chairman or vice - chairman. I think it's real
appropriate that different people get experience so I'd really like to take
' my name out of the running for that and I think we should offer nominations
for chairman and vice - chairman.
' Erhart: What do you think Jeff? Are you up for it?
Farmakes: Am I up for it? I don't even have a plaque yet.
' Erhart: Well I'd nominate Steve Emmings for Chairman. -
Batzli: I second it.
1 Conrad: Is there any discussion?
Batzli: I think we've done it by secret ballot.
' Conrad: Are there any other nominations? So his name is nominated. Are
there any other nominations? Tim, do you want to play a role?
Erhart: I'll play a role if people want but my nominating speech is, I
think he's the senior member here other than yourself Ladd. His attendance
is very high and I think he'll do a good job. Other than that he's an
alright guy you know.
Emmings: Can I say something on my own behalf?
Batzli: He's got to prove to be kindler and gentler though I think.
' Emmings: Well the only thing I'd like to say on my own support is the
money that I sent you in your Christmas card, you get to keep no matter how
you vote. And I don't want you to take into account the fact that I'm
dying of a very rare tropical disease and probably won't be able to finish
my term. I don't want your sympathy.
Erhart: Can I retract my nomination?
' Emmings: I'm interested in doing it. I think that there isn't anyone here
who would do it as well as Ladd has for so long and I think in a lot of
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 2, 1991 -- Page 31 1
ways Ladd ought to keep on doing it but I'd like to do it. I'd like to
have the experience of doing it and I'd like to be able to call on Ladd foil
his comments and tell him when he can talk and when he can't talk.
Conrad: I think it's real good for people to rotate into the chairman role'
and I can steer it certain ways and you have so much energy and I think
it's time for new energy to spend time up here. I think we've got a pretty
good Planning Commission so I think many of you could take this role very II
easily and perform the job and persuade the community that we're actually
paying attention to them. Are there any other nominations for Chairman?
None? Okay. So we have Mr. Emmings nominated. Are there any nominations
for Vice Chairman? Chairperson.
Batzli Tim, would you like to be Vice Chairperson again?
Erhart: Oh, I would do it again.
Ellson: I'll nominate Tim. '
Erhart: I'd be honored to do it again. On the other hand, if somebody,
Brian, if someone else would want to do it.
Batzli: I might as well say this now. I'd like to chair one meeting but I
don't want to be Vice Chair at this time. I'd like the opportunity to
chair one meeting at some time or another. '
Conrad: Can we do that? I think we can. I think we can without being
nominated or appointed as the Chairman or Vice Chairman. Okay, so Tim has II
been nominated for Vice Chairman. Is there a second?
Emmings: I'll second it.
Conrad: Okay. I don't know where I'm going with this nomination because
we've always, I don't know how we've done it in the past. I think we might
as well vote. ,
Erhart moved, Batzli seconded to appoint Steve Emmings as Chairman of the
Planning Commission for 1991. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously.
Ellson moved, Emmings seconded to appoint Tim Erhart as Vice Chairman of
the Planning Commission for 1991. All voted in favor and the motion '
carried unanimously.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Ladd Conrad noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission dated December 12,
1990 as presented.
Mayor Chmiel: Happy New Year to everybody.
Conrad: Thanks Don. Thank you all for showing up. Was there some other
reason you were all here tonight? I have to ask.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 2, 1991 -- Page 32
' Batzli: Are we going to talk about goals extensively?
Conrad: Yeah.
Batzli: Do we want somebody to stick around maybe?
Conrad: We're talking about goals of the Planning Commission tonight in a
couple minutes. I don't know. I guess what Brian is saying, do you want
to stick around and listen to us chatter a little bit more or do you want,
Don do you see a process working here for us setting some goals, bouncing
them up to you and you adding to them or deleting from them? -
' Mayor Chmiel: We're establishing, I'm setting goals for Council as well.
Give the Council some direction as to what we want to do, accomplish for
the city and I think going through your development goals, I charged
Ashworth to come back to each of the department heads and have those people
apply goals and settings as to what they feel they want to accomplish. He
' then in turn takes one of the most important goals from each one of those
department heads and then follows through on it so I'm trying to get a
little bit of consistency and direction so we can do that. I think for
each of you to come up with some goals that you see particularly, that can
be incorporated into Paul's goals...
Conrad: What we need, and we did a little bit last year. We got your
' feedback and pretty much of it was comprehensive plan oriented but out of
us tonight may come 4 or 5 goals. In my mind the fewer the better and
we'll pay attention to them but I guess what we really want you to do is
tell us that they're worth while pursuing. They make sense from the
standpoint of where you're going and where the city should be. So I guess
Brian is suggesting maybe you should stay. I don't think you should
tonight while we sort of swat them around but I guess what we need is that
' feedback saying they're right or wrong or add this or prioritize them
according to your particular needs.
' Mayor Chmiel: Anybody can call me at any time and discuss it if you would.
I'd be more than happy to but I think that should be your direction to pass
those back and forth... I don't think we need that direction or to be here
for that direction...
' Conrad: Okay, good. Thanks for being here.
' CITY COUNCIL UPDATE:
Conrad: City Council update Paul?
' Krauss: There have been no City Council meetings.
OPEN DISCUSSION: DISCUSSION OF 1991 GOALS.
Conrad: Paul, you've shared with us your goals with Ashworth.
' Krauss: The Mayor just made a reference to department heads having to
develop a goal sheet and we've had to do that for several years. What I
included in here is basically my goal statement to Don and the City Council
1
Planning Commission Meeting
g g
January 2, 1991 - Page 33 ,
which includes a reiteration of the goals that I set for the department in
1990 and what we did or didn't do on them and then established some for
1991. Now not all those are specific to tasks that the Planning Commission,
needs to do. Some of them are adminstrative in terms of how we function
internally but you should know about them anyway because they do have a I
bearing on our work and some will have a lot of repercussions or a lot of
work that you've become involved with. You know the two things that come
most quickly to mind is we've, you know on Monday night you're going to be
presenting the Comp Plan to the City Council and hopefully it will get II through the City Council relatively quickly but then we still have to get
that thing through the Metro Council and I believe that there may be some
sort of give and take dialogue there that you'll want to become involved
with and then we need to get the plan up and running. Also you've made
commitments to doing the 1995 study areas at some point as a next work
program so you'll need to undertake that. The other big work item for the
Planning Commission, we're not exactly certain how it will set up yet, is
work stemming from the surface water utility district. We envision
generating new plans for, well we don't have any plans for water, but for
water quality, wetland protection and surface water management. On two of
those, wetland protection and water quality, I think that representation ofIl
the Planning Commission is going to be very important. Now I've been
tossing these ideas around and of course since Gary Warren's left the City 11
and Gary and I were doing this in tandem, it's kind of falling on my
shoulders but I envision hopefully setting up some sort of a task force
format to work on those. Ideally with some representation from the '
Planning Commission and possibly somebody from the City Council. Some
residents off the street who have an interest in the subject and I think it
would be only fair to have some of the developers having representation on
some of that too because they're the ones we look to enact a lot of these II
things. But that will be significant and the work will be extensive and
that will probably extend over a 2 year period and I'll have to keep you
posted on that as that comes down. I'm also sending a copy, along with my
goals I'm sending a copy of the on going issue sheet attached to my memo to 11
the City Council so they know not only what my goals are but what the work
tasks are that we've talked about resolving at the Planning Commission
level. It would be useful for us if we could focus in on a few of those
and we've begun to do that but really tell us which ones we should hit
hard. Right now there's been a lull in development activity although Jo
Ann and I have had recent calls and it seems to be, you know people are
starting to think about spring and as bad as the economy is, some people
are starting to look at doing some things. And if the comp plan is in
place by this construction season, that will probably encourage that a I
little more but right now we do have some opportunity to tackle things and
we're on task to address some of those things. The rural area issues being
one. Jo Ann, what are the other things that we've been working on? Some
of the stuff that you've been doing? The lake issues and. 1
Olsen: The lakeshore. The shoreland ordinance.
Krauss: We've been looking at, well off the worksheet. Little things like'
definition of structures is something we need to get in there. We talked
about doing some work on group homes. There's been some federal court
rulings that affect how cities can regulate or cannot regulate group homes I
and it may not resolve any changes to our ordinance but we thought it
11
Planning Commission Meeting
January 2, 1991 - Page 34
should be relooked at at any rate so we're all comfortable with that. Just
' skimming through here, remember when we had the ordinance that we adopted
to require posting of signs on lots? The signs are being made as we speak.
In fact they're probably all done. They're quite attractive looking so
' that will be, we'll be putting that into use in the coming year so you'll
be seeing those signs around town. I don't know. I guess right now we'd
like to see what your priorities are. Things that might not have made it
onto the sheet and tell us what sort of directions you'd like us to go in
and we can organize our time accordingly.
Conrad: I think it's open. I think what you see are some of the things
that Paul is thinking about. Some rehashing of last year and a little bit
of direction setting for this year. What else? What specifics do you see
after taking a look at our open list of on going items and some of those
are dealing with zoning ordinances. What do we need to get done in 1991?
Erhart: What about, is this open discussion now?
Conrad: Yeah
Erhart: What about revisions to downtown plan? Was it the last meeting we
' discussed, now we're getting information from the consultant. In the
future we may have to go to 4 lanes on the thru street and is that
something?
Krauss: Oh, yeah. Conceiveably it's something that you may become
involved with. Commissioner Erhart's referring to the Stragar - Roscoe
transportation or traffic analysis that we've got in the downtown. Their
scheduled to go before the HRA later this month. They're not going to be
able to finish their modeling. Their modeling requires that they do a
license plate survey to see where people are turning and coming from. They
' can't do it until there's more daylight so it's probably not going to be
wrapped up until March sometime but it could have significant bearing on
the construction or reconstruction of streets downtown. Now since you were
involved with some of the design issues of should there be a boulevard and
' all that kind of stuff, it would be reasonable to think that you should be
given an opportunity to look at any reappraisals. Right now this report's
only dealing with traffic. It's not dealing with anything else. That may
' have to come later. That's a good point.
Erhart: That may be something more for 1992. Can we just go through here
' and ask a few questions?
Conrad: Yeah, go ahead Tim. I'm really just leaving it open. I'm kind of
curious what you guys think we should be doing.
1 Erhart: Okay. On item 2 here on your wetlands protection program, you've
outlined in here and verbally summarized it. Beyond the storm water thing,
1 do you have specifics that we should be dealing, that you envision we'd be
working on?
Krauss: Oh yeah.
Erhart: Give me just a quick, an ordinance change?
1
Ptanning Commission Meeting
January 2, 1991 - Page 35
1
Krauss: Yeah. I envision basically building on what we have but
developing an ordinance that takes into account what the value of the
wetland is. What is it in the particular wetland we're trying to
protect? Is it wildlife habitat? Is it aesthetics or what and tailoring
the ordinance to meet those specific demands. Ordinances today, newer
ordinances today haven't been able to do that. We should reasses the way
that we've required wetland preservation and plats. You know we've got a
number of years of experience in dealing with our wetlands ordinance and
we've been able to see what the good points are and what the problems have II
been in administering it. I think we should basically do an issues
finding, a fact finding analysis of what's right and what's wrong with our
ordinance now and then have the consultant work with us and tell us what
new technologies we can use and what we want to use.
Erhart: What's a problem that we'd face with the ordinance...in the last
year? 1
Krauss: A fundamental problem is that there's no official map that shows
it. '
Elison: Right. People claim they don't know that they had it. Remember
those coming through?
Erhart: Well that only occurs, that I can remember, that somebody was
issued a building permit. Somebody came in with a single family
residential building permit for a garage and they built on the wetland
because that wetland, someone didn't match that permit with the map. I
still don't know that that building department would match that permit
request with the map.
Krauss: We wouldn't ask them to. We want to do it ourselves.
Erhart: No, but I mean wouldn't it occur here? If someone comes in with all
garage to the building department, are they going to check with your
wetland map to see if that garage is going to be in the wetland?
Krauss: No, but we changed the permit process so that we sign off on all II
building permits.
Erhart: Instead of? 1
Krauss: Well, we're in the loop now so it's our obligation to find that
out but we still don't have a good source to reference and there's still
been, we've made mistakes because of it.
Ahrens: What do you do now if somebody comes in with a permit application?"
Krauss: If we have the time, what we do is we take out the aerial
photographs and we try to see if we know, have personal information or 11 happen to know that there's a wetland in the area off the aerial and then
we'll ask for more definition.
Ahrens: What if you don't have time to do that?
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 2, 1991 - Page 36
Krauss: Well, that's where things fall through the cracks because there is
not a great single source to look at and that single source to look at, not
only would benefit us in our reviews but we've had plats done' where the
surveyor goes out and shows a wetland contour. We don't know what wetland
contour that is. Oftentimes it's where the surveyor got his feet wet. Is
that where the vegetation is? Is that really what we're trying to protect?
And then another surveyor goes out there when the house comes in and they
survey a completely different line and when we overlay these things we're
going wait. We're not talking about the same thing and we don't have an
elevation to give them. We can't say the wetland is the 990 contour.
Developer's surveyor, you're supposed to show the 990. The builder's
' surveyor, you're supposed to show the 990 and everybody agrees on where it
is and that's where the easement's recorded. We don't have that.
Ahrens: Well if you don't have any idea there's a wetland involved in a
' permit application, does anybody go out there?
Krauss: We often do yes.
Ahrens: Sometimes you don't?
Olsen: You get pretty familiar with what's out there and where they are.
Also on the permit we now require the developer, whoever's filling out that
permit, to check whether or not a wetland exists on that site.
Ahrens: So you're relying on them to say yes? -
Olsen: Right, that helps you know if we have a map that they can look at
and if they can also determine, again that doesn't catch them all but it
will get more of the burden.
Ahrens: ...a wetland is.
Olsen: But it makes them investigate or question us as to whether if there
is or whatever. It puts a little bit more of the burden on them... It's
not full proof though.
Erhart: You're vision is that this map someday in the near future is going
to have all these on a computer so that when somebody comes in with a
building permit, you could put up the parcel number and the computer will
have.
1 Krauss: Ideally one day we will have a GIS system that allows you to do
that but before that happens what we will have is a series of maps that
overlay on the half sections where each water body is number and typed and
' there's an elevation set.
Erhart: So the money that, this large sum of money is for a wetland map
included elevations? In other words, establishing elevations of every
wetland in the city? Did you include that?
Krauss: No, that's included in the program and the reason for doing it now
' is we need to get that information for our flood control plan anyway. I
mean we've got to know where all the water's going to and coming from and
11
Planning Commission Meeting
January 2, 1991 - Page 37
what elevation it flows over into the next water body downstream so we're
going to be out there doing an analysis on every water body in the city
anyway for the surface water management plan. This is when Gary and I
started talked about it we realized there was a lot of overlap and it
shouldn't be surveyed twice.
Erhart: That exists.
Krauss: No it doesn't. 1
Erhart: What the drainage of everything?
Krauss: No, we don't have an overall drainage plan for the City. We have II
pieces of the city that have drainage plans.
Erhart: The Watershed should have all that. 1
Krauss: No, they don't. The Wateshed District's tacking in very gross
terms about what's feeding the major tributaries that they deal with. They
often don't know what's upstream and they, like us, are forced to having to
review every project individually. Like the one today. There is not an
overall drainage plan that shows that there should be an 18 inch pipe going
that way and it's going to go to an impoundment that we're going to acquire ,
downstream. All we know is that that site drains in 3 different directions
and we've got to figure out how to handle it. And we've got to figure it
all out on that site because we don't have any alternatives. When we have II
this planning done, we can say that the intent is for this parcel to drain II
downstream. We don't want a little rinks dink retention area on this
property. We may want the developer, instead of building it on the
property, to pay into a fund so we can buy this pond downstream. There's all
lot of flexibility there.
Erhart: Then once you've got it you've got to keep it up. 1
Krauss: Well it's kind of, it's self maintaining at that point. I mean
things don't change until we change them. I mean the natural topo won't
change unless we approve an alteration and then that alteration becomes
part of that plan. This is not cutting edge stuff. This is something that
most communities who are developing as rapidly as we are certainly, have
already had the benefit of. What we want to do is take it one step further"
and have the water quality plan in there. That's different. That's new.
Erhart: What I was getting to though, I mean I guess I find our ordinance,"
it seems to me they work pretty good right now. What you're referring to
there is checking on building permits. Do you see any gross holes in our
ordinance that you see in addressing number two there? 1
Olsen: Just defining wetlands and define the edge. Define exactly what a
Class A and what a Class B and what exactly you can do in a Class A and a I
Class B. Yeah, it's difficult because each time it's different. You have
all these different parties, DNR, Fish and Wildlife, Corps of Engineers who
are involved and it'd be nice to have something more consolidated with it.
Erhart: I'm not sure you're going to change all the approval bodies? r
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 2, 1991 - Page 38
Olsen: Well no, we're not changing but there is a group of wetland forum
that's working together trying to come together with agreement on what
should be protected. How they should be protected and everyone sees the
problems because developers don't know who to go to and we're. trying to
work with that and improve what we've got.
Erhart: Okay, but you had that listed as a planning. I interpretted this
and maybe I got this wrong. I interpretted that the first 8 were here were
' planning commission goals.
Krauss: No. They're not broken out that way at all. These are work tasks
that I have done.
' Emmings: That's 1990 and that's 1991. The first group is 1990.
11 Erhart: Alright. I'll back off.
Conrad: Let's get off this.
Erhart: I have some other questions though here. Data processing
coordinator. Is that a new person?
Krauss: No.
Erhart: That person's been here.
Krauss: It's Tom Chaffee.
Erhart: Okay. Senior Commission. What's the Senior Commission?
Krauss: That's new. That's an outgrowth of the Senior Need's Study that
was funded with federal block grant money last year that we completed. It
' was a far reaching study. It didn't have any preconceived notions but we
recognized the fact that we have a fairly large number of seniors in town
and nobody was really aware of what if any needs they had. What was
lacking? What needed to be provided for them if anything and there was a
task force that the Mayor appointed to look into that. The outgrowth of it
was the study was completed. It found needs for housing and
transportation. Ultimately for an in town senior center probably with some
' dining facilities. Startling to me, we have about 800 or 900 seniors in
the community right now and that number's going to increase rapidly. I was
astonished to realize that we had that many and you think of Chanhassen as
' being a relatively young families and what not. But one of the
recommendations was not to let the study sit on the shelf and gather dust
but to provide some mechanism to bring these things about. So the way that
that was approached by the Council is that they appointed a permanent
Senior Commission which functions as a Planning Commission or Park Board or
anything else and they'll be reviewing senior issues.
1 Erhart: Do they meet on a regular basis?
Krauss: They will.
Erhart: Here? And your department's supposed to do their work?
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 2, 1991 -- Page 39 1
Krauss: Yeah, we pick up on all these things. You know Jo Ann's been
doing the recycling and Sharmin and Jo Ann have been doing Southwest Metro.
That's all planning functions.
Ahrens: Of course now that the comprehensive plan is out of the way... 1
Conrad: What else? Steve, what do you think? Do you have some goals?
Emmings: Yeah. I'm going to exercise and eat right and that basically, 1
goals to me always sound like that. They're resolutions and I'm not as
comfortable with talking about broad goals as I would be, I like our on
going issues sheet. I think there's a whole bunch of stuff on there that II
needs to come off and we ought to maybe reprioritize what's on this sheet
but having a little work agenda like this, specific items that we want to
get done, this is where I think we ought to start is with this sheet.
There are at least a half a dozen items that can come off here because
they're done or they're things that we don't do. There are things that
they do that we don't do.
Ellson: Like computerize files.
Emmings: Yeah, computerizing land use files is the one that I noticed
there. I don't know what that's got to do with us.
Krauss: I didn't propose these as, this memo wasn't made up as your goals."
Emmings: No, no, no. I'm understanding that and I don't know Ladd. If
you want to talk about broad goals of the Planning Commission, I don't know
where I'm comfortable talking about this sheet of specific items. 1
Conrad: What I'm trying to do is say hey, if you want to get something,
what things do we really want to get done in 1991. That's this. 1
Erhart: What were our goals last year?
Conrad: Comprehensive Plan primarily. And I think a lot of the things
that we accomplished that have fallen off this were some very specific
zoning ordinances that we cared about. In fact I've got the January 5th,
1990 list of what we started out with and you know, a fair amount has come II
off that list. I think what happened last year we submitted some stuff to
the City Council and it came back and we probably forgot about what we
really said we were going to do over the course of the year but I think we I
got, we didn't go and look at that specifically. I think we moved all the
items ahead that we were generally concerned with but again the goal
setting from my standpoint is to tell staff and City Council where we'd
like to spend more time. It's our chance to tell staff that we, they're
going to be directed by City Council to do some stuff. We have a chance to
prioritize some of their time right now and if we don't do it, then they
move us. Basically they dictate where we're going which is acceptable as
long as we agree that we don't have anything that supercedes their
particular_ needs. So the process that I just want to go through right now
is make sure that we agree with what, on the things that we control, that
we agree with where Paul's taking the Planning department this year and do
we have other priorities? I think Tim would have to say that re-evaluating
the 169, the highway business down south is very important and I would
Planning Commission Meeting
January 2, 1991 -- Page 40
' agree with that. I would feel uncomfortable if we didn't have that
finished sometime in 1990.
Emmings: But maybe the way to organize this discussion, you know to me is
to do it around this work list because this is, we've primarily asked staff
to put things on here. This is more.
' Ellson: Our wish list.
Emmings: Yeah. This has been our list of things to do as opposed to a
' specific tasks.
Conrad: I think you're right but there are also broader things that Paul
brings up in his memo. The revisiting the wetland issue.
' Emmings: That's on here. That's on our work list.
Conrad: Is it?
Emmings: Number 2 under other items. I don't have anything that's not on
the sheet.
' Conrad: Okay, nothing else on the sheet. Anybody with something besides
what's on the sheet?
Batzli: What's on the work list?
Conrad: Yeah.
Ellson: I thought of one thing but I'm not sure it's really, I don't know.
I'll just kick it out and wonder if it's something that we would be
' involved in or not. We zone and we spend so much time planning and we've
all got it in our head what we'd love to see in these different places.
Can we get the staff or does the city ever actively go out and recruit
' these kinds of things? We kind of leave it up to the developers to come
through and then, oh we really didn't have that in mind and we try to
control them as best we can to the conditional use even though it really
' wasn't in our plan when we pictured it. I mean is there a way that we
could go out and pursue and actively recruit the kinds of things we
wanted? We got to the point where we had so many convenience things
downtown we were really disappointed. Well we let it come in as it came in
' which is the rule of the marketplace yet if we tried to actively recruit
and we probably don't have any funds to give people great deals but we were
saying for example when the gas station was leaving. There goes the only
service center in all of Chanhassen. Where are people going to get their
cars repaired? Well, we could have gone and actively pursued either via
the staff or I'm not sure if it's in our jurisdiction but try to get the
' things that we feel are going to make Chanhassen better in what we pictured
in planning and I don't know how that would fit in here but I just see that
we waited for it to come through and then we try to makeshift it to be the
best it can be. Why not go out and get what we want or at least try. And
the other thing is communication. We hear it so often that people didn't
know. Maybe the 500 feet thing we were talking maybe should be expanded.
These other people in the industrial park for example felt really slighted
that maybe they weren't within 500 feet but they were certainly affected by
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 2, 1991 - Page 41
these things and maybe we should relook at what we notify people. II
I remember I mentioned it last time. Is it worth trying to get more press
time on us or something like that before it gets to the Council where it's
really in the paper. People feel that it's too late. You've already had,
you know your commission recommend it and now it's going to Council and
I feel now that I'm reading about it I've lost out and I didn't have my
chance at it. Those are the two things that I keep thinking of. Proactive
I guess is what I'm thinking in those two aspects that aren't really work
items but things that I sure would like to try to proactively pursue but I
don't know how. What do you guys think?
Conrad: So you think that communication needs some help? 1
Ellson: Well on our level. People read about it when it hits Council and
if we have told them, come at the Planning Commission level and go
whatever. I don't know that they're getting enough at that Planning
Commission level and they feel again that they're being slighted and it's
all decided. I mean you hate hearing from this guy that says our neighbors'
feel it's not worth coming.
Batzli: I think Steve should write a column for the local paper.
•
Ellson: There you ga.
Batzli: Steve's World, we'll call it. 1
Ellson: Like Wayne's World. Well that's an idea but do you know what I'm
kind of getting at?
Conrad: Well what else do you want to do?
Ellson: Ask the paper to come more often. 1
Batzli: What happened to Don's column?
Krauss: It's not been in there for a long time.
Batzli: No it hasn't. 1
Ellson: Could we request more coverage on the Planning Commission items?
This is where the grass roots, their comments would probably be more
apropos to change and mold and it's easier to do it here than it is at
Council. I guess that's one idea.
Conrad: Well they're definitely ignoring us. 1
Ellson: Yeah. I remember when I first started there was a little gal
here. 1
Batzli: They used to get quotes from us and stuff. It was great. Of
course I never got quoted. I don't say anything worthwhile but you guys
all got quoted. It was great.
Conrad: But I don't feel the same. It's classic that people haven't
heard. That's what they always say but typically they're not interested. 1
1
1 Planning Commission Meeting
January 2, 1991 - Page 42
The question is, are there more things.
Ellson: It's worth talking about and making it on the agenda and spending
1 a night thinking of different ways. Maybe that's just all we can do but
maybe this isn't the point.
Conrad: But what you want is a routine. An easy way to do more
1
communication and that's typically the paper, if they covered us and
possibly. You know we can ask Paul or Jo Ann to get more coverage if we
had specific articles that we would like and they've gone out and done that
when the comprehensive plan was coming through. Aggressively you saw what
they did. We haven't really done that and basically because you know,
I guess I've just generally felt that the community's been more aware.
1 There is cable television that people are watching and seriously, if they
do care about some of this stuff, it's in their living rooms. I think most
of it's pretty mundane and really quite boring. I'm not sure how active
they want to be in some of this stuff so on the one hand it sounds like I'm
1 putting it down. On the other hand, I'm not but I don't know what else we
can do.
1 Ellson: I don't either but maybe that's worthy of a discussion on some
night when we don't have a whole lot on the agenda. I guess I don't have
the answer. I'm just saying it's worth a brainstorming session or
1 something like that.
Conrad: Well, you really bring up a good point and partially it's the fact
that we're not having coverage by our local newspaper at our level. If
that bothers us, we should do something about it. The other thing, Annette
you were talking about is proactive seeking out industry. That's, I'm not
sure that's the job of the Planning Commission. It's usually economic
development but that's you Paul isn't it? Aren't you sort of the economic
development arm or is that HRA?
Krauss: Yes, I think the HRA's been the marketing arm if you will and I
work with Todd extensively whenever we have somebody that we'd like to.
We've had a number of meetings with the supermarket applicant.
1 Ellson: Right. We'd love to have that. I mean that's been well known
that everyone would like to have a supermarket.
Krauss: But the difference is that the HRA, when the HRA markets, the HRA
has money to give.
Ellson: Right, leverage and stuff.
1 Krauss: And we don't have that ability in a lot of the stuff. The outside
of the downtown or the industrial parks. Also marketing, you know a lot of
' cities go out and do it or say they do it too. We are trying to improve
our brochures and information that we give to people. One of the things
that you may consider too is a newsletter. I don't want to do it just for
planning but we're talking about having a newsletter going out 4 times a
1 year. Now right now you get the recreation brochure. That's going to be
transformed into a real city newsletter. Now with something going out
quarterly you're not going to be able to say on January 2nd the Planning
1 Commission's going to consider so and so, you'd better be there. But you
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 2, 1991 - Page 43
will be able to give overviews on what sorts of things you're tackling like 1
wetland issues or whatever else. BF district and put together thoughts on
that so there will be forum, hopefully in the not too distant future to do
that. The signs we're putting up, I'd adopt a wait and see attitude to see 1
how those work. My experience is they're very successful.
Ellson: Yeah, that's a good step in the right direction regarding some
communication.
Ahrens: I understand what you're saying though Annette. Just in the past
year I've noticed that we've been faced with some development that we don't li
really like. We don't know what to do with it because it meets all the
standards. Like the Wendy's. Everybody said gee, it'd be nice to have a
restaurant or something more attractive at the entrance of the city but how"
can you say no when they meet all the requirements and then we're faced
with a Wendy's there that maybe we don't really want and I don't know how
to address that issue either. I mean it's so subjective in a lot of ways
to sit back and say we don't like that or it's not nice enough. I agree
that it would be nice to have, play a bigger role in kind of deciding
what's, so we don't end up with a strip like we do in downtown right now.
That is basically. 1
Ellson: Well the difference between our downtown and Excelsior's you know
is night and day and I think everyone would love to picture this Excelsior 1
where you can go from this place to that and where you just drop off your
dry cleaning, go pick up your, get your gas.
Ahrens: Yeah, useful shops instead of what we have. 1
Ellson: And obviously there's always enticements. If we don't have
enticements, I don't know. As far as financial, it's just an idea. I mean"
send out letters, brochures on the city?
Krauss: Well yeah and I've talked to the HRA about that. I mean the HRH's 1
been fairly reactive. Brad Johnson or Clayton Johnson come in with a
proposal and they get 3 years of increment or whatever it is. We've talked
about the HRA and the HRA does own some property. Going in and soliciting •
proposals to development we'd like to see on those pieces of ground. I
think ultimately they'll be doing that in some very limited circumstances II
but it's not a real comfortable role for cities to play. Become the active
party in the development scheme. You look at the controversy that was
generated about the supermarket because the city to induce a supermarket toll
come in, the HRA had developed a subsidy program where we subsidized their
profits or losses for a period of time so they can make it over the hump
until the community develops and they can make it on their own. That was all
very controversial proposal and the HRA took some political flack for
having done that and it still hasn't succeeded in getting us a supermarket
because it's not built yet. Hopefully it will soon but, so there's limits II
to how much you can do and it's competitive. I mean you always see Star
City things whenever you come into towns. Well that's all a marketing
program that the State pushes.
Batzli: I never understood how that works. It seems like about 70% of all
the cities are Star Cities.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
.January 2, 1991 - Page 44
1 Krauss: It's very bogus. I mean it's a lot of work to qualify and the
State has no money to give or incentives to give once you do it.
Ahrens: We could just put up our own sign.
1 Conrad: Yeah, we could make our own terms. Nobody will know.
1 Ellson: Those aren't easy ones but they're just ones that are my concerns.
Conrad: Brian, do you have any goals you'd like to set?
Batzli: My goals are wetlands /water quality. Number 2, protect the
bluffs. Number 3, rezone BF to existing use. 4, encourage open spaces by
1 either promoting agricultural, A -2, golf courses, whatever. And a fifth
one is to improve and actually develop a tree ordinance and improve
landscaping. I think we've had a lot of problems with landscaping recently
because I don't think our ordinance is tough enough. I think we should,
the one thing normally people will agree on is that there's not enough
trees. Then we hear a lot of things about well you've got to plant them
150 feet apart because they're going to grow up to be you know, 80 foot
1 monsters in 40 years and I don't buy that.
Erhart: Are you talking about our landscaping portion of the ordinance?
Batzli: I'm talking about that and I'm also talking about eventually
taking the tree ordinance /mapping of significant vegetative areas off the
inactive list and doing something with it.
1 Erhart: I would entirely agree with you that our landscaping ordinance
should be reviewed. You know 1 tree every 40 feet and then just leaving it
11 open whether it's a hardwood or an evergreen, I really think I'd like to
spend some time this year.
Krauss: Yeah, that certainly is a rinky dink standard that we disregard
1 totally.
Erhart: It's just inadequate.
Krauss: It's actually, this is not something that came from Minnetonka.
It's something that came from long ago when I worked for BRW. That
ordinances were drafted so that the amount of landscaping was financially
tied into the value of the development. That there was a sliding scale
established that you had to spend 1% or 1 1/2% of the total project cost on
landscaping and the bigger dollar project is the smaller percentages
' because it had more bang for the buck. But then you need an ordinance that
gives you more definitions as to where to spend the money but at least it
established a minimum criteria of what you have to do.
1 Erhart: If a development goes into an already wooded area, I mean why
should you arbitrarily have someone spend money to landscape an area that's
wooded and you don't want them to do anything with it?
' Krauss: Yeah. That gets into the tree preservation aspect.
Erhart: Almost contrary to that.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 2, 1991 -- Page 45
Krauss: Well you have to make them work in tandem. The Eden Prairie
ordinance is kind of clunky. I mean they've gotten some good press for
their tree preservation efforts and I think in some respects it's good but
their replacement caliper inches is so high that when you develop a wooded
site and you have to remove trees, that there physically often isn't enough,
room to put those trees on the property. I knew one developer that was
building a townhouse development there that actually offered Eden Prairie
to plant trees in their parks because they just couldn't put them on the
property.
Batzli: That wouldn't be so bad.
Krauss: No, I don't think it is either. I mean it's like a park
dedication fee you know. But we can consider those. There's certainly
models out there to use.
Batzli: As far as the things that aren't on the list, the one is really
that isn't on the list at all in any form at all other than improve the
landscaping ordinance is to encourage open spaces. Either trying to
somehow promote green acres type thing or what have you. Basically in
essence you're trying to maintain open spaces. Slow down the growth
outside the MUSA line even more than it's already slowed down.
Conrad: The bluff preservation. Do we have anything?
Batzli: I don't think we have anything actually on the list other than
looking at the BF to A -2.
Krauss: We could add that but I actually construed that to be going hand '
in hand.
Batzli: Well so did I. When we've talked about it in the past, we've 1
talked about it kind of simultaneously. I don't know what Eden Prairie has
done but they do have some sort of bluff preservation ordinance in effect
don't they? 1
Krauss: I've heard that they do.
Batzli: Yeah. '
Krauss: But again there's a lot of working examples of communities that
have done that. We don't have to reinvent the wheel.
Conrad: Brian, you said tree ordinance. Don't we have, what do we have
for a tree ordinance right now? 1
Olsen: Landscaping.
Conrad: It's landscaping? ,
Erhart: Well it states that you can't do clear cutting.
Olsen: The only place that really is stated is in the Shoreland District.
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
1 January 2, 1991 - Page 46
Erhart: It's stated under subdivision ordinance that you can't clear cut.
Isn't it? When they clearcut the one up here we went back and did
something. I guess I'm under the impression that they can't go in and
clearcut property anymore. We actually acted on that.
Conrad: Yeah, but I don't know how we did that.
' Batzli: We didn't do anything.
Olsen: ...like it's our property and we can do what we want.
Erhart: I sure thought we did.
Batzli: We talked about covenants recorded against the various pieces of
properties so the land owners could enforce it against one another. I mean
that was going to be our solution so that they couldn't clearcut it because
supposedly what happened was the builder bought the land. It was already
' subdivided and then he clearcut.
Krauss: There is a tree removal and conservation of vegetation section in
1 the subdivision code. I won't read it to you but it's a little paragraph
with a couple of elements. Existing healthy trees and native vegetation
shall be preserved to the maximum extend feasible and protected by adequate
means during construction. It gives you entree to doing something about
it. Maybe it's not as specific as you'd like but it is in there. In fact
we did it quite a bit with Vineland Eorect. We were out there marking
trees.
Olsen: That was specifically stated in the recommendations. No clear
cutting without a tree removal plan. Ever since Triple Crown...
1 Erhart: I guess I've always felt, I mean I don't disagree in general but I
think we've done a pretty good job since that time of protecting trees. I
think we should be planting trees right now... I'm involved with a couple
of projects with that going more to a greater degree here in the city.
Ahrens: How long is this tree ordinance, mapping of significant vegetative
areas?
Krauss: Possibly Jo Ann could describe that.
1 Ahrens: I mean that seems different from tree ordinance.
Olsen: Right. What we were trying to do was to try to, during some of the
1 subdivisions...beautiful trees that should be preserved...
Ellson: Like a big grove of oak trees and things like that.
Olsen: ...like with the townhomes. Anyway, we would like to have those
mapped ahead of time so the developer's aware that there are some
restrictions that they can't just cut them down and then plant small trees.
' I think that's what we were working with and it is being done. Hire
somebody to go out there and actually do a visual, find out what kind of
trees they are.
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting 11 January 2, 1991 - Page 47
Krauss: We tried to fund that in this year's budget. Hire a forestry II intern to work with it. There's one DNR forester for the entire 7 county
metro area which is bizarre and he's very good you know but obviously when
you cover that much land there's only so much time you have. We tried to II
fund an internship position this summer to complete the map with Alan. We
weren't successful in getting that into the budget. That was one of the
things that was chopped out to get the budget down.
Conrad: Well Brian are you comfortable that we have, you said the tree
ordinance. After you've heard the discussion here, are you comfortable we
need, or do you think we need to look at it further? You've heard the
language that we currently have. Are we talking about an ordinance for
that or are we talking about a broader ordinance of natural amenity
preservation or is it just as simple as what you're saying?
Batzli: I think it's natural amenity preservation. I'm more concerned,
that I think will protect us from clear cutting. I think natural amenities
is significant stands, obviously we're lacking but I think at a minimum we
should take a look at the landscaping requirements.
Conrad: In regard to what? 1
Batzli: Subdivision,
Conrad: Subdivision? '
Batzli: Yeah. Or site plan.
Conrad: Okay. Is anybody concerned about just simply, we talked about 1
mineral extraction already but just contour. Land contours. Does bluff
cover that? Is anybody concerned that you can really level a site because
that's the cheapest way to develop it is if you level it and then you start
over agaih. Anybody concerned about keeping the natural contours?
Batzli: Well how did we stop that one guy that wanted to level? 1
Ellson: We couldn't.
Batzli: Or I guess he didn't want to level it. That was actually his 1
problem wasn't it? He wanted to keep a hill going down onto the road.
Elison: The guy that was dragging it all into Eden Prairie? ,
Batzli: No, no, no. The guy that was just developing a site and I can't
remember which site it was. Was it Lake Susan Hills? 1
Krauss: Lake Susan Hills 5th, Brian? Brian Olson?
Batzli: I think so. Isn't he the one that didn't want, to flatten out 1
some of the grades?
Emmings: Yeah, because he had a whole bunch of cul -de -sacs and we were
trying to get rid of them.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 2, 1991 - Page 48
Krauss: We were insisting that he maintain a 7% or better grade which is
consistent with code down to CR 17 and he was kicking about that because it
required extensive grading.
' Batzli: I don't know that it was always cheaper.
Erhart: Maybe the one you're thinking about is the Jeurissen mineral
' extraction where they were going to eliminate a hill.
Emmings: But don't they always need a grading permit? If they come in and
' ask for a grading permit for something, they can say they just want to
flatten something out that's lumpy now, what restrictions are there on
there?
Krauss: Well it's fairly extensive. Under the new ordinance any time you
want to move more than 500 yards, which sounds like a lot. It's 10 yards
in a truck but it's not enough to eliminate a hill. Anytime you want to
' remove any significant volumes of earth you've got to get an interim use
permit which comes before you and the City Council which talk about future
use of the property and the ability to preserve natural features. The
problem that we had on the Jeurissen one is that he made a case that I
thought was ridiculous but he made a case that would probably stand up that
he was improving the agricultural use of the property which was the use
that he was putting it to and he wasn't destroying any mature trees to do
it. He was taking a big chunk out of a hill. It might look a little silly
but the ordinance doesn't deal with things that look silly. It deals with
what the use of the property is.
Batzli: But do you really want to be able to regulate somebody that wants
to flatten a piece of land?
' Krauss: Fine.
Elison: Yeah. We don't want him to take off.
L Conrad: We might.
' Batzli: You might. Is it reasonable?
Krauss: Well you might and you can. The way the ordinance is written now,
you can. I can give you a for instance from Minnetonka just as an example.
When Hwy 12 was being rebuilt to 394 where Carlson interchange is now? On
the south side there there is a very large area that should have been
designated as a wetland but for some reason wasn't and the builder, Johnson
' Bros. Construction for the highway saw that as just a dandy place to dump
all the fill from the highway. And at that time Minnetonka didn't have an
ordinance that could stop that but what we did is their grading plan would
' have left this, and it was in a residential neighborhood, would have left
this residentially zoned site at a perfectly flat grade right onto a
highway interchange which was obviously only good for commercial use which
was inconsistent with the comprehensive plan and on that basis we denied
it. They took us to court and wound up dropping the court case because
they finally found someplace else to dump it anyway but that was clearly a
case where you did not want a site leveled or filled or raised because it
1 couldn't be used, apart from destroying a natural feature, it couldn't be
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 2, 1991 - Page 49
used for it's intended purpose when it was done. 1
Conrad: I'm going to leave that open. -Jeff, anything that you see?
Farmakes: I'd like to talk just a littl bit more about this tree 1
ordinance. I kind of see, you talk about mapping what Chanhassen's assets
are. Water quality, wetlands and on that sheet you're referring to it as
vegetated areas. Significant growth of forest area. I'd like to know also
other natural resources. If Chanhassen has a good handle as to what other
natural resources that are here that are expendable in development such as
topsoil for instance. You see mounds of a natural resource as you drive
into town here stacked up as they're putting the highway in. As
development pushes further into the agricultural land, where does all that
topsoil go for instance? Will it remain in this community and if not, II potentially later on will we be paying some bills for it? The reason I'm
mentioning it is with water quality, as we reduce our level of fertility
here in the community to compensate for that, particular if this climate
gets drier, don't we have to revert to chemical support for if we want to
keep our grasslands green and so on? If we have no inventory of these
assets, how do we know what we lose through encroachment on development?
We wouldn't know for instance how many trees, overgrowth trees we're losing"'
and how much we're replacing with the trees that won't provide significant
wind cover or shade for 20 -30 years say. Anyway I don't see how we can
assess what we're going to lose if we don't know what we have. Or what we
have lost. I think that that's important that we know on all those assets.
And the other thing is, on a tree ordinance, I would like to see something
that would encourage a designer of a site to leave the growth that is there
in some sort of way where if they take it out they have to put it back in 1
and they have to put it back in enough that it's preferrable for them to
leave what is there if they can possibly do that.
Conrad: Where did we get the 1 for 1? We've implemented a 1 for 1 or an 1
inch for an inch.
Olsen: I think we got that from Eden Prairie. 1
Conrad: And is that someplace in our code, in our ordinance someplace?
Olsen: It's caliper inch per caliper inch in the landscaping plan. 1
Krauss: Under site plans. So it doesn't affect single family
subdivisions. That's the other language that I was quoting earlier that
affects subdivisions.
Erhart: It affects commercial only? 1
Krauss: Well it affects anything but single family homes. So multi-
family housing would be covered by that too. One of the things we found. 1
Erhart: Excuse me. Everything but single family? It affects everything
but single family subdivisions?
Krauss: Well wait. You've got this on a kind of a two track approach.
You've got the subdivision code that deals with the splitting of property
and that's the only thing that you have to interact with on single family
1
11 Planning Commission Meeting
January 2, 1991 - Page 50
' plats so there is language in there dealing with tree preservation.
Possibly not as specific as people would like but there is language. Then
you deal with the range of things that we do site plan reviews on which is
1 everything except single family homes and if it only requires a site plan
review, you need something in the site plan review section of the ordinance
that's applicable that requires tree preservation. One of the things that
' we've found over the last 5 to 10 years is the market is also helping us
out considerably these days with tree preservation. It won't help you when
somebody wants to put a warehouse in or something like that but developers
' of single family property go to great lengths to save trees today because
it's dollars in their pocket. You know a wooded lot is worth $10,000.00
more than an unwooded lot. No developer in their right mind is going to
willy nilly cut down trees anymore. And the days of mass grading for an
' Orin Thompson type of development, I'd like to think they're gone. They're
probably not entirely gone but they're fading. But you do need to have an
ordinance that makes it almost punitive in a way to have disregard for tree
' preservation. That you make somebody take up and notice that it's going to
cost them if they're going to want to remove those trees.
' Batzli: Encouragement is there. Anyway it gives them a choice but the
encouragement is there for them to leave it.
Erhart: On the other hand is it fair, I mean a guy's got a pure woods
' where you've got these 36 inch diameter trees, 30 to 40 feet apart or
something and you've got to put a street in. A public thing and you try to
force that guy to go in and replace caliper inch per inch trees? I guess
' that's the part I was questioning a few weeks ago. The answer I got was
well, we take that into consideration and that's great but I guess what I'd
like us, and I'd be real concerned that we don't get to the point here
where people in like Eden Prairie are doing things like can I put trees in
your parks because I've got to cut a tree down to develop my property? To
me that's not right. I mean for a lot of these property owners preserve
these trees for years to some point where it could be developed and now
' you're going to penalize them for doing a good job or preserving their tree
stands so I think it's all good but I think there's a practical limit.
Being punitive I guess is where I think we've got to be real careful there.
' It goes down to I think one time we talked a year ago. Should you get down
to the level of saying a guy owns a lot, can I tell that guy not to cut his
tree?
Emmings: Or you've got a bunch of old trees and if you want to cut them,
if I want to cut a tree down in my yard for firewood you know or if I've
got a big area of trees and I want to cut trees out of there for firewood
I or even to sell it on a commercial level, are you going to tell me I can't
do it? I think when you get into areas like that, I'm much more
comfortable trying to promote, I've never liked our landscape ordinance on
' subdivisions. That's always been goofy. It needs to be a lot more and I
think we should encourage planting all we can. When you start restricting
what landowners can do with their own trees, absent a subdivision or
something like that taking place, I'm not comfortable with it.
' Conrad: Joan, did you have something to add for goals?
Ahrens: I don't really have anything additional. I mean what's on our
list here is I think are worthwhile goals. I don't know if you even want
Planning Commission Meeting
January 2, 1991 - Page 51
to go through and list what our priorities are?
Conrad: I guess I'd like to come out of here with a sense of our top 4 or
5 priorities. 1
Ahrens: Wetland issues. I think it's really neat that you're doing this
computerizing the land use files. I noticed we approve a lot of projects II
and we put tons of conditions in them and I don't know how you can
keep track of those conditions for development. I don't know how you ever
keep track of those. What's the time line on that? When are you going to
be able to do that? ,
Krauss: Well again there's a funding constraint. We have most of the
hardware but the software is relatively expensive and is often tailored to
a community. I've been assured by Tom Chaffee that he's picked out
something that we should use and that we probably will get it on line
before spring but I've heard that before. Also once you have the, you know
having the hardware, having the software, I mean that's all fine and dandy II
but I think as you're all aware, unless there's data fed into the thing
it's completely worthless and when you see our files of realms of data that
we have already, it's a fairly significant work task.
Ahrens: Who's going to do that?
Krauss: It beats me. We need it for enforcement of many things. We want II
a situation where somebody who says I'm looking to buy 4220 North Drive,
what can you tell me about the lot? You can call it up and say well it's
got a wetland on it. The last building permit we approved was in 1972 and ,
it was for a porch. There was a variance approved and so and so. I mean
all that stuff needs to be laid out. Right now it's in different files in
different rooms under different departments. It's there, it's just tough
to find.
Ahrens: I'm also interested in the landscaping issue. That's it for me.
Conrad: Okay. Paul, I noticed you wanted to spend, you wanted to do a
comprehensive redraft of the city's PUD ordinance. Meaning a lot of time?
Krauss: I don't know. I mean I've got some that I've written before that II
I've worked with and I think filled some gaps I see in ours. The concern
I have with our PUD ordinance is we want to rely on that to insure
ourselves and residents that we are in essence contracting for high quality"
development and that we will get that development enacted. I think that we
do a good job with the development of the PUD contract and that element of
it but our PUD ordinance just throws the door wide open. I mean it says,
rezone it to PUD. Anything goes anyway, any how. There's no standards.
No guidelines at all. Now the PUD ordinance is designed to encourage
flexibility but ours gets a little bizarre. For example if, you normally
have a 20 foot setback for parking from a street, as soon as you do PUD,
that disappears. And I can't understand, I can't in good conscience feel
comfortable with a PUD going in our downtown. It came up with Market
Square. Market Square is a PUD and we got a very good design out of it but
they did not have to maintain even something as simple as a setback from
the public right-of-way.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 2, 1991 - Page 52
' Conrad: Does everybody else feel, well Paul obviously there's some things
that you want to do. Do we feel comfortable in the redraft of the PUD
ordinance? We can ignore it and Paul can do it. We can say yeah, we want
it. It's important. It's a high priority. Anybody have any feelings on
that?
Erhart: Yeah. I would like to not see that get ahead of some of the other
' things we talked. To me the number one thing we ought to be working on is
the rural land preservation. 2 1/2 lot. Review of the, what you call is
policies toward rural land. That to me is the number one issue. I think
the landscaping ordinance, it's funny how we haven't talked about that
before tonight and almost universally it's, everybody wants a new
landscaping ordinance so I think that's important. It wasn't that long ago
that we just redid this PUD. I guess maybe that's the thing...
Conrad: When did we do that?
' Batzli: It was more than 3 years ago.
Krauss: I think you redid elements of it relative to single family.
Olsen: Yeah. We do have regulations for single family and commercial and
industrial.
Conrad: But the regulations for single family Jo Ann, when did we do
those?
1 Olsen: It was...
Conrad: Oh, so it has been because I've got notes going back to June 2nd
of 1989 and it said revise PUD then and we obviously haven't done it.
' Erhart: Via that, we never contemplated it's use in commercial districts.
Krauss: I think the concern I have is that as tracts of land are opened up
I see that being used as a tool more and more. I'd like that tool to be in
place now. Where we do it during the course of the year probably, it
' doesn't need to be done first but it's something that I think we should do.
Conrad: We've never talked about fertilizer use in the community. Well,
Jo Ann have we?
Olsen: Yeah.
1 Conrad: And what happened?
Olsen: I'm doing a memo on that right now. We did get that going when it
' was, other cities were looking into that a couple years ago. In fact we
did pose one to the Council but it was just one of those how do you enforce
and how do you keep track of who's doing it and who's not.
Conrad: So it fell?
Olsen: It fell.
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 2, 1991 - Page 53 1
Emmings: They decided that educating the public was one of the best things"
they could probably do and hopefully get the people to voluntarily comply.
Conrad: What did we?
Olsen: You never did anything.
Conrad: We didn't? So it was basically from you to. 1
Olsen: Right, and again a theme brought up again with the recycling
commission was kind of getting more general, more into environmental issues
and other cities are starting to look at it again so if other cities are
doing it, I think maybe we can look at that again and we can all get an
area that's agrees to one sort of ordinance so it's easier for everyone to it
apply and understand. We might do it but that's something that the
Planning Commission...
Farmakes: Don't large scale distributors of like Chem Lawn, don't they
need a license to distribute chemicals in a community?
Krauss: Some cities do license them.
Farmakes: Because that certainly must be the bulk of that type of
applications for the bulk.
Krauss: In terms of volume of material, I think you're right Jeff it is
but I've seen data, Barr Engineering in fact was doing a report on it that
indicates that they're not the problem. The problem is the weekend
landscapers who heavily fertilize their lawn before a thunderstorm and it
all washes off right into the storm sewer.
Emmings: Right, because they're primarily using. Well they use both wet I
and dry but.
Krauss: They apply it whenever it's convenient to do it on their work
schedule. The professional applicators know when to and when not to do it.,
Farmakes: Is the concentration though much higher than a rural 11 application?
Emmings: Not in nitrogen I bet. If you're talking about for corn or
something like that. ,
Krauss: What we're finding. I'm on the Metro Council Task Force on water
quality for Minnesota River and the worst problems we're finding in the
Minnesota River are those drainage basins that are totally agricultural.
Batzli: Are agricultural?
Krauss: Totally, yeah.
Emmings: Because you're getting heavy use of other chemicals there besides"
fertilizers. I would imagine that that's a problem too but I know that,
you know the commercial applicators that come through our neighborhood and
do my lawn is an outfit called 1st Klass or something. I asked them what 11
1
Planning Commission Meeting
' January 2, 1991 - Page 54
' their mix of chemical was and they don't use any phospherous on properties
that are on the lake.
Conrad: Is that right?
' Emmings: No.
' Conrad: That's terrific.
Emmings: And I didn't know that. I mean when I bought their service I
' didn't even know it. I asked them and they said they just don't do it.
Farmakes: I noticed on our side of the lake you can say it significantly
adds to the problem, particularly like in, like you said in wet. Sometimes
' they're out there applying that stuff and it's even raining. I mean
they're on a contract situation. They're out there and it's obvious it's
going to rain. They're there. They put it on.
' Erhart: Are you talking about dry or wet fertilizer?
' Farmakes: Well we don't do it but I mean there is no, this is wet
application fertilizer. Well, yeah the large chemical tank shows up and we
dropped that because I noticed a significant difference. It goes directly
into the water. I mean there's no wetland in front of our place.
Emmings: And they come, they try and sell you a program that they want you
to come 4 times during the year you know and I have them come one time and
1 it's more than adequate for my lawn so I don't know where the rest of that
stuff goes.
' Ahrens: Well what are we going to do about that? I mean is there anything
we're going to do about it?
Krauss: There's two ways it's being approached. I guess as Jo Ann says,
' we'd be very relunctant to have the City go out on the edge of trying to
have a local ordinance. I mean look it, you get the hardware store
downtown that's not allowed to sell fertilizer but the convenience store in
' Eden Prairie across the line is. That kind of stuff we really don't want
to mess with. But there is a group of cities that Jo Ann's becoming
involved with that are trying to develop a lot of environmental issues and
that's one of the things that they'd like to tackle. As Jo Ann points out,
' a group of cities working together to get a metro area sort of an ordinance
or approach passed is probably the best thing. In addition it's an issue
that's going to be covered with the Minnesota River study that I'm involved
' with and we're going to have to, at least accommodate or discuss it in our
water quality plan because it's a factor for our water quality. Again I
don't want to unilaterally be in a position. I wouldn't advocate that the
' city be in a position of going out and doing it on our own but there is a
lot of momentum building for something to happen. I think it probably will
in the next year or two.
Ahrens: Are there any plans for community education?
Olsen: Again the Commission is starting to get involved in that.
I assume that's what they were interested in doing once they got the
11
Planning Commission Meeting
January 2, 1991 Page 55 1
recycling program going. I don't know if that's...the Planning Commission.,
If that's what you want to work on, then we can bring it to you to work on
but it will be...so something will be worked on.
Conrad: What do you want to do Joan? I
Ahrens: Well it wasn't an issue I brought up. I was wondering what people
wanted to do about it. I mean I don't think there's anything we can do.
...Recycling Committee to do whatever they want to do. It's a community
problem but I don't know how much we want to get involved in just public
issues that... '
Krauss: But it is something that, I know where I live, the community I
live in our quarterly newsletter comes out with information on stuff like
that. My community does has an active water quality program but they do '
spread the word that hey, these things are a problem. Don't apply these
things.
Ellson: Well and just the names of the other companies that are reputable ,
like his and stuff. There's references too.
Krauss: We couldn't do that. 1
Ellson: What are your goals Ladd?
Conrad: A couple of quick thoughts. Architectural standards. We brought II
them up tonight. Anybody care about our architectural standards? Jumping
into that. thing? Brick or better.
Ellson: Easily.
Farmakes: I kind of saw the difference when you were talking about
architectural standards of telling them this is what we want to see. We
want to see some allirons here and we want some shakes on this and I think
the issue that I was talking of when I talked to them was just to soften it '
up. Tone it down. Leave it up to them to make it a bit more residential
palatable. I mean the architect's going to understand that I think rather
than, I don't know how you come up with an ordinance unless, you know we
only accept this style of architecture and this kind of paint.
Emmings: We sure don't want to see, we don't want to have every building
in town have a mansard roof. You've got to have some. 1
Farmakes: Or painted gray.
Conrad: So does anybody want to deal with this or should we let it go? ,
Ellson: I think the way they're looking at them right now is fine.
Conrad: Anybody want to deal with our own standards as such or let it go
and just say we've got enough control on it? Quick question on drainage.
What kind of standard. Tim brought it up tonight and I think it's a good. II
It's something that I've always believed in and that's to keep water on
site rather than running it off someplace but what kind of standards, you
know I don't know if that's what engineering department believes. And
i
Planning Commission Meeting
' January 2, 1991 - Page 56
again, some of this stuff is, we accept what gets presented in a report but
are there standards that you set that we should know about? That would
guide you. You know you can deal with water runoff in a lot pf ways.
' Folch: That's true. Normally what we do is basically follow what the
ordinance calls for and that is that they maintain their pre - developed
runoff rate for discharging off the site. If there's available storm water
' facilities adjacent to the parcel that have been designed previously to
handle the runoff and are capable of a direct discharge and have been
planned for as such, then of course we would want to see a direct
' connection rather than a ponding basin. I think as Paul eluded to earlier,
having more of a comprehensive storm water management program will allow us
to take an area and hopefully design and develop one master storm water
system for that particular area instead of having half a dozen little
I drainage ponds on every parcel. We've got let's say one in an area that
services all the parcels that are adjacent to it similar to what I think we
have on West 79th Street. We have a ponding basin down there that services
' that whole area. But basically at this point in time, we go by the
ordinance which is maintaining the pre - development runoff rate.
I Erhart: I guess in looking at that plan again after we discussed that, I
mean that parking lot's at 936 and the pond's at 933. The reason that was
run north is because well that's, we've got to put some fill on the north
end of that parking lot to bring water to the south. The other option was
' to run a pipe from the north end of the parking lot back to that pond. I
don't want to get into that particular site but if we could add some words
to the ordinance that basically said to the fact that you have to retain as
' much water on site as possible to help beef up your effort in forcing these
guys to spend a little money to maintain water on site, I think that's
something we ought to do.
' Conrad: Does anybody care? See I care about, that issue seems to be
important to me.
Erhart: You get this storm water retention thing. The fundamental things
you want to do. In keeping your rivers and your lake is keeping as much
water on site as long as possible.
1 Conrad: But is that going to wash out.
Krauss: In keeping the water in some place that's designed to clean it.
Not necessarily on that property but someplace that's designed to handle it
and in a lot of sites that won't be on that site.
' Erhart: No, I can understand that but it's the cheapest way to do it.
Krauss: Well it's not in the long run though. It's the cheapest possibly
for the individual developer but what we've found is we have to maintain
these things and when we have 400 or 500 of these little tiny ponds all
around town, we've got to get an inspection program going and we've got to
send in a backloader to clean out the grit and it really becomes an
' adminstrative nightmare. It's effectively these things won't be maintained
as efficiently as they should so they won't work. The Watershed District's
have been enforcing this more and more lately. They're again, Vineland
Forest was a case in point. The developer there originally proposed 3 tiny
i
Planning Commission Meeting
January 2, 1991 -- Page 57
little ponds scattered throughout the development. I said no, that's not I
something we can maintain. I talked to the Watershed District and they
backed me up and we got one concentrated pond that we can look after a lot
better that works on a more macro scale as well.
Conrad: Okay. I'm not sure where to go with that Tim. I'm not sure.
Erhart: Well I was just wondering what engineering. I think Paul's got a II
good point. I think a lot of that's going to come out with this storm
water utility thing. If there's something that we could do. I think as
you go through this utility now, anything that the ordinance will support II
that effort and I can see that coming back here.
Krauss: Yeah. If the, and I expect it will, if the program that we get up
recommends that as an enforcement mechanism that the ordinance needs to be
revised to accommodate that, it will certainly come back.
Erhart: If you don't mind moving off that. I want to pick up on something'll
Brian said and it's kind of bothered me and that is this open space thing
and golf courses. I mentioned this once before when we revised the
ordinance and we don't have golf courses I think on any one of our
permitted uses. Any of our districts. I don't think it is. Anyway, the
point, getting proactive again. You know Eden Prairie's got two very nice
golf courses and they're talking about building a third. Chaska's got
their Hazeltine. Victoria's got their Deer Run now and we've got Bluff
Creek.
Ahrens: I like Bluff Creek.
Erhart: Do you?
Conrad: It's not a bad golf course. I found that. '
Erhart: Nothing negative on Bluff Creek. It's just with the acreage we've
got in this city, we ought to have another golf course somewhere closer to
TH 5 and is there anyway. Do you agree or disagree?
Ahrens: I agree.
Erhart: Yeah, you know when we've made no provisions for it. In fact it
may not even be possible to be done anymore.
Ellson: Timberwood would probably like it.
Conrad: Yeah, we could circle Timberwood with a golf course. '
Erhart: I mean we want open space and here's, I don't know. Is there
something that we ought to be doing to encourage it? -
Ellson: That's the kind of thing I was talking about before.
Erhart: Or is it something that we just can't? ,
Emmings: Maybe your rural area?
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 2, 1991 -- Page 58
Krauss: Well I don't know because if there was really an element in the
Comp Plan that would consider golf courses it would be in the recreational
element as an identified need for the city from a recreational standpoint.
I don't know that they ever discussed it but it's not in their
1 recommendations to us. You may want to bounce it off of them or we can
carry it forward a recommendation that they look at it
' Erhart: Who, the HRA?
Krauss: No, the Park Board.
1 Erhart: Oh, you mean make it a public golf course?
Farmakes: I think there was a private group here a couple years ago that
was looking at putting in one in the northwest area. Couldn't acquire
land. I had heard it was the Eckankar piece of property prior to them
wanting to build,
' Erhart: Okay, and you're suggesting that maybe what, the city would look
to build a public golf course?
I Krauss: Well yeah. I mean if it's not a public golf course, then the city
probably shouldn't have involvement.
' Erhart: That thought hadn't occurred to me. I was assuming private but
maybe that's a way to get some ball rolling just by talking about it and
maybe you would get a private investor interested in it.
Batzli: I don't know that encouraging even a private course would be that
bad from the standpoint of open, preserving open spaces in the community.
Farmakes: I had one more comment that I never got to. We started talking
about trees and somehow I got passed up. I just want to make a quick thing
here. We're talking about open spaces. I had wanted to bring up the issue
' of a. secondary minimum. About 10 years ago they discussed that in the
previous comp plan. A secondary minimum for single family housing lot size
comment and some of the older developments here have an acre or 3/4 of an
acre. There's a lot more room for trees on there. It's not a bluff area
' or it's not a golf course but it does allow for some diversity in a more
open area with more wooded area and it's something to be considered. I'm
not sure if it was on the books prior to 10 years ago. If there was a
second designation for single family zoning.
Conrad: A larger lot size you're talking about?
1 Farmakes: A larger lot size, yeah.
Erhart: Yeah, we did. We had a 1 acre. On Christmas Lake.
' Conrad: It was proposed and that's as far. It was a 45,000 square foot
lot size and it just died a thousand deaths. Nobody supported it and we
floated it out there to the neighborhood that theoretically cared about it
and there were so many people, well again. In that particular case, I'm
fairly familiar, there were some .people in that area that didn't want it
and that killed it. You know it's real interesting that large lots, it's
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 2, 1991 -- Page 59
nice to preserve the large lots but I really haven't seen a demand beyond '
the 15,000 square feet that we have. We like larger lots typically but
I just haven't heard, nobody's yelling about that.
Farmakes: When the economy, you know a developer obviously, but when the
economy dictates the economy's bad, more houses on smaller lots. When the
economy's better, you get a little bit bigger lot, bigger house.
Conrad: It's a funny thing. I've really moved off of larger lot size.
That used to be an issue that I'd fight for all the time. Larger lots and
over time I guess it's been, it's never happened and it turns out that
I
philosophically I'm at the point where I'd rather preserve the things that
I can and I don't care what size lots people build on. The developer will
figure that out and find places for it. I'm kind of sensitive to moving
small lots against big lots. That one I want to protect people who moved
here 10-20 years ago but in terms of larger lot zoning right now, I don't II
know that we can get there and then I've sort of taken a default to that
saying, hey. I don't know that we can get there but I do want to preserve
some of those natural amenities that count and that could be the open
space. That could be a lot of things.
Farmakes: Well the difference between, there's a big difference between a II
golf course and a 3/4 acre lot. I'm just saying there could be more room
under the existing type of development that's going on around here to put a
few trees. 1
Conrad: Maybe if I can summarize what I think we said here and maybe you
can correct me where I'm wrong. There's a priority. What I'm trying to do
is prioritize some of the things that we think are good. I heard the
wetlands and the water quality or the water management being a high
priority. I heard the BH on the 169 being a high priority. I heard the
landscaping being a high priority and then I'm going to make up a word, or II
a group of things called natural amenities. Whether they be bluffs, open
spaces, inventory, fertilizer, whatever it is. Contours. It's sort of a
natural amenity type of grouping and I don't know if they're separate or if '
they're all inclusive but it seems like we said a lot of those words and I
categorize them under natural amenities and again, I'm not sure if that's
an ordinance or whatever but I heard a lot of you talking about that.
Rural land policies seems to have some favor and then a couple of other
things, and I'm not sure if they're high or not, would be communications
and PUD.
Emmings: How about 1995 study areas? That's something we've got to get '
after.
Conrad: Do you want to do that? Is that a high priority? '
Emmings: I think it is. I don't know.
Batzli: For this year?
Conrad: Because the comprehensive plan. ,
Emmings: I think that's got to be, the comprehensive plan ought to be
approved. Shouldn't it before we get after that or shouldn't it?
Planning Commission Meeting
January 2, 1991 - Page 60
Krauss: No, I think you've got to get our feet on the ground first and
have that approved and in place so you're probably looking at not being
able to do that until the summer timeframe. Summer's a tough time to take
on additional projects so you're probably looking at the fall before you
can really get involved with that.
Emmings: I think as soon as the plan is approved and we get some feedback
maybe so that we know what the Met Council's going to do with our proposal
for the matters coming in.
Conrad: But consensus is that 1995 study project is a high priority in
this year? We may start on it. Okay.
Batzli: I would say put it off until next year personally.
Conrad: How many high priorities can, you know the list that I just read,
a lot of - these are things. You know we're not talking about, well there's
a couple new things in what I read here Paul. Are we loading you up? Are
we?
Krauss: You know, we'll tackle as many of them as we can.
Conrad: I know you will but I think I want you to be realistic.
' Ellson: Doable.
Conrad: Yeah. It's no good saying we can do 7 things when realistically
' we can't.
Krauss: Yeah, and it's tough for me to give you an accurate reading on
that because a lot of these issues you don't know how involved they're
' going to get until you open the door and start the discussion on them and
some of them involve public input and we all know what happens when public
input's involved. It tends to get real lengthy. The other wildcard here
U yet is we don't have a reading on what's going to be happening this year. 1
mean our primary function is to review and recommend on development.
That's going to really tell us how much time we have to do other things.
' Right now it's looking like we'll have a fairly comfortable year in that
area so we'll have some latitude to tackle these things but if that
changes, if things pick up, we won't be able to get to some of these
things. So I think we understand and have a fair understanding of how you
' prioritize these things and all I can say is we'll tackle them in the order
that you've told us to and we'll try to get to as many as possible.
' Conrad: Just trying to wrap this up. Communications. Is that a big deal
with everybody? You know it was with Annette. Is it something that is
worthy of a lot of our time? It's worthy of something.
Ellson: At least a discussion.
Conrad: At least a discussion, okay.
t Erhart: I thought the best thing I heard on that was that they're going to
change this quarterly letter to be more inclusive.
i
Planning Commission Meeting
January 2, 1991 - Page 61
Conrad: Newsletter, yeah.
Erhart: I think that will greatly help.
Ellson: I think the Vice Chairman should write a column for the paper. 1
Conrad: I think he'd be very good at that based on some of the letters
he's already written. Well let's just take this a step further. Is the
subjects that we've handled tonight, is that worthy of a conversation Paul
with the local newspaper talking about some of the directions that the
Planning Commission is setting? Is that worthy of, do you think they'd
care about that story Paul?
Krauss: They care about anything we give them.
Conrad: They really do need news. But that might be another thing. That II
was an issue that it'd really be kind of fun to throw open to the
community. Say hey, what do you think we should be looking at? What do II you care about? Our neighbors south of TH 5 kind of think we don't think
of anything in their neighborhood.
Batzli: I think the community in general doesn't think that we're very
proactive. I think eventually they should understand that we work on a lot
of stuff proactively. A lot of times we react but some of this stuff we're
trying to act ahead of the game. You know I think a lot of the comments
that we've heard from people over the last several years are that why
didn't we think of this before hand and I think there is a perception out
there that we don't do anything other than we just listen to these people's 11
proposals and then we say gee, I wish we had an ordinance and then we go
out and do one. Some of this is. Some of these do come up based on
ordinances but I think, or proposals that we received that we didn't like
but I think some of them are actually truly proactive proposals that we
should at least try to kind of make people understand that.
Krauss: Well I can certainly give Dave Peterson a call and talk to him
about an article touching on the issues that you raised tonight.
Conrad: I think that's worthy with our time, yeah. Okay. A couple other
things. The enforcement thing. Well, Paul you're going to be working on
the enforcement. Where did I see that? Code enforcement anyway aren't
you? You don't need a priority from us on that?
Krauss: That's administrative. 1
Batzli: I think that's a hot button with the Council too. It's one of the!'
questions they asked me.
Krauss: Well frankly that's another wild card. When they talk about the
economy and the level of development that we're going to get. The Council II
also comes up with things from time to time that they ask us to do on a
priority basis. The grading ordinance is a good example of that and that
took a lot of effort. That took a lot of time so keep in mind that we kind ll
of dance to the tunes of two different bodies here so we'll try to keep
both of you informed.
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
11 January 2, 1991 - Page 62
' Conrad: Well the point is, you've got to use, you know you can't be
squeezed between the two. The point of the planning exercise is to tell
us, tell somebody what realistically can be done and obviously you're going
to make changes. .
I Krauss: Well hopefully when we dialogue these things with the Council,
some of that will come out but things like the grading ordinance came up in
' response to an issue that had been raised in the middle of the year so
you'll have to deal with those kinds of things as they come.
Conrad: Okay, let me recap this. We're talking wetlands, BH 169. I_think
the enforcement thing is in there. The landscaping. This cluster of stuff
called natural amenities preservation and an inventory and that may just
start out with discussion and decide if we can do anything. If it's worthy
of our effort but I think that's a high priority. The rural land policy.
The PUD rewrite. 1995 study area. Those are all high priorities. Okay?
And so if we can somehow Paul, summarize that for, if we made any sense
' talking about this in the last hour or so, so we can get some kind of input
from them saying yeah. And then I think you have to be real realistic to
them and to us that only some of these can be done.
Erhart: Can we go back one second? Paul had an idea that I'd like to just
get your feeling on that and that's the idea of going back to Park and Rec
and suggesting to them that the City ought to be looking at a second golf
' course. Put the burden on them to respond to that. What we see as open
space, an opportunity for open space to be funded by either privately
funded. Just to go back and put it on the Park and Rec to respond to that.
Is anybody against that idea?
Conrad: No. That's a good idea.
' Krauss: I can put together a brief memo to them asking for it but you or
some other person on the Planning Commission may want to convey that to
them.
1 Erhart: Who's the golfer here? I don't even golf so I mean I have
absolutely no interest for me personally other than I think it's an
excellent way to retain open space.
Conrad: Steve, next meeting could you make sure we talk about HRA liason
and maybe a liason to Park and Rec. Brian brought that up that we didn't.
really appoint anybody.
Emmings: Put it on the agenda staff. How's that for delegating?
1 Conrad: Anything else?
Batzli: I think we should commend Sharmin and Jo Ann for their excellent
efforts in the converting to the recyclable system. I think they did a
heck of a job.
11 Conrad: I agree.
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 2, 1991 - Page 63
Emmings moved, Ellson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor II
and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11 :00 p.m..
Submitted by Paul Krauss
Planning Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MINUTES
JANUARY 10, 1991
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Brian Beniek, Steve Morse, Dave Johnson,
Dave Dummer, Bill Bernhjelm
' ABSENT: Craig Blechta
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Don Chmiel, Richard Wing
' STAFF PRESENT: Public Safety Director Scott Harr, Steve A.
Kirchman
LAW ENFORCEMENT PRESENT: Captain Ron Holt, Sgt. Julie Boden
' The meeting was called to order at 7 p.m.
Director Harr introduced and welcomed new Commissioners, Steve
Morse and Dave Johnson.
1 Brian Beniek nominated /motioned, Dave Dummer seconded, Craig
Blechta as Chairperson for 1991. All voted in favor and motion
passed.
Brian Beniek nominated /motioned, Bill Bernhjelm seconded, Dave
Dummer as Co- chairperson for 1991. All voted in favor and motion
passed.
Bill Bernhjelm motioned, Brian Beniek seconded, to approve the
12/13/90 minutes as written. All voted in favor and the motion
passed.
1 SHERIFF'S DEPT.: Captain Ron Holt introduced Sergeant Julie
Boden, who will be the supervisor of the Chanhassen deputies
and will attend the PSC meetings on a regular basis. Captain
' Holt also mentioned the number of snowmobile complaints coming in
and the saturation patrol this weekend on area lakes. Director
Harr will be attending a meeting on 1/11/91 with the Sheriff's
Dept., Park & Recreation Dept., Snowmobile Club and the DNR.
' FIRE DEPARTMENT: Richard Wing commended the Fire' Department for
the rescue of the snowmobilers in Lake Minnewashta. Brian Beniek
mentioned the firefighters will be going through physical fitness
testing in the near future.
' Craig Blechta will be providing CPR training for both a
Chanhassen neighbhorhood group, as well as for interested city
staff.
•
11
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MINUTES
JANUARY 10, 1991
PAGE 2
' BUILDING INSPECTION DEPT.: Steve Kirchman gave a brief synopsis
of the graphs and reports included in the packet.
' JET SKI ISSUE: Anita Twaroski, of the DNR, spoke on the pro-
posed jet ski legislation. Items discussed: noise decibels; age
limit of 16 & over to operate; operation only during certain
hours; slow -no wake within 150' of dock, swimmer, boat, etc.
The City needs justification through documentation before
drafting ordinances. The local level could stipulate direction
' of jet skis operating on lake. A lake by lake study should be
done to draft ordinances that are more restrictive, but not less
than the state legislation. The community should be asked if
' there is a problem with jet skis, what restrictions would they
like to see. Richard Wing stated that jet skis are an environ-
mentally abusive issue, and as a resident would like to see time
' restrictions. Active enforcement and patrol saturation were una-
nimously agreed on. Mayor Chmiel suggested contacting the lake
homeowner associations for a letter of support on the proposed
legislation. Bill Bernhjelm asked if these associations could
formulate solutions and the Commission would support them in any
way they could. The possibility of a public hearing was also
discussed. It was suggesed that the Commission review the pro-
posed legislation for any additions and also have Anita keep the
Commission advi "sed. No action needed at this time.
' OLD BUSINESS: Engineering Technician Dave Hempel gave the Com-
mission an update of the traffic issue at Highway 101 /Pleasant
View Road and Cheyenne Trail. The residents of the area have
' requested right turn lanes at these intersections. MnDOT
requests a joint cooperative effort with the City on these turn
lanes. Valley View, Kurvers Point. Road, Choctaw Circle and Sandy
' Hook Road will have right turn lanes in the Spring of 1991. Bill
Bernhjelm motioned, Steve Morse seconded, to support the
construction of right turn lanes at Pleasant View Road and
Cheyenne Trail. All voted in favor and the motion passed. A
' resolution will be drafted to accompany Dave Hempel's memo to
City Council.
' An update on the Annual Report will be reported on at the next
meeting.
1 NEW BUSINESS: Director Harr discussed the upcoming Public Safety
Days on February 8 & 9, at the Minneapolis Convention Center. A
sign up sheet was passed around, and an information flyer on the
event will be sent to all Commissioners at a later date.
1
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MINUTES 1
JANUARY 10, 1991
PAGE 3 1
Building Official Steve Kirchman advised the Commissioners that 1
their radon detectors should now be returned for analysis.
Brian Beniek motioned, Dave Johnson seconded, to adjourn the 1
meeting at 9:00 p.m.
THE NEXT MEETING WILL BE THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1991, 1
7 P.M., IN THE ATRIUM CONFERENCE ROOM. 1
•
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
11